I think the most useful and realistic thing on there would be dynamic set field / enter field.

Certainly the most likely out of Fabrice's list.

Also, "calculations on layout" shouldn't be too hard (you do it sloppy with the Web Viewer now).

I think nesting layouts (like Access subforms) would be pretty huge. Imagine building a nav bar that you only need to change one and it changes all your user layouts?

Get(ScriptStack) would be really nice too.

Good list Fabrice.

Yes, nested layouts would be huge. Get rid of most portals, use customisable, sortable table views within a form layout, reuse layouts...

But as far as dynamic set field is concerned (I won't believe they'll do it before I see it ! and I don't believe anyone outthere is interested in FieldIDs ), I am surprised that no plug-in of my knowledge offer this as a calculation function. I know some plug-ins that use SQL queries like brilliant DoSQL, but I am sure it would be possible to make it a one-function-FileMakerish-syntax plug-in. Am I missing something ?

Now ... do you or any other user has any comments on what I said about that article in FM magazine? Or any comment on that article.

Maybe its just my sunny disposition, when I read the article, I see a ton of things that have been implemented from this list. Multiple tables per file, multiple windows and window positioning, rework of security, re-login script step, functions to change the font, sortable portals, cut & paste in scriptmaker, full menu control, etc, etc.

It seems to me like the list is getting taken care of. There are still some things missing, but there always will be something else thats wanted.

This is the right tool and also price policy is much friendly. www.4d.com

I was comparing in with FM for quite some time ..and I think this is the right answer.

...and I think this is the right answer.

Considering you've been making your evaluation using 11 year old information, which has been pretty much debunked in this thread already, yes, it's probably the right answer...for you. Not to diss 4D, it's probably a great product, and I'm guessing you'll be quite happy.

It's not really that great a product... In truth, you could get away with something better like netbeans for example - better and free.

That being said, still doesn't replace FM.

I have found this

http://akagumo.com/review/software/filemaker-9

Hi Guys,

Just thought I'd add my 2p worth t this thread. Like all I'm anxious awaiting the details for the new release, if its anything like Bento 2 in the way it integrates with other applications really easily i.e. outlook and Excel, has a native GUI and a couple of other much needed tweaks like script triggers, extended dialog boxes with drop down lists and robust printing options....and on and on...

I can dream.. }:(

I would upgrade just for a native GUI and no actual new features.

What is the difference between a native GUI and FM's GUI? Is it the app's interface elements don't match the OS's?

The app's interface match elements back from the 90's It's almost vintage

For some of us the 90's don't seem that long ago. }:(

Yes, and while I will not call you vintage we have to remember that software and design, has, and will continue to advance at exponential rates for the foreseeable future.

Apart from superficial appearances like colour, transparency, 3-d rendering, I cannot think of *any* GUI interface functionality differences between 1990s and today. Radio buttons... check boxes... drop-down lists... pop-up menus... edit boxes... all there.

The only difference has been the addition of drop-down calendar input option. Everything else was around on the original Macintosh.

Except for the mouse scroll wheel.

"Apart from superficial appearances like colour, transparency, 3-d rendering"

All interface is in it's nature superficial. I can turn off all the effects on Vista and take it back to windows 98 standards... then FileMaker will match, but I'm still not going to.

The truth of the matter is that shinny things look cool, are easier on the eye and are easier to sell.

The truth of the matter is that shinny things look cool, are easier on the eye and are easier to sell.

Absolutely. It is difficult to convince a business that FileMaker is top-notch when it's native radio buttons look like a child drew them. The guts may be important ... but so is the fluff. And FM natively ain't no eye candy. :tongue2:

Everything else was around on the original Macintosh.

It's not so much an issue of what was around then (though I agreee with Genx and LaRetta that appearances are important), but what is the standard today. For example, take a look at the tools available for user input:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGControls/chapter_19_section_4.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000359-TPXREF195