Date   
Error #86

Terry Garnett
 

Hey John,
Sorry to bother you on a Holiday, but I have an issue with my BK program.

When I back up the program / data when I exit, I keep getting the Error #86 which says CustomEvents.bk did not copy correctly / sharing conflict.
To correct the error, it says turn off computer and then restart computer / BK program...which I did...and still keep getting the Error $86.

Is there another way to fix this error?

thanks, Terry 

 

 

 

Terry Garnett, ACT National President

12620 Lake Ridge Drive

Lake Ridge, Virginia 22192

(703) 494-4845

Fax – (703) 494-0961

Email –  tgarnett@...

"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." (John Ronald Reuel Tolkien)

      



From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of John Steed <brothers_keeper@...>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:03 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Searching on husband's last name
 
To Howard Slatter

It is a fairly new feature, but it should search for the most recent husband's last name.

It does not currently search for the last name of all of her husbands.

To do that, you can go to Lists, Word Search, click the Marriage tab at the top.

Then search for 

Wife name   -   Just her first name
Husband name  - just the last name you are looking for.

Then click Make List to Edit

John Steed



From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Howard Slatter <haslatter1@...>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:20 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Searching on husband's last name
 
When doing a "Find" and ticking the box "Also search husband's last
name" it seems only to look for the first marriage of the woman.  Am I
right?  It would be great if that search actually covered all marriages.

Howard

--
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England




Re: Searching on husband's last name

Otto Jørgensen
 

Many of Our Norwegian  have emigrated and  thei settled Down in USA and other countries. If searching for ancestors in e.g. Scandinnavian you have to use the  policy of naming in Our countries. By that the program must act for also that.
In old tim es the  worman are names Hansdtr even if the first husban was named called  Larsen and even if the second husband was nemed Nilsen. The woman did not changed Last name.
To day we have both system; woman take the last name to the husband and also do no so.
We also use the alternative name as we always use the original name from churchbook to the EditScreen. Name om tomstone and other name are to be added as alternative names. That is also  if person change last name, e.g. my son has chang Place between last name and second  lastneme. but in Edit he will stay With the name in order as he was born, even if it is changed now in order. So are also for my daughter.

So the facilty have to work as the situation is and not dikfferently depending on counties. Use of alternative names are the correct way to make the alternative and hav F3 to work on


/regards

Otto -#-


Den 25.05.2020 16:47, skrev J. P. Gilliver (John):

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 14:36:28, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@...> wrote:
A couple, married or no, does no nessesary have equal last name. And in
situatin where there are children and father and mother do live
together at all; it s impprtant to take in the view what ever
situation.
[]
I think that is why the option is called "search by husband's last name" rather than "search by married surname".

(Also, though what you say is very true, for a _lot_ of BK's users over the timescales involved, the assumption _is_ valid; I presume that's why it was added. Certainly, for example, US and UK - and I think other western and western-influenced countries - burial records, gravestones, etc., usually do have married name for _most_ of accessible history. You can always untick the option.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Apologies to [those] who may have been harmed by the scientific inaccuracies
in this post. - Roger Tilbury in UMRA, 2018-3-14


Re: Searching on husband's last name

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 14:36:28, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@...> wrote:
A couple, married or no, does no nessesary have equal last name. And in
situatin where there are children and father and mother do live
together at all; it s impprtant to take in the view what ever
situation.
[]
I think that is why the option is called "search by husband's last name" rather than "search by married surname".

(Also, though what you say is very true, for a _lot_ of BK's users over the timescales involved, the assumption _is_ valid; I presume that's why it was added. Certainly, for example, US and UK - and I think other western and western-influenced countries - burial records, gravestones, etc., usually do have married name for _most_ of accessible history. You can always untick the option.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Apologies to [those] who may have been harmed by the scientific inaccuracies
in this post. - Roger Tilbury in UMRA, 2018-3-14

Re: Searching on husband's last name

Howard Slatter
 

Thanks John.  In this case the first husband was not in the database (there was an illegitimate child) but the search didn't pick her up under her later husband's surname.


Yes, I'm aware that the Word Search wife/husband approach works, but this seems to take a lot longer than the new alternative.


Howard


On 25/05/2020 13:03, John Steed wrote:
To Howard Slatter

It is a fairly new feature, but it should search for the most recent husband's last name.

It does not currently search for the last name of all of her husbands.

To do that, you can go to Lists, Word Search, click the Marriage tab at the top.

Then search for 

Wife name   -   Just her first name
Husband name  - just the last name you are looking for.

Then click Make List to Edit

John Steed



From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Howard Slatter <haslatter1@...>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:20 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Searching on husband's last name
 
When doing a "Find" and ticking the box "Also search husband's last
name" it seems only to look for the first marriage of the woman.  Am I
right?  It would be great if that search actually covered all marriages.

Howard

--
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England




-- 
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England

Re: Searching on husband's last name

Otto Jørgensen
 

A couple, married or no, does no nessesary have equal last name. And in situatin where there are children and father and mother do live together at all; it s impprtant to take in the view what ever situation.

---
hilsen/regards Otto -#-

 

Den 25.05.2020 14:03, skrev John Steed:

To Howard Slatter
 
It is a fairly new feature, but it should search for the most recent husband's last name.
 
It does not currently search for the last name of all of her husbands.
 
To do that, you can go to Lists, Word Search, click the Marriage tab at the top.
 
Then search for 
 
Wife name   -   Just her first name
Husband name  - just the last name you are looking for.
 
Then click Make List to Edit
 
John Steed
 
 
 

From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Howard Slatter <haslatter1@...>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:20 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Searching on husband's last name
 
When doing a "Find" and ticking the box "Also search husband's last
name" it seems only to look for the first marriage of the woman.  Am I
right?  It would be great if that search actually covered all marriages.

Howard

--
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England



Re: Searching on husband's last name

John Steed
 

To Howard Slatter

It is a fairly new feature, but it should search for the most recent husband's last name.

It does not currently search for the last name of all of her husbands.

To do that, you can go to Lists, Word Search, click the Marriage tab at the top.

Then search for 

Wife name   -   Just her first name
Husband name  - just the last name you are looking for.

Then click Make List to Edit

John Steed



From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> on behalf of Howard Slatter <haslatter1@...>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 8:20 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
Subject: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Searching on husband's last name
 
When doing a "Find" and ticking the box "Also search husband's last
name" it seems only to look for the first marriage of the woman.  Am I
right?  It would be great if that search actually covered all marriages.

Howard

--
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England




Searching on husband's last name

Howard Slatter
 

When doing a "Find" and ticking the box "Also search husband's last name" it seems only to look for the first marriage of the woman.  Am I right?  It would be great if that search actually covered all marriages.

Howard

--
Howard Slatter
Cambridge, England

Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

(Sorry, my responses come _below_ the sections to which they relate. I too have been around since DOS [or before], and that's how I work: quoted statement, _then_ my response.)


On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:47:06, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
Anna -- if this was a Facebook thread I would have "Liked" your post.
I'd gotten out of the habit of using Printscreen because for years I
had a keyboard which didn't have a Printscreen key for some reason. I
took a look at the keyboard I'm using now and there it is, hiding in
plain sight!
See below for my response to that. (Having said that, I do _sometimes_ use PrtScn - or Alt-PrtScn [which a lot of people don't know about] - including in BK [e. g. sometimes a quick snap of the basic Ancestor display], though not often.)


Chas Dobie (still hiding from the blackflies, but today there are
mosquitoes too).
(-:


At 09:39 AM 2020-05-21, you wrote:
(Can you adjust your software to say who "you" is?)

I've been reading and listening to this thread. I use the registered
revision of Adobe Acobate PDF and never regret it. But that is not
my post. I do alot of self published books for others and have
learned to "think outside of the box" (that's my normal anyway!) I
use the "PRINT SCREEN" button alot. This way I can put any screen
Do you have a huge (or rather high-resolution) monitor? I find if I have, say, a descendent tree chart with more than, oh, about 6 generations, zoomed out to fit on the screen, then the text (e. g. names) are too small to read - only a few pixels high.


shot, or chart that is on screen, into any program and manipulate
it. In word, I can crop the jpg screen shoot to just include what I
want and then rotate, enlarge, piece together two screen shots, etc.
(I wouldn't use Word's image-manipulation features over something like even IrfanView, but that's not important for now.)


I also can put that jpg screen shot into a photo editing program (I
even have used MS Paint!) I prefer my old program, but anyway, once
in there I can do the same. Crop, Piece together if necessary, but
Ah - "piece together". So are you getting round the problem I describe above - of text not being legible if you zoom out too much - by not zooming out, but instead, panning across the chart using BK's (somewhat idiosyncratic!) panning controls, and taking multiple screenshots, then stitching them together? That sounds like a lot of work!

Have you actually _tried_ a PDF "printer", like pdf995 or CutePDF? With those, you can set a huge paper size, and then "print" to it, _without_ either having illegible text or having to do lots of stitching. The text in the PDF files produced is also still text, not an image, so can be copied, and searched for.

FWIW: John Steed himself uses a PDF "printer". (I think pdf995.)


the cool thing about using a paint/photo program is that you can cut
out, erase, highlight, etc, anything about the chart. I even delete
But not make four-pixel-high text legible.


the background and save as a .png so I can place a nice background
[]
nonsense. I've been around since DOS and have the mentality that
anything can be done with a computer. My kids even pass all their
Agreed. But there are hard and easy ways!
[]

On May 20, 2020 at 11:38 PM "Barry P." < @Barry_P>
wrote:


John P.G.
Yes.
I am often frustrated by BK's printing processing. There appears
to me a disconnect between the print drivers and the BK print
control.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it frustrating.


BK is after all a character based application so scaling is not
really a workable option for it.
Yes, I don't anticipate it changing in v7. I'm _hoping_ for a major rewrite - ditching the graphics engine - for v8, but JS doesn't seem keen (I understand why, it'd be a huge undertaking). I think you've hit the nail on the head - character-based, with specialised/custom and I suspect individual routines for the various chart types. (For example, it can't even colour the boxes in the edit screen, as has been suggested to show source quality.)


A lot of Win-10 options are
device dependant. The maximum page size = A3 from my default
printer. Even from MS-Word, I can use ARCH spec but not A0, A1,
A2 in PDF995.
I haven't tried "printing" bigger than A3 from Word, so I hadn't encountered that problem. What device do you think is limiting your paper size in Word-to-PDF995?


At least with BK I can print A0 descendant Chart in PDF995.
Yes, I use big charts - a complex relationship chart, for example.


Then many Windows drivers default to Letter (ANSI A) rather than
our ISO A4 paper. Be aware of the differences when using
third-party services.
Yes, I've noticed that; some of the better ones at least default to A4 when installed on a machine that knows it's in our region, but not all. But it's usually easy to override - you just have to keep an eye open for it.


Barry P.
John G.
[Rest snipped, as it was already things that had been replied to.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly
fact. - Thomas Henry Huxley

Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

Charles Dobie
 

Anna -- if this was a Facebook thread I would have "Liked" your post. I'd gotten out of the habit of using Printscreen because for years I had a keyboard which didn't have a Printscreen key for some reason. I took a look at the keyboard I'm using now and there it is, hiding in plain sight!
Chas Dobie (still hiding from the blackflies, but today there are mosquitoes too).


At 09:39 AM 2020-05-21, you wrote:
I've been reading and listening to this thread. I use the registered revision of Adobe Acobate PDF and never regret it. But that is not my post. I do alot of self published books for others and have learned to "think outside of the box" (that's my normal anyway!) I use the "PRINT SCREEN" button alot. This way I can put any screen shot, or chart that is on screen, into any program and manipulate it. In word, I can crop the jpg screen shoot to just include what I want and then rotate, enlarge, piece together two screen shots, etc. I also can put that jpg screen shot into a photo editing program (I even have used MS Paint!) I prefer my old program, but anyway, once in there I can do the same. Crop, Piece together if necessary, but the cool thing about using a paint/photo program is that you can cut out, erase, highlight, etc, anything about the chart. I even delete the background and save as a .png so I can place a nice background behind it. Check out one of my pages at EnersonFarms.com/Corle     I have a ton of other work-arounds, enhancements, fiddling around nonsense. I've been around since DOS and have the mentality that anything can be done with a computer. My kids even pass all their knowledge down to others and impress them at college.  Hope this helps someone. 
On May 20, 2020 at 11:38 PM "Barry P." < barry@...> wrote:


John P.G.
Yes.
I am often frustrated by BK's printing processing. There appears to me a disconnect between the print drivers and the BK print control.

BK is after all a character based application so scaling is not really a workable option for it. A lot of Win-10 options are device dependant. The maximum page size = A3 from my default printer. Even from MS-Word, I can use ARCH spec but not A0, A1, A2 in PDF995.
At least with BK I can print A0 descendant Chart in PDF995.

Then many Windows drivers default to Letter (ANSI A) rather than our ISO A4 paper. Be aware of the differences when using third-party services.

Barry P.


-----Original Message-----
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [ mailto: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2020 3:00 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Creating a family book for cousins.

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 07:25:43, Jim Dell < jim.dell@...> wrote:
>Barry
>I do NOT use PDF995.
>

I suspect most of the PDF "printers" are very similar in use - "my"
PDF995, "your" dopdf, CutePDF, and the Microsoft ones (though they probably have Microsoft wrinkles).

Note that BK, when producing charts, is very flaky (sorry, John - no better way to say it) regarding change of paper size/orientation; as near as I can tell, it gets them from the current default settings of the current default printer (which can be a PDF "printer"). I've _sometimes_ managed to persuade BK to accept a change of paper size/orientation, but more often than not it reverts when I'm not looking; the only way to get a change to _stick_, I've found, is: close BK; change the page size/orientation settings of the current default printer/"printer"; go back into BK. I've not infrequently found BK producing very odd results if I try to change things from within it:
"printing" on A4 size paper centred as if for A3, for example.
>I use a free program PDFMerge ( https://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfmerge/) to merge my PDF files.
>
PDFTools has a merge too. I haven't tried it with PDFs of different page sizes/orientations - have you with PDFMerge?
[More below.]
>
>DoPDF is also free ( https://www.dopdf.com/)
[]
>From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
>< BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
>Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:51 PM
[]
>A PDF is a PDF. The point of a Portable Document Format is that it
>presents a consistent image / view across all applications and
>platforms and is supposedly faithful to the original document format.
>
>Individual proprietary PDF editing features though do not necessarily
>transfer as intended. Such as Notes, free Text, Comments.
>
>For those operating Windows, Is Microsoft print to PDF a feature of
>the OS? Or is it an app of MS-Word? Does OO or LO have a PDF print or
>file convert on save feature?

It may come with later versions of Windows: it's not there by default in Windows 7, I don't think. However, if you install Office (Word), you get it - I think usable from any application, i. e. it appears as an extra "printer", just like PDF995 and the rest. (From a certain version of Office forward.) I also seem to have a "printer" called "Foxit reader PDF printer", which suggests it came with a version of Foxit (which is one of the alternative [to Adobe] PDF tool creators).

Since PDF995 has never given me any trouble, I haven't played with any of the others. (It is _not_ limited to the paper sizes that installed "real" printers can use, as someone else in this thread has suggested the Microsoft ones might be; I've occasionally set huge paper sizes to "print" some big charts.)
>
>I use PDF995 because it does not rely on local printers. For
>instance PDF995 allows me to print A1 charts, whereas MS features allow
>only the A3 that I have available on my Brother printer.

>I use also a freebee (PDF Fusion) that came with Paint Shop Pro some
>years ago. This I use for annotating or adding to PDF content already
>produced.

(I have "Foxit Advanced PDF Editor", which I think was released free for a very limited time some years ago.) On the whole, I tend to prefer to edit anything in whatever created it originally, then recreate the PDF, but I guess some sort of annotator is useful if you're including something where you don't _have_ the document in its original format (such as something you downloaded that was only in PDF).

[Incidentally: if you have such material but only want an image from it, I've found http://www.extractpdf.com/ very good: OK, it's online, so privacy concerns, but for genealogical purposes that's rarely relevant - the source is usually something I've downloaded anyway. I do have offline tools, but I've found the above both easier to use and better at it. (Some people, for example, always scan to .pdf {especially documents, like certificates}; that's one case - images - where I _don't_ use .pdf, but .gif or .jpg .)]
>
>PDF Fusion also allows me to put a whole range of pages into the one
>document. I suspect PDF995 suite will do that.
>
I haven't got the PDF995 "suite", just the "printer driver". I suspect PDFTools would do all I want in that respect. But all these tools probably work in a very similar way.
>A note here – is that when using a Flatbed scanner, the PDDF output is
>usually an image – a large, one page image. Whereas by Priint driver or
>Save-As from a word editor (OO or LO, Notepad, Notepad+ etc), the
>characters are saved and can be individually searched. <Ctrl+F>
>
Oh yes, I'd never print out then scan. Much bigger file (unless you use some OCR function, and those do _weird_ things with formatting); I know size is less important these days, but they still take appreciably longer to load. And, as you say, the text remains searchable/copiable in a .pdf made by "printing" using one of the .pdf "printers".
**> Jim, how do you put multiple PDF files in to one document using
>PDF995?
(I'm not Jim but) I'd use PDFTools. Another here would use PDFMerge.
>
>>>** What does DoPDF cost to not have adverts?
>
Oh, it has those too, does it? PDF995 does too. On a previous computer I just blocked it in my firewall (it actually works locally, just fetches ad.s while it's working), so didn't see them; on this one, I haven't bothered - one extra small IE window is easy to dismiss.

Barry P.
John G.
[]
Jeff - I hope we haven't put you off; PDF creation is very easy, and likely to cause far less grief with the print shop than giving them a Word (or whatever) document.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio Times 9-15 March 2013



Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

Anna Enerson
 

I've been reading and listening to this thread. I use the registered revision of Adobe Acobate PDF and never regret it. But that is not my post. I do alot of self published books for others and have learned to "think outside of the box" (that's my normal anyway!) I use the "PRINT SCREEN" button alot. This way I can put any screen shot, or chart that is on screen, into any program and manipulate it. In word, I can crop the jpg screen shoot to just include what I want and then rotate, enlarge, piece together two screen shots, etc. I also can put that jpg screen shot into a photo editing program (I even have used MS Paint!) I prefer my old program, but anyway, once in there I can do the same. Crop, Piece together if necessary, but the cool thing about using a paint/photo program is that you can cut out, erase, highlight, etc, anything about the chart. I even delete the background and save as a .png so I can place a nice background behind it. Check out one of my pages at EnersonFarms.com/Corle     I have a ton of other work-arounds, enhancements, fiddling around nonsense. I've been around since DOS and have the mentality that anything can be done with a computer. My kids even pass all their knowledge down to others and impress them at college.  Hope this helps someone. 

On May 20, 2020 at 11:38 PM "Barry P." < barry@...> wrote:


John P.G.
Yes.
I am often frustrated by BK's printing processing. There appears to me a disconnect between the print drivers and the BK print control.

BK is after all a character based application so scaling is not really a workable option for it. A lot of Win-10 options are device dependant. The maximum page size = A3 from my default printer. Even from MS-Word, I can use ARCH spec but not A0, A1, A2 in PDF995.
At least with BK I can print A0 descendant Chart in PDF995.

Then many Windows drivers default to Letter (ANSI A) rather than our ISO A4 paper. Be aware of the differences when using third-party services.

Barry P.


-----Original Message-----
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2020 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Creating a family book for cousins.

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 07:25:43, Jim Dell < jim.dell@...> wrote:
>Barry
>I do NOT use PDF995.
>

I suspect most of the PDF "printers" are very similar in use - "my"
PDF995, "your" dopdf, CutePDF, and the Microsoft ones (though they probably have Microsoft wrinkles).

Note that BK, when producing charts, is very flaky (sorry, John - no better way to say it) regarding change of paper size/orientation; as near as I can tell, it gets them from the current default settings of the current default printer (which can be a PDF "printer"). I've _sometimes_ managed to persuade BK to accept a change of paper size/orientation, but more often than not it reverts when I'm not looking; the only way to get a change to _stick_, I've found, is: close BK; change the page size/orientation settings of the current default printer/"printer"; go back into BK. I've not infrequently found BK producing very odd results if I try to change things from within it:
"printing" on A4 size paper centred as if for A3, for example.
>I use a free program PDFMerge ( https://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfmerge/) to merge my PDF files.
>
PDFTools has a merge too. I haven't tried it with PDFs of different page sizes/orientations - have you with PDFMerge?
[More below.]
>
>DoPDF is also free ( https://www.dopdf.com/)
[]
>< BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
>Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:51 PM
[]
>A PDF is a PDF. The point of a Portable Document Format is that it
>presents a consistent image / view across all applications and
>platforms and is supposedly faithful to the original document format.
>
>Individual proprietary PDF editing features though do not necessarily
>transfer as intended. Such as Notes, free Text, Comments.
>
>For those operating Windows, Is Microsoft print to PDF a feature of
>the OS? Or is it an app of MS-Word? Does OO or LO have a PDF print or
>file convert on save feature?

It may come with later versions of Windows: it's not there by default in Windows 7, I don't think. However, if you install Office (Word), you get it - I think usable from any application, i. e. it appears as an extra "printer", just like PDF995 and the rest. (From a certain version of Office forward.) I also seem to have a "printer" called "Foxit reader PDF printer", which suggests it came with a version of Foxit (which is one of the alternative [to Adobe] PDF tool creators).

Since PDF995 has never given me any trouble, I haven't played with any of the others. (It is _not_ limited to the paper sizes that installed "real" printers can use, as someone else in this thread has suggested the Microsoft ones might be; I've occasionally set huge paper sizes to "print" some big charts.)
>
>I use PDF995 because it does not rely on local printers. For
>instance PDF995 allows me to print A1 charts, whereas MS features allow
>only the A3 that I have available on my Brother printer.

>I use also a freebee (PDF Fusion) that came with Paint Shop Pro some
>years ago. This I use for annotating or adding to PDF content already
>produced.

(I have "Foxit Advanced PDF Editor", which I think was released free for a very limited time some years ago.) On the whole, I tend to prefer to edit anything in whatever created it originally, then recreate the PDF, but I guess some sort of annotator is useful if you're including something where you don't _have_ the document in its original format (such as something you downloaded that was only in PDF).

[Incidentally: if you have such material but only want an image from it, I've found http://www.extractpdf.com/ very good: OK, it's online, so privacy concerns, but for genealogical purposes that's rarely relevant - the source is usually something I've downloaded anyway. I do have offline tools, but I've found the above both easier to use and better at it. (Some people, for example, always scan to .pdf {especially documents, like certificates}; that's one case - images - where I _don't_ use .pdf, but .gif or .jpg .)]
>
>PDF Fusion also allows me to put a whole range of pages into the one
>document. I suspect PDF995 suite will do that.
>
I haven't got the PDF995 "suite", just the "printer driver". I suspect PDFTools would do all I want in that respect. But all these tools probably work in a very similar way.

>A note here – is that when using a Flatbed scanner, the PDF output is
>usually an image – a large, one page image. Whereas by Print driver or
>Save-As from a word editor (OO or LO, Notepad, Notepad+ etc), the
>characters are saved and can be individually searched. <Ctrl+F>
>
Oh yes, I'd never print out then scan. Much bigger file (unless you use some OCR function, and those do _weird_ things with formatting); I know size is less important these days, but they still take appreciably longer to load. And, as you say, the text remains searchable/copiable in a .pdf made by "printing" using one of the .pdf "printers".
**> Jim, how do you put multiple PDF files in to one document using
>PDF995?
(I'm not Jim but) I'd use PDFTools. Another here would use PDFMerge.
>
>>>** What does DoPDF cost to not have adverts?
>
Oh, it has those too, does it? PDF995 does too. On a previous computer I just blocked it in my firewall (it actually works locally, just fetches ad.s while it's working), so didn't see them; on this one, I haven't bothered - one extra small IE window is easy to dismiss.

Barry P.
John G.
[]
Jeff - I hope we haven't put you off; PDF creation is very easy, and likely to cause far less grief with the print shop than giving them a Word (or whatever) document.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio Times 9-15 March 2013




Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

Barry P.
 

John P.G.
Yes.
I am often frustrated by BK's printing processing. There appears to me a disconnect between the print drivers and the BK print control.

BK is after all a character based application so scaling is not really a workable option for it. A lot of Win-10 options are device dependant. The maximum page size = A3 from my default printer. Even from MS-Word, I can use ARCH spec but not A0, A1, A2 in PDF995.
At least with BK I can print A0 descendant Chart in PDF995.

Then many Windows drivers default to Letter (ANSI A) rather than our ISO A4 paper. Be aware of the differences when using third-party services.

Barry P.

-----Original Message-----
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io [mailto:BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2020 3:00 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Creating a family book for cousins.

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 07:25:43, Jim Dell <jim.dell@...> wrote:
Barry
I do NOT use PDF995.
I suspect most of the PDF "printers" are very similar in use - "my"
PDF995, "your" dopdf, CutePDF, and the Microsoft ones (though they probably have Microsoft wrinkles).

Note that BK, when producing charts, is very flaky (sorry, John - no better way to say it) regarding change of paper size/orientation; as near as I can tell, it gets them from the current default settings of the current default printer (which can be a PDF "printer"). I've _sometimes_ managed to persuade BK to accept a change of paper size/orientation, but more often than not it reverts when I'm not looking; the only way to get a change to _stick_, I've found, is: close BK; change the page size/orientation settings of the current default printer/"printer"; go back into BK. I've not infrequently found BK producing very odd results if I try to change things from within it:
"printing" on A4 size paper centred as if for A3, for example.


I use a free program PDFMerge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfmerge/) to merge my PDF files.
PDFTools has a merge too. I haven't tried it with PDFs of different page sizes/orientations - have you with PDFMerge?
[More below.]

DoPDF is also free (https://www.dopdf.com/)
[]
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
<BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:51 PM
[]
A PDF is a PDF. The point of a Portable Document Format is that it
presents a consistent image / view across all applications and
platforms and is supposedly faithful to the original document format.



Individual proprietary PDF editing features though do not necessarily
transfer as intended. Such as Notes, free Text, Comments.



For those operating Windows, Is Microsoft print to PDF a feature of
the OS? Or is it an app of MS-Word? Does OO or LO have a PDF print or
file convert on save feature?
It may come with later versions of Windows: it's not there by default in Windows 7, I don't think. However, if you install Office (Word), you get it - I think usable from any application, i. e. it appears as an extra "printer", just like PDF995 and the rest. (From a certain version of Office forward.) I also seem to have a "printer" called "Foxit reader PDF printer", which suggests it came with a version of Foxit (which is one of the alternative [to Adobe] PDF tool creators).

Since PDF995 has never given me any trouble, I haven't played with any of the others. (It is _not_ limited to the paper sizes that installed "real" printers can use, as someone else in this thread has suggested the Microsoft ones might be; I've occasionally set huge paper sizes to "print" some big charts.)

I use PDF995 because it does not rely on local printers. For
instance PDF995 allows me to print A1 charts, whereas MS features allow
only the A3 that I have available on my Brother printer.
I use also a freebee (PDF Fusion) that came with Paint Shop Pro some
years ago. This I use for annotating or adding to PDF content already
produced.
(I have "Foxit Advanced PDF Editor", which I think was released free for a very limited time some years ago.) On the whole, I tend to prefer to edit anything in whatever created it originally, then recreate the PDF, but I guess some sort of annotator is useful if you're including something where you don't _have_ the document in its original format (such as something you downloaded that was only in PDF).

[Incidentally: if you have such material but only want an image from it, I've found http://www.extractpdf.com/ very good: OK, it's online, so privacy concerns, but for genealogical purposes that's rarely relevant - the source is usually something I've downloaded anyway. I do have offline tools, but I've found the above both easier to use and better at it. (Some people, for example, always scan to .pdf {especially documents, like certificates}; that's one case - images - where I _don't_ use .pdf, but .gif or .jpg .)]

PDF Fusion also allows me to put a whole range of pages into the one
document. I suspect PDF995 suite will do that.
I haven't got the PDF995 "suite", just the "printer driver". I suspect PDFTools would do all I want in that respect. But all these tools probably work in a very similar way.



A note here – is that when using a Flatbed scanner, the PDF output is
usually an image – a large, one page image. Whereas by Print driver or
Save-As from a word editor (OO or LO, Notepad, Notepad+ etc), the
characters are saved and can be individually searched. <Ctrl+F>
Oh yes, I'd never print out then scan. Much bigger file (unless you use some OCR function, and those do _weird_ things with formatting); I know size is less important these days, but they still take appreciably longer to load. And, as you say, the text remains searchable/copiable in a .pdf made by "printing" using one of the .pdf "printers".

**> Jim, how do you put multiple PDF files in to one document using
PDF995?
(I'm not Jim but) I'd use PDFTools. Another here would use PDFMerge.

** What does DoPDF cost to not have adverts?
Oh, it has those too, does it? PDF995 does too. On a previous computer I just blocked it in my firewall (it actually works locally, just fetches ad.s while it's working), so didn't see them; on this one, I haven't bothered - one extra small IE window is easy to dismiss.

Barry P.
John G.
[]
Jeff - I hope we haven't put you off; PDF creation is very easy, and likely to cause far less grief with the print shop than giving them a Word (or whatever) document.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio Times 9-15 March 2013

Re: Problem with using pdf995

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 15:25:45, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
John,

The blackflies drove me back into the house. Good excuse for not stacking firewood :-)
(-:

OK, I took a deep breath and reviewed what's been going on. And, reading your previous email I realized I had made a basic error -- I hadn't installed ps2pdf995.exe, so did so. And strangely enough, it worked!
Excellent news!
[]
I guess my only remaining question is how to append the name index .pdf file to the main listing .pdf file. I'll read back through the message thread and may find the answer there, but I'm sure you'll let me know.
[]
Yes, you'll need a PDF splicer. This thread has mentioned several: I like the look (and age!) of PDFTools that I mentioned; PDF split and merge that someone mentioned looks like it'll do it too; and I saw there's a free PDF toolkit on the PDF995 site too. They'll probably all do the job.

I presume you now see why we like the PDF filetype (it's more or less fixed layout/pagination). [Also, in the case of BK, the only way to keep chart output other than actually printing it (you can set a huge paper size rather than having to use BK's tiling method).]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"What happens if I press this button?" "I wouldn't ..." (pinggg!) "Oh!" "What
happened?" "A sign lit up, saying `please do not press this button
again'!"(s1f2)

pdf995 -- all problems resolved

Charles Dobie
 

John,

I knew there had to be a way to join the two files, so I did something I hardly ever do -- I read the documentation. So after installing pdfedit995.exe and pdfsignature (not sure if that's the complete name), I easily joined the index to the main listing.

So I'm good to go -- now all I need is an app to stack firewood :-)

Chas. Dobie.

Re: Problem with using pdf995

Charles Dobie
 

John,

The blackflies drove me back into the house. Good excuse for not stacking firewood :-)

OK, I took a deep breath and reviewed what's been going on. And, reading your previous email I realized I had made a basic error -- I hadn't installed ps2pdf995.exe, so did so. And strangely enough, it worked!

I was going to complain (again!) that I only got half the file, but tried it again and now see I need to save both halves of the file under different names. (Duh!)

So thanks to you, I've got it working -- many thanks!

I guess my only remaining question is how to append the name index .pdf file to the main listing .pdf file. I'll read back through the message thread and may find the answer there, but I'm sure you'll let me know.

Thanks again!
Charlie Dobie.

At 02:22 PM 2020-05-20, you wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 12:57:45, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
John, thanks for your response.

Yes, I downloaded the ghostscript converter at the same time as pdf995, but when I print a file, it asks me every time if I want the second part, and every time I click OK.
Hmm. So you've got pdf995s.exe (the driver) and ps2pdf995.exe (the converter). Since both are .exe, I presume they're installers. (Sorry, it's a while since I installed it, so I've forgotten the details!) Run the converter .exe, and see what happens, in particular making note of where it puts anything relevant.

From the FAQ: "The default configuration of Pdf995 uses the registered Postscript to PDF converter on your system, but you may choose to have the program use the GPL Conversion module we offer as a free download. The GPL Conversion module includes a partial version of GNU Ghostscript." So it expects to find a converter on your system. If, when you try to use it, it offers to get the converter but also offers to use something on your system, choose that option, and - when it says it can't find it - point it to where the converter installed itself. (Or, if it only looks in one place, run the converter installer again, but specify that place for it to put itself.)

Sorry to be so woolly! Maybe one of the other '995 enthusiasts can remember what happens better. (Or, I'll TeamViewer you?) It's just that once it's working, it's so trivial to use!

I entered the full path/file name into the "save as" dialogue, but for some reason the file doesn't appear there. I'm sure it's a typing error
So you're entering something like D:\folder\filename into the "File name" box, rather than finding the desired location by clicking on the icons in the panes and/or editing the location in the box at the top. That should still work, though. A thought - you've come from another OS, so maybe are used to using / rather than \? That might be it. (I've never known why MS use the backslash, right back to DOS days!)

on my part. On the other hand, the fact that it can't ever find the second part is strange.
I think you have to run it (ps2pdf995.exe), so that it unpacks and installs itself somewhere, not just download it: the driver is trying to find one of those files, not the installer. Sorry if you've already done that.

Anyway, I've got to get off my butt and go outside to enjoy the sunny weather, and offer my body as a sacrifice to the swarms of blackflies :-)
(-: - it's sunny and warm here too! (Kent, SE England.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

Re: Problem with using pdf995

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 12:57:45, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
John, thanks for your response.

Yes, I downloaded the ghostscript converter at the same time as pdf995, but when I print a file, it asks me every time if I want the second part, and every time I click OK.
Hmm. So you've got pdf995s.exe (the driver) and ps2pdf995.exe (the converter). Since both are .exe, I presume they're installers. (Sorry, it's a while since I installed it, so I've forgotten the details!) Run the converter .exe, and see what happens, in particular making note of where it puts anything relevant.

From the FAQ: "The default configuration of Pdf995 uses the registered Postscript to PDF converter on your system, but you may choose to have the program use the GPL Conversion module we offer as a free download. The GPL Conversion module includes a partial version of GNU Ghostscript." So it expects to find a converter on your system. If, when you try to use it, it offers to get the converter but also offers to use something on your system, choose that option, and - when it says it can't find it - point it to where the converter installed itself. (Or, if it only looks in one place, run the converter installer again, but specify that place for it to put itself.)

Sorry to be so woolly! Maybe one of the other '995 enthusiasts can remember what happens better. (Or, I'll TeamViewer you?) It's just that once it's working, it's so trivial to use!

I entered the full path/file name into the "save as" dialogue, but for some reason the file doesn't appear there. I'm sure it's a typing error
So you're entering something like D:\folder\filename into the "File name" box, rather than finding the desired location by clicking on the icons in the panes and/or editing the location in the box at the top. That should still work, though. A thought - you've come from another OS, so maybe are used to using / rather than \? That might be it. (I've never known why MS use the backslash, right back to DOS days!)

on my part. On the other hand, the fact that it can't ever find the second part is strange.
I think you have to run it (ps2pdf995.exe), so that it unpacks and installs itself somewhere, not just download it: the driver is trying to find one of those files, not the installer. Sorry if you've already done that.

Anyway, I've got to get off my butt and go outside to enjoy the sunny weather, and offer my body as a sacrifice to the swarms of blackflies :-)
(-: - it's sunny and warm here too! (Kent, SE England.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

Re: Problem with using pdf995

Charles Dobie
 

John, thanks for your response.

Yes, I downloaded the ghostscript converter at the same time as pdf995, but when I print a file, it asks me every time if I want the second part, and every time I click OK.
I entered the full path/file name into the "save as" dialogue, but for some reason the file doesn't appear there. I'm sure it's a typing error on my part. On the other hand, the fact that it can't ever find the second part is strange.

Anyway, I've got to get off my butt and go outside to enjoy the sunny weather, and offer my body as a sacrifice to the swarms of blackflies :-)

Later,
Chas. Dobie.

At 12:41 PM 2020-05-20, you wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 12:12:47, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks -- I was encouraged by the latest thread about pdf995, so I installed it and tested it (Windows 10). I tried printing a test descendant list, but I have no idea what's going on here.

When I "print", it works away at it and then tells me it needs the second part, so I click OK on that, and it works away at it again. I
If you didn't download (and do something with) the ghostscript converter when you downloaded the pdf995 driver (it's directly below it on the download page), then the first time you try to "print" to pdf995, it will tell you there's something missing, and offer to fetch it. (It's a while since I did this, so I can't remember exactly what happens next; IIRR, it looks after it _reasonably_ well.)

Most of the PDF "printers" are two-part in this manner; the reason is that they need the ghostscript converter, but that is released under a licence which does not allow it to be incorporated into something else. Given that both are free, I don't really mind a little fiddling at this point - it only has to be done once.

get two windows asking me to save a pdf file, both with the same name, buried away in the documents folder on my C: drive. I save both of
It can be a little slow at that point; wait a few tens of seconds and it _usually_ settles down. You can change where it creates the file (and change its name); IIRR, it defaults to the location you choose this time, the next time you use it, though that can again be changed (i. e. it always defaults to the previous location).

them. For a while that file appears in Windows Explorer but with a size
Give it time (-:.

of 0 bytes. Then it just disappears. And strangely, pdf995 doesn't appear in the list of installed programs in the Start Menu.
That's because it installs as if it was a printer driver; your other (real) printer drivers won't appear listed there, either. (Though if you just installed from the CD that came with your printer, accepting the defaults, there _will_ be something there with the name of your printer manufacturers on it, as by default, as well as loading the necessary drivers, they usually install some unnecessary, bloated, and not very good software at the same time.)

Question, aside from "what's going on here?" is, "doesn't pdf995 give you an option of where to save the .pdf file?"
Yes; it's like the normal save, load, etc. dialog box, in which you can go up and down folders/drives, make new folder, change filename, and so on. If that's not what you're seeing, I'm not sure what's going wrong.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call
it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

Re: Problem with using pdf995

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 12:12:47, Charles Dobie <cdobie@...> wrote:
Hi folks -- I was encouraged by the latest thread about pdf995, so I installed it and tested it (Windows 10). I tried printing a test descendant list, but I have no idea what's going on here.

When I "print", it works away at it and then tells me it needs the second part, so I click OK on that, and it works away at it again. I
If you didn't download (and do something with) the ghostscript converter when you downloaded the pdf995 driver (it's directly below it on the download page), then the first time you try to "print" to pdf995, it will tell you there's something missing, and offer to fetch it. (It's a while since I did this, so I can't remember exactly what happens next; IIRR, it looks after it _reasonably_ well.)

Most of the PDF "printers" are two-part in this manner; the reason is that they need the ghostscript converter, but that is released under a licence which does not allow it to be incorporated into something else. Given that both are free, I don't really mind a little fiddling at this point - it only has to be done once.

get two windows asking me to save a pdf file, both with the same name, buried away in the documents folder on my C: drive. I save both of
It can be a little slow at that point; wait a few tens of seconds and it _usually_ settles down. You can change where it creates the file (and change its name); IIRR, it defaults to the location you choose this time, the next time you use it, though that can again be changed (i. e. it always defaults to the previous location).

them. For a while that file appears in Windows Explorer but with a size
Give it time (-:.

of 0 bytes. Then it just disappears. And strangely, pdf995 doesn't appear in the list of installed programs in the Start Menu.
That's because it installs as if it was a printer driver; your other (real) printer drivers won't appear listed there, either. (Though if you just installed from the CD that came with your printer, accepting the defaults, there _will_ be something there with the name of your printer manufacturers on it, as by default, as well as loading the necessary drivers, they usually install some unnecessary, bloated, and not very good software at the same time.)

Question, aside from "what's going on here?" is, "doesn't pdf995 give you an option of where to save the .pdf file?"
Yes; it's like the normal save, load, etc. dialog box, in which you can go up and down folders/drives, make new folder, change filename, and so on. If that's not what you're seeing, I'm not sure what's going wrong.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call
it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

Problem with using pdf995

Charles Dobie
 

Hi folks -- I was encouraged by the latest thread about pdf995, so I installed it and tested it (Windows 10). I tried printing a test descendant list, but I have no idea what's going on here.

When I "print", it works away at it and then tells me it needs the second part, so I click OK on that, and it works away at it again. I get two windows asking me to save a pdf file, both with the same name, buried away in the documents folder on my C: drive. I save both of them. For a while that file appears in Windows Explorer but with a size of 0 bytes. Then it just disappears. And strangely, pdf995 doesn't appear in the list of installed programs in the Start Menu.

Question, aside from "what's going on here?" is, "doesn't pdf995 give you an option of where to save the .pdf file?"

I'm assuming there's something basic I'm missing here.

Thanks,

Charles Dobie,
cdobie@...

Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

J. P. Gilliver (John)
 

On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 07:25:43, Jim Dell <jim.dell@...> wrote:
Barry
I do NOT use PDF995.
I suspect most of the PDF "printers" are very similar in use - "my" PDF995, "your" dopdf, CutePDF, and the Microsoft ones (though they probably have Microsoft wrinkles).

Note that BK, when producing charts, is very flaky (sorry, John - no better way to say it) regarding change of paper size/orientation; as near as I can tell, it gets them from the current default settings of the current default printer (which can be a PDF "printer"). I've _sometimes_ managed to persuade BK to accept a change of paper size/orientation, but more often than not it reverts when I'm not looking; the only way to get a change to _stick_, I've found, is: close BK; change the page size/orientation settings of the current default printer/"printer"; go back into BK. I've not infrequently found BK producing very odd results if I try to change things from within it: "printing" on A4 size paper centred as if for A3, for example.
 

I use a free program PDFMerge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfmerge/) to merge my PDF files.
PDFTools has a merge too. I haven't tried it with PDFs of different page sizes/orientations - have you with PDFMerge?
 
[More below.]

DoPDF is also free (https://www.dopdf.com/)
[]
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
<BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barry P.
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:51 PM
[]
A PDF is a PDF.  The point of a Portable Document Format  is that it
presents a consistent image / view  across all applications and
platforms and is supposedly faithful to the original document format.

 

Individual proprietary PDF editing  features though do not necessarily
transfer as intended.  Such as Notes, free Text, Comments.

 

For those operating Windows,  Is Microsoft print to PDF a feature of
the OS?  Or is it an app of MS-Word?  Does OO or LO have a PDF print or
file convert on save feature?
It may come with later versions of Windows: it's not there by default in Windows 7, I don't think. However, if you install Office (Word), you get it - I think usable from any application, i. e. it appears as an extra "printer", just like PDF995 and the rest. (From a certain version of Office forward.) I also seem to have a "printer" called "Foxit reader PDF printer", which suggests it came with a version of Foxit (which is one of the alternative [to Adobe] PDF tool creators).

Since PDF995 has never given me any trouble, I haven't played with any of the others. (It is _not_ limited to the paper sizes that installed "real" printers can use, as someone else in this thread has suggested the Microsoft ones might be; I've occasionally set huge paper sizes to "print" some big charts.)

I  use PDF995  because it does not rely on local printers.  For
instance PDF995 allows me to print A1 charts, whereas MS features allow
only the A3 that I  have available on my Brother printer.
I use also a freebee (PDF Fusion) that came with Paint Shop Pro some
years ago.  This I use for annotating or adding to PDF content already
produced.
(I have "Foxit Advanced PDF Editor", which I think was released free for a very limited time some years ago.) On the whole, I tend to prefer to edit anything in whatever created it originally, then recreate the PDF, but I guess some sort of annotator is useful if you're including something where you don't _have_ the document in its original format (such as something you downloaded that was only in PDF).

[Incidentally: if you have such material but only want an image from it, I've found http://www.extractpdf.com/ very good: OK, it's online, so privacy concerns, but for genealogical purposes that's rarely relevant - the source is usually something I've downloaded anyway. I do have offline tools, but I've found the above both easier to use and better at it. (Some people, for example, always scan to .pdf {especially documents, like certificates}; that's one case - images - where I _don't_ use .pdf, but .gif or .jpg .)]

PDF Fusion also allows me to put a whole range of pages  into the one
document.  I suspect PDF995 suite will do that.
I haven't got the PDF995 "suite", just the "printer driver". I suspect PDFTools would do all I want in that respect. But all these tools probably work in a very similar way.
 
 

A note here  – is that when using a Flatbed scanner, the PDF output is
usually an image – a large, one page image. Whereas by Print driver or
Save-As from a word editor (OO or LO, Notepad, Notepad+ etc), the
characters are saved and can be individually searched. <Ctrl+F>
Oh yes, I'd never print out then scan. Much bigger file (unless you use some OCR function, and those do _weird_ things with formatting); I know size is less important these days, but they still take appreciably longer to load. And, as you say, the text remains searchable/copiable in a .pdf made by "printing" using one of the .pdf "printers".
 
**>  Jim, how do you put multiple PDF files in to one document using
PDF995?
 
(I'm not Jim but) I'd use PDFTools. Another here would use PDFMerge.

** What does DoPDF cost to not have adverts?
Oh, it has those too, does it? PDF995 does too. On a previous computer I just blocked it in my firewall (it actually works locally, just fetches ad.s while it's working), so didn't see them; on this one, I haven't bothered - one extra small IE window is easy to dismiss.

                Barry P.
John G.
[]
Jeff - I hope we haven't put you off; PDF creation is very easy, and likely to cause far less grief with the print shop than giving them a Word (or whatever) document.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013

Re: Creating a family book for cousins.

Jim Dell
 

Jeff
I suggest you find a publisher/printer and see what formats they accept.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io <BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io>
On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:17 AM
To: BrothersKeeperGenealogy@groups.io
Subject: Re: [BrothersKeeperGenealogy] Creating a family book for cousins.

On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 23:03:34, Jeff Dixon via groups.io
<jhdixon=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
This is a question for John Gilliver.

You recommended that I submit a PDF file rather than a word-process
file to the print company.
The main reason for that suggestion was that any word-processing format,
more or less, considers the document as a continuous block of text (and
pictures), which the word-processing software then squirts into its settings
of margins, paper size, headers, footers, and so on. In theory, all of those
settings should be included in the document, and remain the same, but - IMO
only - it's very easy for something unexpected to creep in, upsetting the
pagination (which can even, occasionally, result in differences when
_actually_ printed on paper to when previewed in the software). PDF
(portable document format), in contrast, is much more
page-oriented: if you want an electronic analogue of a printed document, PDF
is the way to go. If you look around the web at how people offer academic
papers, restaurant menus, legal documents, books, manuals, guides, and so
on, you'll find the majority use .pdf rather than any WP format. (It's much
more universal, too - that's what the "portable" is intended to indicate.)

I'm a retired mainframe Systems Programmer and all these PC software
and file types are foreign to me. I have several files that will
comprise my book.  These files are Word docs, LibreOffice docs, RTF
files and PDF files (so far).

Considering the issue I had where my LibreOffice file would not display
the same on Word and vice versa, will these files all print from the
PDF exactly as they appeared in their creating software (Word or
LibreOffice) on my PC screen?
Try out a PDF "printer", to satisfy yourself. Once you've created the PDF,
you could even try it with several PDF viewers (Adobe Acrobat of course
being the commonest, but there are many - Foxit, Chrome has a built-in one,
I think modern Firefox ditto). Though I don't think that's necessary. I
would certainly view the PDF to ensure it's how you want it to be, though.
(pdf995 actually opens your default PDF viewer anyway as it produces the
file; other ones may do so too.)

[If you want to follow my recommendation, it's at
http://pdf995.com/download.html . Note you need both parts - the "printer
driver" and the ghostscript converter; if you get, install, and use just the
printer driver, then the first time you use it it will tell you you need the
other part, and offer to get it. Many of the PDF "printers" are two-part in
this manner. Don't worry - it sounds more complex than it is.]

Can all these files (LibreOffice, Word, RTF, PDF) be concatenated into
a single PDF?
Provided you use the same paper size in all of them (as with a real printer,
the default paper size - which offers all the usual sizes and also the
option of user-defined - is a property of the "printer"), I see no problem
concatenating them. No, pdf995 cannot AFAIK concatenate separate PDFs, but
there are utilities that can - for example
http://www.sheelapps.com/index.php?p=PDFTools.HomePage&action=view
"PDFTools is a PDF management application. It can encrypt, decrypt, join,
split, stamp, create and rearrange a PDF file." You probably only want the
join function.

(PDFs _can_ contain pages of different sizes and orientations, for that
matter: I've come across plenty in planning applications, for example, where
the main text is in portrait normal size, but embedded plans are bigger and
landscape. I just thought it might reduce the chance of any problems when
concatenating. I may be worrying unnecessarily, though - have a play!)

If I use PDF995 to create the file, will it matter that the print shop
uses a different PDF software?
That's the point of the PDF format - it's _supposed_ to be independent of
what's used to create or view it. However, you could ask for a one-off to
make _sure_ it's as you want - depending on what quantities you are
considering, you could ask for a proof copy, otherwise just pay up for the
one-off price. Possibly in booklet form (which may also be worth asking for
for a proportion of your copies anyway, for those of your cousins who have
good eyesight): that's two pages (rotated of
course) to a page, with the order of pages sorted to suit (so for a
four-page document, you get [p4:p1] on one side, [p2:p3] on the other, so
when folded in half ...); I'd have thought any print shop worthy of the name
should offer that format, complete with staples. [If staples are practical:
how big is this book of yours going to be?]

Thinking _completely_ out of the box, depending on the size of the book, how
many copies you're thinking of, what prices your print shop asks, and how
much travelling is involved for you to get to it ... well, I recently bought
myself a second-hand industrial colour laser printer that does double-sided
(_and_ booklet format! - though that's included anyway in recent versions of
the free Acrobat viewer), for 25 pounds, including some toner (though new
toner cartridges will cost me 30 each!). [When I say industrial, I don't
mean it needs a room to itself - it's sitting here on a table; my goodness
it's heavy though!] You could always sell it afterwards (or even scrap it!).
[Mine's a Samsung CLP-775ND, with which I'm very pleased, but plenty of
other models; hit ebay and see if there are any near you. (You want near you
so you can collect; postage on 30kg ...!) I'm assuming you _want_ colour.]

I think that's all that I'm concerned about so far.
Thanks for you suggestion.
You're welcome. It's really just that I'd use PDF format for any interaction
with other people - far _less_ chance of things going wrong.
(You could also put it on your website: _everybody_ has a .pdf viewer,
whether they're using Windows, Mac, Linux, or almost anything else. And
similarly if you put it on a CD or DVD.)

Jeff Dixon
[]
John Gilliver.

Not an expert in this field: others please contribute!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The war was over, but all those people were still dead - explainer why the
atmosphere of VE-day did not seem right to her; "Today" 2015-4-27