FM Tid

Can you tell me more? I have a whole series of inter-related database files running in FM6 quite happily on my iMac G5 running OS X Tiger. I need an answer to the question : "will FM 6 run in Snow Leopard on an Intel Mac?" It sounds from your experience as if it will, but I wonder if I could just ask you to run through a brief checklist to compare our use of FM 6? 1. I don't use any FM or external plug ins 2. I do use relationships quite a lot, but I guess most people do? 3. I do use scripting quite a lot in some files 4. I do use Calculation fields and Functions to some extent 5. I do use Container fields 6. I don't use Web publishing at all Based on that (compared to your use of FM) do you think I would be able to export FM6 to Snow Leopard?

This is going to be lengthy to explain - please bear with me. A while back, I noticed when I launched my FM6 files, that I got a message "Date and time are not the same as System settings - do you want them to be the same?" Obviously, I clicked "YES" - who wouldn't? Of COURSE I want my dates and times to be the same as the system settings!! After that, I also began to notice that FM wasn't accepting dates in the (logical) UK format of DDMMYYYY - it was insisting "Dates must look like ...." and allowing only the endlessly frustrating, illogical US system of MMDDYYYY. This baffled me no end. The date on my Mac was displayed in the UK format - what had gone wrong? I changed the definitions of some fields so they displayed in the UK format, though I still had to enter them in the US format. Some fields wouldn't change at all. That is the situation as it currently stands. What I want is to be able to redefine all my databases so that dates are data-entered and displayed in the UK format, as they used to be. In other words, to reverse the effect of clicking "YES" to that original message. How do I do this? (Oh - the cause of the problem? It took a while to uncover, but eventually I did. Although my iMac displays the date UK-style, I had changed it to a custom setting, so it would display seconds, as it always used to in OS9. HOWEVER, although it looks like a UK date from my Custom setting, I didn't know for a long time, that Custom settings always hold the actual date hidden in the US format, whatever it is displayed as.) I'll be happy when all my dates are back in UK formats. I just need a way to do this.

Many thanks for these helpful suggestions. (The reason for leaving some repeats blank - I could equally have set them to 0 and used "Do not display number if 0" - was that the presence of a particular "value repeat" depended on there being a related "values record" in a separate table; if there was no related record, there was no change in value, therefore no value repeat to calculate. Plus, it just LOOKED tidier also). In fact, I went away and gave the matter some thought, and after discovering that Set Field and (GetRepetition+variable used as pointer) do not work together to MODIFY a repeat (only to fetch or test it), I came up with this solution Having defined a duplicate array of the values array, and used Set Field and GetRepetition to populate it from the original array, I then went through the new array starting from the 2nd repeat, testing each repeat with the following logic : If repeat is 0, Set Field (repeat) (repeat -1) which solved the problem. I now have an array which I can use to provide summary totals for each of the years, but still use the first array to display on the screen. I also have a couple of scripts to run in future years, when I use yet another of the array's repeats. (And this is also recorded in a Tutorial layout, which is something I cannot recommend highly enough to anyone who has devised a complex database and might tend to forget things!)

If my reply seems 1) too obvious and 2) wrong, then I've simply misunderstood what you said. There is an Auto-Enter field Option, "Value from previous record". Wouldn't that give you what you want? (In Scripts, it's under Fields - "Insert from last record"). As I say, I may have misunderstood what you asked.

Oh wow, thank you! You saved my bacon and a lot of future work. : (I guess I should have checked Format as well as Prefs... funny how we sometimes miss - as Basil Fawlty so memorably said - "the bleedin' obvious"!)

This is a data entry problem but I can't see which other forum it should go in. I have looked in FM Prefs, and there isn't a "highlight contents when tabbing" option. The reason for this is that I often have cause to duplicate records where all data is to be the same apart from a few fields. To give one example : let's say I duplicated a record (Command-D) of which the first 3 fields are to remain the same, the last two need changes. Ideally I would like to do all this via the keyboard viz.: Command-D, tab, tab, tab, tab, type, tab, type (which "highlight when tabbing" would allow) Whereas now I have to: Command-D, tab, tab, tab, tab, move hand onto mouse, position cursor precisely in the field, double-click, remove hand from mouse, type, tab, move hand onto mouse, position cursor precisely in the field, double-click, remove hand from mouse, type which, with rather a lot of records to process, is a real pain in the ***. Anyone have any ideas how I could "force" FM to highlight the contents of fields that are tabbed to, as happens in various other applications?

That link didn't take me anywhere except Google (DNS not loading etc). And I don't want to go on arguing for evermore in a pointless discussion, so I thank you for your efforts to help, and am bowing out. Goodnight.

I wouldn't dispute with you at all on that - and all files I have built from FM4 onwards (I skipped FM3) are built on relationship principles. But as I said before, this database was begun 15 years ago, and has many sophisticated interconnections with other databases I have in the same series, so in this one case it wasn't the answer. I would also dispute everyone's apparent contempt here for repeating fields. Essentially, you are right in many BUT NOT ALL cases, for there are perfectly sound reasons for using arrays, which is what repeating fields can also be.

You need to specify the field in the Payment Record as Type = Date, then click Options, then click Calculated value, then click Specify ... {name of existing date field} + 30

Ok. As it seems a difficult question, I am trying a home-grown solution of my own devising. I have ... 1. duplicated "values" and populated every repeat with the contents of "values" using a script (and I had to search here to discover why the use of Set Field with GetRepetition only worked with the first repeat). Every repeat of this copy now is filled with either values or 0. 2. I will be looking at how to loop through this array and if a value is 0, use the previous repeat instead, until every repeat is filled with non-0 value (again, using scripts). 3. As part of the annual processing in future, I shall program an additional script that sets up a value in the newest repeat being used. It should not be too difficult to do, though a little fiddly and irksome.

Sigh, it seems every response I must make to my original query is to supply more and more details in explanation. The EXISTENCE of the repeating field is straightforward. This database was started in 1994 in FM Pro 2, which was NOT a relational database. By the time I bought FM Pro 4 my database had already expanded beyond the point where it was worth while spending much time to completely redesign it from the ground up, and the repeating field I am referring to here was absolutely central to the raison d'être and functioning of the design. I have since then used relational databases to expand it, as I mentioned in my previous reply. But not this particular field. So to reiterate - the file was begun in FM2 and there is no mistake. So I would welcome how to solve my problem, given that it was started in the era - I repeat - BEFORE FM Pro became relational. (This situation actually originates in FM Pro introducing "arrays" - which is what repeating fields actually are - without providing the programming methodology to fully support it.)

Thank you for your reply, but there are no mistakes. 1. The production of values for a given year involves : a) data input of catalogue values into a related file : a Find of all records in the first file that have a related record in the second file for the latest year c) a complex set of scripts and calculations run against the Found Set only, that determine "intermediate values" where an item does not correspond precisely with a catalogue value, in order to set a realistic value for the item d) this operation entails many records NECESSARILY having blank values in some repetitions (nor do I apologise for placing emphasis on the importance of display) All this was not a necessary part of the query I raised, but is a necessary response to your labelling it a "mistake". 2. You misunderstood what I meant about "expandable into the future". I was not talking about the "repeating field" attribute, which I do understand is no longer part of the FM vision. I was talking about this particular repeating field having 20 occurrences (repetitions) and therefore capable of a further 10 years of use/ data entry / reports. I do welcome CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms and suggestions.

I have the following situation : For each record in the database, I have a repeating field "values" (up to 20 repetitions, 10 currently used), which shows the market value of this item from year to year. If, in a given year, the value has not changed, the repetition is blank, and the function Last is used to derive a value for use when totalling values across all records for the latest year. So, a given record might look like this (where "Year" is simply a layout header text field, showing a list of years, while "Value" shows the contents of each repetition of the field "values") Year '99...'00...'01...'02...'03...'04...'05...'06...'07....'08 Value 25............30...........35....40............45....40 In the "total value" calculation, use of Last(values) returns 40 as the current value of this item (even though there is no value listed for 2008). Now what I need to do is to produce a "total values" report not only for the latest year, but for each of the 10 years (and expandable into the future). If a value was present for each year, this would be an easy matter of using GetRepetition(values) for each repeating "values year" that was clicked. However, you can see the problem, I think. GetRepetition(values) would return 0 for 2002, when it would need to return 30. Yet Last(values) would return 40, also incorrect. Can someone give me a pointer how I could do this? Is there an existing function that will start from GetRepetition(n) and then work backwards from there to find the last non-blank value?

Hi Lee Thanks for reply. I am not upgrading my system beyond what I need to I had to upgrade to FM6 from FM4 (which I was happy with) in order to get a version to run natively in OS X. And indeed, I am happy enough with FM6 - it is only this 'window memory' problem which is the major irritant. On your other point, I think this is the only place I posted about the window size problem? If I have posted about it elsewhere then that is in error (certainly no intention of doing so), but I cannot find any trace of having done so. I might well in the future need re-consider whether I subscribe to the site you referred me to (thanks again btw) - though I do wish they had stated upfront what the cost of subscription actually is.

I was a professional systems analyst and mainframe programmer for years working for various high-profile companies. As such, working both WITHIN a Quality Management System (QMS), and for other companies that had never heard of such a thing, there is one thing they would be in unanimous agreement on: NEVER EVER test a new system with 'live' customer data. The scope for absolute disaster is one small wrongly-coded 'switch' or 'flag' away. I speak from experience - I once believed I had tested a new system to destruction, and then went on holiday. During that week, something went wrong and all hell broke loose. And this was a system change that was 95% tested! Do whatever it takes, but convince your company manager that this is an total NO GO. Don't even think about it! Only if he can afford to potentially lose all his customers and start rebuilding his company from scratch should he entertain this notion. Professional and commercial suicide is not too strong a word for it.

I did exactly this : I used FM4 happily for many years but when I finally switched to OS X (Tiger) two years ago I wanted a version that didn't have to depend on Classic. Having been advised by an independent Apple dealer that the last version compatible with FM4 was FM6, I then had to actually find it, but FileMaker won't sell earlier versions. Luckily the dealer in question, once I supplied him with my FM4 licence number, sold me an office version (unofficially) of FM6 complete with licence number. This satisfied my needs absolutely. I do hope that you have the same luck I had. FM6 will convert your FM4 files with the minimum of fuss, later versions not so. The advice about running FM6 under Rosetta is sound but ... ... just as a case study : I once did a side by side comparison of a newly converted FM6 database, with its FM4 parent running in Classic on my G5 iMac. I did various tests but the most telling was this one: doing a 3-click scroll (i.e. to advance 3 screens' worth of data in List view) on the FM4 database in Classic was MUCH faster.

I can. But I am only one of the silent many, a sophisticated but DOMESTIC user of FM4 quite happily for many years, who upgraded to FM6 only for OS X, and now finds that FM has effectively abandoned the likes of me to concentrate entirely on "business solutions". I can't help feeling that Microsoft managed their markets so much better with Access, even though (IMO) it is an inferior app. As for "Bento"... [speech fails me at this point...]

Lee, thank you for that. Unfortunately one has to make a pay subscription to the site to get this information, so I have passed on this occasion. The original problem is an irritation, but not one worth paying to resolve. In any case, it kind of sounds like my real beef is with Apple - they took a few cool things away that were present in OS 9 and never replaced them in OS X : 'remembering' window positions of previously opened applications was one of them. Thank you again.

Hi - Since upgrading my FM4 / OS 9.2.2 solutions to FM6 / Tiger, something has bugged me real bad : FileMaker no longer "remembers" my window sizes and positions. In OS 9 I could have two databases regularly open side by side, and next time I launched either or both databases, the window(s)would be the same place and size as before. Under OS X this is no longer the case and it is a major irritant to resize the ******* things each and every time. Is there any way to solve this? I have searched FM prefs to no avail and I suspect it must be an OS X thing. A Finder problem in other words, though it impacts on my use of FM. Any solutions or workarounds (even non-FileMaker ones) would be welcome. I tried asking this in Apple Discussions but I was chased out of there pretty quick ("not an Apple issue") so I'm hoping you guys are a bit more sympathetic or else I'm going round in circles. (oh LOL - the automatic editing has replaced the d*mn word with asterisks!! it is not even a swear word in the UK - hahaha - pmsl chaps).

Supposition: Leopard is running on an Intel Mac, with Classic / OS 9.2.2 running FM4 using Parallels or an equivalent emulator? If that is not the answer then please say how you are doing it, as one day I will need to buy an Intel Mac yet still be able to run my Classic apps including FM2...

Hi - thanks I have International > Formats > Custom set up, as per an Apple Forums Discussion thread, in order to show the seconds ticking off in the time in the menu bar. Has that caused this problem do you think? If it has, do I now have to choose between showing the time with seconds, or UK date formats in FM ? That would be a shame...

Hi, can you give a little more information? When you say the field is not modifiable, do you mean that you cannot enter data in it? Or that you cannot work with it in Layouts mode? Or change it in Define Fields... dialogue? It sounds as if you need to be using the File > Define Relationships.. dialogue first, but I would need to have a bit more information about exactly what it is you want to do.

Hi, forgive what must seem a newbie question, but this is driving me insane! In FM4 I had a load of databases which quite happily worked with dates in the European format (dd/mm/yyyy) instead of the illogical US system (mm/dd/yyyy). But having converted to FM Pro 6, all my dates have reverted to the US format! I have looked in Preferences to reset to UK defaults - there is nothing there. I have tried Field Format - no, nothing there either. It will allow me to format the date field any way I like (e.g. like the OS X System Preference pane) AS LONG AS it is in the US sequence. Then I tried a Custom format, where I specified the date should be "28" "-" "01" "-" "2008" : that was fine, FM allowed me to do that. The problem comes when I actually come to enter data, e.g. "28 01 2008", it tells me "the date must be a valid date.... and must look like 12 25 1997". And before you ask - yes, I have my Mac set to UK in the International pane, and there is a little Union flag in my menu bar. So before I start gibbering and they call for the men in white coats, what on earth can I do to persuade FM6 to be more like FM4 and happily work with UK date formats?

Am i right in thinking that FM6 is the last backwards-compatible version of FileMaker that works for the early versions, and that my files - developed and expanded since the days of FM Pro 2, and now all converted to FM6 - cannot be converted to later versions? Forgive me if this question has been asked many times before, but my search (convert version 6 to version 7) brought up so many irrelevant posts that contained the number 6 or 7, that I stopped browsing through it.

That sounds interesting Vaughan - can you give me a hint how I might do that? I can use script but I haven't used record IDs yet.