The majority of my genealogy records are on my computer and have been since '75. In '91 I found an excellent free genealogy program. Improvements in it have only - from my point of view - made it better up until about '07 or '08, when the author added a feature I don't need and in the process reversed the functions of certain short-keys that I'd been depending on for over 15 years. At my age and considering my handicap it is virtually impossible for me to reverse old habits. Consequently, I have no intention of updating to the "latest and greatest" because I don't think it was that much of an improvement. For the same reason, while my computer hardware is very recent, my basic operating system and certain of my critical software packages are ... well, somewhat ancient.
In one case, the software package was last supported in 1994 and is now totally defunct! [Sarcasm: thanks a bunch, Microsoft!]
I occasionally keep looking at the newly offered genealogy programs and keep finding that they don't give me what I need. The one I use has a field that displays on the family screen that lets me KNOW if I have any documentary evidence of a link between that individual and the parents. This field is _NOT_ exported to gedcoms and transfering my major and currently being worked on databases from any genealogy program to another can only be done via gedcoms. Because at my age and my increasingly poor health I simply do not believe that have I have time to imput records from one package to another, even if that field _could_ be exported. Not considering the almost 28,000 individual records in just one of my major databases.
At present I try to be _very_ careful regarding what I post anywhere. Too many people simply collect names, aiming I suppose, for the biggest database possible - or their 15 minutes of fame - and never mind a requirement for any sort of veracity!
That last is only one of the reasons why my database is not on-line. It would be too much trouble for me to prune those records where I have yet to document the link to parents. A database of over 25,000, let alone one bigger, is just too large to do this to, and my time can better be spent in finding documentation and in solving the remaining dozen or so pages of"problem issues" I have with the members of that database.
It's also one of the reasons why I believe there are so many erroneous instances of pre-1850 "Robert A. Abernathy" in on-line databases.I believe that a historian born of double Abernathy lines and I have determined just when, where and most of all WHY that middle initial got incorrectly attached to so many pre-1850 Abernathys of our lineage! This historian, being from a double Abernathy lineages had boxes and boxes of ALL of the Abernathy research notes of both his Great-Aunt and his Aunt. Unfortunately, his age and health is now even more advanced than mine, and I haven't seen him post in this forum for some time, being, I believe, more concerned with his newest in-process history book. But I still occasionally communicate with him.
When, you ask?
Where, you ask?
A series of newspaper articles in a local paper.
Why, you ask?
Because newspaper space is tight and using the initial instead of the full surname saved 8 or 9 spaces every time one of the family was mentioned - spaces that could be used for other information - and there were a _heck_ of a lot of family individuals mentioned in those newspaper articles by the historian's Great Aunt!
So anyone who used Elizabeth Denty Abernathy's 1929 work in the databases they posted on-line clearly made unthinking assumptions without using the grey matter between their ears! And the end result has been bad data propagated all over the internet.