Does anyone know of an issue where a CF written in Developer (of course) has dramatically reduced performance on a machine running basic FMP? I use a simple CF to navigate through layouts and a customer is complaining that 'Return' takes a long time to do anything - like a cup of coffee time. They all work fine for me and her machine is newer and presumably faster than mine.

I'm using FMD 8.5v2 on XP, customer is using FMP 8.5v1, on Vista I think. (Note the 'v1'.)

My guess is that these CF's extensively exploit "LayoutObjects" ... in layouts bloated with nice to know info which needs to get rendered through chains of relational dependencies.

And you might even have taken one of Albert Harum Alvarez courses ... but are endlessly making apologetic shrugs, blaming customers their whims for not knowing better.

Honestly are script-wrappers subscripting to a pre OOD discourse wearing resemblance to global variables, which could suggest that a solution is somewhat less than properly normalized?

--sd

FM 8.5 v2 specifically addressed several issues with Vista so firstly get the updater

http://fmdl.filemaker.com/UPDT/fm/8.5/win/fmp_8.5v2_win_updater.exe

Thanks, IdealData. I'd missed the stuff about Vista. I've been trying to get them upgraded for ages. Trouble is they live in the boondocks with slow net and the upgrade is humungous. I'll have another go!

(Soren, I really don't know what you are on about. Firstly, if the CF was bloated, I'd have the problem too and I don't. Why on earth would navigation between layouts use "Bloated layout objects"? I simply get the layout number and store it.

My first port of call for ANY problem is ME. I don't blame customers for my problems or their own whims - in spite of being proved wrong continually.)

How is the grammar here? Isn't it the layouts which I suggest might be bloated and rendered for some duration - not the CF??

--sd

I think you missed the point here Soren - let's get the client and the developer using the same versions first.

It could be the easiest fix.

Ah you mean this:

http://news.cnet.com/The-XP-alternative-for-Vista-PCs/2100-1016_3-6209481.html

--sd

My apologies for apparently ignoring you, Gentlemen. (If you don't tell me your troubles, I won't tell you mine.)

This problem more or less resolved itself. Firstly, the customer is on XP, not Vista - phew! Secondly, the problem doesn't exist. There was a bug in my coding which necessitated multiple clicks on the 'Return' button; this became a time problem! Don't ask me how.