Filemaker 7

[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]

No new Themes, bummer

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]

The right choice

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

Quote:

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

Regards

 

[orl770]

Filemaker 7

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:
https://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 YET

Maybe 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]

I, too, wanted to like this product

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]

ODBC/JDBC Question

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]

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:
https://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]

Filemaker 7.0

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]

FileMaker vs. Access

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]

postgresql

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]

Omnis Studio

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.