Filemaker 5.5 vs MS Access

[fred-seal]

Could someone give a comparison in speed and usably between the two?

Thanks,

Fred

[the walker]

filemaker

much easier to use,

better scalabilty

better at handling larger data

multi platform

faster development times

runtimes from developer are great

but thats just my opinion

[The Bridge]

FileMaker has a comparison between the two at http://www.filemaker.com/it/access.html

[AndrewBruno]

I can't comment on speed comparisons, but there is a whole world of difference in useability. Whilst not a computer pro, I have a good science degree and passed the Mensa entry exam some years ago. Have always dabbled in databases to write internal systems to help in my sales / marketing jobs. About 6 years ago I moved from Mac based company to a PC based one. FM Pro was just going relational at that time.

I was told that Access was the PC database. I wasted three months trying to get to gripsd with the program, spending good money on textbooks to no avail. I got nowhere whatsoever with it. It's bascically a programmers language which Microsoft (successfully) sell as an ordinary person's database. Crap! You need to know SQL to get anywhere.

Actually then tried Lotus Approach and dveloped a comprehensive, customer tracking, specification and order processing system. Approach is great but has limited scripting. You need to get into LotusScript to develop the program to its fullest, but no-one knows where you learn this !.

Moved back to FMPro a year ago (now relational) and I can't believe how easy it is to use or how powerful it is.If you can order your data into appropriate files and get the basics of referential integrity, there's virtually no limit to the complexity of system you can develop.

Only warning - be totally dedicated regarding keping clones and back-up files, as to my cost, damaged FMPro files can meman a lot of anguish, FMPro's manual and built in help don't even refer to these potential problems.

Microsoft must have made millions from selling Access to people who have wasted their money on a program they were likely unable to use.

There really isn't a question.

[Anatoli]

Nice story

[danjacoby]

All I know is that everybody I know who has used both hates Access -- I mean as in "despises", "loathes", "abhors".

They may not exactly love Filemaker ('cause there are always issues), but at least they don't hate it.

[jorix]

quote:

---

Originally posted by danjacoby:

All I know is that everybody I know who has used both hates Access -- I mean as in "despises", "loathes", "abhors".

They may not exactly love Filemaker ('cause there are always issues), but at least they don't hate it.

---

I've worked with Access and I dind't really hate it. As a matter of fact I admire some functionality.

While working with Filemaker I quickly realized that it came from the Macintosh platform, easy to use and stuf..

Filemaker doesn't understand Windows the way it should, as Windows is an event-driven OS and Filemaker isn't. The only events you can trigger in Filemaker is when a person clicks a button, or when a field-condition fails..

Therefore I think that Filemaker doesn't suit my needs, and Access gets way closer to the ideal database suite.

(I hope I didn't insult someone by now...)

[fred-seal]

I was trying to leave MS Products, but when it comes to Windows, Filemaker falls short. Access 97 is ready easy to use, and maintain files. Access 2000 & Access XP overhead kills it.

Thanks for your input.

Fred

[Anatoli]

RE: Windows is an event-driven OS and Filemaker isn't.

Is Oracle event driven?

Mac OS started to be event driven OS, when Microsoft produced DOS 3.

It is not always practical to develop "all bells and whistles" database.

In any case, there are plugins for such expansion in functionality.

RE: I was trying to leave MS Products, but when it comes to Windows, Filemaker falls short. Access 97 is ready easy to use, and maintain files. Access 2000 & Access XP overhead kills it.

I am using FM on Windows and I didn't fall short of my client’s expectations. The above is probably true, if you just scratch surface of FM.

In any case, my applications working day and night without single problem 3 years on FM will not run on Access alone. On MS SQL yes, but at what costs?

[simon1663]

I work with Filemaker, Access, Oracle, Ingres, MySQL every week.

I would give 10/10 to Filemaker because of it's simplicity and honesty. I mention honesty here cause Filemaker always does what is supposed to do. As opposed to that Access offers a lot of features half which does not work half of the time! Access is full of craps... It is simply Microsoft's policy to make their product colourful - but underneath they suck.. The only reason I came to Filemaker is because Access was not doing what it was supposed to do.

Here is how I would rate the DB products I have used:

Friendliness and ease of use:

FM

Access

MySQL

Ingres

Oracle

Robustness:

Ingres

Oracle

MySQL

FM

Access

Speed under extreme processing:

Ingres

MySQL

Oracle

Access

FM

Limitations:

Ingres (Less limitations)

Oracle

Access

MySQL

FM (High limitations)

Features:

Ingres

Oracle

Access

MySQL

FM

Honesty ( Keeps all the promises of it's features regardless how many promised)

FM

MySQL

Ingres

Oracle

Access ( very very poor)

Price:

MySQL (free)

Access

FM

Oracle

Ingres

Third Party Integration:

MySQL

Oracle

FM

Ingres

Access

My Personal choice if it came to developing a product:

FM

MySQL

Oracle

Ingres

Access

In future I would like to see the following features added to filemaker:

1. DB Triggers (Trigger is a script which is executed when a value of field (s) changed or updated)

2. Different error message can be shown based on different error when a field fails it's validation criteria.

3. Show Message feature currently allows only a static predifined message to be shown. They should change to be shown from a field or by calculation

4. Background processing/multithreading : Their should be a option in scripts where certain thing can be done in background.

5. Web plugin produces different results in IE and NS. I guess IE has a activeX control for XML which NS does not. But I find it hypocratic from FM that they are not really keeping their multi-platform promise. If you look at FM website - you will see that all of the screenshots they have is in IE!

6. 50 database open at a time limitation should be lifted.

Well, that's just what I can think of now. Surely there is plenty I can complain about FM. But I still like it. I like it because it has never crashed on me - and it always does what I have asked it to do.

[Anatoli]

That is the best post here and I do agree with 98% of it!

[simon1663]

LOL

What is the 2% that I left out?

[Anatoli]

Support for Central European languages and non-existent security on Web

[Higgins]

Yes, support for UNICODE is an absolute MUST

I really cannot understand how they can justify missing all those foreign markets. FileMaker has almost zero market share in Central Europe because of this...

We could also ask for optional storage separation between data and code. This would insure far easier maintenance for developpers.

Also allow for better scripting. Its a "kindergarten" language now and its inefficient. Too bad because prototyping db is a real strength of FM, and the report tool is good enough.

All in all its a very frustrating experience for developpers.