From FileMaker Pro 2.1?

[jaw6]

I have inherited an ancient legacy project at the office: an old, FileMaker 2.1 database used to keep track of manual revisions. What are my best options for upgrading this to something more recent? I'm not particularly FM-savvy anyway, is there any chance of taking this to some SQL format?

[jaw6]

I have inherited an ancient legacy project at the office: an old, FileMaker 2.1 database used to keep track of manual revisions. What are my best options for upgrading this to something more recent? I'm not particularly FM-savvy anyway, is there any chance of taking this to some SQL format?

[jaw6]

I have inherited an ancient legacy project at the office: an old, FileMaker 2.1 database used to keep track of manual revisions. What are my best options for upgrading this to something more recent? I'm not particularly FM-savvy anyway, is there any chance of taking this to some SQL format?

[stanley]

Jaw6:

Welcome to the Forums.

You can always export the data and use it in some other format like SQL, but you'll lose your calculations, scripts, layouts, etc. Your other option is to upgrade to FMP7, which is much more robust and stable than 2.1, with the upside of keeping all of your formatting, calculations, etc., intact. At least for the most part.

The move to FMP7 can be fairly simple, or very awkward, depending on how complex your solution is, but I think it is far the better choice than migrating away to another format entirely. For the most part, opening the solution in FMP7 will convert it seamlessly, though you need to check your print settings, date settings, etc., to make sure everything has come across alright. There are a couple of guides on FileMaker's website regarding migration to FMP7, which you might want to look at.

-Stanley

[stanley]

Jaw6:

Welcome to the Forums.

You can always export the data and use it in some other format like SQL, but you'll lose your calculations, scripts, layouts, etc. Your other option is to upgrade to FMP7, which is much more robust and stable than 2.1, with the upside of keeping all of your formatting, calculations, etc., intact. At least for the most part.

The move to FMP7 can be fairly simple, or very awkward, depending on how complex your solution is, but I think it is far the better choice than migrating away to another format entirely. For the most part, opening the solution in FMP7 will convert it seamlessly, though you need to check your print settings, date settings, etc., to make sure everything has come across alright. There are a couple of guides on FileMaker's website regarding migration to FMP7, which you might want to look at.

-Stanley

[stanley]

Jaw6:

Welcome to the Forums.

You can always export the data and use it in some other format like SQL, but you'll lose your calculations, scripts, layouts, etc. Your other option is to upgrade to FMP7, which is much more robust and stable than 2.1, with the upside of keeping all of your formatting, calculations, etc., intact. At least for the most part.

The move to FMP7 can be fairly simple, or very awkward, depending on how complex your solution is, but I think it is far the better choice than migrating away to another format entirely. For the most part, opening the solution in FMP7 will convert it seamlessly, though you need to check your print settings, date settings, etc., to make sure everything has come across alright. There are a couple of guides on FileMaker's website regarding migration to FMP7, which you might want to look at.

-Stanley

[DykstrL]

Sorry, stanley, but Version 7 will not convert version 2.1 files (.FM extension). It will only go back to Version 3 (FP3) files. You would have to convert the files to get them at least to version 3/4. Version 6 will convert .FM files.

[DykstrL]

Sorry, stanley, but Version 7 will not convert version 2.1 files (.FM extension). It will only go back to Version 3 (FP3) files. You would have to convert the files to get them at least to version 3/4. Version 6 will convert .FM files.

[DykstrL]

Sorry, stanley, but Version 7 will not convert version 2.1 files (.FM extension). It will only go back to Version 3 (FP3) files. You would have to convert the files to get them at least to version 3/4. Version 6 will convert .FM files.

[stanley]

My mistake. I looked at the 2.1 in the post and the 3 in the profile and got confused halfway through my reply.

Last time I converted a 2.1 system it was in 5.5, and the conversion was flawless and painless.

-Stanley

[stanley]

My mistake. I looked at the 2.1 in the post and the 3 in the profile and got confused halfway through my reply.

Last time I converted a 2.1 system it was in 5.5, and the conversion was flawless and painless.

-Stanley

[stanley]

My mistake. I looked at the 2.1 in the post and the 3 in the profile and got confused halfway through my reply.

Last time I converted a 2.1 system it was in 5.5, and the conversion was flawless and painless.

-Stanley

[jaw6]

Well, there's a skill mis-match problem: I'm really not a FM developer. I'd much rather move it to a platform I can work with.

There aren't really any calculations/scripts (from what I can see) this was really just a text store for manual revisions, comments, and revision date.

One thing I'm having trouble with: The original file lists the revision-revision date-revision comments in a tabular layout. When I export the records, I get a separate column for each of these, but the rows are compacted into one line (eg, "01 02 03 04", "1991-03-01 1992-04-15 1993-10-12", etc.). Is there a practical way to separate these?

[jaw6]

Well, there's a skill mis-match problem: I'm really not a FM developer. I'd much rather move it to a platform I can work with.

There aren't really any calculations/scripts (from what I can see) this was really just a text store for manual revisions, comments, and revision date.

One thing I'm having trouble with: The original file lists the revision-revision date-revision comments in a tabular layout. When I export the records, I get a separate column for each of these, but the rows are compacted into one line (eg, "01 02 03 04", "1991-03-01 1992-04-15 1993-10-12", etc.). Is there a practical way to separate these?

[jaw6]

Well, there's a skill mis-match problem: I'm really not a FM developer. I'd much rather move it to a platform I can work with.

There aren't really any calculations/scripts (from what I can see) this was really just a text store for manual revisions, comments, and revision date.

One thing I'm having trouble with: The original file lists the revision-revision date-revision comments in a tabular layout. When I export the records, I get a separate column for each of these, but the rows are compacted into one line (eg, "01 02 03 04", "1991-03-01 1992-04-15 1993-10-12", etc.). Is there a practical way to separate these?

[jaw6]

Maybe I should phrase that better. In FileMaker, I see something like:

01 1998-01-01 Turbo Code added, where to mount clarified

02 1998-08-01 removed changing baud rate and sensitivity

03 1999-04-03 specs changed

04 1999-06-05 Rename to to

[jaw6]

Maybe I should phrase that better. In FileMaker, I see something like:

01 1998-01-01 Turbo Code added, where to mount clarified

02 1998-08-01 removed changing baud rate and sensitivity

03 1999-04-03 specs changed

04 1999-06-05 Rename to to

[jaw6]

Maybe I should phrase that better. In FileMaker, I see something like:

01 1998-01-01 Turbo Code added, where to mount clarified

02 1998-08-01 removed changing baud rate and sensitivity

03 1999-04-03 specs changed

04 1999-06-05 Rename to to

[BobWeaver]

It appears that they used repeating fields. I can't remember if you have the option to split repeating fields into separate records when exporting, but you can do it when importing. So, one solution is to make up an empty filemaker file with all the same fields and then import into it from your old file, splitting the repeaters into separate records, and then export that back out as csv etc.

[BobWeaver]

It appears that they used repeating fields. I can't remember if you have the option to split repeating fields into separate records when exporting, but you can do it when importing. So, one solution is to make up an empty filemaker file with all the same fields and then import into it from your old file, splitting the repeaters into separate records, and then export that back out as csv etc.

[BobWeaver]

It appears that they used repeating fields. I can't remember if you have the option to split repeating fields into separate records when exporting, but you can do it when importing. So, one solution is to make up an empty filemaker file with all the same fields and then import into it from your old file, splitting the repeaters into separate records, and then export that back out as csv etc.