TMG-L Archives

From: Dean Scribner <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Which PAF => TMG conversion route?
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 23:18:20 -0700

Roger, I moved from PAF 2.31 directly to TMG 4.0 without a single mishap.
My notes in PAF were pretty clean, but rarely followed the rules
strictly. Therefore I ended up with a fairly large number of individual
"Note" tags which needed to be converted to other tag labels. One
problem is that "Note" tags have a limited number of Event tag choices
when you want to change the tag, in which cases you may have to copy the
contents of the Note tag and paste it into a new tag. Navigating the
screens with the keyboard (sans mouse) (including cutting or copying and
pasting) is really easy, though it takes a little effort to learn how to
do it. But the reward of being able to keep both hands on the keyboard
is well worth the little effort it takes to learn. Let the cat kill the
mouse and enjoy the freedom!

Dean Scribner

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:54:51 +0800 "Roger Horgan" <>
writes:
> Greetings, TMGers!
>
> I'm looking for feedback regarding how best to travel along the
> following
> route, and whether to exclude one (or both) of the intermediate
> steps:
>
> PAF 2.31 => PAF 4 => TMG 4 => TMG 5
>
> My genealogical data was entered into PAF 2.31 some years ago, and I
> was
> careful at the time to adhere to LDS recommendations regarding
> source
> citation and notes formatting. I'm now ready to upgrade to software
> with
> (much) greater capabilities.
>
> I've fiddled around with Roots V=>UFT 2.8 over the last several
> years, but
> due to hardware constraints only recently overcome (486 + UFT =
> slow!) have
> not progressed with any serious editing. Since upgrading my pooter
> I've
> started looking at upgrading to UFT 3, and alternatives to same. In
> what
> turns out to have been a fortunate piece of timing, the recent
> shenanigans
> over UFT have determined the outcome for me. It's clear that there
> is only
> one serious choice.
>
> My dilemma lies with deciding whether to include either or both of
> the
> intermediate steps of PAF 4/TMG 4. The reasons for that uncertainty
> are as
> follows:
>
> 1. Extent of editing required. Although I'm confident that sources
> and notes
> will transfer smoothly from PAF 2.31 into TMG 4/5, I also well
> understand
> that any conversion process will entail a significant amount of
> editing.
> I've already tried doing that in the 16 bit UFT environment, where
> lack of
> right mouse button support for cutting and pasting and the inability
> to
> simultaneously open multiple windows adds considerably to the time
> taken and
> the tedium of the task. I'm therefore unexcited about the prospect
> of
> extensive editing in TMG 4, unless it happens to be friendlier than
> UFT in
> this respect.
>
> 2. Genbridge support for PAF 4. There appears to be little news
> around on
> the release of a Genbridge support module for PAF 4, which makes me
> hesitate
> over upgrading my data in PAF before converting to TMG. Doing so
> would,
> however, be a good opportunity to clean up all those notes,
> amalgamate
> sources, enter details of repositories, etc, etc, without the
> frustration of
> the 16 bit environment to contend with. I suppose, too, that
> conversion to
> TMG *could* await the release of v5 and/or Genbridge for PAF 4.
>
> I guess you'll understand that a word (or two) from the wise at this
> stage
> would be mighty welcome! Especially welcome, of course, would be any
> comments regarding the two points above, as well as tips regarding
> pitfalls
> for the unwary, useful preparatory work, etc. Many thanks (in
> advance) for
> all and any comments.
>
> Roger
>
> **************************************************
> Roger Horgan
> Gooseberry Hill, Western Australia
>
> **************************************************
>

This thread:

• Re: [TMG] Which PAF => TMG conversion route? by Dean Scribner <>