* I'm struggling!

[Dilgerburton]

Its some time since I last accessed my Family Historian database. I have it loaded onto my laptop and my desktop. When I go into the desktop it goes straight into the first person on my database, I cannot seem to access the Project Window which gives the Sample Project, My Family Tree etc as I can on my laptop. I am wary of deleting anything from my desktop just in case I lose data. Something is not loaded correctly but what and what can I do about it. I do have a copy of the Family Historian handbook and want to add photos but can't do this without seeing the Sample Project. Sorry, I'm not as dim witted as this email sounds !

[LornaCraig]

On the desktop, use File > Project Window. You will then see the list of projects. You will probably find that your main project has a small green tick beside it, meaning it has been set to open by default on that project.
If you want FH to open on the Project window in future, select your main project in the list and click More Tasks then uncheck Set as Default Project.

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG.

Your scenario also begs some other questions.

How did you get your Projects from laptop to desktop?

At the very top of the main FH window, between your Project name My Family Tree and [Focus Window],
does it say it is a - Family Historian Project - or a - Family Historian Gedcom - ?

BTW:
If you are new to FH, then take a look at our how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers, and follow its links into many other [kb]|[/kb] pages.

[Dilgerburton]

Thank you both so very much. Its easy when you know how and I am truly grateful for your help. For many years I used a wonderful genealogy package, now obsolete, so I had to find another and chose Family Historian 6. I quite like it but its taking me some time to come to terms with and I needed to find the Project View as I want to add another family to the system as well as add photographs. I'm not sure what the etiquette is of the forum. Am I allowed to ask Tatewise if they are researching the name Scott in England or Scotland? Yours very gratefully Dilgerburton

[tatewise]

I am researching Scott in England, mainly in the Midlands, but it is an adopted name so does not go back far.

Spend as much time learning how to use FH as you did learning how to use your earlier product.
Too often new users say, if only they had known more about how best to use FH they would have saved a load of time.

If you intend to run FH with your Projects on both a laptop and desktop, have you considered how to synchronise them?

You also need to understand how to synchronise any FH customisations between laptop and desktop.

If the family you are adding is even remotely likely to be related to your main family then add it to your main Project.

[Dilgerburton]

Thank you for getting back to me. This all sounds a bit technical with synchronisation between both computers. I think I need to really get down to work with Family Historian and find out what it (and I) can do. I have, over the past 18 months or so, compiled several family histories for relatives and friends but feel I now need to concentrate on sorting out my own research. This is why its taken me so long to get back to Family Historian and I feel I need to give it a lot of time to really get to grips with it the way I did with my previous package. I am interested in what you say about adding the new project to my existing project if the people are related. This is my daughter in law's family I wish to add but I was concerned that it would have to go in two 'halves' her side of the family and ours. Will one project take so many names? Most of my family research is the name SCOTT but it is in Scotland. I am very grateful for your time and help. I never expected to get replies from the forum so promptly, I am really impressed.

[Gowermick]

Dilgerburton,
You may or may not have grandchildren via your daughter-in-law, but if you do, what is wrong with having one of them as the root of your tree? That way, your daughter-in-law will be in the tree quite naturally.

This is what I have done with my tree, with my grandsons as the root. Eventually my research will pass to them, and hopefully they will become hooked too! Think how grateful you would be if your grandfather had done the same for you

As for quantities allowed in Fh, there may be some limit built in somewhere, as to be expected, but I have 13000+ relatives in my tree, and FH handles them with ease! For example, when I have them listed alphabeticcaly, then ask for them to be displayed in birthdate order, FH does it in milliseconds!

[Dilgerburton]

Thanks for that. This is what started it all off in the first place. Our side of the family is well researched and documented and I have researched my daughter in law's family but now wish to record it on Family Historian. We now have a granddaughter but I thought I needed to start a new tree with my daughter in law as the root and that way our granddaughter would have two halves of her family tree. I did not realise that Family Historian would take so many names in one tree.

[PeterR]

I know of one GEDCOM file (not my own!) which has over 210,000 Individual Records and over 69,000 Family records.

[tatewise]

The only absolute limit I can think of is the Record Id that limits the number of any one type of record.
The maximum Record Id value is 2,147,483,647.
Otherwise, FH is only limited by the resources of your PC.

There is no problem in creating the family tree of your daughter-in-law in the same Project.
In fact since you have a granddaughter, your son & daughter-in-law's daughter, it is important to use just one tree.
The FH File Root person can be changed at will as often as you like in the same Project.
I have added the relatives of my son-in-law and my sisters-in-law (siblings, parents, etc).

You clearly have a great deal to learn about FH, so spend some time.
As I suggested, start with how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers and digest all its topics.

[LornaCraig]

In case you think you might want to send a subset of your data to someone who is interested in only one branch, rest assured that can be done. If one of your daughter-in-law's relatives wants to see your research into their family, it would be possible to create a project for them by export from your larger project. Exporting part of a large project is easier than merging two smaller ones.

[Dilgerburton]

Thank you so much for your support. I have never belonged to any forum before and I am astounded at the FHUG forum. I honestly thought that I would have to wait ages for any reply and so far I am being messaged regularly. I very nearly gave up on Family Historian and now I'm glad I stuck with it. I'm aware that I have lots to learn but its just time to get to grips with it. I don't want to do anything fancy with my family history research but I have over 35 years work stored and want to keep it as well preserved as I can. Many thanks

[themoudie]

Aye dilgerburton,

You may have seen my posts elsewhere on this forum and the AS forum, please stick with entering you data into FH and you will find that practise makes better.

I have been researching since the mid 1990's, using FH since 2002 and just using it to link people and families, to illustrate relationships, without recording all the other paper ephemera, images and 'Official' records that substantiate your research and "hunches". I am now revisiting all my individuals, attaching these pieces of 'proof' and entering new individuals as I progress.

I have not found it easy to take on the software or the sources of 'How to use and adapt the software', but after many false starts and taking on board the 'KISS' principle, I am at last making slow progress. Get the data in to FH, being consistent in your naming of all the data. Once the data is in FH, then you can play about with the multitude of reports, diagrams etc that are acheivable and which I find difficult to grasp.

I am sticking with a 'traditional' family tree layout and the 'Individual reports', rather than anything fancy. As Lorna and Mike advise, updating and 'backing up' then splitting or subdividing your whole data, is easier than having a multitude of individual family data to maintain.

As for the "Scott's" in Scotland, if they have any relationship to the Scottish Borders "Scott's" you have my sympathies, my wife has Anderson's and a scattering of Scott's from the region for ancestors and they make for years of intrigue and research. Good luck! The Border Family History Society based in Galashiels may be able help you in your research, if you have not already contacted them or seen their website.

Good health, Bill

[Dilgerburton]

Thank you for your reply. I am sitting typing out some research into FH and playing about with what it can do and I have the handbook open. Actually its not dissimilar to my old package and I'm quite enjoying myself. I don't think I want to concern myself with the bells and whistles added extras until I have the information on and I thought I would then go back, recheck and add photos etc as you suggest. As for the Scott family. I have been doing family research for 35 years and the Scott side of the family was the first side I researched and I am fairly well back with them, not in the Borders, but in the Central belt of Scotland and Perthshire. I have, however, had great help from the Borders Family History Centre in Gala on another side of the family and gave them a copy of my grandfathers WW1 Service Record for their archives. They moved into new premises in Overhaugh Street, Gala a couple of years ago and are almost needing to extend. 'My' Scott's were shipyard workers on the Clyde, not Border Reivers! Many thanks

[tatewise]

One important consideration is whether you wish to record proof of your facts such as Birth, Marriage, Death & Census.

If you do wish to record such proof source documents as BMD Certificates, then it should be done consistently.
See Sources Methods 1 & 2 and Ancestral Sources within how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers.

Many new users have said they wished they had considered such issues when they started, before entering too much data.

[Dilgerburton]

Thank you for that. I always try to keep and record details of BMD's Census and other material and sources. I have done quite a bit of FH this afternoon and I am really beginning to enjoy myself. Its not so different from my previous package once I got started.

[tatewise]

Have you used Ancestral Sources to keep your Source Citations consistent?

I trust you are using Source Citations rather than attaching the BMD's & Census media directly to the Individual record.

Before you go too far, check that Diagrams and Reports are produced to your satisfaction.

Also checkout the Family Historian Sample Project to see how it is done there.

These are all topics taken from how_to:key_features_for_newcomers|> Key Features for Newcomers - have you looked there?