On Tue, at 06:30 AM, Vyger wrote: In my opinion your document has great value in comparing RM7 to RM8 but I would worry that it could be misleading as regards the many features which have become more difficult to use of still have inherent deficiencies. Just my opinions and has already become a valuable comparison document, credit to you.Īll: check and add your suggestions on RootsMagic 8 Features vs RM7. In my opinion your document has great value in comparing RM7 to RM8 but I would worry that it could be misleading as regards the many features which have become more difficult to use of still have inherent deficiencies. 6.08 should we not qualify Gedcom losses or have they been overcome in RM8?.
#Rootsmagic 7 software#
I also believe it's important to qualify that Rootsmagic does not allow searching or reporting of Witness events or Roles, other software does and this comes up frequently with existing users.Shared events from Rootsmagic are accepted perfectly into Family Historian and Heredis, the " nor do many 3rd party programs recognise them" on 6.07 would alarm me and prevent me from using them.Just what does 17.03 mean? sounds great on paper but I always get the same Soundex and Alternate code.I believe it is important possible new users realize Relationship Calculator is static and not Dynamic like other software, this is a frequent confusion of existing users.I would question 6.09, I believe that is now a NO.People View excludes far to many useful research selections, not only Family events but data like Spouse Name, Given Name only, Fathers name, important to clarify the Rootsmagic "customizable" claim.Finding duplicates within subsets of large databases (my wish) is available elsewhere.Having migrated I know what is available elsewhere and none of the programs I use require the end user to manually run Database Tools which some RM users now accept as a daily or sessional task which is their responsibility.
I believe not qualifying those features is simply playing into Rootsmagics chosen marketing descriptions and unfair to users who may use this list as a decision making document. Tom, I was initially reluctant to contribute to your list which is a valuable piece of work although I have decided it is important to qualify some of those simple YES/NO answers and I hope this is acceptable, otherwise delete. Anyone accessing this Google Doc can now comment directly on it. On Sun, at 12:04 PM, Tom Holden wrote: First pass completed.