Can anyone explain the nature of the technical requirement to run FileMaker Server on Windows Vista or Server?

FileMaker could not provide a satisfactory or even coherent answer to this inquiry.

I am particularly puzzled by it supporting Server 2003 while not supporting XP?

I am from a Unix background but interpreted Server 2003 to be Server XP? - No? - We don't run Windows Server in any form.

The performance of the virtualized server running on Vista is absolutely horrendous.

We retired all our Mac OS X based servers in the name of virtualization and really aren't looking to bring them back, but I am not sure there is a practical alternative.

The tech specs at the FM website are quite clear.

http://www.filemaker.co.uk/products/fms/tech_specs.html

FWIW - brush the dust off your best spec Mac and run with that. With your UNIX background you will know exactly what you are doing and the Mac is as robust as it can get. I've been running FMS on Mac for over 10 years - no problems!

In a word: resources.

Each OS requires separate development and SQA testing. FMI policy is the current version of Server OS (Windows Server 2008) and one version back (Server 2003). XP was added for testing purposes. XP is no longer the current workstation OS.

In my view it is a bad idea to run FileMaker Server on a workstation OS. Use either OS X Server, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Server 2008.

Check the Server Tech Brief on the FMI Web site.

Steven

Thanks for the replies,

I don't claim to have been blindsided - I just wasn't prepared for such poor performance running on a Dual Xeon server with 2GB of memory allocated to the Vista virtual machine. I was curious if Server 10 was doing something concerning the Vista/2K8 API's or leveraging Vista/2K8's memory protection for the sake of security or something other than simply discontinuing support for XP.

For its part FileMaker claimed the enhancements that broke XP support were a trade secret couldn't be disclosed for competitive reasons...

If I get so motivated I might try to rebuild the installer with InstallShield Developer and see if that will get it installed on XP.

Unfortunately there is no enthusiasm for investing in a server operating system for FileMaker when that server operating system will not be used for anything other than FileMaker and the "Dolphins" tend to get irritable when anything is spent on FileMaker.

I just wasn't prepared for such poor performance running on a Dual Xeon server with 2GB of memory allocated to the Vista virtual machine

This is hardly an optimal configuration. Try 4 GB RAM or a real server with a real server OS. And, FMS really is supposed to be running on a dedicated machine.

Steven

I am from a Unix background but interpreted Server 2003 to be Server XP? - No? - We don't run Windows Server in any form.

That's a HUGE simplification. Server 2003 may share the same code branch as XP but it is much more than "tweaked XP". Compare it to how Linux server editions have an optimized and recompiled kernel as compared to the desktop Linux editions.

Server 2003 is similarly optimized for its server role.

From what you're describing the virtualization decision was very poorly made: if a server OS is required, you use it.

We run nine FileMaker Servers here, six FMS 5.5 on Server 2000 and three FMS 9 on Server 2003, all virtualized on VMWare. Excellent performance, with beefy hardware running it all.

The virtualization push came out of a nuclear overreaction to server sprawl - Mac OS X got squeezed out as a server platform because Apple doesn't allow Mac OS X to be virtualized - except on Apple hardware.

The old server for FileMaker was a 1.3ghz G4 which I don't expect great things from even if it will willingly install.

An exceedingly frustrating situation but it is the card I am dealt complete with Dolphin barbarians at the gates.

Well the performance was agreed to be abysmal enough that FileMaker is getting a Mac OS X based server again - considered the preferable alternative to investing in Windows Server 2008.