Speak up ...

[DukeS]

I want to say some things and I think that I speak for all of us.

It is time for FileMaker to start listening us developers. If we want to create professional solutions, please give us professional tools.

This new version of FileMaker has exactly 3 good new features: Conditional formatting, organizing scripts into folders and SQL connectivity. Ok, and one function. So what?

- What idiotic whole new feature is "new" start screen. Come on, it is just wearing new dress, nothing special about it.

- Send link ... Yeeaah, they finally did it >

- Resizing objects is crap. Objects overlap on each other so I really don't see how we can use this feature. In portal for example, you can resize only one field.

- 10 new avery labels layouts ... this one is veeeery important right? It sounds like we created few new A4, A5 and A6 formats.

I am not saying that FileMaker is bad. I just want to speak about more important features that they should include in. We are not demanding whole redesign of program.

- Field triggers are one of them. Is it hard to add one additional tab in define field dialog box and put in checkboxes to choose which script and when it should be triggered (on field enter, exit ...) I was very disappointed when I saw that this feature was not included.

- Organizing layouts in folders. They did it in scripts, why not in layout order? It would be sooo cool. I have more than 300 layouts in my solutions and you can imagine how long does it take to reorder all layouts.

- Field names by calculation.

- Customizable right click menu with your own scripts. This would rock.

I think that any of these updates would be better than 3/4 of FileMaker 9 new feature set. And all talking of thin client has disappeared in air.

I will definitely not buy this release but I will be using FileMaker 9 if you know what I mean. I am not willing to pay so much money until they will start listening to FileMaker community and starting to create modern products like Microsoft Access. Joke on least one but even Access has field triggering feature.

This is just my personal opinion and I hope that somebody will agree with me. Again, FileMaker I am very disappointed, I was expecting more because FileMaker is great tool for database development but lacking few important features.

If this is the case, start selling your plug-ins then. Then we will have at least support for plug-ins and we would be sure that for next release there will be also next version of plug-in.

Thank you

[Vaughan]

"...I think that I speak for all of us."

An unjustified assumption.

I'm a corporate in-house developer. Our organisation has a VLA for hundreds of licenses of FMP and FMS. For FMI this is where the money is. The new features in FMP 9 are very much targeted at this segment of the market: IWP, PHP and CWP, SQL ODBC, new PDF functionality, and heaps of interface changes to assist development like the non-modal ScriptMaker window.

Sure, we always ask for more.

[Søren Dyhr]

Exactly, there have never been much cashflow or profit point in targetting the binder'o'holics ...they should teach/learn themselves Real/Visual-Basic instead!

--sd

[JesseSFR]

Unfortunately, with ever new release there is always that let down when you realize all the things that you wish it had.

Things like Script Triggers and layout folders definitely would have been nice.... but when you get down to the nitty gritty of what they gave you, I would definitely have to agree with Vaughn.

The new non-modal ScriptMaker is a huge addition.... It give you the ability to edit multiple scripts as well as do all the other changes and modifications you could do when it's closed. This saves loads of time during develop. It also it a huge time saver in multi-developer environments. Now that some solutions are in one file, it became very difficult to get stuff done if you had more then one developer working on a file.

I also think you are overlooking the SQL integration as well. This gives access to very powerful databases to developers who don't have the time nor the patience to learn what a Select statement is. It basically brought sql to a whole new market.

Auto-resizing is definitely quirky but has some quirks but it still can be leveraged to create more dynamic solutions.

To write off this release is definitely a mistake. I too always wish for more but luckily with FileMaker you know you are going to get a new release in another year or so.... so just remember to pay for your Maintenance

[DukeS]

I agree.

All I am saying is that FM should include features that are more important than others. Or make updates more often.

For me field script triggers are more important than resizable objects. This feature is on wish list few years.

I want to be able to create as much native FM solutions as possible and I don't want to search for plugins every time my customer wants to buy newer version of FM and loses functionality without right plugin that works under prior versions of FM. If I could write plugins by myself this would be another story.

Don't understand me wrong, I still support FM and for me it is still best product on the market but lacks some great simple features for creating native and better solutions.

Correct me If I think in wrong direction but don't you miss few features that other database systems already have?

[DukeS]

ScriptMaker is great in FM9. No complaints. But why not include same functionality to the layout reorder system. I don't think that would take them huge amount of time to implement this.

And another example, multiple undo redo for fields. This is great but what about layout mode multiple undo redo?

Fair to me would be, if I pay for product that it is under constant development and this smaller features should be in next small update (maybe in v9.1).

Edited July 11, 2007 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

For me field script triggers are more important than resizable objects.

But you have already the functionality in form of CF's, autoenter with updates and native validations. Join tables can be avoided and normalized on demand if the reporting is required via import between tables ...the penalty to pay is to provide your solution with machine like metaphors, such as buttons to pull it off.

Aren't you jeopadizing the users ability to roll back unwanted actions, by insisting on crafty shennanigans going on while typing in data, does it make you a better devloper to slice the actions into tiny hardly recognizable going ons? Are users unable to understand the difference processing and a waitstate?? Even my mum grasp the idea of the on/off button on her foodprocessor ...what is it you can't teach your users??

--sd

[DukeS]

Sometimes fields don't recalculate themselves and you trigger calculation by modifying one field. I don't want that user has to click a calculate button every time he made change in field. This should happen automaticly. And there are sure more example usages.

[Søren Dyhr]

This should happen automaticly

Isn't this way into a spreadsheet'ish metaphor, and if you really got your way would it cause even more "chatter" over a networked solution.

There is a hierachy of things goin on when a layout renders, and aggregate functions usually brings unstored calc live, while Summary functions belongs to reporting. If you use global fields to pull related data based on calculations, does it actually make a difference where the field reside. Moving the global a relation away will force thru evaluations in that layer, eventhough it's displayed as related data in your present layout.

There are some great lessons in this thread:

http://www.fmforums.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/176396/post/204083/hl//fromsearch/1/

Where you deal with prefab records or an updatable found set of records ...but the most important stuff to realize is this:

http://fmcollective.com/?p=27

As well as the utilization of enough TO's to facilitate what you're after. The need to script substantially is usually a symptome for a poorly structured relational structure.

--sd

[xoomaster]

Let's all agree : 9 sucks. Maybe not everyone but most of us are disappointed. I am already waiting to see if there is 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 heck I would even take 9.001 over this :(

[Steven H. Blackwell]

Let's all agree 9 sucks.

Guess again.

Steven

[John2710]

FM9 is a disgrase. It is exactly what they say it is "the most dramatic new product line in years"......

I agree with DukeS!!!!!!

[tgilders]

I'm very pleased with the new release.

I'm the lead in-house FileMaker developer within a large corporation. We have 2 additional developers on staff and first and foremost is that we can now all work at the same time on our scripts.

Second on the list is the External Data Sources. This is huge for us.

[RPCia]

Did the thin client get lost as well?

[Paul Spafford]

ScriptMaker is great in FM9. No complaints. But why not include same functionality to the layout reorder system. I don't think that would take them huge amount of time to implement this.

Have you ever been involved in the release of a major product, Duke? Think of all the testing and troubleshooting you do before you install a database. Now imagine your database was a large piece of software, with dozens of developers working on it, and being released worldwide.

I did a brief contract with FMI as QA before 7 was released, and the thing that surprised me was that EVERY feature takes a huge amount of time to implement. They agonize over what features to include, and don't take it lightly when they have to exclude any features.

Every change to every feature has to be tested thoroughly to make sure it doesn't break something else -- otherwise we'd all be complaining about buggy software.

Despite all the above, I also would have done a dance of joy if we could organize layouts into folders. I develop very modularly, so I would have preferred this over the Script manager. I don't have a huge number of scripts.

[DukeS]

No, I was not. But I have created few solutions with hundred scripts and more than four hundred layouts (you can belive me that it is hard to manage so large list) and I know how much time testing takes.

Again, I didn't say that I want huge modifications to software. And I think that folder organizing is not so complicated like adding custom functions functionality for example.

I am not only one who wants this little candies like script triggering, layout organizing, progress bars (right Genx ?), more than one undo in layout mode, copying custom functions, etc. ...

If you don't need this features it is ok but I do. And for my solutions I use everything I can to satisfy my customers wishes and my wishes for easier and quicker developing.

I don't want to argue with all you people that are defending FM so much. This is only my opinion and my (now public) wishes for FM to get even better than already is. And for so much money (like Lee said) and so not much new functionality is worth to consider upgrading to new version. If you have few developers that work on same database or need for sql is great but if you don't need this kind of functionality is not.

[Ano Nimus]

I will definitely not buy this release but I will be using FileMaker 9 if you know what I mean.

Yes, I think I know what you mean.

Nobody is forcing you to use it. Piracy is bad, mkay?

[Brian C]

There will always be people that do nothing but complain. What good will your complaining do in this forum? Nothing. What purpose does your complaining serve in this forum? No Purpose what so ever unless your purpose is just to annoy other people.

If you wanted to make this a productive and useful post - you should post your wish list either under a new topic for features you would like to see in the next versions or you would add your two cents to the posts that have already done this.

This board is designed to be a place for people to ask questions and get answers. To educate, to enlighten, to share. If you want to just complain, be negative, go write it on your blog.

[Lee Smith]

:iagree: :goodpost:

[Brian C]

Compared to 8.5 v9 is a decided step up. It has a lot of improvements. Not the least of which is adding support for

MS SQL, Oracle, and MySQL. While you probably don't care about this, this is a monumental change of staggering proportions. This single move takes FMP out of the small time and places it squarely into the world of Corporate IT as a solution that can link to massive back end databases which are capable of handling thousands of simultaneous connections and hundreds of terabytes of data. The improvements to Server 9 are also very impressive compared to earlier versions of the server product.

Outside of a few minor bugs that I have seen so far, v9 is HUGE.

Just because you cannot appreciate some of the changes that have been made, does not mean that this release is any less significant.

[Oldfogey]

I have spent more time than I can afford reading all the chatter about V9. I would love to upgrade BUT I am currently working on fairly large project for a client who has V8 installed. They would get absolutely zilch benefit from V9, so I'm stuck at present.

It seems very clear to me that FMI is not really 'listening to us developers'. Nor would I. I suspect that many of the developers on this forum are relatively small time. My guess is that FMI have had some interesting discussions with some of the Big Boys, who might cough up for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of licences. They are the ones who will determine FMP's future path.

Maybe my memory is shot; I can't remember what it used to be like. Didn't V3 have a multi-column panel for layouts, so you could at least see a reasonable number of layouts?

I am really unimpressed with those who advocate 'keeping up to date' meaning upgrade NOW. This is absolute rubbish advice. Why do you think it is called the 'bleeding edge'?

Last but not least, let's be fair to FMI. At long last we have ATan and ACos! Hands up those who haven't been sweating on these functions.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

It seems very clear to me that FMI is not really 'listening to us developers'. Nor would I. I suspect that many of the developers on this forum are relatively small time. My guess is that FMI have had some interesting discussions with some of the Big Boys, who might cough up for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of licences. They are the ones who will determine FMP's future path.

They, whoever they are, listen to a lot of different people, and in fact spend a considerable amount of time trying to reconcile competiting visions and requests for the future of the products.

Certainly the needs of a company or organization with a 50,000 seat license will be considered. But so will the needs of a small development company or a small end-user organization with 25 seats.

The problem, of course, comes when a new version does not include my favorite or needed requests, or yours, for that matter. Then FMI is thought, erronrously, not to listen to developers.

All that said, FMI is not a monolith. Some parts have better hearing than do others.

Steven

[Steve N]

I have been told by at least two filemaker Employees that FileMaker does look at the FileMaker product suggestions found here.

http://filemaker.com/company/feature_request.html

I know this may sound like a line, but FileMaker is a business and they are going to listen to customers and I think the FM employees who advised me were sincere.

My guess is, FileMaker can not listen to one person, but if several people make similar suggestions changes will happen.

Yes I know some of the request have been around for a while (script triggers) but that seams like a moot point. FIleMaker is what is it is. (I think overall it is a great program or I would not be using it.) My only point is if you want to see new features the best course is the link above.

Vote early Vote often.

[hayesk]

It seems very clear to me that FMI is not really 'listening to us developers'.

One thing I have noticed is that most people who want a new feature believes their feature must be the most important or popular, and anything else means the company doesn't care about their customers.

This is simply not true. FM9 doesn't have what I want it to either, but I don't believe for a second that FMI is only adding the features they want to without regard to developers. Like it or not, some features just happen to be a higher priority than others.

[AudioFreak]

Also if they weren't listening to the developers or think about them, why did they add new features that are designed to make our life easier.

1) Better Data Viewer.

2) Better script debugger.

3) Being able to put scripts in folders.

4) Conditional Formatting

Those 4 should be enough for any developer to want to upgrade.

Not to mention what they did to Server 9. How could you not want it.

To Dukes who says "I will definitely not buy this release but I will be using FileMaker 9 if you know what I mean".

That's a pretty lame statement to make.

[longterm_solutions]

I don't think you'll be using FileMaker 9 without buying it; the new licensing scheme does away with "sharing" someone else's license code.

I like the new features in FileMaker 9; as someone who hosts databases, I love the new ability to upload databases right into Filemaker 9 Server. I also like the script organizing feature, and the ability to add SQL queries so easily is pretty slick.

I haven't tried the PHP Site Assistant yet, but assuming it works as promised, could see this being very useful for simple web apps.

As a software developer, I understand the need for a licensing scheme that prevents license sharing, but I do wish a single license could be used by the same user on 2 machines (in my case, my laptop or my desktop), since I never use them at the same time. But it's impossible to police this.

I think FMI is moving in the totally correct direction.

Bob Patin

Longterm Solutions

[email protected]

615-333-6858

http://www.longtermsolutions.com

CONTACT US VIA INSTANT MESSAGING:

AIM or iChat: longterm1954

Yahoo: longterm_solutions

MSN: [email protected]

ICQ: 159333060

[Lee Smith]

I think you might be mistaken.

On the second page of the license, under

Backup, Portable and Home Rights. You may make one copy of the Software in machine readable form solely for backup purposes. Additionally, the primary user of the computer on which the Software is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on either a home or portable computer. As an express condition of this License, you must reproduce on each copy any copyright notice and other proprietary notices that are on the original

copy supplied by FMI.

To me, this means that I can have on my Laptop, and a desktop machine at the same time.

Lee

p.s.

I don't disagree with you about pirated Software. It is one of the reasons that our cost for software goes up.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Guest
p.s.

[jtoner]

Here is my opinion after 10 years of development in Filemaker & Access side by side. Firstly this opinion is based on windows and mainly UK.

You need to look at this from 2 standpoints.

1 - User

firstly from a users point of view filemaker is quick and straight forward in getting a collection of data up and running. Cost is reasonable seeing as they may run many dbs and have a smallish LAN

2 - developer

This is im afraid where filemaker falls down. Quite simply it is Toy like compared to Access. Now bear in mind that when i say access I mean v2003 and higher and I am always talking about using a SQL backend.

All the new features in Filemaker 9 were in access almost 10 years ago.

Access had events 10 years ago

Access has a VBA language that can do almost any task.

Access can interact with Outlook, FM needs a plugin

Access can interect with COM objects to other applications, Filemaker needs a plugin

Access allows you to change the application title, create a custom splash screen and deploy a networkable runtime solution, i may add that in v2007 the runtime kit is free, filemaker is £219 per copy... Just think about that for a sec please...You will have to give filemaker approx £3000 for a 10 user solution ebfore you lift your finger as a developer. You will have to give MS £170 for 1 copy of access 2007, SQL express is free and will cater for 1 x cpu and 4GB database.

Access conencted to SQL a decade ago and obdc is NOT limited to a few databases like Filemaker.

Bottom line.. name any feature that filemaker should have and the chances are access had it 10 years ago.

So people say but access is a steeper learning curve than Filemaker, of course it has! it does a hell of a lot more.

Access allows u to create dialogs, modal windows, progress bars and about every other gui feature u would expect. Filemaker needs a plugin to go to the toilet!

I develop solutions quicker in access than I can in filemaker because I know it, if you dont know VBA then of course you will be quicker in Filemaker.

Access lets you create DSNs through CODE.

Access has a better debugger and sep window for coding.

For developing... filemaker offers about 10% the functionality of Access. I have used both for 10 years and this is all fact.

For throwing up a quick layout an dplaying about with data INHOUSE for yourself then filemaker is useful. This is what I use it for now but totally useless for developing anything serious for a client.

To be fair to filemaker and I think this is the point everyone misses, FMI clearly state that their product is mainly aimed at the end user and the IT guy in a company firing up databases for his users. They don,t consider their primary client to be for developers. So bear that in mind as it is not really made for developers, they even changes the name from FM developer to FM advanced however I take issue with desribing features as advanced that are actually basic features that are in all appliactions for 10 years.

Eg Tooltips (hardly advanced). So FM pro is aimed at the normal half computer literate person and advanced is aimed at the 1 person in the office that knows a little more about databases. certainly not at a programmer or developer.

[fmlawl]

kys

btw, nice alternate account to make your 1 hate post <3

Edited August 2, 2007 by Guest

[mr_vodka]

:confused:

[Vaughan]

"Now bear in mind that when i say access I mean v2003 and higher and I am always talking about using a SQL backend."

That's hardly a fair or useful comparison then.

Why not compare Access to FMP with a SQL back-end?

[rotschi321]

FM please find back to your roots and fill the big gap you left since 2 decades. Learn to print, give us pdf in runtimes... and do not try to be what you will never be - a professional Developer DB. From wich customers you live out? FM is following a roller coaster. Decades ago you had philosophies and clear strategies!

[Steven Cappiello]

[color:blue]first post..? what a doozy... lol..

I want to say some things and I think that I speak for all of

us.

[color:blue]please don't speak for me so easily

It is time for FileMaker to start listening us developers. If we want to create professional solutions, please give us professional tools.

[color:blue]Michaelangelo must have been saying this too when he had

to paint the Sistine Chapel with less-than-super-modern

tools.... no.. he was a CREATOR and focused on what he

could DO... not what he didn't have or could NOT do.. the

great ones in life will get there... regardless of what you give

them!!

[color:blue](all things within reason of course)

(the above doesn't seem to apply to a starving child in a very

bad situation)

This new version of FileMaker has exactly 3 good new features: Conditional formatting, organizing scripts into folders and SQL connectivity. Ok, and one function. So what?

Edited August 14, 2007 by Guest

[Sergeant Ron]

Well for me none of this matters because I cant allow my users to use 9.0. Sorry but the printing issue issue is a show stopper for me. I cant have users accidentally crashing my solution. I really hope they get a patch out quick beacuse I'm working on a SQL integration project that I cant deploy because of the printing problem.

[Sergeant Ron]

Also,in windows the screen flickering is pretty lousey. This didnt occur in 8.5. I must say that Version 9 reminds me of version 7 in that 7 had a bunch of great new stuff but the release had alot of bugs that werent fixed until version 8. I really hope we dont have to wait another year and a half until version 9.5 or version 10 comes out. Come On FMI help us out! PLEASE!