Convert FM 6 to FM 7

[FM Tid]

Am i right in thinking that FM6 is the last backwards-compatible version of FileMaker that works for the early versions, and that my files - developed and expanded since the days of FM Pro 2, and now all converted to FM6 - cannot be converted to later versions?

Forgive me if this question has been asked many times before, but my search (convert version 6 to version 7) brought up so many irrelevant posts that contained the number 6 or 7, that I stopped browsing through it.

[IdealData]

You'll have some difficulty obtain FM7 now as the latest version is FM9.

The conversion process can be easy and it can also be very difficult depending on how complex your solution is.

You can get a free trial of FM9 from FileMaker so you can test it first.

[Lee Smith]

Am i right in thinking that FM6 is the last backwards-compatible version of FileMaker that works for the early versions, and that my files - developed and expanded since the days of FM Pro 2, and now all converted to FM6 - cannot be converted to later versions?

Actually, any time you have to convert to a new version, it stops the backward compatibility. Unless, that neverer version has the same file extension.

You go by the file extension. In other words,

3 and 4 = fp3,

5, 5.5, 6 = fp5

7, 8, 8.5, and 9 = fp7

I believe that the oldest version that will convert to the v9, is fp3

Forgive me if this question has been asked many times before, but my search (convert version 6 to version 7) brought up so many irrelevant posts that contained the number 6 or 7, that I stopped browsing through it.

The serach engine is weak, but there are ways to narrow down your search. Click on the ? Question Mark just below the [color:blue]Keywords entry blank.

HTH

Lee

Edited October 2, 2007 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

Am i right in thinking that FM6 is the last backwards-compatible version

No - I took a quick stab at it, I tried to "drop upon app icon" open this:

http://www.dwdataconcepts.com/dl/tw/NAVLKUP.ZIP

...as such will the solution be opened - eventhough it's in the fp3 format, but you do have some other issues primary in the lookup's in repeating fields department. Lookups by now only works with first repeating field! Which probably is where you would having your first issues?

You would unfortunately need to rebuild from scratch, a fm9'ish version of your file and then import the old files data, to circumvent the previous versions lack of relational structure.

The tool as such have taken off from the spreadsheet near discurse, into being an relational database requiring a radically different approach - especialy in terms of abstract thinking from the developers point of view.

It's not anymore fully embraced, just to add an extra field if it's required ... it has to be thought into a normalized approach with focus on only unique locations for each tiny piece of data, the habit with just copying data to several locations actually jeopadized data integrity ...syncronizing is therefore attempted to be avoided by all means.

If you really are up to this rework, is your choise??? As long as you don't fool yourself into thinking that a converted file only need a few fixes here and there to behave, there are hundreds if not thousand of latent issues you better solve by approaching the goal from scratch instead.

Even you first attempt's with the new relational graph would need some serious weeding, when you get the hang of it!

I'm not trying to discourage you in any way development in filemaker is although challenging pretty rewarding, but you need to cut thru the ketchup effect the marketing of the tool usually are served with, promises of piggybacking on ready made templates are in my huble opinion far from honest.

Developers who would know how to throw in some fixes, because they have the skills to understand the attempted structure would never use these templates, while the fooled newbes eagerly hopes to learn just enough to make them work.

--sd

[Lee Smith]

Soren, who are you addressing this to?

[Søren Dyhr]

Fm Tid obviously, but others might raise exactly this question ... and I found the need to address the thought of flawless migrations as well as the bare thought of piggybacking.

I can see why marketing stresses the importance of saying so, but the realities are different ... lets be honest here there isn't no easy piecey lemon squeezy here, if you not willing to upgrade your knowledge and teach yourself new approaches ...then hire someone who at least pretend he/she is!

When someone ask you how flawless a migration to new technologies will go, could you just as well answer "...29!" no-one can give you the right kind of ensurances anyway. I know you in Nashville have what's called a "dentist appointment" songwriter, but to absolutely sure it's going to give you the million dollar breakthru in music business is far fetched!

Why are these question felt important? ROI obviously ...but when it comes to it, is the reality that such an accountant's approach to matters, not really is what makes businesses succede, but instead the owner's dedicated attention - sometimes against all odds!

--sd

[Lee Smith]

Soren,

It's obvious now that you added the Quote.

Please Stop using the Quick Reply.

Lee