FileMaker 7 Upgrade?

[MacRumors]

ThinkSecret reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/filemaker7.html) that FileMaker 7 will deliver major new features.

In contrast to previous upgrades, FileMaker 7 should bring significant changes to the database application. The report details some improvements including: improved interface, calculations, security and web features.

ThinkSecret also casts doubts on previous rumors that FileMaker Inc. may be pulled back in-house by Apple, but do not have definitive information

[DanUk2003]

I particularly am interested in the suggested feature of having multiple data tables in a single file; similar to Access...

Very useful...

[xtekdiver]

What are the advantages of Filemaker over mySQL? And I thought this was going to be part of a new office suite. Could someone elaborate on the relationship of Filemaker to Apple?

[copperpipe]

What, exactly, does a program like Filemaker do?

[Chisholm]

Originally posted by xtekdiver
What are the advantages of Filemaker over mySQL? And I thought this was going to be part of a new office suite. Could someone elaborate on the relationship of Filemaker to Apple?

Apple made FileMaker. They spun it out of house back in the mid- late 1990's.

[BenRoethig]

Very good news. I hope they come out with a FileMaker express. Macs need a consumer database program. To answer xtekdiver's question, Filemaker is a subsidiary of Apple. It's set up and run like an independant company (like Emagic), but owned buy Apple.

[ejb190]

Originally posted by copperpipe
What, exactly, does a program like Filemaker do?

FileMaker Pro is a relational database, like Microsoft Access. One way to think of it is as a 3 demensional spreadsheet. Where on Excel you put one product to one customer, in FileMaker you can relate one customer to many products and vice versa.

Personally, I like FileMaker a heck of a lot better for two reasons. First, I write databases for people who don't understand computers. FileMaker is a lot easier to "idiot proof" in my experience. Second, I work cross platform. I do most of my set up on my Mac's at home and usually end up implimenting on a PC. Access is not available for the Mac and no other product is as widely distributed.

Personally, I have not upgraded from 5.5 to 6.0. Not enough changes to bother. But 7 has my attention.

[TMay]

Originally posted by ejb190


Personally, I have not upgraded from 5.5 to 6.0. Not enough changes to bother. But 7 has my attention.

You, me and probably a lot of others. This should help Filemaker's bottom line.

I'm not into Filemaker all that much, but I'm curious if they will adopt OSX journaling in some fashion.

[djwu]

I was called by a FileMaker rep following up on my evaluation download of the software. He said that this next version of FileMaker will have unicode support and support for Asian languages. He said that the timeline would be planned to be out by the end of 2003.

[bennetsaysargh]

well, i just want to point out that the filemaker expo or conference is coming up soon in Phoenix. i think in about 2 weeks.
my uncle is going.

[copperpipe]

thanks for the explanation...

[Bonte]

os 9 and win98 ???

[sturm375]

You should check out this:

www.4d.com

I've been using it for the last 4 years, and it is very easy, and very powerful. The last edition: 4D2003, incorporates Web Services via SOAP. More information on this

here (http://www.xmethods.net)

Check out what others have had to say moving from FileMaker to 4D here. (http://www.4d.com/support/corners/filemaker/index.html)

Check out a comparison between 4D, FileMaker, and MS Access here. (ftp://ftp.4d.com/ACI_PRODUCT_REFERENCE_LIBRARY/4D_PRODUCT_WHITE_PAPERS/4D_Access_FMP_Comparison.pdf)

Trust me, if I can program in this environment, anyone can:D

[Mezzo]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Very good news. I hope they come out with a FileMaker express. Macs need a consumer database program. To answer xtekdiver's question, Filemaker is a subsidiary of Apple. It's set up and run like an independant company (like Emagic), but owned buy Apple.

I don´t think that an express version is useful. A kind of "express version" is actually used in AppleWorks. But Filemaker is so easy to use if you don´t want to build up complicated structures. For simple cd-archives and stuff like that it is no problem to use Filemaker.

Bigger solutions surely need bigger know-how but Filemaker grows with its tasks.

[GregGomer]

Good to hear someones thoughts on 4D, I've looked at it before, but it just looked confusing, and much harder to use then File Maker.

I hope that the new FileMaker with multiple tables in One file will allow use to use relational databases on the web now. In the past, you could only host one file on a web site, and any links to other files didn't work. Which made this feature nearly unusable to me. So if this is fixed, that alone will be a huge huge huge new feature, and I'll upgrade for sure.

As well, does anyone know if 4D allows you to host web sites that have relational databases. I.e. a customer database connected to a project database?

Thanks,

Greg

[Gaucho]

For those who are relatively new to FileMaker, I just wanted to add my two cents.

I've been using it since version 3.0 and currently use FileMaker 6.0 Dev. version. It is a robust database program which allows you to pretty much create anything you can imagine. Anything from a simple database for keeping track of a DVD collection to as sophiscated as a corporate solutions. It is very easy to use, and easy to learn the more complex development aspects of the software, too. I have never had any training in it but have been able to write a number of increasingly more sophiscated databases easily. I have found that it has so many uses. For me, it's a priceless addition to my mac and productivity.

It sounds like version 7 will be a great addition since there haven't been many changes since vers. 5 - 6.

Cheers!

[keithcobbett]

Originally posted by sturm375
You should check out this:

www.4d.com

I've been using it for the last 4 years, and it is very easy, and very powerful. The last edition: 4D2003, incorporates Web Services via SOAP. More information on this

here (http://www.xmethods.net)

Check out what others have had to say moving from FileMaker to 4D here. (http://www.4d.com/support/corners/filemaker/index.html)

Check out a comparison between 4D, FileMaker, and MS Access here. (ftp://ftp.4d.com/ACI_PRODUCT_REFERENCE_LIBRARY/4D_PRODUCT_WHITE_PAPERS/4D_Access_FMP_Comparison.pdf)

Trust me, if I can program in this environment, anyone can:D

I don't know. I used 4D a while back, granted it was an OS 9 version and old, I wasn't too impressed. Had to take a 5 day class to learn to program the code, unsupported quickly, wasn't very user friendly. Again, this was an older version. I personally like Filemaker and have used it for years. I will look into the newer version of 4D though. What can it hurt? Thanks for the links.

[edenwaith]

I like Apple most of the time, but I'm a little edgy if they want to bring FileMaker back into the fold. Probably best if FileMaker is kept as separate as possible for now, so that company can concentrate on just Filemaker, instead of going in twelve directions at once.

Also look at what happened to ClarisWorks...became AppleWorks, and then became the neglected child in Apple's family. Apple seems to promote MS Office more than their own AppleWorks! Unless there is going to be an integration of FileMaker into AppleWorks 7 (for lack of a better name), then perhaps it might be the ammo Apple needs to bring AW 7 ahead of...well...anything.

[vitrector]

Filemaker is an awesome program that lets anyone program any database, with or without experience. Despite being a huge fan, I admit that it has some serious shortcomings, but the ease of use shadows that. And most shortcomings can be dealt with using scripted "work arounds."
I once tried to develop a database in MS Access, and found it somewhat clumsy, though not difficult. Definitely more time consuming. Then I learned that IT here allows Filemaker on the computers (yes we have serious restrictions), and haven't had to go back to Access again! What a blessing.
Currently, I am working with a programmer from our institution on a medium database job for which she is using Access, the institutional standard. It's been almost a year, and a large amount of time spent (though a low priority job for both her and me), and we still have SIGNIFICANT bugs to work out, even though it is a SIMPLE database. I could have written what is necessary in weekend, or a week tops, in Filemaker....
So there is a real world comparison.
And I am not a MS hater; I just like Macs and Filemaker....

[sturm375]

Originally posted by GregGomer
Good to hear someones thoughts on 4D, I've looked at it before, but it just looked confusing, and much harder to use then File Maker.

I hope that the new FileMaker with multiple tables in One file will allow use to use relational databases on the web now. In the past, you could only host one file on a web site, and any links to other files didn't work. Which made this feature nearly unusable to me. So if this is fixed, that alone will be a huge huge huge new feature, and I'll upgrade for sure.

As well, does anyone know if 4D allows you to host web sites that have relational databases. I.e. a customer database connected to a project database?

Thanks,

Greg

4D has a built in web server for dynamic web pages, or to dynamically serve static web pages. Under developmen 4D allows 1 hour of web server, then it shuts down. Quit and restart, and you have another hour. The web extension license, which by the way is needed to serve Web Services, is an extra charge, but once purchased, allows unlimited web clients.

Not having ever used FileMaker myself, I can only repeat what I've heard from others. Once you go 4D, you ask yourself why you would ever go back. You can do anything from building a relational database without any programing, to adding some custom code, and create very nice applications. I have used MS Access, and can honestly say that 4D is 100x more powerfull, and easier.

I also know that due to the Web Services implimentations, 4D won best in show at a recent Macworld convention. The global community of tech help is extremely nice, knowledgable, and accessable.

[iJed]

This is sounding very promising... Its been a while since I owned or used a copy of FileMaker but this version has got me really interested. I've been looking for a good low-end DBMS for a while now and FileMaker 7 looks like it will be it. I'm sure it will be rather easy to learn too coming from an Oracle background.

[Juicy]

I love FM. But it's nowhere near as fast MySQL. And I need that speed for web apps. On the other hand, even with phpMyAdmin, MySQL is nowhere near as easy to use as FM.

FM, Inc. needs to seriously reconsider their complete isolation from the rest of the database world. They have all the pieces to make something extraordinary out of FM. But they seem too satisfied with making marginal improvements, and treading water.

First: FM should fully support SQL. In and out. In a very straightforward manner. It would be the underpinning for making a FM a great management (and even backup) tool for SQL DBs.

Second: FM should add a mode that makes it a complete front-end to MySQL. MySQL users would flock to it in droves. Imagine the power of using the FM interface with MySQL DBs! (Why doesn't FM, Inc. want this money?)

And last: MS Access has a mode that is so natural, so intuitive, so Mac-like, that it's a wonder it's been a PC-only option for so many years: schema view. A user can manipulate an E-R diagram to make changes to his DB schema! FM needs this! Imagine the power of using FM in schema view to design, construct and maintain MySQL databases! Talk about a killer app!

FM, Inc.: please step up to the plate on this! Don't settle for hugs from your choir. Make FM7 insanely great! It's completely within your grasp to dominate this part of the database world. But you need to do it now, before MS makes friends with the open source world and Access beats you to it!

-B...

[outZider]

Regarding schema view, take a look at OpenBase. :)

[Juicy]

The price of OpenBase puts it out of the scope of this discussion. Neither MySQL nor FileMaker compete in that price range. But working together (in the manner I described), they could eat into that higher price range. And FM, Inc. could enjoy the profit.

-B...

[Mezzo]

And last: MS Access has a mode that is so natural, so intuitive, so Mac-like, that it's a wonder it's been a PC-only option for so many years: schema view. A user can manipulate an E-R diagram to make changes to his DB schema! FM needs this! Imagine the power of using FM in schema view to design, construct and maintain MySQL databases! Talk about a killer app!
-B... [/B][/QUOTE]

Well I think that discussions about the "best" database are as useful as discussing the "best" platform (PC, Mac, Linux etc.)

The most important point is, that the individual user is able to develop his own application with as less limitations as possible. I am very pleased with FMPro 6 wether it´s on my Mac or on a PC.

The only thing I wish to get in Version 7 is the easy integration in wordprocessing software e.g. AppleWorks or (if necessary) MS-Word. So there should be the possibility to call up FMPro with a script to add different fields in a letter without using the clipboard.

[Juicy]

Mezzo: you mis-read me. I'm not out to start a religious war over which database is the "best". That's of no more interest to me than it is to you. I use whichever tool is best for the purpose.

My purpose in writing here is to advocate that the makers of one of my favorite tools adopt some great features that I have seen "in the wild", so that their tool can be even more useful to me -- features I think would help them gain marketshare, and thus create a broader set of opportunities for me to use FM professionally. After all, they do call it FileMaker Pro.

That's all.

-B...

[tkn]

sources said FileMaker's engine will continue to be driven by its own proprietary system, simply because that is what sets the product apart to customers

Yeah, that's what I really look for in software, more proprietary file formats. If Apple did make FMPro a frontend to MySQL, they could really take advantage of a lot of different things out there.

[Mezzo]

Originally posted by Juicy
Mezzo: you mis-read me. I'm not out to start a religious war over which database is the "best". That's of no more interest to me than it is to you. I use whichever tool is best for the purpose.

My purpose in writing here is to advocate that the makers of one of my favorite tools adopt some great features that I have seen "in the wild", so that their tool can be even more useful to me -- features I think would help them gain marketshare, and thus create a broader set of opportunities for me to use FM professionally. After all, they do call it FileMaker Pro.

That's all.

-B...

O.K. Got it. The point for me is, that I use FMPro "professionally" in my office with 6 Macs and one PC. I decided to Macs because MS-Access doesn´t give me the opportunity to programm "wild" without a special target as professionals do. My profession is an other area. All other databases I know have been too complicated for me as a non-professional programmer but I will never claim FMPro as the one and only.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Mezzo
I don´t think that an express version is useful. A kind of "express version" is actually used in AppleWorks. But Filemaker is so easy to use if you don´t want to build up complicated structures. For simple cd-archives and stuff like that it is no problem to use Filemaker.

Bigger solutions surely need bigger know-how but Filemaker grows with its tasks.

I think that there are those out there who could use a simple DB application but aren't in the market for spending $300 on FM. That's the market the an 'express' version would be aimed at...

[smorr]

I have been using FMP for several years and have developed some significant solutions with it (30+ database solutions with interface kludges up the wazoo) and I am constantly running against brickwalls to get FMP to do things that really it should have been able to do years ago -- such as use local variables, functions with parameters, and god forbid, actual datastructures in a database (stacks, arrays, queues), not to mention the tons of workarounds to get an interface that doesn't totally suck.

There are some new products that are actually addressing some of the things that major FM developers have been asking FMI for years but have been basically ignored in favor of minor (insignificant) add ons to a limited development environment. Servoy (www.servoy.com) is the best example of this -- Squarely aimed at the FMP customer and looks like it is picking up the ball that FMP has dropped for so many years. IF only Apple gets its ducks in a row and puts out a version of Java that doesn't totally suck, I would be all over Servoy.

In any case -- FMP needs to catch up and start listening to its significant users (developers) or else it is going to lose out to more responsive companies who put out better software... Hopefully with Version 7, the message has sunk in.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by smorr
Servoy (www.servoy.com) is the best example of this

Well, if nothing else, you've got to love their hardware! :D

But seriously, if what they say about the speed improvements on a G5 is true, you might consider giving them a try afterall.

(Though, perhaps, FMP will finally be more in the ballpark of what you're looking for with v7.)

[hayesk]

FM7 does bring back new hope for me with FileMaker. I use 5.5 and 6 didn't do enough for me.

But I'll have to wait and see what FM7 brings. Separation of data and structure are interesting, as upgrading my customers' solutions can be difficult - almost impossible if they've made their own modifications. I'd really like to see how they do this with everything in one file.

But I really want to see the following:
- Native GUI widgets. I don't know why this is taking them so long. Those old black and white scroll bars just aren't cutting it anymore.
- Multithreading
- Better username/password scheme. I'm not fond of Password only logins. I would also like to see more consistency between web and local login security. They really should have the same features.

[Thunder]

Good LORD - where to start, wish I had seen this forum thread nearer the beginning.

I have been a Filemaker developer since version 2.1 in 1994. I regard myself as fairly proficient and have come up with my fair share of workarounds to FileMaker's Perennial Built-in Limitation System (tm).

I continue to develop existing solutions in version 4.1 (most of my clients use 3 or 4 because there is entirely no reason for any upgrade, it would be an expensive exercise in aimlessness). Ebay is great for FMP 4. I also own and develop in 5.5 developer for standalone fmp app development. I cannot see how or why it is better than 4.1 apart from OS X nativeness and XML - which doesn't affect me in FMP (please don't flame me with a list of later-than-4 improvements, I know they exist, it's just that to do real work stuff that my clients need, the additional stuff doesn't make a dot of difference). We currently host a few Filemaker driven (cdml) websites for which FMP 4.1 is a definite benefit (over anything later) as Filemaker moved the goalposts on something that they originally offered, when they realised that people could buy one copy of filemaker and host to many clients (I've done it with an architectural firm using an NT server with fmp and cdml/explorer on 50 LAN clients). It may be unfair, but I didn't make the decision to make it possible, and Filemaker changed the file format with v. 5 - and I can't see any other reason that they might have done this than that they wanted to eliminate what I was doing (well, not me personally). They really had no reason to change formats than to encourage upgrades. Bottom line, 4.1 does an admirable job for us for web serving.

In September 1999 I heard about a couple of Dutch guys developing a "Filemaker written in Java" from the CEO of Stratisoft. I kept a vague eye on the project and finally got my hands on a release version in March 2003. To say I was blown away is a fantastic understatement. What I got my grubby developers hands on was much much much more than "Filemaker written in Java"

Servoy is the most extraordinary answer to every Filemaker developer's dreams: It is as easy to use as filemaker (arguably a lot easier and definitely quicker to develop in) but supports pure java, javascript and html in it's interface design capability (you can use html code for the text on a button or layout text for e.g. - as it is scriptable, you can make an html based button change colour using javascript on some action (entering a layout, exiting a layout, entering a field etc. etc. etc.) Servoy doesn't use some of these terms (layout for example, I am translating - the paradigm is the same though). You can design your own navigator (the strip down the left in FileMaker), it is just another Servoy layout (form) so can have buttons, fields, html, forms, javabeans, javascript, graphics etc. etc. etc. Once you develop one solution with a custom navigator, you'll NEVER use the default (filemaker like) one again. EVER...

Servoy uses any SQL backend you would like. I am currently developing a (local based) crm solution using MySQL. I am also, just now beginning a TV audience management project using a remote MicrosoftSQL back end which was created purely for the web with no kind of local access ever thought of or planned (the developers suggested we download a tab delimited text file to import into the existing local FMP solution once a week...) I am also developing a (really simple) marking system for my wife who is a distance university lecturer using the built in Firebird SQL (which is invisible (unless you're a Linux user - I'm still struggling with my Redhat 9 Athlon and Firebird...)). Servoy is effectively, a really cool Filemaker-like Java based front end to ANY SQL back end (sybase, oracle, mssql, mysql, firebird etc. etc. anyone) You want to use every single different remote or local supported SQL database in a different related portal in the same layout at the same time - go ahead.

I've seen it argued that Servoy (or at least Apple's Java implimentation) is slow on the Mac. This is usually from people who haven't used the product on the platform (much) regurgitating stuff that other people who haven't used the program on the platform (much) have said. I am thoroughly a Mac user. I use a 1Ghz 17" Powerbook mainly and a Dual G4/500 when at my desk. Servoy is ABSOLUTELY no slower than Filemaker on either of my Macs, or on my Athlon (1.6Ghz) running as a client (yes in Windows 2000 pro as I'm still struggling with Redhat 9). It is just simply not slower. Arguably these are quick machines, but I've heard that Servoy flies on the G5, I can't imagine how quick it would have to be given my experiences. I don't think that even the developers are completely aware of Servoy performance the G4. Perhaps it's my lack of awareness of Filemaker performance in Windows (I couldn't really be bothered with all that). As for Filemaker's support for or promotion of Mac OS X, If I were Steve, I'd have Dominic writing on the blackboard 500 times "I will never again be such an idiot". Filemaker 5.5 Server does not work in Mac OS X Server (Perhaps you all knew this by osmosis or something, I discovered it to my cost - on site - with the client in front of me, after I had spent a number of hours of chargeable time both recommending and installing OS X Server). Perhaps I should have done my homework better but I had assumed that the latest version of OS X compatible Filemaker Server was compatible with the latest version of Mac OS X Server - especially considering Apple own Filemaker (Steve, kick his ass..)

Back to Filemaker. What is v. 7 going to offer me?? Well, I gave up on upgrading FileMaker a number of years ago because they kind of got it right with version 4.1, there was nothing more to do REALLY, apart from migrate it seamlessly to SQL and OS X and Linux - they really could have done it. I am sure that there are plenty people who would argue that 4 doesn't do anything that their dev's require. For what I know of Filemaker, it hit the nail with 4.1. What is 7 going to do for me, nothing, I am simply not going to continue to allow Filemaker to charge me money to "upgrade" an app which doesn't need it, doesn't provide value for upgrade money and uses forcible upgrade tactics to protect revenue. If your argument is about Filemaker's newfound fantastic multiple tables per database idea, I would be VERY dubious that they could have invented a good implementation of this so quick. SQL does the job. Servoy = Filemaker 7 and then some. If you want to continue to "recover" your files, or live with the fact that the design, data, graphic elements and data structure live in one proprietary format file controlled by a company who are, historically liable to change this format in another rev or two, or if you want to tell your own 50 architects to stop working on their detail databases while you quickly (yeah right) take down the server to upgrade the system (I suppose you could charge extra and do it on a Saturday or Sunday - pity your kids are missing out) - go right ahead. I'll stick with Servoy. I have been underwhelmed by Filemaker for years. Yes it is a great application for what it did. If you want something which is grown up and is not different like 4D (which is sTILL not SQL), Servoy is the only option.

To defend Filemaker is similar to defending Microsoft (or Windows) over Apple. The underdog in each case is by far the better option. Created and struggling to show how much better it could be if only the monopoly (within FileMaker development circles in this case) could be shown to the masses that it is in hard fact/reality, less than perfect.

If I sound a bit hot in the collar about Servoy/Filemaker, it is purely because of what Servoy is, promises, and can do. I would not be enthusiastic if it didn't do the job. I am not a Filemaker hater, I am mostly annoyed by their lack of evolution (which I gather extends to some extent into v.7), I just want to use the best tool for the job and cannot see any single tiny reason for suggesting or beginning any new development in Filemaker for any of my clients - ever ever ever again... it would be a step backwards. Even Servoy pricing structure leaves FileMaker looking a little doped up.

With Servoy, you snooze, you lose. Hint, have a look at how many <reallyimportantpointtext> BIG </reallyimportantpointtext> filemaker development companies (I really do mean a lot bigger than probably most of us) have joined the Servoy Alliance Network (SAN on the Servoy site). Nuff said.

PS, If you are in the UK, we're organising a free Servoy Seminar (1 day) hopefully toward the end of September, register at http://www.servoy.com/generic.jsp?taxonomy_id=286 (also a number of other international locations).

For what its worth, and in case you're wondering, and no matter what it looks like, no I don't work for Servoy - nor am I affiliated in any way with them apart from being a SAN partner.

attached: my in-progress crm system for a Hi-Fi reseller. The sale and service layouts (forms) have some great portals. Tab Panels - don't get me started, with tab panels you can show another whole layout, from a different table, as a pseudo related database-in-a-window within your layout - this stuff couldn't be made up by a Filemaker developer. Try it out.....

[UserX]

I've been selling FileMaker products for many years now and what I find amazing about developers is that they assume they are the most important users to FileMaker/Apple. Sure, developers are bringing some business to FileMaker, but I sell the vast majority of my FileMaker Pros to business users with a very similar profile to Office users. NOT developers.

What a lot of developers don't realise when looking at 4D or Servoy is that these not really what most FileMaker users want - they're not developers, they're business people or experts who want to do their own thang.

Thunder - it looks like you're happy to make lots of cash out of FileMaker/Apple by developing in an old version of FM and not giving them a cent. Surely this is not morally right? Don't your customers want to know why you're developing in an old version and why they can't make use of all the new features? To dismiss all the new things in FM6 since 4.1 is madness and, I would say, unprofessional. Your rant (and sales pitch or Servoy) sounds much more like you have a personal problem with FileMaker/Apple in which case I would suggest you keep it to yourself. The rest of us guys, well - we'll stay with FileMaker as it still is the easiest and hottest 'db for the rest of us'.

[smorr]

Sure, developers are bringing some business to FileMaker, but I sell the vast majority of my FileMaker Pros to business users with a very similar profile to Office users. NOT developers.


I take issue with this. Many users of FMP are large organizations/ institutions who purchase FMP so that they can use it for very specific solutions - be them developed in house or commercially-- not necessarily to 'do their own thang'. If FMI does not listen to developers, it is shooting itself in the foot. Also on this note --in Version 6 FMI eschewed many other features that NEEDED to be added or addressed in favour of XML???? WTF? XML is for the average office user??? As for developer, there is a host of other requests I would have before XML import, export.

Thunder - it looks like you're happy to make lots of cash out of FileMaker/Apple by developing in an old version of FM and not giving them a cent. Surely this is not morally right? Don't your customers want to know why you're developing in an old version and why they can't make use of all the new features? To dismiss all the new things in FM6 since 4.1 is madness and, I would say, unprofessional.

Who you work for? Microsoft?????
Sorry but this has nothing to do with moral rightness or professionalism. We as consumers have paid the price of the software for the version we have and we are not obligated morally or otherwise to be on the bleeding edge

Not upgrading, or using the latest software version is the user's perogative and right, especially if the upgrade provides very little functionality for the price or even restricted functionally a la FMP4->5. The alternative (force upgrades a la Microslave) has to be the most ethically repugnant idea in the software business -- it basically equates to having a couple of thugs shaking down a victim for "the victim's own good". Forced upgrades arises out of greed and/or the inability/unwillingness for a software company coming up with compelling reasons for customer's elective upgrades.

Professionalism is, in part, doing your best to provide for your clients needs. This applies whether you are a db consultant or FMI itself. -- if doing the best by your clients is to use an old version because that is all that is required and it doesn't translate into restricted features or added cost then so be it. Given the choice: I can charge a client $500 for the FMP/Web solution using FMP4 or I can charge a client $1500 for FMP/Web solution using FMP6 because of the limitation added in after FMP4. -- I think it is clear what is in the best interest of the client. And using FMP4 in this way -- even today -- is not breaking any laws, civil or moral -- this usage was part of the license at the time.

If anything the onus is on the software company to make the software attractive to upgrade -- and not just for bug fixes and minor features -- very much like what FMI has done. There are some problems in FMP that have been documented and have existed for several versions. Why are we morally obliged to fork out money to a software company that can't even address simple bugs or figure out how to respond to a significant basis of its market? It is generally 18-24 months between versions and it is not like they have a wide product base to support.

I also think that FMP doesn't do much of what it should do so that it can appease the plug in developers. For example, it should be simple for FMP to add a trigger on exiting a field so that a script can be executed when data is changed. However inspite of years of reading about this request on several boards and seeing user (not just developer) frustration in figuring out work arounds, FMI still hasn't included this basic functionality. -- Rather, it would let the customer suffer or force them to purchase licenses of a third party plug in at upwards of $50 a seat for a volume license. Think about it: $50 a seat to provide a single function to a program they have already paid several hundred dollars a seat for. -- Why doesn't FMI provide this function? I speculate that is because it would irritate its 3rd party plugin developers. -- THAT in my opinion is unprofessional.

To finish, I use FMP daily at my school -- we have a significant in-house solution (35 dbs) and I really appreciate what I can do with it -- but I am not blind -- I also recognize much of what I can do are kludges to gerry-rigging FMP into doing things that really should be that hard. -- coming up with interface options to work around the fact that FMP doesn't allow people to simply design what they want. We continue to use FMP because we have a lot invested in it. But I definitely have my eye on Servoy -- and any other package if it demonstrates that it can provide for their client in ways FMI has shown it can't or is unwilling.

Regards
Scott

[UserX]

Scott,

You misunderstood me. By a 'developer' I am talking about a person or organisation who professionally makes systems for others. They generally also make a decent amount of money doing so (and rightly so). I'm NOT talking about in-house people who do it for themselves. My belief is that if you are a professional developer you should be using the most up to date tools (OS X, FMP 6, Dreamweaver MX, etc...) Maybe I'm alone on this, but I wouldn't want to employ a FM consultant who was stuck on two versions ago.

I agree it is up to the end users if and when they upgrade their software - no argument there. What I find repugnant is the professional developer who refuses to use the most current version simply so he can make more profit or offer a cheaper solution. Creating a cheaper solution isn't necessarily in the 'best interests of the client'. Money isn't everything - there's platform support for one as well as the fact that software companies (whether we like it or not) now seem to offer upgrades only to users on the immediately previous version.

Lastly, I understand some developers' frustrations with FileMaker. But FileMaker has created a product to do a specific job in a specific way. What are some of FM's major pluses also count against it from a developer's point of view - win some, lose some. For every one message I read on forums like this from disgruntled developers I see, talk to and meet hundreds of overjoyed users for whom FileMaker exactly fits with what they need.

Jose.

[Thunder]

UserX

With respect, I think that either I have not made my point very well or you misunderstand me (or misread my comment)... I too have been selling FileMaker products for many years (10), and I continue to sell whatever a client wants (including licenses of FMP 6.0). Furthermore, I am the majority shareholder and Managing Director (CEO across the pond) of a serious and level headed Apple Authorised Reseller / consultancy which I founded - and which will continue to support both Apple and FMI until they, or we, go. We have certainly provided Apple, (and fmi to a lesser degree) with hundreds of thousands of pounds (x 1.6 = dollars) of revenue. My comment on this forum was not about supporting FMI or Apple (with sales) but rather, wearing my FMP developer's hat, about being able to produce solutions that work, in a product which is truly grown up - which FileMaker isn't. It is not about actively trying to do FMI or Apple a disservice - I wouldn't bother if it was just a grudge. I respect both companies tremendously as they have provided me with an income for many years (I'm not absolutely clear why you lump Apple in with Filemaker, I assume it was my comment about Apple's Java implementation - which is in the very best of light - pretty poor (difficult to understand given: http://www.apple.com/pro/science/gosling/ ))

I don't think that I'm the most important user to FMI or Apple, I know first hand that they could barely care less about me - if aware of me at all.

What Filemaker apologists don't realise about Servoy in the Servoy vs FMP argument is that Servoy IS FileMaker, but done absolutely right. This is something that Filemaker SHOULD have done, their biggest mistake was leaving a gap in the market so wide that Servoy could come along and impress Filemaker developers like myself enough to abandon the platform altogether. Problem is that FMI did leave leave the gap... You cannot argue that Filemaker is a grown up databasing environment. You simply cannot. Any defense therefore of FMI is sentimental. Sentimental is great... BUT... Reality check (and correction of your assertion) I am not ripping them off, I have paid, and paid and paid, personally. I paid for 3.0, for 4.0, for 4.1 (four times) and for 5.5 Developer (which as you know is many hundreds of dollars more expensive than the regular client license.) Additionally as a reseller, I have sold an incalculable (because it stretches over a long time) volume of FMP licenses = revenue for FMI.

It is true that I have earned money from my involvement with Filemaker, but they've earned more from me, besides, the difference between 3.0 and 5.5 (BOTH OF WHICH I HAVE PAID FOR along with the rest in between) is negligible. FMI got money from me because they changed the file format, while the difference was still negligible. That is wrong. Sorry. Your assertion that I am morally wrong is blind blaming. Why should I pay them over and over and over and over for the same product ??? You think that to "dismiss the new things in FM6 since 4.1 is madness and unprofessional"?? name em, you name the differences that are worthy of the upgrade dollars that I have already spent. Don't mention XML or OS X nativeness as they are the two nominal proviso's I mentioned in my original post. Name the rest of the differences that actually make a difference to developing a solution for a customer.

As a longtime FileMaker developer, I firmly believe it is a fundamental duty of the developer to point the customer in the right direction with the right product. Filemaker has been great for a long time and I am grateful for their development of a good environment. With the introduction of Servoy however, the environment has been taken to the next level - far beyond FMI's idea of where the environment should apparently go. We should stick blindly to FMI because they invented the paradigm ?? forget it. 95% of the computing world has abandoned Apple in spite of them having invented the paradigm.

Users can go buy what they want, that's irrelevant, they are not reading this forum and I'm not trying to tell them about Servoy. The point is about developers who can choose to try Servoy - or not. I do not work for Servoy. I know (from one meeting) one of the developers and the UK Servoy Product Manager but my involvement with Servoy is otherwise non existent (besides being a SAN Partner). I am not trying to get new business, nor am I trying to sell seats (I make more on FMP seats) My interest is purely in the product and it's elegance. I am only trying to wise up other FMP developers that there is a new kid on the block which does the right thing. Don't look, listen, download, try if you don't want, however, if you know FMP, and if you want to do the right thing by your customer, it is worthwhile knowing a bit about Servoy. Nuff sed.

[fsay]

Just heard..... 7 WONT be released this year but 2004! How much longer should we be expected to wait for a product which has been promised for so long. I love a company that over promises and under delivers.

[hayesk]

Servoy looks nice and all, but it seems to be a bit more difficult and cumbersome to use. For small to mid-size projects, FileMaker seems to fit the bill a bit better. FileMaker just has a few shortcomings that needs to be addressed. Servoy seems to be a solid package, just a bit "much" if you know what I mean.

[hayesk]

Originally posted by fsay
Just heard..... 7 WONT be released this year but 2004! How much longer should we be expected to wait for a product which has been promised for so long. I love a company that over promises and under delivers.

Really? When did FileMaker promise to deliver version 7? I haven't heard a thing about it. What have they overpromised and underdelivered?

I was hoping to hear something this week with DevCon going on. Maybe we'll know more by Wednesday when the conference is over.

[Thunder]

Hayesk, I know exactly what you mean. It does outwardly look a little difficult (not cumbersome though, that is what it is about FileMaker that Servoy seems to have been produced to address). The point is though that it would really take a mildly competent FileMaker developer (like myself) one evening to become proficient enough in Servoy to produce solutions. It looks difficult because Servoy (had to) change definitions of elements, presumably to avoid IP infringement from Filemaker. Once you realise that a method is a script and a form is a layout, you are well on your way. It does not take long to figure out (and I was never a VERY clever FMP developer) however once you've figured it out, it gives you access to proper, real, powerful stuff. It allows you to do things at every turn that FileMaker doesn't and just feels right and simple while doing it...

Re your second post, FileMaker were talking up multiple files per database (a-la FMP 7) at Devcon 2001 - 2 years ago. They probably haven't overpromised anything, however to learn that what I would regard as a very unwieldy product (let solution upgrade hell unleash) will only ship "by devcon 2004" - given that they were probably hoping to have it out close to now, is underdelivering in my book.

The bottom line is that FMI should have produced a product like Servoy AS FileMaker 7. They didn't, Servoy did. The product is solid enough and powerful enough for me to abandon FMP altogether. I am not making noise about it because I get a back hander every time, or because they secretly employ me to, or something. I am making a noise because the product is ********ng awesome.

[hayesk]

Well, it's worth a try. I will try it out. I'm not married to FM by any means. (I didn't upgrade to 6 because it didn't bring me anything).

I do however, like FM's capability of single user solutions, where Servoy looks to be client-server only. I'll try out the demo though.

[Thunder]

Exactly, it can't hurt to try it.

If you mean bound solutions (produced by FMP Developer) I gather that Servoy are working on this. It is the nature of SQL which makes this difficult I think.

As for Single/Served solutions (if that is what you mean), I can't see any advantage of having the choice, it is just another decision to make. If you want to use it in "single user" mode, just use it on one machine, if you want to use it in a served environment, do. If you want to physically stop access to it from other machines, close the port. It is simply not a decision you need to actually make.

[Thunder]

Sorry, I kinda misread your post. It is client server only but a flavour of SQL is the server while the Java front end can run on the same machine as the client. That it is client/server is invisible to the single user on a single machine on a desert island.