Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ronda231

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 8
1
The first record of the name Drisdall (Drysdale) in Ireland may be found on the Ulster Settlers website on which two John Drisdalls (possibly father & son) are listed as being associated with the Great Ards (Barony) in County Down.

A descendant, the Rev. John Drysdale, born circa 1605, was the first Drysdale in Ireland to have a life that was extensively documented  -  descendants in his family line included:

Hugh Drysdale Archdeacon of Ossory - about 1635 – 27 March 1692
Rev. James Drysdale - about 1637 – 1687
Lt. Governor Hugh Drysdale of Virginia, U.S. - 1672–1726
Griffith Drysdale, 1670 – Deceased - a Lawyer at Grays Inn, London, from 1688

Further details and source material may be found in the following pdf:

https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12508670479?profile=original


Regards

2
Hi,

A technical question for Rootsmagic aficionados.

When using the Rootsmagic relationship calculator on a family line GEDCOM, downloaded from Familytree about 6 months ago, I find that one of my relatives is the 20th great grandson of William the Conquerer.

Using exactly the same GEDCOM file, but using the Ancestral Quest program and their relationship calculator, I find that the same relative is also shown to be a grandson of William the Conquerer, but via 12 separate & distinct relationship lines including the line indicated by Rootsmagic (which is the shortest line).

These differing relationship lines (via different but longer routes - 20th GGS to 24th GGS) are of interest to me so the question I have is:

Can the Rootsmagic program also give up the information on these missing relationship lines - at the click of a button, or is it solely focused on the shortest line?

Best regards

3
Hi all,

I think that you are all providing comments and advice for me here on the assumption that I am maintaining my family a tree on my home PC, and then periodically updating this tree by either synching with Familytree or downloading Gedcoms, and then using them to update my local family tree on an ongoing basis.

This is not actually the case. I do have a local family tree, with good source material, going back approx 500 years, which is fine, and which as far as I am concerned is inviolate. This is never connected via software to Familysearch or any other online site.

But at the same time I do carry out a lot of research into the family name within the extended family tree on Familysearch and update that tree with source material and family links when this is appropriate. I then download the Gedcom of the work that I have done for records purposes only.

It is this work that I do on Familysearch that necessitates the use genealogy software:

i) to download and generate GEDCOM files
ii) to visualise the content of the GEDCOM files
iii) to query the data in these files
iv) to map locations

I started this thread complaining about a product I had bought which didn't function as it should have and which had a very short lifespan. The thread then seems to have evolved into some sort of scenario whereby 'the product is very good' and everything I am doing is wrong, with a lot of advice being given as to what I should be doing (without knowing what I am actually doing).

While I appreciate the constructive criticism and the spirit with which it has been offered, at the end of the day, my experience with the Rootsmagic software has been mostly negative and I am happy to advise that I have now purchased a functional, user friendly alternative,

Best regards 

4
Dumfriesshire / Re: List of Dumfriesshire families in 1585
« on: Monday 13 May 24 13:24 BST (UK)  »
Some further 16th & 17th lists of Dumfriesshire people:

Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society

- DUMFRIES BURGH COURT BOOKS IN THE 16th CENTURY

- SOME EARLY TEIND LISTS NAS Vol. CS 7 335 by Duncan Adamson

https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/11036678858?profile=original

Please see attached pdf

Best regards


5
Dear Biggles,

Thank you for your additional opinions.

Best regards

6
Many thanks to Biggles, Erato, Talacharn and KGarrard for your advice, I do agree that synching with an online database is generally something that should be avoided.

However, I do a lot of work on the Familysearch family tree and the reason I need to link to it is to periodically download Gedcom data for that part of the tree I have worked on - before it is modified by someone else. So the synching of data between my PC's tree & the Familysearch tree does not really occur - I just download a new & dated Gedcom file whenever I want, for my records.

That being said, I do need to visualise and query these records from time to time and this is the reason I bought commercial software.

Being retired, a subscription type service or expensive, cutting edge software is not something I need or wish to take on.

I have checked out the Ancestral Quest software and this seems to be inexpensive, easy to use and to do what I want, without drama.

Of course the AQ interface is quite dated, but for me this is a plus, because both me and my hardware/software setup are also quite dated. It doesn't have all of the bells and whistles that the other, more expensive genealogy software offers, but it seems to be tried, tested and reliable.

To conclude, when I open the Rootsmagic app today, I find the blue/green interface to be both unfriendly and unhelpful and, bearing in mind the functionality problems I've had with it, I will not be using this product in the future.

Best regards

   

7
Dumfriesshire / Re: List of Dumfriesshire families in 1585
« on: Friday 10 May 24 19:25 BST (UK)  »
Hi,

I hope it's of use. I did note a few Halidays & Hallidays on the list.

Best regards

8
Dear all,

Well it looks like Rootsmagic is currently getting a big thumbs up from its Rootschat users.

However, today I needed to download a Gedcom file from the Familysearch website, so I downloaded & installed the free version of Ancestral Quest, I was then able to log in to Familysearch from the Ancestral Quest program straight away with no issues and download what I wanted.

Deciding to give Rootsmagic a second chance I also downloaded & installed the free version of Rootsmagic 9. When I tried to log into Familysearch from Rootsmagic, I was presented with the Familysearch login, as usual, and after putting in my details and pressing enter I went into some sort of dynamic login loop with new browser windows continuously opening every 2 seconds - I had to close the browser and the Rootsmagic software rapidly before a major crash occurred. Tried again and the same thing happened.

In my original post I asked the question - "What's my opinion on this - an unhelpful software  company? or a pack of money grabbing crooks?"

Regardless of the ringing endorsements above, I still haven't quite made up my mind on this.

Best regards

 

9
Hi Biggles

I bought Rootsmagic 8 software in October '22 and version 9 came out January '23.

When I bought it, I did not have the expectation that I would have to buy it again every year.

If the log-on procedure was modified then Rootsmagic should have provided a patch to owners of version 8 to give the product that they sold some sort of reasonable life.

I did raise quite a few tickets about the mapping problem, but got no useful solution from their tech guys and after re-installing the software multiple times, with different operating systems, on different PCs I decided to give up on it and I used the free version of Family Tree Analyser, to plot my map data instead. They wasted a lot of my time with this problem and now you are suggesting I join the RootsMagic Forum to spend some further time whingeing there?

I have no intention of spending further time getting the Rootsmagic problem sorted - the reason I'm spending time now writing about it is to give others a heads up about problems with the two stage verification process (and my dissatisfaction with the software).

I think you should have qualified your final comment to read "In my opinion your comment is inappropriate"

Best regards


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 8