Some First Impressions & Observations

[CyborgSam]

I really like the relationships window, its easy to see how everything relates.. Multi-criteria and comparative operators are powerful extensions to relationships. Multiple tables in one file is also a powerful feature. These features alone will reduce my development time, database complexity, etc.

Value lists are still weak. There is no good way to have a record's serial # in a value list followed by an apropos field of info. An option to hide the first field would be great. I've been editing fonts to make numbers blank & 0 width so the serial # is not visible, works OK if the values do not contain numbers.

I like the Browse, Find, Layout and Preview icons above the layout popup, reduces mouse movements.

The gray, drab icons for fill & lines are too non-descript for my old-fart eyes. I'm not fond of the new document icon for Mac OS X, it's too drab & pastel. The application icon is so-so.

Allowing return & enter to act as tab is a great feature, users expect this behavior.

I like how a script can run with full access priviledges.

Ugo & I were doing some script timing last week, I'll test FM6 & FM7 to see if the script engine runs faster.

Overall, I feel I got my $149 worth (although I've always felt FileMaker's upgrade prices were a bit steep). The changes in relationships and tables so I can put everything in one file is almost worth the price by itself.

Of course, we'll all have a feature or two we think should have gone in this revision. Maybe someone could write a Filemaker database to keep track of all the features we want...

Version: v7.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[Vaughan]

I tell you what, there is a lot of new stuff under the skin. And it's going to take a lot of learning to know what the implications are.

For instance I just defined a auto-entered serial number, and there's an option to generate the serial number "on creation" or "on commit". I'll have to think about that...

I notice the option to auto-enter the value from the last record visited (rather than the previous record). That's neat.

There is a lot to go through... rush and you may miss something!

[-Queue-]

Vaughan said:

I notice the option to auto-enter the value from the last record visited (rather than the previous record). That's neat.

Isn't that what it should have been called all along? It's never been from the previous record; it's always from the last entered record, which caused me much confusion until I realized the terminology was flawed.

Version: v5.x

Platform: Windows 2000

[DanBrill]

CyborgSam said:

I've been editing fonts to make numbers blank & 0 width so the serial # is not visible, works OK if the values do not contain numbers.

That's a great idea Sam. Any chance you'd post that font to save me the bother of creating my own to do the job?

As for what I've seen of the comments on version 7, I think I'm a bit underwhelmed. Lifting the 2 gig limit on files is really nice, as is, if I understand correctly, the ability to export containers as well as single records. Password functions are great too, but I have suitable workarounds for that if high security isn't a real priority.

But what I really really wanted was event triggers. I guess I'll have to buy the plug in. Plug ins get pricey, esp. when you need developer's liscenses for them.

Also, I can't believe they took away the relationship dialog and are forcing us to use a graphical representation. I hate this about Access. I love FM 6's easy to read dialog.

Well, my panic to upgrade (just as I launch a major soluntion built on FM 6) is subsiding.

Thanks,

Dan

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I'd suggest that you keep looking. There's a lot more.

Steven

[CyborgSam]

Dan->

On the Mac, I converted Geneva years ago. My recent one was for the PC: Lucida Sans Demibold Italic. Of course, the customer (my sister's school...) changed their mind about the font, so I will make a PC Verdana with no numbers very soon. I'll post all after I do the Verdana.

Sam

Version: v7.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[DanBrill]

Thanks Sam. Steven, I'll keep looking. There was never any doubt I'd upgrade. FM is our friend.

Dan

[Vaughan]

Queue wrote: "It's never been from the previous record; it's always from the last entered record, which caused me much confusion until I realized the terminology was flawed."

Well, in an unsorted database the last record is the most recent, and if you make a new record it becomes the previous record...

But that's not what I believe it says anyway: it refers to the last record *visited* not the last record entered. So, I assume you can scroll to any record in the database, make a new record and the auto-enter will use data from the record you scrolled to. This is seriously powerful, almost like a duplicate record command.

[-Queue-]

I think you would have to enter the record for it to be the last visited, but I haven't tested that theory yet. If it is, then it's the same as 'previous record'. The last record is the most recent, but that's not how it's worked in previous versions. It's been the last record where a field was entered, which has caused enough problems that I quit using the feature. If a user did a find for an old record and entered it or accidentally clicked in an old record in a list view, then created a new one, this would perform as you said, duplicating the data from the old one, giving unexpected and often undesired results.

This is pretty much the same as the Insert from Last Record script step, which uses the last entered record, not the last viewed or created record.

After doing some research, I believe my assumption is correct.

FM 5.5 Help: "To Enter a value from the same field in the previously accessed record Select Value from previous record."

FM 7 Help: "To Enter the value from the same field of the last record you accessed Select Value from last visited record.

Note This value will be from the last record accessed in the table in which this options has been set."

Bummer, it's just a different name for the same thing.

BTW, by 'entered' I meant field entered not record created. So perhaps we were talking about the same thing.