My Opinions about FMP7

[Neon123]

Well, Using the trial version works but it seems slower than version 6.

I like all the features they have added but they missed the biggest feature of all, Panther style graphics and buttons, They still have the 80's style buttons and graphics for scroll lists, buttons etc. its hard to make the databases look modern and reflect the current GUI's, They should of incorporated GUI design elements from either MAC Panther and or Windows XP.

I was hoping that they would also have some sort of TABBED BUTTON Design elements but they didn't!

Have a look at check boxes and scroll boxes, they are still 80's ugly!!!

Also, In this new version I was hoping that you could SORT PORTAL RECORDS with different sort orders but you can't!

Dave M

Version: v7.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[Vaughan]

"Also, In this new version I was hoping that you could SORT PORTAL RECORDS with different sort orders but you can't!"

Errr, the sort order has moved from the relationship to the portal, so getting different sort orders no longer means defining multiple relationships.

If you mean dynamically changing the portal sort order... ways existed in FMP 6?

[iMarcW]

Although I haven't seen 7 yet, I'd have to say it's pretty disappointing if they didn't update the look along with what's under the hood. Did they at least add scroll-wheel capability?

[Ocean West]

Neon123 said:

I like all the features they have added but they missed the biggest feature of all, Panther style graphics and buttons, They still have the 80's style buttons and graphics for scroll lists, buttons etc. its hard to make the databases look modern and reflect the current GUI's, They should of incorporated GUI design elements from either MAC Panther and or Windows XP.

I was hoping that they would also have some sort of TABBED BUTTON Design elements but they didn't!

Have a look at check boxes and scroll boxes, they are still 80's ugly!!!

You hit the nail on the head! I was really hoping for major improvement here. Even portal's scroll bar is 1980's it doesn't reflect "ANY" OS GUI standard. I really wish they had developed an interface pallet Like Real Basic. or Interface Builder (Panther - Developer) Where we could pick from "standard" GUI elements. It would Increase the appearance of a better solution - GUI Is what the end users see EVERY DAY and not many wish to pay for eye-candy. They want form AND function. - And I really wish there were a way to get rid of the scroll bars and window buttons (namely - CLOSE WINDOW)

Ok maybe 7.1

Version: v7.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[CyborgSam]

No scroll wheel support for me under Panther using a Kensington mouse & driver.

[kenneth2k1]

Dang!

I get abducted by aliens for a week, and they release FM7.

I got some catching up to do.

[Ano Nimus]

Panther style graphics on my PC?

Thanks, but no thanks. That would look stupid, IMHO. (Not to mention the fact that I -having been dragged into the Mac world kicking and screaming by my current job- wish to be reminded of the existance of MacOS as little as possible )

If the solution users' GUI should be pretty, one can create one himself. FMs GUI for the solution creators is more than sufficiently pretty, no?

[Paolo]

>Panther style graphics on my PC?

>Thanks, but no thanks. That would look stupid, IMHO.

In my opinion, every port of filemaker should implement standard interface elements for the operative system it runs on.

On a multiuser solution a button should appear with Aqua appearance on MacOsX and Windows appearance on Windows.

Probably they had interface compatibility issues and they preferred to stuck on the 80s elements.

Too bad...

[Oldfogey]

I'd like to some pretties too BUT any Windoze user who puts that in front of substance (which FMP have not done) has rocks in its head. That is precisely why it has taken MS - how many years? - to get an almost-stable, crappy, fourth-rate, operating system. They went for GUI first and function & stability next. They still do.

And, hey, Ano Nimus, as a (one-time) totally prejudiced, indoctrinated, one-eyed PC supporter, let me assure you that you are a lot better off with your Mac.

[Ano Nimus]

I'm sure that Win and Mac both have their strengths and weaknesses. I still have to get used to Mac though, I have Win experience since 3.11, I have worked with MacOS(X) for the first time in my life earlier this year

I couldn't agree more with your statement that substance goes way before style. In that respect, I feel, both flavours of OS could do better... At least FM serves both equally and if that is to the detriment of the latest fad in looks, so be it.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Interesting comments. Since OS X is such a small slice of the market, although it will be 100 percent of the FileMaker Pro 7 market for Macintosh, a more OS neutral UI seems to make more sense. It works, and it's functional.

Steven

[iMarcW]

I think it makes a little more sense once you realize that people will want to have their layouts look the same on both platforms, and since FM sells more copies to Windows users than Mac, it makes sense that you'd want to err on the side of what looks normal to them. Besides, on today's faster Macs, you should be able to add all the custom interface prettiness you want and still get pretty good performance.

I think a real issue is going to be the Quartz rendering. I opened one of our databases in 7 and I'm going to have to redesign the whole thing before we switch because 9 pt Helvetica, which is perfectly readable in previous versions, makes your eyes water in Quartz. At least on a CRT screen.

And nope, still no scroll wheel. If Adobe can do it (InDesign and Acrobat now support it), why can't an Apple-owned subsidiary? Does the Windows version support scroll wheels?

Version: v5.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[Ugo DI LUCA]

Hi,

I more than agree with Dave and Steve (Ocean), specially when this version is limited to OSX users (on the Mac side).

At least I would have bet this could be added to some optional palets. Actually, I was pretty sure it'd have been the case when I started this Metal template.

For sure, one could argue that developers would customize their solutions to fit their needs. But what if this need exactly is that it is perfectly integrated to the OS Look ?

[Mariano Peterson]

Any which way around it, FileMaker really is overdue to dramatically overhaul their plug-in architecture and plug-in API. The current API really limits what plug-in authors can do for FileMaker.

For example, why can't we write plug-ins that provide new layout elements, like customized buttons, portals, etc? Why can't we write plug-ins that get triggered when the user does a Find? Why can't we write a plug-in that creates an analog clock on the layout? These are fairly standard development featuers in other IDE's - why doens't FileMaker provide this for us?

[Steven H. Blackwell]

http://www.filemaker.com/company/product_feature_request.html

for feature requests

Steven

[Mariano Peterson]

Nice try. I've submitted (probably) hundreds of requests there, and tried to persuade others to do so as well.

I have yet to ever hear back from FileMaker on anything submitted there, and I have yet to hear of anybody who has ever heard back from FileMaker on that, and I have yet to see any suggestions that were submitted there actually implemented in a release of FileMaker.

Geez, they don't even fix the reproducable bugs that are entered there.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Perhaps if you were to join the FSA and attend the briefings or the Meet the Engineers, you'd have better luck with your requests.

Steven

[Mariano Peterson]

Nope, not worth the money or the time. I know enough partner level developers who've not had a bit of luck pressing these issues with FileMaker.

Besides, I've worked with partner level firms, passed the partner exam, sat in at FSA meetings, and met a few of the engineers and executive staff as well. Based on what I've seen, partners don't get the consideration they deserve. (And we're not even beginning to consider the "common folk" FSA members that I would begin as)

For the sake of argument, lets say that partners do actually help drive feature selection in the FileMaker SDLC. I still wouldn't want to commit to the requirements imposed upon them, money and some time aside. And quite frankly, while I think partners do gain some unfair advantage over the rest of the FSA and FileMaker community, the perks are not really worthwhile. Some partner members get business from FileMaker while others (perhaps more deserving) don't. I think this is more a function of your personal relationship with the FileMaker Sales Engineers and internal staff than anything else.

[belgiumbruno]

My opinion:

Conversionsystem bad

Graphics very bad

bad to be a newbie again

great new features like the scriptparameter, ....

[Steven H. Blackwell]

My reasons for being a Partner have next to nothing to do with having referrals from FMI. I am very satisfied with my participation in the program. I believe most other Partner Level Members are as well.

The "partner test" is the easiest part of the application process.

Steven

[Kurt Knippel]

Mariano,

I think that you might overestimate the benefits of partner level membership and greatly UNDER-ESTIMATE the benefits of FSA membership in general.

For the price you get the software (same as retail), but in addition you get access to Tech-talk, advanced notice of news, beta versions of the software, invitation to FSA only events, and entrance into a "club" of other developers who can freely discuss NDA stuff amongst themselves.

It is well worth the price of admission.

Personally I go for the subscriber level, get you admittance to all the good stuff at a price no more than buying the software.

Version: v7.x

Platform: Mac OS X Jaguar

[Anatoli]

Mariano Peterson said:

Nice try. I've submitted (probably) hundreds of requests there, and tried to persuade others to do so as well.

I have yet to ever hear back from FileMaker on anything submitted there, and I have yet to hear of anybody who has ever heard back from FileMaker on that, and I have yet to see any suggestions that were submitted there actually implemented in a release of FileMaker.

Geez, they don't even fix the reproducable bugs that are entered there.

What more can one add? Just more of the same rant. FMI never replied to any of my report of reproducible bugs. Exactly the same reaction as Apple Inc. The same and very wrong policy. We are the best; we know everything better than you (user) do. I've worked for Apple IMC and I was distributor of FM over here. When I've found problem in Windows product, usually the problem or bug was already sorted out by that time I got there. To report major bugs with Apple Inc. and their subsidiaries is a joke and there is never any fix. In few cases I've got response so off the track that I am not even trying to do that lately. I've lost interest.

[Mariano Peterson]

The "partner test" is the easiest part of the application process.

You're right, it is the easiest part of process. The test is fairly representative of membership: it focuses more on marketing (knowledge of the FileMaker Product Line and a few technical tidbits) than on development skill.

What are the benefits of FSA meetings? The few I went to were merely evangelizing sessions. I've rarely encountered anything in Tech-Talk that isn't already covered in various Forums or other sources of common knowledge.

How much good do beta versions do you? Its not like FileMaker would ever dare introduce a product that requires a learning curve beyond a few days, so the learning curve is not a tremendous advantage (unless you are writing a book on the new version, in which case you do need the head start). It also appears that bug reports submitted to FMI don't get addressed. Do all FSA members receive demo's, alpha's, and beta's at the same time? I don't think so (but then again I don't really know for sure, either). Further, the basic cost of membership is $100 more than the cost of a FileMaker upgrade.

Look, I'm not trying to blast the FSA. The reason I'm discussing the FSA at all is because Steven hinted that being a member might help get FileMaker to take action on my requests. I don't believe that to be true. The FSA is a marketing tool for FMI, not a developer's forum.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

"The test is fairly representative of membership: it focuses more on marketing (knowledge of the FileMaker Product Line and a few technical tidbits) than on development skill."

I don't know when you took the old Proficiency Exam the last time, but that clearly has not been the case the past couple of years. Additionally, in the new system, it will be even less so.

" FileMaker would ever dare introduce a product that requires a learning curve beyond a few days,"

ROFLOL. THe learning curve for FMP 7 is going to be measured in years.

Steven

[hayesk]

Why would you expect a personal reply? I would imagine they get so many requests that they simply don't have time for writing replies.

In a perfect world everyone would get personal replies and every bug would get fixed immediately. Unfortunately there are constraints and some bugs get prioritized higher than others, and everyone thinks their reported bug is the most important.

I'm not saying yours weren't, it's just that companies often are forced to treat everyone the same, and that can include personal responses to bug fixes and feature requests.

Version: v5.x

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[bubba]

Old Advance Man said:

My reasons for being a Partner have next to nothing to do with having referrals from FMI. I am very satisfied with my participation in the program. I believe most other Partner Level Members are as well.

The "partner test" is the easiest part of the application process.

Steven

With all due respect, the Partner program, which in essence creates a class culture, has always been one of the failings of FileMaker. I have been an FM developer for over 10 years and sold 100s of copies of FM (both single and multi-user), but because I am not a partner, in the eyes of FileMaker, I do not exist. As far as I can tell, if you are not a Partner, you get zero consideration and zero communication.

It is very sad that any software developer would not listen to and treat all of their loyal users as first class citizens. And demanding more money and/or membership to get their attention is nothing short of extortion.

I love the product, and I have eagerly updated to FM7, but FileMaker has a lot of work ahead of them to earn my respect as a company.

End of Rant.

Version: Developer v7

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[bubba]

Old Advance Man said:

...ROFLOL. THe learning curve for FMP 7 is going to be measured in years.

Steven

I disagree. It is only going to be long for those who have only worked with FM. For anyone experienced with SQL databases, and especially with Access, FM7 looks very intuitive. The biggest problem with learning FM7 is forgetting FM6 and earler.

Like many I have a huge app to migrate to FM7 and I can sympathize with those who feel forced into the conversion process, but I think the best thing we can do to move forward is consider rewriting rather than converting. Conversion only allows you to cling to all of those old concepts and methodologies. If you start from scratch, all of a sudden you see a whole new world of opportunities and improvements have been made available.

Just my $0.02

Version: Developer v7

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[LiveOak]

I'll have to agree with Steve on this one. It isn't just a matter of learning the features of FM 7, it's learning the best way to use FM 7 to create solutions. If someone is telling you the know how to do this today, they're lying. There is so much to learn just about the speed of various possible ways of doing something. For these sorts of things it will take us years to collectively learn the best techniques to use in designing with FM 7. I don't see how SQL knowledge can give you an edge in knowing the speed differences of two techniques using FM 7 Server (not yet released)! My 2 cents.

-bd

[Steven H. Blackwell]

I happen to agree that rewrites are most likely to be the preferred course of action. But make no msitake about the learning curve here, especially once FileMaker Server is released.

Steven

[Steven H. Blackwell]

"because I am not a partner, in the eyes of FileMaker, I do not exist. As far as I can tell, if you are not a Partner, you get zero consideration and zero communication."

This is just plain wrong. The Partners form a very small, but significant, portion of the total FSA membership. Most of the early pre-release testers were Associates and Subscribers, and others were non-FSA customers.

As I said previously, I am very satisfied with my participation in that program, as I believe are most of the other Partners. it's open to anyone who has been an FSA member for 2 years. YMMV. It's what you make of it.

Steven

[dharlow]

The problem is going to be convincing ones clients that for an upgrade to 7 they should have you rewrite it.

Daniel

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[bubba]

That's exactly right.

And we are just now beginning to think about the headaches of maintaining multiple vastly different client systems. We sell a very expensive commercial solution. We will not have the luxury of setting a "will no longer support" deadline for customers who do not wish to upgrade. As long as our program is still working, they could care less if FileMaker released a new incompatible version.

And so it goes...

Version: Developer v7

Platform: Mac OS X Panther

[Kurt Knippel]

Why is this a problem?

If they wanna stick to Filemaker 6, then let them. If they wanna upgrade to Filemaker 7, or if they want to get the latest version of you solution, then charge them accordingly.

This is such a different application (and your solutions will be so differernt) that it could also be considered as a different application. They should pay for an upgrade.

This is just a big sales opportunity! Embrace the possibilities.

[Ash435]

I'm new to FM and I was appalled that such an apparently revered product should have a default look that was so unpleasing to the eye. The lack of scroll wheel support in OS X and the stupid tiny scroll bars which don't do anything until you let go added to my disappointment and frustration.

I'd love to be able to make my databases look like Panther instead of AmigOS 1.

[Tripod]

iMarcW said:

Although I haven't seen 7 yet, I'd have to say it's pretty disappointing if they didn't update the look along with what's under the hood. Did they at least add scroll-wheel capability?

Nope. I don't believe so. I have a logitech wireless that works without additional drivers. I have barely started using my new FM Dev 7 (finishing other projects still) but I don't see any scrollwheel support. Being a longtime Mac freak (though once a PC geek prior to that!) I don't have much use for a scroll wheel anyhow. But still, it would be nice.