[LegacyUG] Error 3163 backing up Media
When I installed Legacy 8 I kept Legacy 7.5 and both versions accessed the
same media folder trees (C:\Legacy\Docs\, C:\Legacy\Pictures, etc.). A week
or so ago I copied Media to C:\Users\Richard\Documents|Legacy Family
Tree\Media\vanwasshnova\Docs\{big Tree}, etc. with 359 folders.
The Media Relinker seemed inadequate so I used Search and Replace in MS
Access instead to easily link L8 to the new media path. All was fine. No
missing media but when I attempted to Backup Media I got "Error 3163" "Path
too long.
Apparently the new, much longer path to Docs and Pictures comes close to
the 260 character max file path and adding that to a zip file exceeds 260.
I shortened the vanwasshnova subdirectory to V and it zips OK. My next step
would have been to shorten Legacy Family Tree to Legacy8.
--
Richard Van Wasshnova
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our
blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Potential Problems Settings
On 1/28/2014 6:45 PM, Paul Gray wrote: > Try unchecking Option 8.11 I sure appreciate this, Paul. Thanks. Lloyd Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Potential Problems Settings
Try unchecking Option 8.11 Hello LUGers, How do I stop the PP red balls from showing by names in the Family View? I have went to Options>Customize>Data Format and scrolled down to 3.12 and unchecked it, but the red balls are still active in Family View. Lloyd Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] Potential Problems Settings
Hello LUGers, How do I stop the PP red balls from showing by names in the Family View? I have went to Options>Customize>Data Format and scrolled down to 3.12 and unchecked it, but the red balls are still active in Family View. Lloyd Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Notes
I agree with your suggestion about the use of the Notes fields and I tend to use them quite a bit. However, there is an obscure bug in their use that could present a minefield of disaster unless the user knows about this. This obscure bug involves the use of “Alt.” events such as “Alt.Birth” or “Alt.Death”. For example, whenever I come across such a bit of data that presents an alternate date of birth, I create such an Alt.Birth event and then I use the Notes tab of that alternate event to add my notes or a description of why this date may differ from the main Birth event and other explanations. In a few cases, I’ve had a long text note that came via email and it was copied and pasted into the Notes tab of the alternate event. Now, here is where the bug occurs. Imagine that as one’s research continues, you confirm that the alternate event has the correct data but you’d still like to keep the other event just for continued research reasons. Legacy makes it easy for you to just select the Alternate Event, then click on Options, and then select “Swap with Information”. Beware! If you have more than 255 characters in your Alternate Event Notes tab, and you swap the events, you will lose all your notes beyond the first 255 characters. In other words, the transfer of text is limited to only 255 characters. If you can remember this bombshell, I’d suggest you first copy the lengthy notes to the General Notes area, complete the Swap, and then copy the lengthy notes back to where they got cut off. I don’t know if this bug still exists in v8 but it was still there in the last v7. Will it ever get fixed? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath because there seems to be an infestation of other bugs in v8 that are more pressing than this minor issue. Brian in CA From: Michele/Support [mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Notes There were a couple of posts about how many characters/words the notes fields hold. The question was answered pretty quickly and I was tied up at the time but there is something that I wanted to add. There are MANY notes fields in Legacy that I think are underutilized. There are birth notes, baptism notes, death notes, burial notes, medical notes, location notes, event notes, image notes, marriage notes and marriage event notes. What is nice about these note fields is that they are specific. If you put everything in the General Notes or Research Notes it can get crowded and hard to wade through. In the report options screen, you can tell Legacy to print all of these other notes fields in addition to the regular General, Research, Medical notes for any report that allows notes. Location Notes can be printed on a Location Report (available at View > Master Lists > Locations > Options > Print > Location Report). Just another tool you can use :) Michele Technical Support mich...@legacyfamilytree.com www.LegacyFamilyTree.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format
I suspect that it has to do with the file type chosen when the file was originally linked. In 7.5, there were buttons for Picture, Video, Sound, and Document. In 8.0, the same process is there, it’s just a drop down menu. Unfortunately, once chosen I see no way of re-displaying what you selected except an Access query. I was able to create the unsupported file type error in 8.0 when adding a media item to an individual (wouldn’t even let me add it) if I selected ‘Picture’ as the file type and then tried to link to a doc or docx file. Perhaps your files were added as ‘pictures’ and 7.5 didn’t care about the discrepancy, but 8.0 does. That would also explain current behaviour. Some of the existing links may very well have been added as Documents originally and they work just fine, and presumably when you relink the problem media, you also select the proper file type. Paul Gray From: gcr...@juno.com [mailto:gcr...@juno.com] Sent: January-28-14 8:55 AM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format I've isolated 517 WORD files in my media location that are attached to individuals. Almost all are of information obtained from public records (obits, wedding notices, anniversaries, birthdays, etc) found on the Internet in old newspapers or the like, copied and pasted (along with the source) and saved as a WORD document, some way back when I was using WORD 2003 (.doc extensions) or WORD 2007 (.docx extensions) I use now. These all open from Windows Explorer using WORD. On an individuals record in Legacy 8 they are indicated in the "Media Gallery" icon as either .doc or .docx extensions and only show the caption applied (Wedding announcement, birthday, obituary). When trying to open (edit) it is when the *unsupported file format* message appears. When I take the option *reload original* the same message comes up. However, if I re-add the item using the *add media* option it is added (linked) and can be opened via WORD. On the other hand, some individuals with WORD documents attached open just fine. It seems to be a random situation. Some work, some don't. It's just muddling through all 517 or these WORD files checking back to the individual in Legacy to see which ones aren't linked correctly.. gc Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships
Perhaps there has been a change since the initial release of version 8. When I first ported my v7 data to v8 the first thing I noticed was that my twin sister and I were both sporting the big red ball. The details on both said too long after our older sister. Did it change since the initial release? Maybe one of the "misc fixed". Bobby -Original Message- From: Gene Young [mailto:n2...@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:39 AM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships On 1/28/2014 11:26 AM, Graham Love wrote: > Now I'm more confused than when I started :) - perhaps I didn't explain it > well enough. The first twin in the list has a correct PP ( birth too long > after prev child) being born some while after the previous child. The second > twin born the same day does not - I don't expect a PP for birth too soon for > the second twin. My comment was about the logic of that situation - if both > children were born on the same day how can only one have a PP - they were > both born some time after the previous child. A minor point I realise. > Graham > Legacy is only checking against the child immediately preceding. The child with the PP is being compared to the preceding one. The second twin is being compared to the first twin. Legacy recognizes it is a twin and gives no problem indication. The second twin is never compared to the same child the first twin is being compared to. -- Gene Young Researching Young, Harer, Cox & Sallada With Legacy Family Tree http://myyoungs.atspace.com/index.htm --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Newspapers>online archives (issued by publisher)
I also just noticed the newspaper title is not italicized in the SourceWriter: Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher) template, but it is italicized in both the microfilm and unrelated content provider template. True, this can be fixed by italicizing the title as you input it, but probably better to fix it to allow standardized inputting of newspaper titles. Thanks! Rob Miller Toronto, ON From: robs_familyt...@hotmail.ca To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Newspapers>online archives (issued by publisher) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:59:00 -0500 I may have just noticed a glitch in a couple SourceWriter templates. SourceWriter: Newspapers > Print editions (microfilm or original) Location State: Manitoba Location City: Winnipeg (included because the town name is not included in the title) Title: The Morning Telegram The outcome is: (Winnipeg) The Morning Telegram But... SourceWriter: Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher) Location State: Manitoba Location City: Winnipeg Title: The Morning Telegram The outcome is: The Morning Telegram, online archives The location city is missing in brackets (Winnipeg) which would make it difficult for a person to relocate the newspaper I was sourcing (if the webpage was not available in the future.) The same is true if you use the SourceWriter: Newspapers > Online images (issued by unrelated content provider). The location city is missing. I'm running 8.0.0.385 Thanks! Rob Miller Toronto, ON Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] Newspapers>online archives (issued by publisher)
I may have just noticed a glitch in a couple SourceWriter templates. SourceWriter: Newspapers > Print editions (microfilm or original) Location State: Manitoba Location City: Winnipeg (included because the town name is not included in the title) Title: The Morning Telegram The outcome is: (Winnipeg) The Morning Telegram But... SourceWriter: Newspapers > Online Archives (issued by the publisher) Location State: Manitoba Location City: Winnipeg Title: The Morning Telegram The outcome is: The Morning Telegram, online archives The location city is missing in brackets (Winnipeg) which would make it difficult for a person to relocate the newspaper I was sourcing (if the webpage was not available in the future.) The same is true if you use the SourceWriter: Newspapers > Online images (issued by unrelated content provider). The location city is missing. I'm running 8.0.0.385 Thanks! Rob Miller Toronto, ON Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships
I don't doubt this is what is happening, I'm just challenging the logic of it. I don't know the birth times of any of the twins in my family so they appear in the list alphabetically. In my view both twins should have the same PP flag although I appreciate this is an isolated and possibly complex computing problem to solve. Graham Sent from my iPad > On 28 Jan 2014, at 16:38, Gene Young wrote: > >> On 1/28/2014 11:26 AM, Graham Love wrote: >> Now I'm more confused than when I started :) - perhaps I didn't explain it >> well enough. The first twin in the list has a correct PP ( birth too long >> after prev child) being born some while after the previous child. The second >> twin born the same day does not - I don't expect a PP for birth too soon for >> the second twin. My comment was about the logic of that situation - if both >> children were born on the same day how can only one have a PP - they were >> both born some time after the previous child. A minor point I realise. >> Graham > > Legacy is only checking against the child immediately preceding. The child > with the PP is being compared to the preceding one. The second twin is being > compared to the first twin. Legacy recognizes it is a twin and gives no > problem indication. The second twin is never compared to the same child the > first twin is being compared to. > > > > -- > > Gene Young > Researching Young, Harer, Cox & Sallada > With Legacy Family Tree > http://myyoungs.atspace.com/index.htm > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on > our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships
Now I'm more confused than when I started :) - perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. The first twin in the list has a correct PP ( birth too long after prev child) being born some while after the previous child. The second twin born the same day does not - I don't expect a PP for birth too soon for the second twin. My comment was about the logic of that situation - if both children were born on the same day how can only one have a PP - they were both born some time after the previous child. A minor point I realise. Graham -Original Message- From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: 28 January 2014 13:09 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships Yes, It does not apply to the second twin because the child dates are checked against the previous child in the list. That previous child (the first twin) has the same birthday so it is not too long after previous child. There is no check for birth too soon after previous child but if there was the second twin would get that PP. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com On 28 Jan 2014 6:52 AM, Graham Love wrote: > Thanks. Any thoughts about my PS relating to potential problems for twins? > Graham > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Brian/Support wrote: >> >> OK, I have confirmed this is a problem. The correct half >> relationships are for males the incorrect relationships missing the >> half were all for females as you reported. I have entered a problem report >> to have this fixed. >> >> Brian >> Customer Support >> Millennia Corporation >> br...@legacyfamilytree.com >> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com >> >>> On 27 Jan 2014 10:54 AM, Graham Love wrote: >>> Sorry, yes did that and made no difference. I have now also run set >>> relationships from every person in the family group. All show correctly but >>> when I run it for the relationship to me they revert to the full/half. I >>> have also since checked the children of the other daughter of my half-3rd >>> great grandaunt - they also show half-2nd cousin 3 times removed for the >>> son and 2nd cousin 3 times removed for the daughter. >>> Graham >>> PS Another issue I've just noticed since adding the twin yesterday is that >>> the twin brother correctly has a potential problem flag ( birth too long >>> after prev child) but the twin daughter does not. Not a bug as such I guess >>> but I presume this would vary depending on the name, and hence order, of >>> each child. The 'correct' option of course would be to have both flagged. >>> G >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] >>> Sent: 27 January 2014 15:21 >>> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships >>> >>> One thing you do not report doing is running set relationships after adding >>> all these people. Do that then report how the relationships show. >>> >>> Brian >>> Customer Support >>> Millennia Corporation >>> br...@legacyfamilytree.com >>> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com >>> >>> On 27 Jan 2014 10:04 AM, Graham Love wrote: Still no answer to this - I've unlinked and relinked and run file maintenenace. The only other observation is that all daughters show as 2nd cousins 3 times removed and all sons show as half-2nd cousins 3 times removed. Graham -Original Message- From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 26 January 2014 19:19 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships Good call but not the case. Only one marriage and all children show under the same two parents. Things have got slightly more confusing since I discovered another child - a twin of one already entered. Guess whatthe new child shows as a 2nd cousin 3 times removed whilst her twin shows as a half-2nd cousin 3 times removed. Wouldn't all descendants of a half-relative be halves themselves? So I have a half-relative with offspring who show as full-relatives and their childred show as full-relatives (3 of 5) and half-relatives (2 of 5). I remain confused! Graham -Original Message- From: Jack Earnshaw [mailto:j...@jearnshaw.me.uk] Sent: 26 January 2014 12:53 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships It sounds as though you have two separate marriages for that daughter - one having 2 children and the other having the second two. You will need to unlink the last two children from the spurious marriage and link them to the correct one - then deal with getting rid of the second marriage Jack -Original Message- From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 25 January 2014 14:19 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUser
Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships
On 1/28/2014 11:26 AM, Graham Love wrote: > Now I'm more confused than when I started :) - perhaps I didn't explain it > well enough. The first twin in the list has a correct PP ( birth too long > after prev child) being born some while after the previous child. The second > twin born the same day does not - I don't expect a PP for birth too soon for > the second twin. My comment was about the logic of that situation - if both > children were born on the same day how can only one have a PP - they were > both born some time after the previous child. A minor point I realise. > Graham > Legacy is only checking against the child immediately preceding. The child with the PP is being compared to the preceding one. The second twin is being compared to the first twin. Legacy recognizes it is a twin and gives no problem indication. The second twin is never compared to the same child the first twin is being compared to. -- Gene Young Researching Young, Harer, Cox & Sallada With Legacy Family Tree http://myyoungs.atspace.com/index.htm --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format
I've isolated 517 WORD files in my media location that are attached to individuals. Almost all are of information obtained from public records (obits, wedding notices, anniversaries, birthdays, etc) found on the Internet in old newspapers or the like, copied and pasted (along with the source) and saved as a WORD document, some way back when I was using WORD 2003 (.doc extensions) or WORD 2007 (.docx extensions) I use now. These all open from Windows Explorer using WORD. On an individuals record in Legacy 8 they are indicated in the "Media Gallery" icon as either .doc or .docx extensions and only show the caption applied (Wedding announcement, birthday, obituary). When trying to open (edit) it is when the *unsupported file format* message appears. When I take the option *reload original* the same message comes up. However, if I re-add the item using the *add media* option it is added (linked) and can be opened via WORD. On the other hand, some individuals with WORD documents attached open just fine. It seems to be a random situation. Some work, some don't. It's just muddling through all 517 or these WORD files checking back to the individual in Legacy to see which ones aren't linked correctly.. gc On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:10:58 -0800 Richard Van Wasshnova writes: If you double click on the file in Windows Explorer do they open OK? -- Richard Van Wasshnova On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:28 PM, wrote: I'm finding several *unsupported file format* errors as I review files attached to individuals in Legacy 8. Upon closer inspection these these *unsupported file format* are files that were created as a .docx or .doc format from WORD. These are primarily obituary documents copied/pasted from on-line, or other sources. These files were also attached to individual in Legacy 7.5 and caused no problem, i.e. they could be opened without a problem. I've found nothing concerning WORD documents in Legacy 8 User's Guide. Anyone care to comment? gc Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format
Kurt, I think you need to tell Windows what program to use by default. In Windows Explorer Right click on the file, then open with > choose default program. -- Richard Van Wasshnova On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Kurt Kneeland wrote: > Well, I found the executable for Microsoft Office Word and I linked to it > as the Word Processor in Option 11.1. If I click Launch from there, the > program opens as expected. However, if I go to an individual's media > center and click on a docx item there, I still get wordpad. I even tried > shutting down Legacy and restarting. And also attaching a different docx > document. Still keeps opening up with wordpad. Unless there's something > I'm missing, it seems there is a bug here. > > -Original Message- > From: Kurt Kneeland [mailto:kurt-kneel...@sbcglobal.net] > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:07 PM > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format > > Check your settings in Options->Customize 11.1. > > On mine the entries are blank which calls up the default programs. When I > tested it, a docx came up in wordpad which said it didn't support all the > functionality of a docx file. On first attempt, I'm having trouble finding > the exe file for msword to put into Legacy option 11.1 or for where to tell > windows to use msword instead of wordpad as the default word processor. > Windows is already set where docx opens in msword if I open a file of that > type from the windows file explorer. (Windows 7 Home Edition). > > -Original Message- > From: gcr...@juno.com [mailto:gcr...@juno.com] > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 6:29 PM > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: [LegacyUG] Unsupported File Format > > I'm finding several *unsupported file format* errors as I review files > attached to individuals in Legacy 8. Upon closer inspection these these > *unsupported file format* are files that were created as a .docx or .doc > format from WORD. These are primarily obituary documents copied/pasted from > on-line, or other sources. These files were also attached to individual in > Legacy 7.5 and caused no problem, i.e. they could be opened without a > problem. > > I've found nothing concerning WORD documents in Legacy 8 User's Guide. > > Anyone care to comment? > > gc > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships
On 1/28/2014 8:08 AM, Brian/Support wrote: > Yes, It does not apply to the second twin because the child dates are > checked against the previous child in the list. That previous child (the > first twin) has the same birthday so it is not too long after previous > child. There is no check for birth too soon after previous child but if > there was the second twin would get that PP. > > Brian > Customer Support > Millennia Corporation > br...@legacyfamilytree.com > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com Brian, Legacy does check for child born too soon after last child. Reports > Other Reports > Potential Problems > Gaps. You can set the gap to check in "Warn if child was born less than XX months after the previous child." You should also try to set an example and trim your replys. I deleted six "Legacy User Group guidelines:" from your post. ;-) -- Gene Young Researching Young, Harer, Cox & Sallada With Legacy Family Tree http://myyoungs.atspace.com/index.htm --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships
Yes, It does not apply to the second twin because the child dates are checked against the previous child in the list. That previous child (the first twin) has the same birthday so it is not too long after previous child. There is no check for birth too soon after previous child but if there was the second twin would get that PP. Brian Customer Support Millennia Corporation br...@legacyfamilytree.com http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com On 28 Jan 2014 6:52 AM, Graham Love wrote: > Thanks. Any thoughts about my PS relating to potential problems for twins? > Graham > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Brian/Support wrote: >> >> OK, I have confirmed this is a problem. The correct half relationships >> are for males the incorrect relationships missing the half were all for >> females as you reported. I have entered a problem report to have this fixed. >> >> Brian >> Customer Support >> Millennia Corporation >> br...@legacyfamilytree.com >> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com >> >>> On 27 Jan 2014 10:54 AM, Graham Love wrote: >>> Sorry, yes did that and made no difference. I have now also run set >>> relationships from every person in the family group. All show correctly but >>> when I run it for the relationship to me they revert to the full/half. I >>> have also since checked the children of the other daughter of my half-3rd >>> great grandaunt - they also show half-2nd cousin 3 times removed for the >>> son and 2nd cousin 3 times removed for the daughter. >>> Graham >>> PS Another issue I've just noticed since adding the twin yesterday is that >>> the twin brother correctly has a potential problem flag ( birth too long >>> after prev child) but the twin daughter does not. Not a bug as such I guess >>> but I presume this would vary depending on the name, and hence order, of >>> each child. The 'correct' option of course would be to have both flagged. >>> G >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] >>> Sent: 27 January 2014 15:21 >>> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships >>> >>> One thing you do not report doing is running set relationships after adding >>> all these people. Do that then report how the relationships show. >>> >>> Brian >>> Customer Support >>> Millennia Corporation >>> br...@legacyfamilytree.com >>> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com >>> >>> On 27 Jan 2014 10:04 AM, Graham Love wrote: Still no answer to this - I've unlinked and relinked and run file maintenenace. The only other observation is that all daughters show as 2nd cousins 3 times removed and all sons show as half-2nd cousins 3 times removed. Graham -Original Message- From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 26 January 2014 19:19 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships Good call but not the case. Only one marriage and all children show under the same two parents. Things have got slightly more confusing since I discovered another child - a twin of one already entered. Guess whatthe new child shows as a 2nd cousin 3 times removed whilst her twin shows as a half-2nd cousin 3 times removed. Wouldn't all descendants of a half-relative be halves themselves? So I have a half-relative with offspring who show as full-relatives and their childred show as full-relatives (3 of 5) and half-relatives (2 of 5). I remain confused! Graham -Original Message- From: Jack Earnshaw [mailto:j...@jearnshaw.me.uk] Sent: 26 January 2014 12:53 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships It sounds as though you have two separate marriages for that daughter - one having 2 children and the other having the second two. You will need to unlink the last two children from the spurious marriage and link them to the correct one - then deal with getting rid of the second marriage Jack -Original Message- From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 25 January 2014 14:19 To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Relationships Now this is me, just odd or a bug I have a half 3rd great grandaunt, Louisa Love, who married and had 2 daughters. Both children are shown as 1st cousins 4 times removed. The youngest married and had 4 children. The first 2 are shown as 2nd cousins 3 times removed and the last 2 are shown as half-2nd cousins 3 times removed. The first 2 were entered before I upgraded to V8 and the last 2 added since. Graham Love Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyuse
Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships
Thanks. Any thoughts about my PS relating to potential problems for twins? Graham Sent from my iPad > On 27 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Brian/Support wrote: > > OK, I have confirmed this is a problem. The correct half relationships > are for males the incorrect relationships missing the half were all for > females as you reported. I have entered a problem report to have this fixed. > > Brian > Customer Support > Millennia Corporation > br...@legacyfamilytree.com > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com > >> On 27 Jan 2014 10:54 AM, Graham Love wrote: >> Sorry, yes did that and made no difference. I have now also run set >> relationships from every person in the family group. All show correctly but >> when I run it for the relationship to me they revert to the full/half. I >> have also since checked the children of the other daughter of my half-3rd >> great grandaunt - they also show half-2nd cousin 3 times removed for the son >> and 2nd cousin 3 times removed for the daughter. >> Graham >> PS Another issue I've just noticed since adding the twin yesterday is that >> the twin brother correctly has a potential problem flag ( birth too long >> after prev child) but the twin daughter does not. Not a bug as such I guess >> but I presume this would vary depending on the name, and hence order, of >> each child. The 'correct' option of course would be to have both flagged. >> G >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Brian/Support [mailto:br...@legacyfamilytree.com] >> Sent: 27 January 2014 15:21 >> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Relationships >> >> One thing you do not report doing is running set relationships after adding >> all these people. Do that then report how the relationships show. >> >> Brian >> Customer Support >> Millennia Corporation >> br...@legacyfamilytree.com >> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com >> >> >>> On 27 Jan 2014 10:04 AM, Graham Love wrote: >>> Still no answer to this - I've unlinked and relinked and run file >>> maintenenace. The only other observation is that all daughters show as 2nd >>> cousins 3 times removed and all sons show as half-2nd cousins 3 times >>> removed. >>> Graham >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] >>> Sent: 26 January 2014 19:19 >>> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships >>> >>> Good call but not the case. Only one marriage and all children show under >>> the same two parents. Things have got slightly more confusing since I >>> discovered another child - a twin of one already entered. Guess whatthe >>> new child shows as a 2nd cousin 3 times removed whilst her twin shows as a >>> half-2nd cousin 3 times removed. >>> Wouldn't all descendants of a half-relative be halves themselves? So I have >>> a half-relative with offspring who show as full-relatives and their >>> childred show as full-relatives (3 of 5) and half-relatives (2 of 5). >>> I remain confused! >>> Graham >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Jack Earnshaw [mailto:j...@jearnshaw.me.uk] >>> Sent: 26 January 2014 12:53 >>> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Relationships >>> >>> It sounds as though you have two separate marriages for that daughter >>> - one having 2 children and the other having the second two. You will >>> need to unlink the last two children from the spurious marriage and >>> link them to the correct one - then deal with getting rid of the >>> second marriage >>> >>> Jack >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Graham Love [mailto:love-fam...@blueyonder.co.uk] >>> Sent: 25 January 2014 14:19 >>> To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> Subject: [LegacyUG] Relationships >>> >>> Now this is me, just odd or a bug >>> >>> I have a half 3rd great grandaunt, Louisa Love, who married and had 2 >>> daughters. Both children are shown as 1st cousins 4 times removed. The >>> youngest married and had 4 children. The first 2 are shown as 2nd cousins 3 >>> times removed and the last 2 are shown as half-2nd cousins 3 times removed. >>> The first 2 were entered before I upgraded to V8 and the last 2 added since. >>> Graham Love >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Legacy User Group guidelines: >>> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >>> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ >>> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ >>> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp >>> Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on >>> our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). >>> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp >> >> >> >> Legacy User Group guidelines: >> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.
