Print and Preview Problems in Windows

[Hibbs]

Apologies if this has been around before, but I can

[danjacoby]

Part of the problem (perhaps the entire problem?) is with Windows -- it ain't WYSIWYG!

For novices, "WYSIWYG" stands for "What You See Is What You Get". Macs have always been WYSIWYG, so the preview looks exactly like the printed output. Unfortunately, PCs have never matched this; the only way to ensure the printed version is what you want is to print it and use the printed version as a guide for editing.

Gee, I gotta remember this the next time I'm in a Mac/Windows debate!

[danjacoby]

Another solution is to have two layouts -- one for viewing and one for printing.

Of course, you could always get a Mac

[esteshk]

My solution is to format my layouts to print properly but then they look like crap on screen. It's a trade off but some folks just insist on running Windows.

[Hibbs]

Thanks for all your comments, by the way I am primarily a Mac user (the original 128k was my first back in 1985, also used FileMaker since FM II in the late 80s!), but market forces have ensured we need to develop for both platforms. The main problem is that it has not been possible to create a layout that prints properly, leaving the preview issue aside for now. If you stretch a text field over say 3 pages in the body of a layout and then put another field below this, all as sliding objects with reduction of the enclosing part, the gap between the 2 fields is dependent on the amount of data in the first field. The more data, the bigger the gap between the 2 fields. This can't be right, particularly as it works fine on the Mac.

[esteshk]

Yes, I too have been compelled to develop on the platform from the evil empire in Redmond! Perhaps the ultimate solution is to take the guts out of my G4 and hide them inside a WinTel box! Then when my boss, who by the way was in the room listening to Darth, I mean Bill, when the earthquake hit (he was really in his glory) would be happy, I'd be happy, and my customers would be happy when their ******* forms printed beautifully!!!

[This message has been edited by esteshk (edited March 03, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by esteshk (edited March 03, 2001).]

[esteshk]

By the way..... My new PowerBook Ti kicks *** !

[danjacoby]

Another possibility is a calc field that contains the first text field, followed by a couple of paragraph markers, then the second text field. That way, you can control the "gap" between 'em.

[Hibbs]

We've spent hours creating workarounds, but we feel FileMaker should at least be acknowledging a problem. I know it is easy to blame Windows, but surely if Quark and Adobe can get their publishing packages working on the platform, then FileMaker can give us a tool that will at least print our designed layouts correctly. It isn't just page breaks and sliding objects, but also line endings are also all over the place. We've always loved FileMaker, yet another fantastic product ported from the Mac to Windows - but this isn't the an example of a Microsoftism where they've created their own Internet standards, this is just a substandard porting issue. I don't know how bad this was on versions 3 or 4, as we are only now designing on Windows in anger (literally!).

[Lee J]

How Odd that you all tout Mac as the answer it is possible that some windows users do not have this problem. I had the reverse about a month ago with a workgroup version.

PC's would print fine, the Mac's printed a completely difference record.

In the end I create a print layout and a script to deal with it, now occasionally the PC's play up but the Mac's are fine.

perhaps it's Demon "Jobs" causing torment

[Hibbs]

I don't think it is a Mac/PC issue, it's about a software supplier providing basic facilities that work. What's the point of a preview facility that doesn't represent the printed product? We'd almost accept it more readily if this was the case on both platforms.

Yes we love the Mac (not Apple!), who knows what we'll be entering with OSX? But the money is out there for developing on Windows and we'll develop for them all, all we ask is that our time is spent productively, not working around basic functionality problems.