Filemaker 7

[MacRumors]

Filemaker 7 (http://www.filemaker.com/) is being released today. The long awaited (http://www.macrumors.com/searcharticles.php3?searchterm=filemaker&submit=Search+Site) upgrade provides several new features (MacCentral) (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/09/fm7/index.php?redirect=1078807996000):

The most significant change in this release is FileMaker's transition to a new relational database engine architecture, although that's only one of more than 100 new features in this new release.

CNet also provides (http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-3513_7-30790919.html?tag=search) a brief review.

[nagromme]

OK, it's not new 8-CPU invisible PowerMacs, but it's a Tuesday release from Apple... been a while :)

[~Shard~]

OK, it's not new 8-CPU invisible PowerMacs, but it's a Tuesday release from Apple... been a while :)

Yah, good point - I forgot it was Tuesday! Let's hope this is the beginning of another trend like last year, where we saw lots of goodies being released every other Tuesday. Tuesday's have lost meaning for me as far as Apple goes as of late - I used to look forward to them!

As for Filemaker, I've heard it's a good app, but I don't use it myself....

[cello]

wow, from what I've seen yet, it looks absolutly great! If that stuff really works without problems (what it better should after the long time it took them...), this will be a true killer application!
Can't wait to get my hands on one of them... :D

another link with informations can be found here: article on InfoWorld (http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/08/10NNfilemaker_1.html)

[Bear]

Part of me wonders if I should have waited to order the upgrae until the first patch/update was released. However, I ordered my copy through the Apple Store (Upgrade) and should have it in a few days.

The worst case is I have to wait for the first update to really use it.

[Pedro Estarque]

only the old iPod mini images
:(

[Pedro Estarque]

Are they completely independent of apple by now? Is that a good thing?

[seven5]

Can i be the first one to say, ITS ABOUT ********** TIME!!! Welcome to 1995 FileMaker, welcome to more than one table in a file. When i switched to Os X from the PC in Jan 2002, i checked out filemaker and couldn't believe that i couldnt' have more than one table in a file. I had to make a whole database with more than 20 files in a folder, WTF.

Well now its relational. what do you know. I can't wait to check it out now.

[Dave K]

transition to a new relational database engine architecture
is the only one of more than 100 new features in this new release that really matters...

[iggyb]

I kinda sorta like Filemaker, but I found it to be somewhat archaic, compared to other database applications. I hate to say it, but I think even MS Access was a more intuitive application (and much more relational). Hopefully, this new release will be a refreshing change.

Is Filemaker a subsidiary of Apple?

[Chaszmyr]

What's your opinion guys? I don't know much about FileMaker... Is there any good reason for a person to have it on their home computer?

[tileeater]

www.filemaker.com

can't even keep their own site up to speed.

[wordmunger]

What's your opinion guys? I don't know much about FileMaker... Is there any good reason for a person to have it on their home computer?
Well, if you need a database, you need a database. Your only real options on a Mac are Filemaker and Unix-based databases. Filemaker, obviously, is much easier to use.

If you don't have an obvious need for a database, and you're not the type of person who might be inclined to organize his/her recipes, baseball card collection, or paint swatches electronically, then you don't need it.

The other reason to use Filemaker is to create dynamic/interactive Web sites. But most developers now use something like Dreamweaver/Coldfusion.

[Mudbug]

only the old iPod mini images
:(

It's there now... it wasn't late enough in the morning before ;)

[iShater]

Funky! I was thinking about buying FileMaker a couple of days ago. I tried using Excel to keep track of my eBay sales and items, and used a couple of those eBay applications out there, but none really worked the way I wanted them to.

Now that it can save binary files, I think I can design a good dbase where I can save the item images along with descriptions, etc.

Does anybody use FM for anything like that? does it have a scripting language? or maybe RealBasic support or something? (I will read more on it, but personal experiences are the best source of info IMHO).

I used Access on the PC and programmed in it in the past, but I am guessing FM doesn't stack up to it yet.

[Dave K]

The other reason to use Filemaker is to create dynamic/interactive Web sites. But most developers now use something like Dreamweaver/Coldfusion.
Filemaker CDML has generally been avoided for a good long time. Those who knew better would combine Filemaker with Lasso because the performance is significantly better in this configuration and Lasso offers a significantly larger feature set.

Although, most Lasso users have migrated over to MySQL, either through the built in version or a standalone install, for the very simple reason that MySQL beats Filemaker 6 and below soundly in terms of performance and Lasso has built a reasonably friendly user interface for it. Alot of them have been waiting for Filemaker to get relational and properly multithreaded on the Mac for years. If Server 7 Advanced is the direct replacement for the unlimited version that's licensed for web connector use, well $2,499 is not going to work for quite a few people.


Also note that Dreamweaver and Coldfusion are not comparable to Filemaker. Filemaker is a Database with a built in web application engine/scripting language. Dreamweaver is a HTML/Script editor and Coldfusion is a web application engine, but neither provide a database.

[wdlove]

I'm currently using Filemaker Pro 5.5, so I've been looking forward to the release of Filemaker Pro 7. The new icon is awesome, like the addition of the blue. :cool:

[hayesk]

Can i be the first one to say, ITS ABOUT ********** TIME!!! Welcome to 1995 FileMaker, welcome to more than one table in a file. When i switched to Os X from the PC in Jan 2002, i checked out filemaker and couldn't believe that i couldnt' have more than one table in a file. I had to make a whole database with more than 20 files in a folder, WTF.

Well now its relational. what do you know. I can't wait to check it out now.

It's been relational since version 3. Somewhere along the line, people assumed relational meant your tables had to be all in one file. Simply not true. Where the tables are stored is irrelevant. Normalizing your data by linking keys is relevant. You could do that since version 3.

[hayesk]

Does anybody use FM for anything like that? does it have a scripting language? or maybe RealBasic support or something? (I will read more on it, but personal experiences are the best source of info IMHO).

I used Access on the PC and programmed in it in the past, but I am guessing FM doesn't stack up to it yet.

People have used FM for image databases since that's what the container field was best at. FM has it's own built-in scripting language, or you can use AppleScript.

IMHO, FM more than stacks up to Access. Access does have more functionality in its scripting language than FM's build-in language, but Access is a kludgy mess. It takes forever to do even the simplest of databases. FM shines in that regard.

[bousozoku]

Notice at the bottom of this press release that the advanced server version can't be used as an ODBC or JDBC data source on Mac OS X. What's going on with that?

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=PR&Date=20040309&ID=3472680&Symbol=US:AAPL

[Doctor Q]

It was awkward to use previous versions of FileMaker using a JDBC interface from a Java program. Third-party software was required. Does anyone know whether FileMaker 7 directly supports JDBC now? This is the issue that will determine whether I upgrade.

[Wonder Boy]

in blue text, on the apple main page, it says "now available in stores".

apple announces a product and it is immedietly in stores. God i wish that happend more often.

[Doctor Q]

The filemaker.com site is incredibly slow today, but I managed to find the answer to my question above. They make the following claim for the FileMaker Server 7 Advanced version:Support FileMaker Pro clients, as well as ODBC and JDBC sessionsso the Pro, Developer, and regular Server versions apparently do not have JDBC support.

[Dave K]

It was awkward to use previous versions of FileMaker using a JDBC interface from a Java program. Third-party software was required. Does anyone know whether FileMaker 7 directly supports JDBC now? This is the issue that will determine whether I upgrade.
Not running on a Mac, no. You'll have to run it under Windows for that. Only supports XML and Instant Web Publishing under OS X.

[MacEyeDoc]

YEA!!!!

Something besides a music related theme on the Apple site!! I almost forgot they were a COMPUTER company!

[tace]

Is this a joke? As a database person, I was hoping to have a decent alternative to Access or even Oracle. So, I checked out earlier versions of FileMaker and found them to be as much as a database as dBase was in its earlier version.

Now, they are touting this new version which is finally relational (only 10+ years, too late) and you have to have the $2500 version to be able to use JDBC or ODBC. That's the cost of 17 named user licences for Oracle 9i's Standard Edition One. And you get a million more features, stability, security with Oracle. Granted it is not right to compared the 2 but if you are going to sell a db product for that much money, ... you get what I am saying. I mean Access has had ODBC option forever.

I really wanted to like FileMaker but now, I think they are just a joke.

[Snowy_River]

Well, if you need a database, you need a database. Your only real options on a Mac are Filemaker and Unix-based databases. Filemaker, obviously, is much easier to use...

Well, actually, if all you need is a simple database, AppleWorks has a database component built into it. This works great for simple things like recipes for my mom...

[Snowy_River]

I used Access on the PC and programmed in it in the past, but I am guessing FM doesn't stack up to it yet.

Do you know why Access isn't available on the Mac anymore? It's because it couldn't compete with FM. While FM has fallen on some harder times recently, it's generally been recongnized as a match for Access. Probably the only reason why Access continued to be prevalent on Windows is because it's packaged with Office...

.... but Access is a kludgy mess....

I couldn't agree more...

[Titian]

I am not bothered with Filemaker because anyway I think 4D is far the better database.

[Damek]

Forgive the plea for free advice, but... I'm a member of a small food cooperative, and we currently don't do any database-type work. We have a small inventory thing someone set up years ago to track orders, but... so far we don't even track our members beyond having a Word DOC listing who they are.

We've talked a few times about how nice it would be to have a database where we could track members, when they pay their dues, maybe relate them to our commitees, and special orders, and, well, a lot of stuff, but the problem is that we have no one experienced in databases. I use one in my day job and am familiar with how they work and have ideas for setting it up, but I've never done it have no programming experience, and no desire to learn anything very in depth.

Is FileMaker 7 maybe something I or another member could learn to use kind of easily? The web site makes it sound that way, but that's marketing, you know.

What I'm thinking after seeing this announcement, though, is that I might be able to use FileMaker 7 to set up a membership database, based on my day-job experience, an inventory database, link them together for member special orders, and even better, publish it on our web site for the scheduling people to access and move people around, change info...

Might this be appropriate for a small business/coop like we are?

[nighthawk]

I have been quite impressed with Filemaker 6.0. The company I work for has all user contacts and history in Filemaker... over 35,000 records. It runs slower when there are more than three people logged on, but is almost instantaneous with only three users. Being that I work for a small company, that is not too much of a problem, however I hope that Filemaker 7.0 does improve this a little.

[iShater]

The filemaker.com site is incredibly slow today, but I managed to find the answer to my question above. They make the following claim for the FileMaker Server 7 Advanced version:so the Pro, Developer, and regular Server versions apparently do not have JDBC support.

That stinks. I would love to be able to do ODBC calls to it. Oh well, I doubt my dbase will be that complicated to warrant that.

[iShater]

Do you know why Access isn't available on the Mac anymore? It's because it couldn't compete with FM. While FM has fallen on some harder times recently, it's generally been recongnized as a match for Access. Probably the only reason why Access continued to be prevalent on Windows is because it's packaged with Office...

I have to disagree with that. It IS an incentive that it is included in Office Pro, but Access has some strengths. It is fully programmable in VBA, which allows you to run fairly complex applications on it. You can use it to interface with other dbases using ODBC, so you don't have to even have the database designed in it or running on it. Its files are widly supported by other applications (as well as Visual Studio, yes a MS product).



I couldn't agree more...

Ok, it can be a pain to use, but it is still a powerful personal database.

Was Access ever available on the Mac?

[aquafina]

with the website rendering in Safari. Do you think anyone over there actually tested the website on a Mac?

Hopefully their upgraded product looks better than their website (and runs faster).

[bousozoku]

Do you know why Access isn't available on the Mac anymore?
...


It was never available on Macintosh.

[Nermal]

Has anyone managed to download the trial version? It keeps telling me to enter a password whenever I try.

[Snowy_River]

It was never available on Macintosh.

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure (but I'm working from memory here, so I freely admit that I could be wrong) that it was part of the Mac office suite for a while, back in the day of Access v1, and maybe v2.

[wordmunger]

What I'm thinking after seeing this announcement, though, is that I might be able to use FileMaker 7 to set up a membership database, based on my day-job experience, an inventory database, link them together for member special orders, and even better, publish it on our web site for the scheduling people to access and move people around, change info...

Might this be appropriate for a small business/coop like we are?

I think you're exactly their target market. I used an old version of FM (3? 4?) to track advertisers and subscriptions for a newsletter I used to publish. It wasn't too difficult to learn. If you can handle Excel, you can handle this. I suspect they even have templates that you could adapt quite readily for your purposes.

The second part, publishing on a Web site, would be more difficult, but also doable. Maybe do a two-part phase-in for that.

[cello]

Has anyone managed to download the trial version? It keeps telling me to enter a password whenever I try.
I don't even get their promised email with the link in it :(

[iggyb]

Do you know why Access isn't available on the Mac anymore? It's because it couldn't compete with FM. While FM has fallen on some harder times recently, it's generally been recongnized as a match for Access. Probably the only reason why Access continued to be prevalent on Windows is because it's packaged with Office...


Actually, Access was never on the Mac. And the reason it's not today has nothing to do with FM. A few years back, many Mac users were asking M$ to port Access to the Mac, but it couldn't be done. The reason has something to do with the program being so tied into Windows. If the Mac BU of M$ were to release Access, it would have to be re-written from the ground up, and I guess they're thinking the ROI wouldn't stack up.

[Dave K]

Forgive the plea for free advice, but... I'm a member of a small food cooperative, and we currently don't do any database-type work. We have a small inventory thing someone set up years ago to track orders, but... so far we don't even track our members beyond having a Word DOC listing who they are.

We've talked a few times about how nice it would be to have a database where we could track members, when they pay their dues, maybe relate them to our commitees, and special orders, and, well, a lot of stuff, but the problem is that we have no one experienced in databases. I use one in my day job and am familiar with how they work and have ideas for setting it up, but I've never done it have no programming experience, and no desire to learn anything very in depth.

Is FileMaker 7 maybe something I or another member could learn to use kind of easily? The web site makes it sound that way, but that's marketing, you know.

What I'm thinking after seeing this announcement, though, is that I might be able to use FileMaker 7 to set up a membership database, based on my day-job experience, an inventory database, link them together for member special orders, and even better, publish it on our web site for the scheduling people to access and move people around, change info...

Might this be appropriate for a small business/coop like we are?
Historically, because I haven't played with FM7, Filemaker has been all about Access like simplicity on the client side.

However, they've purged CDML with this release and moved to XSLT and XML for web publishing. If you're not comfortable with those, but are comfortable with HTML, you may want to look at adding Lasso (http://www.blueworld.com) to the mix as it offers a user friendly tag/script based language and a lot of features to the mix. PHP also had a set of Filemaker DB connectors, however Filemaker has changed how external sources connect, so in both cases you'll need to wait and see what happens on the support front though.

If you expect your site to have more than 5 users at once, you'll also need the Server Advanced version.

[legion]

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure (but I'm working from memory here, so I freely admit that I could be wrong) that it was part of the Mac office suite for a while, back in the day of Access v1, and maybe v2.

Microsoft Access has never been available for Macs. Access v1 was for Dos and Windows only.

[bousozoku]

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure (but I'm working from memory here, so I freely admit that I could be wrong) that it was part of the Mac office suite for a while, back in the day of Access v1, and maybe v2.

100 percent sure of it. It had been developed and was ready to be deployed by Microsoft but Apple asked them to make FileMaker the database of choice on Macintosh and to provide linkage in Word and Excel to access FileMaker.

I bought MS Access version 1.0, which was available for MS Windows 3.x only. It used an engine based on FoxBase Pro, a dbase clone, which MS had recently acquired in order to compete with Borland's Paradox which was being re-developed for Windows.

[legion]

Actually, Access was never on the Mac. And the reason it's not today has nothing to do with FM. A few years back, many Mac users were asking M$ to port Access to the Mac, but it couldn't be done. The reason has something to do with the program being so tied into Windows. If the Mac BU of M$ were to release Access, it would have to be re-written from the ground up, and I guess they're thinking the ROI wouldn't stack up.

The Jet Database Engine is the problem. It would have to be completely rewritten and once done, there wouldn't be cross-compatiblity between MS Access for Windows and Access for Mac projects so it seems like a useless idea for MS to port Access (and I'd have to concurr)

As for FM and Access being on par with each other.. maybe the last time that was true was around Access 2.0; for quite a while Access has outclassed FM and has been trying to compete with the big boys (Oracle.) Access works great as an intermediary to Oracle DBs, but for sheer data handling, it isn't anywhere near as efficient though programing modules is extremely easy and setting up automated tasks is easier than Oracle's solutions.

[Damek]

Historically, because I haven't played with FM7, Filemaker has been all about Access like simplicity on the client side.

However, they've purged CDML with this release and moved to XSLT and XML for web publishing. If you're not comfortable with those, but are comfortable with HTML, you may want to look at adding Lasso (http://www.blueworld.com) to the mix as it offers a user friendly tag/script based language and a lot of features to the mix. PHP also had a set of Filemaker DB connectors, however Filemaker has changed how external sources connect, so in both cases you'll need to wait and see what happens on the support front though.

If you expect your site to have more than 5 users at once, you'll also need the Server Advanced version.

Thank you very much for your response. We're very tiny and don't have much money on hand, so I'll probably attempt to trial it and see how much I can learn in 30 days... the web thing may be beyond me at the moment, I'm most comfortable with HTML and have never learned PHP, and Lasso looks way too expensive. But if it allows us to do anything more advanced and more useful than we do now, I might buy a copy and donate it to the group... If I can't do a trial, I'll just shelve the idea until I can afford to spend the money just to try it. It's good to know there are options out there besides Access, and which might be easier to use than Access, too.

[Damek]

I think you're exactly their target market. I used an old version of FM (3? 4?) to track advertisers and subscriptions for a newsletter I used to publish. It wasn't too difficult to learn. If you can handle Excel, you can handle this. I suspect they even have templates that you could adapt quite readily for your purposes.

The second part, publishing on a Web site, would be more difficult, but also doable. Maybe do a two-part phase-in for that.

Thank you for your response, too :)

I have a feeling I'm they're target market, too... just like Apple to make the hard stuff easy for us non-programmer types. Well, easier. Easy would be just telling the computer what I want and having it do it :rolleyes:

[rlw]

We've talked a few times about how nice it would be to have a database where we could track members, when they pay their dues, maybe relate them to our commitees, and special orders, and, well, a lot of stuff, but the problem is that we have no one experienced in databases.

Is FileMaker 7 maybe something I or another member could learn to use kind of easily?

I was in a similar situation and bought Filemaker last year. I have zero database and zero programing experience. After completing all lessons in the included tutorial (about 4 hours total), I was able to make a simple Database for my company (about another 4 hours).

Another option: You might look into buying one of Filemaker's "solutions" in addition to Filemaker (they work together). There is one specifically for non-profits that may work for you (saving you the need to create your own, and it would probably be better/do more).

http://www.filemaker.com/nonprofit/

[EdMan517]

I have been developing on FileMaker for my company since 1997. It has been a relational database that whole time (as others have said, since 3.x). I have many, very complicated relational calculations which help our company to provide clients with VERY useful evaluation reports and needs assessments for their continuing education programs.

AND it is very easy to learn. It is very easy to create your fields. It is very easy to develop layouts that can provide great user interfaces. It also has its own scripting language that is easy to pick up on - even if you haven't programmed before.

I don't have much experience with web development and FileMaker Pro, but I know it has its limitations and that CDML (FileMaker's adapted HTML language) is not that great. It's ODBC capabilities have not seemed up to par either.

However, I still love FileMaker. It works very well for single users, or multiple users in peer-to-peer mode, or while using FileMaker Server. I cannot really vouch for any uses beyond that.

Just felt I had to post something positive after seeing many people bashing it and using some very generic negative statements.

At a cursory glance, the many of the new features seem like they will be a great improvement to an already good database application.

My 2 cents...

Ed (pining for a PowerBook...)
---
DP 867 G4 - OS 10.3.2
Dell Dimension 8200 - Windows XP Prof

[JtheLemur]

boooo! On an 867MHz Quicksilver with 1GB of RAM, the demo is a bit pooookey... even opening one of their free solutions files with no data in it! Bummer!

[GregA]

I have 3 questions for anyone who might be in the know

1) Is FM7 written in Cocoa now?
I'm actually wondering about cocoa and the Windows platform.

2) Have FM used anything from WebObjects?
Back when Apple and Next merged I figured the WebObjects group might takeover Filemaker. With the prices of Filemaker 7 Server, maybe the opposite is true. Is there synergy there?

3) Does the underlying database relate to the OSX 10.4 database file system rumours?
Actually... I'll ask that in the 10.4 thread instead - link through here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=743106#post743106

Thanks

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Boy, them words gonna git you pummeled on these boards.. don't you know that Apple (and by that I mean everything and everyone Steve has ever looked at, heard of, or seen from a very high altitude) has never done anything wrong? Ever? And that their prices and functionality are so perfect you'd think they were handed to Moses along with the stone tablets..

You might want to head over to Slashdot before these kids get their pimple cream on you..


Is this a joke? As a database person, I was hoping to have a decent alternative to Access or even Oracle. So, I checked out earlier versions of FileMaker and found them to be as much as a database as dBase was in its earlier version.

Now, they are touting this new version which is finally relational (only 10+ years, too late) and you have to have the $2500 version to be able to use JDBC or ODBC. That's the cost of 17 named user licences for Oracle 9i's Standard Edition One. And you get a million more features, stability, security with Oracle. Granted it is not right to compared the 2 but if you are going to sell a db product for that much money, ... you get what I am saying. I mean Access has had ODBC option forever.

I really wanted to like FileMaker but now, I think they are just a joke.

[GregGomer]

Very excited for this new release. Yah 4D and or SQL are more powerful, but for most things I need, filemaker is just so easy and quick to whip things out with. Especially this new release, has the things I personally have been waiting for, so I'm happy, even if it isn't a SQL killer (not that I thought it would be)

Anyhoo, the one thing I am really bummed about though is the themes haven't really changed. I look at the database examples on Apples site, and Filemakers. Both show a cool database, with a gradient backdrop and I believe some brushed chrome look. I was so hoping that version 7 would have the same type of templates built in, but alas, no luck, looks like I'll still have to use the older dated ones, or make my own in PhotoShop.

Does anyone know any good places to get some nice FM themes that can be used with FM7?

[Jonnod III]

Just a note on Access/Mac etc.

Microsoft had one of the first databases on the Mac - called Microsoft File, I believe. So it did have a suite of a sort - Excel, Word and File. (I'm sure no-one in their right minds back then thought of anything as cr@p as Powerpoint back then)

Oh, and I'm amazed that ayone thinks Access is easy - laying out forms and reports was always torture. (and that's being kind).

[duce]

Forgive the plea for free advice, but... I'm a member of a small food cooperative, and we currently don't do any database-type work. We have a small inventory thing someone set up years ago to track orders, but... so far we don't even track our members beyond having a Word DOC listing who they are.


A key advantage of FM is its ease of use and flexibility in changing layouts and fields. Whenever you ask someone to change an Access DB you see anger or tiers in their eyes. I have created many personalized DB like you describe with minimal effort. Get a help manual from Amazon to use for backup. Like all newer software packages the supplied user manuals these days are nearly worthless. You need to learn about data bases such as security, change control and back up. Those who knock down FM have not used it in the last few years or they are PC centric where they are not use to programs that are intuitive. Good God if the National Gallery of Art use FM to catalog all their exhibits, one would think it might be adequate for some simpler database.

[vannote]

Are they completely independent of apple by now?

Is Filemaker a subsidiary of Apple?

I quick glance at the company info on the FileMaker site answers the question. ;)

FileMaker: Company (http://www.filemaker.com/company/)

Quote:

FileMaker, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc.

Regards

[orl770]

After reading all the threads on the subject of Filemaker 7 released today, I thought I should offer my thoughts, being that I've been developing Filemaker dbase applications for companies for years since version 3 (and getting paid to do it).

Filemaker has been relational all along - it is a VERY EASY application to develop dbase solutions in. I have built many complex database applications for many companies with as many as 40 files per app (just because 1 file = 1 dbase table doesn't mean it isn't relational). I have been running my company on a Filemaker application I developed and have been using Filemaker Server v5 (running on an iMac w/ Mac OS 9) with Filemaker Pro v5.5 clients (running on Mac OS X) connecting to the server on a LAN in my office as well as over the internet from home to the office.

I have developed complex applications in MS Access as well, and from my experience, if your time has any value, you can get an application developed with Filemaker in about 1/20th the development time due to the simplicity of Scriptmaker (the scripting language that comes with FM). MS Access has a Macro (read: scripting) language but most functionality requires PROGRAMMING in MS Access BASIC (which is like Visual Basic but with extra dbase commands, etc.) Filemaker is not THAT limited, but it does have SOME limitations, but most of these can be gotten around thru 3rd party plug-ins.

I have been awaiting the release of Filemaker 7 to address several limitions. Speed over a WAN is the main one. Filemaker is MUCH FASTER (v5.5 and up) running in OS 9 than in OS X (v5 and under only run in OS 9) This is because the OS X version is carbonized, not a true Cocoa app. and the performance suffers for it - especially connecting to a hosted database over the internet (WITH broadband on both ends). Filemaker v7 is supposed to help with that, but there is no way to test it because THEY DIDN'T RELEASE THE SERVER VERSION YET AND THE CLIENT VERSION WON'T CONNECT TO ANY LOWER VERSION FILES!

As for ODBC connectivity - this has been included since v5 - however, it was only available for importing data into a Filemaker file - one couldn't do 'live updates' of the data. Version 7 now has a SQL Execute script step which allows one to access a MySQL or Oracle dbase thru a Filemaker GUI and use the data in a bi-directional way, but not as robustly as I would like. I just downloaded an ODBC driver for MySQL databases and tested this feature and it does work. I can't imagine reprogramming all of the logic in an application to actually use an external database source like MySQL this way, but oh well.

In summary, there are VERY SOPHISTICATED database applications out there designed and running in Filemaker Pro and it is a rock-solid, easy to use, robust application development environment that is VERY FAST to develop apps. in but a little too slow for long-distance WAN-type clients to connect to. Hopefully, when v7 Server comes out (this summer) I will be able to determine if this version fixes the WAN speed problem. Other than that, it has been great so far.

[mdriftmeyer]

I have 3 questions for anyone who might be in the know

1) Is FM7 written in Cocoa now?
I'm actually wondering about cocoa and the Windows platform.

2) Have FM used anything from WebObjects?
Back when Apple and Next merged I figured the WebObjects group might takeover Filemaker. With the prices of Filemaker 7 Server, maybe the opposite is true. Is there synergy there?

3) Does the underlying database relate to the OSX 10.4 database file system rumours?
Actually... I'll ask that in the 10.4 thread instead - link through here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=743106#post743106

Thanks

1) No its not written in Cocoa--See the Filemaker Developer Section and note that it does include support for C++ and no mention of Objective-C let alone Objective-C++. (Carbon Application)

2) From what I can see the Filemaker group is reinventing some paradigms from WebObjects (the EOF Mapping View for example). I won't even go into the mistakes Apple made by letting all of my former Managers @NeXT leave during the merger which effectively buried Professional Services and WebObjects within many sectors when it was the platform to beat.

3) No answer on this other than being a RDBMS it has to adhere to some of the SQL92 spec. It also looks like the XSLT/XML includes some XML Apache XML Projects.

[Doctor Q]

THEY DIDN'T RELEASE THE SERVER VERSION YETMaybe that explains why I couldn't find the server7 prices in their online store.

[mfethers]

Forgive the plea for free advice, but... I'm a member of a small food cooperative, and we currently don't do any database-type work. We have a small inventory thing someone set up years ago to track orders, but... so far we don't even track our members beyond having a Word DOC listing who they are.

We've talked a few times about how nice it would be to have a database where we could track members, when they pay their dues, maybe relate them to our commitees, and special orders, and, well, a lot of stuff, but the problem is that we have no one experienced in databases. I use one in my day job and am familiar with how they work and have ideas for setting it up, but I've never done it have no programming experience, and no desire to learn anything very in depth.

Is FileMaker 7 maybe something I or another member could learn to use kind of easily? The web site makes it sound that way, but that's marketing, you know.

What I'm thinking after seeing this announcement, though, is that I might be able to use FileMaker 7 to set up a membership database, based on my day-job experience, an inventory database, link them together for member special orders, and even better, publish it on our web site for the scheduling people to access and move people around, change info...

Might this be appropriate for a small business/coop like we are?

As someone who came to Filemaker with no database experience and now uses Filemaker for creating dozens of fairly complex databases, I would say yes you can absolutely figure it out. Filemaker is known for ease of use for the beginner. Most of the people complaining about Filemaker's lack of features are used to very complex databases which are robust in features but impossible for the average person to figure out. Filemaker is extremely user-friendly if 1) you don't need to link to another larger database and 2) your web needs are basic. Filemaker can serve web databases, but it is slow and putzy compared to the big boys. Download the free trial and open up a template, try it out!

[mdriftmeyer]

All Apple applications will gain when they are pure Cocoa but that should be expected since the design of the Frameworks have always been Objective-C based.

What is good about this is Apple knows its OS will steadily speed up as more of its core is Cocoa and less Carbon.

I commend them for doing a hell of a job with the Carbon API.

[ftf]

The Jet Database Engine is the problem. It would have to be completely rewritten and once done, there wouldn't be cross-compatiblity between MS Access for Windows and Access for Mac projects so it seems like a useless idea for MS to port Access (and I'd have to concurr)

As for FM and Access being on par with each other.. maybe the last time that was true was around Access 2.0; for quite a while Access has outclassed FM and has been trying to compete with the big boys (Oracle.) Access works great as an intermediary to Oracle DBs, but for sheer data handling, it isn't anywhere near as efficient though programing modules is extremely easy and setting up automated tasks is easier than Oracle's solutions.

Just as a sidenote, I don't think MS ever intended to compete with Oracle using Access. In fact, several years ago MS announced that further development to Access would stop and all resources put towards SQL server.

[MikeBike]

But, with out JDBC I can't use it.
Would have been nice to use an Apple product instead of MySQL.

- What about SQL, does it support SQL queries?
- No Stored Procedures?
- Why did Apple spend so much time and money on a JavaVM with Great Graphics support, and seamless integration into the OS, but yet, the other groups in Apple ignore Java.

Seems to me there needs to be a directive from Above to Get With The Program.


Is this a joke? As a database person, I was hoping to have a decent alternative to Access or even Oracle. So, I checked out earlier versions of FileMaker and found them to be as much as a database as dBase was in its earlier version.

Now, they are touting this new version which is finally relational (only 10+ years, too late) and you have to have the $2500 version to be able to use JDBC or ODBC. That's the cost of 17 named user licences for Oracle 9i's Standard Edition One. And you get a million more features, stability, security with Oracle. Granted it is not right to compared the 2 but if you are going to sell a db product for that much money, ... you get what I am saying. I mean Access has had ODBC option forever.

I really wanted to like FileMaker but now, I think they are just a joke.

[phasornc]

[QUOTE=bousozoku]Notice at the bottom of this press release that the advanced server version can't be used as an ODBC or JDBC data source on Mac OS X. What's going on with that?


This press release says no OBDC/JDBC on OS X, but the press release also lists OS X and OS X Server as two seperate supported platforms, does that mean we get ODBC/JDBC on Panther Server, but not Client. I'm not buying and Win Server 2003, just for Filemaker after my Panther Server investment.

[pkscout]

[QUOTE=bousozoku]Notice at the bottom of this press release that the advanced server version can't be used as an ODBC or JDBC data source on Mac OS X. What's going on with that?

This press release says no OBDC/JDBC on OS X, but the press release also lists OS X and OS X Server as two seperate supported platforms, does that mean we get ODBC/JDBC on Panther Server, but not Client. I'm not buying and Win Server 2003, just for Filemaker after my Panther Server investment.

It looks like you can't run FileMaker Pro Server Advanced on OSX if you want to do ODBC connections. But if you want to connect to a FileMaker Pro Server on Windows you *can* do that on OSX using FileMaker Pro client (or anything else that understands ODBC).

I can't believe how completely idiotic it is to not support ODBC datasourcing on OSX. I'm canceling one of my G5 XServe orders tomorrow and ordering a Windows 2003 server instead, because we *really* need ODBC connectivity to FileMaker solutions. I can't wait to see the look on my Apple reps face when I tell him I'm canceling a hardware order because one of Apple's fully owned subsidiaries can't support OSX properly.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

[iJed]

I have 3 questions for anyone who might be in the know

1) Is FM7 written in Cocoa now?
I'm actually wondering about cocoa and the Windows platform.

2) Have FM used anything from WebObjects?
Back when Apple and Next merged I figured the WebObjects group might takeover Filemaker. With the prices of Filemaker 7 Server, maybe the opposite is true. Is there synergy there?

3) Does the underlying database relate to the OSX 10.4 database file system rumours?
Actually... I'll ask that in the 10.4 thread instead - link through here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=743106#post743106

Thanks

1) Probably not. I don't see why they'd rewrite large portions with Cocoa when the Carbon code is fully functional.

2) This is extremely unlikely. I seriously doubt these products have any kind of relation whatsoever.

3) This is possible although you would expect the ODBC and JDBC support to work on the Mac! This could be part of the reason why it doesn't though. However I doubt this too.


FileMaker 7 seems like a massive improvement. It is powerful enough to be useful while not having the abomination of a UI that MS Access suffers.

[Macmaniac]

I'd like to get my hands on it, I use Filemaker all day at my work and some tasks get very annoying! I hope there are some great new improvements, and also maybe by going to 7 my boss will upgrade all of our old iMacs;)

[dgaust]

I just got my Filemaker 7 updgrade today as part of my maintenance agreement. Amazing released on the 10th and received on the 10th.

The feature I am most impressed with is the ability to have more than one table in a file. I can finally integrate my folders with 15 different files into the one.

The only problem is there is no hard copy manual available (or even a softcopy) and doesn't seem like there will be one anytime soon.

[phasornc]

It looks like you can't run FileMaker Pro Server Advanced on OSX if you want to do ODBC connections. But if you want to connect to a FileMaker Pro Server on Windows you *can* do that on OSX using FileMaker Pro client (or anything else that understands ODBC).

I can't believe how completely idiotic it is to not support ODBC datasourcing on OSX. I'm canceling one of my G5 XServe orders tomorrow and ordering a Windows 2003 server instead, because we *really* need ODBC connectivity to FileMaker solutions. I can't wait to see the look on my Apple reps face when I tell him I'm canceling a hardware order because one of Apple's fully owned subsidiaries can't support OSX properly.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.[/QUOTE]

Once again, the press release said no ODBC/JDBC on OS X, is said nothing about OS X SERVER. This could be part of Apple's strategy to simply get people on OS X server. I realize the OS X and OS X SERVER are essentially the same underlying technologies, but SERVER is marketed as different product.

Can anyone clarify whether we get ODBC/JDBC on OS X SERVER?

[phasornc]

I can't believe how completely idiotic it is to not support ODBC datasourcing on OSX. I'm canceling one of my G5 XServe orders tomorrow and ordering a Windows 2003 server instead, because we *really* need ODBC connectivity to FileMaker solutions. I can't wait to see the look on my Apple reps face when I tell him I'm canceling a hardware order because one of Apple's fully owned subsidiaries can't support OSX properly.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

Once again, the press release said no ODBC/JDBC on OS X, is said nothing about OS X SERVER. This could be part of Apple's strategy to simply get people on OS X server. I realize the OS X and OS X SERVER are essentially the same underlying technologies, but SERVER is marketed as different product.

Can anyone clarify whether we get ODBC/JDBC on OS X SERVER?

[kingtj]

Agreed! FileMaker has one big advantage over Access that I've seen... better data integrity! Anyone working with Access databases of any real size and scope is surely familiar with their tendency to become corrupted (especially if you have multiple people trying to use the same database file!).

Access is the nightmare of corporate I.T. It's just "user friendly" enough so someone in a department decides it's going to be a great tool to build a tool for their staff's own use. Then, I.T. has to rescue their data when it blows up. I honestly never hear these types of stories about FileMaker.



People have used FM for image databases since that's what the container field was best at. FM has it's own built-in scripting language, or you can use AppleScript.

IMHO, FM more than stacks up to Access. Access does have more functionality in its scripting language than FM's build-in language, but Access is a kludgy mess. It takes forever to do even the simplest of databases. FM shines in that regard.

[wheezl]

All I really want is the ability to use filemaker to build a front end to my PostgreSQL databases with an ODBC driver... or really.. anything else.

The inability for the old filemaker to do anything but poll a SQL db for records was a sure show stopper for me.

If I can use filemaker to write a nice front end to a real database.. then all is well... otherwise filemaker is still for storing recipies and quilt patterns.

[GregGomer]

If you go and download the trial, it takes you to a link that also offers the manual to download. Obviously you don't need the trial, but this is one option that might work for you to at least get the manual until they make it more readily available.

Also, the FAQ section has a lot of helpful info, including a page about migrating your old databases, that seems to be the big question people have right off. Personally I'll be making a back up before I try it.

http://www.filemaker.com/upgrade/migration.html#techbriefs

Greg


I just got my Filemaker 7 updgrade today as part of my maintenance agreement. Amazing released on the 10th and received on the 10th.

The feature I am most impressed with is the ability to have more than one table in a file. I can finally integrate my folders with 15 different files into the one.

The only problem is there is no hard copy manual available (or even a softcopy) and doesn't seem like there will be one anytime soon.

[GregGomer]

Actually, looks like you can download it without opting for the trial version.

Here is the link to 5 or so different user guides and manuals. Hoe that helps.

http://www.filemaker.com/support/product_documentation.html

I just got my Filemaker 7 updgrade today as part of my maintenance agreement. Amazing released on the 10th and received on the 10th.

The feature I am most impressed with is the ability to have more than one table in a file. I can finally integrate my folders with 15 different files into the one.

The only problem is there is no hard copy manual available (or even a softcopy) and doesn't seem like there will be one anytime soon.

[Kevin Gale]

Database guys should check out Omnis Studio (www.omnis.net).
This is a cross-platform RAD which allows you to create "real" database applications on the Mac (no flames please!!)

[mdriftmeyer]

But, with out JDBC I can't use it.
Would have been nice to use an Apple product instead of MySQL.

- What about SQL, does it support SQL queries?
- No Stored Procedures?
- Why did Apple spend so much time and money on a JavaVM with Great Graphics support, and seamless integration into the OS, but yet, the other groups in Apple ignore Java.

Seems to me there needs to be a directive from Above to Get With The Program.

Who says you have to use MySQL. Use PostgreSQL. I sure as hell wouldn't switch from it while doing Apache Cocoon 2 work.

www.postgresql.org

Much more scalable than MySQL and has stored procedures as well, not to mention it has replication.

Apple Engineering is not interested in competing against Oracle databases but it does offer accessing JDBC seemlessly with WebObjects which by far is worth way more than the paultry $699.

[mdriftmeyer]

All I really want is the ability to use filemaker to build a front end to my PostgreSQL databases with an ODBC driver... or really.. anything else.

The inability for the old filemaker to do anything but poll a SQL db for records was a sure show stopper for me.

If I can use filemaker to write a nice front end to a real database.. then all is well... otherwise filemaker is still for storing recipies and quilt patterns.


Pick the right tool for the right job. Use WebObjects to build your Front-end interfacing via EOF that treats PostgreSQL as pure Objects.

[mdriftmeyer]

Database guys should check out Omnis Studio (www.omnis.net).
This is a cross-platform RAD which allows you to create "real" database applications on the Mac (no flames please!!)

No Flame, just a better alternative offered:

Openbase 8.0 www.openbase.com

[wheezl]

Pick the right tool for the right job. Use WebObjects to build your Front-end interfacing via EOF that treats PostgreSQL as pure Objects.


Agreed, but I have found it nice on occasion to use something like Access hooked up to PostgeSQL via ODBC so a client can actually muck around a bit without having to call me. I think it would be neat to have that option on the mac as well.

[pkscout]

Once again, the press release said no ODBC/JDBC on OS X, is said nothing about OS X SERVER. This could be part of Apple's strategy to simply get people on OS X server. I realize the OS X and OS X SERVER are essentially the same underlying technologies, but SERVER is marketed as different product.

Can anyone clarify whether we get ODBC/JDBC on OS X SERVER?

I can clarify that you won't, at least not for FileMaker. If you look in the FAQ for Filemaker 7 Advanced server, it says you can't use it as an ODBC datasource on OSX. If you look at the requirements for Advanced Server, you must use OSX Server, OSX client is not an option. That added to the fact that OSX Server is just OSX client with some added apps leads to the conclusion that you can't use any version of FileMaker 7 as a datasource on any version of OSX. You can use OSX as an ODBC *client* with the ODBC driver included, but not as a datasource.

The language is a little vague, but given all the pieces parts, it's the only conclusion I can come to.

[0 and A ai]

I have a question for you filemaker users.

I want to create a sports database for a website i'm making. like for football.
Can i make a database with this app so all i have to do is choose the game from the scheduled i've entered before hand enter the score and the app does the rest like calcuate position in league point difference wins and provide a table where u can read this in html on a site?

[Snowy_River]

Just a note on Access/Mac etc.

Microsoft had one of the first databases on the Mac - called Microsoft File, I believe. So it did have a suite of a sort - Excel, Word and File. (I'm sure no-one in their right minds back then thought of anything as cr@p as Powerpoint back then)

Oh, and I'm amazed that ayone thinks Access is easy - laying out forms and reports was always torture. (and that's being kind).

I knew that MS used to have a DB as part of their Office line up on the Mac. I guess I just assumed that it was an early version of Access. Correction noted.

[GregA]

I knew that MS used to have a DB as part of their Office line up on the Mac. I guess I just assumed that it was an early version of Access. Correction noted.Wasn't FoxPro on the Mac originally too?

[WM.]

It looks like you can't run FileMaker Pro Server Advanced on OSX if you want to do ODBC connections. But if you want to connect to a FileMaker Pro Server on Windows you *can* do that on OSX using FileMaker Pro client (or anything else that understands ODBC).

I can't believe how completely idiotic it is to not support ODBC datasourcing on OSX. I'm canceling one of my G5 XServe orders tomorrow and ordering a Windows 2003 server instead, because we *really* need ODBC connectivity to FileMaker solutions. I can't wait to see the look on my Apple reps face when I tell him I'm canceling a hardware order because one of Apple's fully owned subsidiaries can't support OSX properly.
You must have missed this, from http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/09/fm7:
The new FileMaker Server 7 Advanced product also supports JDBC and ODBC, making it possible to share data with other applications or provide data for reporting tools. This connectivity will be missing from the initial Mac OS X release, according to FileMaker, which cited "delays in implementing the technology."

"We are committed to implement technologies cross platform when possible and intend to provide full support for ODBC/JDBC on the Mac as soon as possible but can't provide dates at this stage," said FileMaker spokesman Kevin Mallon.
Emphasis mine.

I'm surprised that you'd change server platforms so hastily, without checking all the facts.

WM

[phasornc]

I wish Filemaker would have stated this on their site, but this is pretty good news. This means easy PHP and JSP support for all Mac server setups. However, the pricetag is steep, $2499 + $499 for Mac OS Server (ten user). This is more than the cost of entry for MS SQL Server/Windows Server 2003.

I see FileMaker Advanced server as filling a nice gap between Access and SQL Server. It is the one product you can use for your office workgroup and simultaneously publish to the web through standard scripting languages. However the price of entry is also high. Well, we all thought the iPod, the iPod mini and the Cube were priced to high and the market proved us wrong twice. So now we wait and see will FileMaker Advanced Server be a Cube or and iPod.

Since people seem to be willing to shell out the money for "appliances", maybe the time is right for an Xserve/FM Advance preconfigured combo. Apple could really outdo the MS Small Business Server, with a little more tweaking of the Server Admin tools.

Oh well . . . enough babbling, time get back to playing with the FileMaker demo, I've got about 30 databases (60 .fp5 files) to start converting. Did anybody notice in the conversion pdf that found sets and sorts in your old scripts won't be carried over to the new filemaker 7 format. This is like Apple's full employment act for FileMaker techs/consultants.


You must have missed this, from http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/09/fm7:

Emphasis mine.

I'm surprised that you'd change server platforms so hastily, without checking all the facts.

WM

[MikeBike]

Well, my credit card is waiting for that JDBC support, and not just in Advanced Server. A JDBC driver should be available seperately to run against Any Version of FileMaker.

JDBC Drivers can report a LOT of Meta Data about the database, so, I don't think this is trivial to write. But, it's not Rocket Science either.

[Doctor Q]

If Apple thinks of JDBC as a server-only function, I beg to differ. I think of this interface the same way I think of RTF for word processing - the common language all products should support. If I have a one-user personal database in my one-user personal copy of FileMaker, I want to be able to query it with a separate SQL-speaking tool. All RDBMSes, client or server, should support JDBC. That's my 2 cents, and Apple won't get my more-than-2 cents for an upgrade until they add it.

[pkscout]

You must have missed this, from http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/03/09/fm7:


In fact, I had not seen that. Thanks for the post. I looked at every page on the FileMaker site to find any indication of future support to no avail, and this is the first article I've seen with any indication of future support. We'll still have to decide based on our project timeline what platform to get, as being committed to something and actually delivering it are two very different things.

[WM.]

I hope my emphasis wasn't too misleading, BTW...I mean, you're skimming along, and you see this bold thing about "full support", but you go right by the part about "as soon as possible...no dates at this time." I guess that's just my journalistic tendency to mislead. :D (And why isn't there an "evil" smiley???)

Also, since I don't have much interest in FileMaker (although my dad might be able to find a use for it for his small business), I haven't poked around their site at all. So I guess I didn't really check all my facts--I kind of assumed that they'd put something as important as this future ODBC/JDBC support in a fairly prominent place on the product pages.

WM