FileMaker vs Access2000

[vinsgoh]

Hi,

Just some questions about filemaker. I come from using Access2000. Recently, a friend told me about filemaker and after visiting filemaker website, I am quite impressed by it. However, I like to know its limitations before buying it.

This is what I found out. Access uses 1 database file with tables, relationship, VBscript etc in it. FileMaker uses many files as tables. So how does it do the relationship? This the script as good as Visual Basic?

When hosting a website in a NT with Access support, I can use ASP to connect to the database since the webhosting also has the driver. Can filemaker database be connected through ASP? What if the hosting company does not have FileMaker and therefore the driver?

Any comment on switching Access to FileMaker? Like to find out more on the similarity and differences which cannot be found on FileMaker site.

Thanks

Vincent

[Chuck]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vinsgoh:

Hi,

Just some questions about filemaker. I come from using Access2000. Recently, a friend told me about filemaker and after visiting filemaker website, I am quite impressed by it. However, I like to know its limitations before buying it.

This is what I found out. Access uses 1 database file with tables, relationship, VBscript etc in it. FileMaker uses many files as tables. So how does it do the relationship? This the script as good as Visual Basic?

When hosting a website in a NT with Access support, I can use ASP to connect to the database since the webhosting also has the driver. Can filemaker database be connected through ASP? What if the hosting company does not have FileMaker and therefore the driver?

Any comment on switching Access to FileMaker? Like to find out more on the similarity and differences which cannot be found on FileMaker site.

Thanks

Vincent

---

Well, there might be other people on here who can answer better than I can, but I'll do what I can.

I don't know how a relationship is handled within Access, but it's probably very similar. Instead of specifying a different table within the same file, you specific a different file. So if you're creating a relationship between clients and invoices, the client id field would likely be the key field, and you would tell each file to create a relationship to the other file based on the client id field in each file. This would allow client information to be accessed in the invoice file and invoice information in the client file.

To my knowledge, FMP doesn't work with ASP. However, FileMaker does have built-in web serving (after version 4). Also, Lasso is a good CGI system for accessing FMP information over the web. If you're current web serving company doesn't have FileMaker, they will either probably be willing to add it, or there are many companies who already offer it.

Not being familiar with Visual Basic, I can't compare it to FileMaker's ScriptMaker, but I can say that I've yet to come across a task that couldn't be done in FileMaker. It's very easy to learn, and very powerful.

I think the biggest advantage of FileMaker is its ease of use. Given the same design specs, my understanding is that a FileMaker system can be built in less than half the time as an Access system. But again, to confirm that, others might be more knowledgable.

Chuck

[airbaal]

From what I have seen and experience, FileMaker is somewhat limiting with interacting with other programs. You cannot make a call to a database from another program, which makes things difficult. I have heard that their ODBC support is somewhat limited and could be better.

Overall, I really like FileMaker though. However, I am going to rewrite one of my databases in VB so I can use it directly with other Windows apps.

If you just want a database, use FMaker, otherwise, VB or even Access may be a better way...

Just my thoughts...

-Eric

[McGoo]

I have until recently developed databases in access to a reasonable level, unfortunately I currently have no programming knowledge at all so I was always limited on how far I could take the database.

I have recently been employed by a college that runs a filemaker database and I have discovered that I can develop this DB to a virtually unlimited level due to the ease of the commands and the simplicity of the operating system. This does not mean that filemaker can not perform complicated tasks it can do anything MS Access can do.

Filemaker does have its draw backs and that is that it is not a Microsoft product and does not link as easily with many of the standard programs that we use i.e. word etc.

I would however choose Filemaker over Access all the time

[kraftyman]

I have used Access97 2000 and FMP5 for some time now.

1. see my post on http://www.fmforums.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000198.html

2.Relationships are more rigidly controlled in Access, (which is a two edged sword, because it is harder to set them up, but they are also more robust than FMP's unless you do a lot of scripting and error checking yourself). The ability to base your forms on queries rather than tables is a much more powerful combination than the FMP layouts. Access 2000 automatically creates sub-datasheet views, which are more powerful and robust than the FMP portal.

3.If you plan to work in with other Microsoft products, then stick to Access. You will save yourself a lot of hair pulling and cursing. Filemaker really is not as compatible with office as its makers would have you believe ( not that MSOffice is the centre of the universe or anything ;-)).

3. If you have any skills in VB/VBA then stick to Access. There is MUCH more you can do than with Scriptmaker. A simple perusal through the list of commands and functions in the Help menu will confirm this.

4. Since FMP does not handle events,or variables and cannot change control properties, you will need to generate many layouts, just so that you can have screen elements change colour or position. I find this rather tedious, I wish there was a way around it. There is a plugin that claims to handle variables, but no demo exists. ( I forget the website, you'll find a link from the FMP site.)

5. The main advantages for me of FMP over early Access97 versions was the latter's inability to handle jpegs easily, and the more user friendly report generating of FMP. having said that, a bit of VBA goes a heck of a long way in Access.

6. In my brief forays into ODBC , its support in FMP is disappointing. As a server, the main executable has to be running and the file has to be open ( which, I suppose aids troubleshooting), but certainly. As a client, it is unable to link to a source and update it, it only performs full imports.

7. I would agree that FMP can create extremely slick, flexible, powerful and user friendly databases. However it can lead the creator up the garden path a bit, because of the easy style of database creation, so you have to find the bear traps, like(the dreaded repeating field, and avoid them youself.

8. If you don't want the endless grind of office updates,virus alerts, dll conflicts, MSDAC downloads etc to keep Office and Access up to date, then FMP is clearly the go

etc etc etc...

[Mike Precious]

I write Access 97 multi-user programs for a living. In my opinion...

1. FMP layouts look much better and its easier to construct printed forms/reports in FMP.

2. Access allows you to construct complicated queries and save these queries. Also, open forms and reports from these queries.

3. I find it easier to pass values or parameters through-out an access program. I.E. tracking the user Employee ID Number through-out the program. Probably doable in FMP but its really easy in Access.

4. I think Access is faster. Sorts and Queries on indexed fields are very fast. Sorts are not as fast in FMP.

5. Multi-user DBs are possible in Access by putting the tables on the server and the forms, queries, reports, macros, etc. in a separate db.

6. A workable Access DB takes much longer to build and requires a steeper learning curve up front. Visual Basic takes much longer to learn.

7. Access objects have many properties which can be changed in Visual Basic as the program is running.

8. FMP is more fun, much easier, and just looks better to the user.

Just my opinion.

Mike