I switched to Legacy as a principal data-entry vehicle after using TMG for a number of years. I still miss some things in TMG, particularly the ability to easily link multiple individuals to an event and the cleaner location and sourcing fields. I, like you, didn't want to redo sources or other information later.
Nevertheless, I switched for what will seem like a very frivolous reason -- research, using TMG, wasn't fun anymore. You would not think that a user interface would make that much difference, but it does. Even though TMG's interface IS very malleable, the fun was definitely gone. In addition, I was spending too much time manipulating the program parameters and too little time advancing my research interests. I do still have a current version of TMG on my machine, and I sometimes transfer my Legacy data into TMG to generate certain reports that don't exist with Legacy. Because TMG accepts a direct import from Legacy (using GENBRIDGE, no GEDCOM), it's easier to move from Legacy to TMG. Even with GENBRIDGE, the source fields get garbled. OTOH, doing the reverse transfer -- TMG to Legacy via GEDCOM -- is worse in that that transfer can dump a lot of source and location and other information into notes because, I guess, TMG has fields that Legacy lacks. Many experienced genealogists use more than one program. I have always used a minimum of three, because nobody seems to have everything that I want (again Legacy comes closer than any other, for me right now). Since switching from TMG about 2 years ago, I have published two articles in local journals. They may not be the most professional presentations, but I simply used endnotes. If I had wanted to convert these to footnotes in my word processor, I don't think that it would have been that big a deal -- maybe 2-4 hours of work and checking -- which I would have done and redone anyway for something submitted for publication. There IS a trade-off between taking the [sometime infinite :)] time to word the source citation exactly right and time to do research. I am working on four lines concurrently, and sometimes I enter just enough source information to get me or any reasonably competent reader back to the original document. I hope someone else comments on this, because I am interested in other approaches. Eventually, to write anything well, I think it is essential to eliminate machine-language syntax. I use the Legacy reports to communicate with other researchers and as a basis for my own research and as a foundation for articles and books, but I prefer a word processor for creating a fun-to-read family history. There is probably a way to manipulate Legacy to get exactly what I want -- perhaps putting the biographical sketches that summarize my research into the General Notes and printing out those, rather than the dry Events list. I would love to hear more from people who are doing something along those lines. Cafi Fischer Cohen Arroyo Grande, California Researching KNOX, FISCHER, KEISER, PRYOR, CAMPIONE, FISCELLA, KEISER, BOLTON, WOLFENSON Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
