Regarding FM's present "niche" have you seen Coghead? (www.coghead.com) Or how about www.awareim.com (very powerful - relational, incoming emails, etc. and easy to use and cheaper than FMP - $1500 gets you the server and all the runtimes you want)? They still don't have that FMP GUI that I like so well though!

Thanks for the links, those are interesting. However, if I understood their licensing info, it's not "all the runtimes you want" at all. In fact, FileMaker may very well come out ahead on pricing, especially with a VLA.

To all the other armchair quarterbacks: do you have any concept of what it takes to push a major product upgrade out the door? This release has some major new stuff (ESS), all kinds of improvements to existing features, and a boatload of bug fixes. Are there features I wish had been included? Of course! And I'm not suggesting that we never question the decision-makers at FileMaker Inc. (BTW, one of the few tech companies in the world to consistently earn a profit every single quarter.) But we hear the same tired chorus every time an upgrade comes out: FileMaker never listens to their users, blah blah blah. Come on, do you really believe that?

Let's just take a moment and give a little love to the developers at FMI. They've done a great job.

I have a feeling they are already working on a layout management solution as we speak right now about it... Perhaps in a 9.5 release. It only makes sense for them to do it eventually. :(

Well, they existed years ago, so apparently they did happen...

And they stopped doing it for a reason.

But my only concern is that however much the client pays is how much lower my hourly rate has to be.

In effect that is saying more of what your clients pay should go to your pocket instead of FileMaker's? FMI developed the networking code, shouldn't they get paid too?

Now obviously I don't know your cost structure for your business, but the fact remains is that it costs you to develop solutions and it costs FMI to develop the tools that allow you to develop solutions. If your clients can't afford it, they can't afford it.

Peronally, I think FileMaker looked at the costs to offer network clients, and it was probably so small a difference than being able to offer volume licensing for FMPro that it didn't matter.

If FM offered a network thin client at $150 per seat, and FMPro at $160 per seat, people would complain that the network client wasn't cheap enough given that FMPro contained so much more. Yet the cost to FMI was probably fair.

Lets face it every single time FM comes out with a New Version, people complain that it STILL does'nt have "---------". Granted Script triggering would be nice and if you really want it, then buy a Plug-In.

For me a lot of the added stuff I really have no use for except maybe Conditional Formatting, which we could do before it just had to be faked. The Script Folders are really nice too. I'd like to see the same for Fields and Layouts

I do really like the new Server Admin Interface. It's much cleaner then the previous versions and actually feels like a real program now. Also there is deffinately an increase in performance hosting files with Server 9 compared to 8.

All in all I would say that it was a good release.

People with High End Ferraris could complain that it doesn't have a cup holder but common it's still an extremely good car.

Michael

xoomaster,

I agree with you 100 %. I love FMP but I am not amaze with 9

:pounce:

FM wasn't designed to meet that kind of a data-load to begin with!

Sure, I say it's not an enterprise class database, you say it is but it isn't.

Just because an enterprise happens to use FileMaker within it's ranks i.e. in one or two departments about the size of a small-medium business it doesn't make it an enterprise class database as you yourself state.

But bringing up database admins... So what is it you think DBA's do for Oracle that wouldn't need to be done for FileMaker? Oh that's right, how stupid of me, they manage millions of records and constantly optimize the database to be more efficient in its work, to process queries quicker.

Gosh, FileMaker must not need that, it optimizes itself I guess (people independent you see, the reason they really charge $x per pop, is cause its got little AI in it who build and maintain the database for you, tweaks your scripts too).

And I mean honestly, who needs customizable levels of indexing or multiple data types per type of data. I mean, 4 types of fields to store text, fixed length number fields... What are they nuts?

Surely SQL providers have no clue what it they are doing, It's not like user defined datatypes could possibly increase the overall performance of database where it's really needed..., I mean surely FileMaker has with its "on, off or Auto" indexing method and its Text and Number data types really optimized database systems by taking indexing and data definition out of the hands of people and putting it into the hands of a basic algorithm.

The point is (and the point i made in my first point) is why take FileMaker beyond its limits? It doesn't pretend to be a real contendor in an enterprise level environment and I think this is further proved by its recent decision to be able to integrate into a large scale SQL system. Sure there is a place for it for example where each department needs a significantly different database system, but honestly.. not enterprise.

Finally, look at the length of that list, I mean honestly, you must have no clue over what a multinational is (especially if you think DBA's are expensive).

And honestly, you can sound as harsh as you like, I don't mind.

Anyway, I really don't have time to argue on this, but to summarize my point for you (just in case your still dumbfounded) - FileMaker is NOT an enterprise class database, nor does it purport to be. Usage within an enterprise for some task does not make it a real contender.

Edited July 14, 200718 yr by Guest

Genx,

Stop using the the quick Reply.

If you are going to attribute a quote to some one, at least include the name in the quote, or address your reply to them.

Second request.

Lee

It's hard to write a reply without reading what the other person has written. I'll make sure to write longer replies in a word editor and hitting reply from now on. Sorry Lee.

I usually just end up opening a second copy of the browser window so that I can see what was typed. :

Same :

If you use the "Topic Review" link on the reply page, it will open a scrolling sub-form that allows to read previous posts.

Oh, yay, and it just displays and iFrame so it doesn't even refresh the page, that's awesome.

No, I don't and if I did you would have been able to quote me on it so stop pullings things out of the air. At no point in time have I classified FM as an "enterprise" class DBMS.

You have no idea what you are referring to when you ask the question about Oracle its featureset or the cost to hire an Oracle certified DBA with over five years of experience, but when you do you sure can come talk to me about it. Why don't you do some investigating yourself before you decide to write what you write?? First, you make a blatant assumption that no large scale businesses trust their data with FileMaker and you are proven wrong. Second, and again without any research you pull the, "(especially if you think DBA's are expensive)" out of your you know what without once again doing any background work.

Here are some average salary figures for an Oracle DBA in some populous cities within the US if you are an Oracle Certified DBA:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Certification=Oracle_Certified_Professional_(OCP)_DBA/Salary

I have read over a lot of your posts here on this forum. You're a very savvy young man when it comes to using FileMaker, but please stop assuming you know what in the hell you are talking about as it pertains to all things business! And, if you are going to make these assumptions that you do please do a little bit of research before you dole out something to be a fact. Also, don't quote me on things I have not said.

Thank you. :

Sure, I say it's not an enterprise class database, you say it is but it isn't.

Just because an enterprise happens to use FileMaker within it's ranks i.e. in one or two departments about the size of a small-medium business it doesn't make it an enterprise class database as you yourself state.

But bringing up database admins... So what is it you think DBA's do for Oracle that wouldn't need to be done for FileMaker? Oh that's right, how stupid of me, they manage millions of records and constantly optimize the database to be more efficient in its work, to process queries quicker.

Gosh, FileMaker must not need that, it optimizes itself I guess (people independent you see, the reason they really charge $x per pop, is cause its got little AI in it who build and maintain the database for you, tweaks your scripts too).

And I mean honestly, who needs customizable levels of indexing or multiple data types per type of data. I mean, 4 types of fields to store text, fixed length number fields... What are they nuts?

Surely SQL providers have no clue what it they are doing, It's not like user defined datatypes could possibly increase the overall performance of database where it's really needed..., I mean surely FileMaker has with its "on, off or Auto" indexing method and its Text and Number data types really optimized database systems by taking indexing and data definition out of the hands of people and putting it into the hands of a basic algorithm.

The point is (and the point i made in my first point) is why take FileMaker beyond its limits? It doesn't pretend to be a real contendor in an enterprise level environment and I think this is further proved by its recent decision to be able to integrate into a large scale SQL system. Sure there is a place for it for example where each department needs a significantly different database system, but honestly.. not enterprise.

Finally, look at the length of that list, I mean honestly, you must have no clue over what a multinational is (especially if you think DBA's are expensive).

And honestly, you can sound as harsh as you like, I don't mind.

Anyway, I really don't have time to argue on this, but to summarize my point for you (just in case your still dumbfounded) - FileMaker is NOT an enterprise class database, nor does it purport to be. Usage within an enterprise for some task does not make it a real contender.

Edited July 14, 200718 yr by Guest

Now now gentlemen. Lets keep it civil. We are all entitled to our opinions but please refrain from personal attacks. Keep it clean guys. :

I would like to point out the fact that we are bunch of grown men/women arguing in a chat room. Quiet frankly, I think it's awesome and at the same time ridiculously hilarious. It shows the passion that people have for their livelihoods and shows the value of actual discussion, which of course occasionally degrades into name calling and insults but hey... we're human.

I think someone already said this a thousand times, FileMaker has it's niche and it does very well there. FileMaker is one of the, if not the best relational database for developing easy-to-use, powerful solutions in a short period of time with little or no programming /relational knowledge. It's closest competitor Access doesn't even hold a flame to it.

On top of it's basic functionality, you can also make FileMaker do some amazing things if you have the right skill set, but just because you can doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

That said, even if it's not the best tool it doesn't mean it CAN'T work. There are many large companies and corporations that leverage this technology in varying degrees and achieve things that even the biggest FileMaker proponent would probably attempt to dissuade them from trying.

What it comes down to is most of us agree that it's an excellent, dynamic product that provides us with some powerful development tools. Wether it's expanded ESS integration or better layout management the product will always improve but not necessarily always including the functionality we most desire at that time. I think our time is best spent expanding the possibilities of FileMaker within the parameters of whichever release we happen to be using at the time. No matter what happens, with each upgrade there will always be "missing" components that we aren't happy with. There is no end to desire so of course there will always be ideas left out. FileMaker 9 might not be perfect, but with a little bit of elbow grease, it can tackle just about any job you throw at it.

It doesn't look like they have added the ability to assign tabs as buttons for triggering scripts (correct me if I am wrong)

I know there are workarounds for this but this should have been possible since tabs were introduced.

It doesn't look like they have added the ability to assign tabs as buttons for triggering scripts (correct me if I am wrong)

Using the FileMaker supplied plug-in or one of the other event triggering plug-ins there is a way to do this. It is not wholly seamless but it does work.

Steven

Okay honestly, I think somethings may have been misinterpreted here and I have the feeling if I don't stop now I'm going to waste a few more hours which could be better spent billing clients.

Anywho ah, congratulations, you're right, I enjoy making thoroughly unfounded statements (one of my favorite pass times in fact). You see, I absolutely LOVE researching facts and then writing the complete opposite just for fun. I know very little about anything really and am quite ignorant and rash in my hormonally imbalanced youth.

But seriously, page long posts are a crime, too much reading and the replies take just as long to write. And honestly, I'M AUSTRALIAN, surely I have better things to do like lazing around in front of the TV and doing nothing but eating Vegemite all day, that is, before I hop on a Kangaroo and go running through the desert.

But my point is, 2 things.

1) Seriously... 500 people in the HR department of an organization? You think a couple of hundred k a year is going to matter to them? Even if those people in HR were on an average of 30k a year (which i doubt), that company would be forking out 15,000,000 a year on their employment... and if that's the HR department (those guys are usually responsible for HR)... well than thats a freakin large organization.

2) Seriously, next time pick a more reasonable number and I'll like you more (big numbers frighten confused people like me).

And now I'm probably going to be yelled at for being off topic, which I am, but I thought I'd have fun with my last post.

PS, I really do hope you have a sense of humor otherwise my ridiculous level of talent is going to waste.

PSS.

Also, don't quote me on things I have not said

Note that quotes look like the above, and I haven't "quoted" you as saying anything other than what you've said.

Serious Part:

Anyway really, I think I'm pushing it now, even by my standards, however I would like to make it clear that my statements are not unfounded; I was well aware of the payment received by database administrators (Oracle or otherwise), as I am with the appropriate usage of a SQL system.

You provided an example of 500 users, I merely responded with my personal opinion that I wouldn't use a FileMaker host / client based solution in that situation. You then seem to have taken my personal opinion as an attack against FileMaker (people really have to stop doing that) and made the statement that many extremely large organizations use FileMaker within their ranks, and I will admit that I may have taken on the assumption or more accurately: I may have interpreted your post in a manner which presented an opinion that FileMaker was to be relied upon as a mission critical system subject Business Continuity and DR compliance, as well as specific legislation relating to the integrity of the data stored in databases relating to specific industries (and not just a tack on database created for a specific purpose in a department somewhere).

On an unrelated note, before you run away with your SQL as a backend idea, for your sake I suggest you go and do some research on it's purpose.

Edited July 14, 200718 yr by Guest

Using the FileMaker supplied plug-in or one of the other event triggering plug-ins there is a way to do this. It is not wholly seamless but it does work.

Steven

The Filemaker supplied plug-in you refer to - is it just included with FM9 or would I already have it with FM8.5 Advanced?

The actual plugin file name itself is WinExample.fmx. ... It can be found on the CD path of:

YourCDDriveLetter:Englis h ExtrasExamplesFMExample FMPlugInSDKExample

This response is from another thread. It seems "extras" aren't part of a normal install, they're only on CD. I confirmed this path for the 8.5 CD.

You guys, I am trying to take a nap here, chill out

I think as someone already said, all this arguing and frustration is showing how much we like and value FMP. Yes we all have learned to expect more and get a lot more to excite us, but no one could argue how simple, powerful and elegan FMP is. Yes there are other DBs in the market, but you need a lot of time, money and energy to learn and develop in them.

I have started to use FM9 and I am getting used to the icons and scriptmaker and the other changes. Most of the changes in this version are not the type that we feel and use right of the back, but I think they are stepping stones for the next big jump.

This is what you get for listening to ThinkSecret crap and all the lies and worthless spying that they publish !

FMP, you go girl, or boy :