ALT-GENEALOGY-L Archives
Archiver > ALT-GENEALOGY > 2002-01 > 1009917942
From: Singhals <>
Subject: Re: Use of hard copy documentation versus genealogy software?
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:45:42 -0500
References: <a0p5tg$b8b$2@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, <3C30BC88.D01D1F18@erols.com>, <3c30db47.244738791@news.saix.net>
Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 14:29:12 -0500, Singhals <> wrote:
>
> >(G) Yeah, I 'member Steve from Fido. His posts always
> >seemed to be a day ahead of the calendar, too. Very
> >Strange.
> >
> >However, I still use PAF 2.2, remember? (g)
>
> So do I...
>
> I've looked at PAF 4.0, doesn't seem as versatile, though it produces prettier
> reports. Same can be said of most Windows programs. One day I'll try Legacy.
>
> I tried a thing called Family Heritage - ran under Windows 95, not under
> Windows 98. Tried TMG, crashed all the time. So I still use DOS programs, PAF
> 2.2, FHS, Family Origins 2.0, Family Edge 2.0.
>
> And PAF RDF is the best thing for the subject heading I've found!
I never really got into RDF -- especially after the time I
created and saved a .dat set called alpha.dat, which got
overwritten by alpha.dat when I accidentally hit the
alpha-sort key in PAF2.2. Wiped out over 400 entries.
(psi/cy/sigh)
I'm trying to convince myself that PAF4 is ok, but the Focus
doesn't seem to be as good or as easy to use. And I got
tired of d/l "updates" to PAF5, so I uninstalled it last
time. I've usually got better ways to waste my time than
d/l big programs with stuff I don't need/want/use in 'em.
Cheryl
This thread: