pahtooco Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) So - here are some of the facts: 1. Multi database solution (4 and growing) that handles budgeting, accounting system structure (not linked to accounting system), contracting, purchasing, staff management, timesheets, expense reports, etc.... 2. Built around TCP/IP, desktop client, access. 3. Was hosted in house in a 30 or so user environment with one physical location. Concurrent users might have been up to 10 with all 30 folks accessing. 4. Then hosted via a hosting company across four physical business locations. 5. Now moving to a 250 or so user environment across 40 physical locations. Concurrent users (assuming we do not implement the timesheet piece) probably up to 20 with about 100 different folks possibly accessing. 6. We're a non profit - so have crazy limited budget and only two IT staff. So......What I am now thinking is moving to Web Direct (due to the number of locations and users). What I am wondering is: Does that make sense? I see comments about crashing and freezing using FM14 and Web Direct - is the redesign effort going to be worth it? A quick view of hosting options made me shudder at the possible price. Flip side is in house price - sure we'll (as a non profit) get windows server and such free - but still need the box and need to support it (with our two IT staff who are often out and about supporting folks at those 40 locations). Which way to go? Does anyone have hosting suggestions? If we do go the Web Direct route is there any "Top 10 Things I wish I Had Known Before I Did This" type of info out there or for anyone to share? Is there some way to just turn on Web Direct compatibility for all scripts in the script workspace or do you have to do that for each one?!?! Before we really dive in to go in this direction and general help would be VERY appreciated! ----------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE - IN looking at current (non profit) volume pricing for desktop clients, and then adding to that traditional hosting VS a redesign PLUS costs for "enhanced" web direct hosting PLUS loss of speed in accessing date (true?) - I am beginning to wonder if there is a reason at all to go the web based route (except for the off hand user where - well, we can only do so much). Thoughts? Edited October 20, 2015 by pahtooco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Decorte Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Cost is one thing, and only you can answer that I'm afraid. Loss in speed is relative to the design of the solution mostly and the deployment choices. WebDirect for the # of users that you have mind is going to require a very decent server. If you can get that one for free then take it and host it in-house. Not a lot (none that I know) cloud host providers will have a machine that has the right specs for this. Is there some way to just turn on Web Direct compatibility for all scripts in the script workspace or do you have to do that for each one?!?! There is nothing to turn on. The "web direct compatibility" dropdown is there for you to see what steps are compatible and which ones are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pahtooco Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thanks - I was thinking the same thing about the server - and hosting prices for that using web direct seem to be a "call us". On the web direct (or other compatibility) what I meant was you select a script, and the default is the compatibility button with an "X". You can click on that and select a different compatibility. Things light up that are not compatible! Then click on another script - and you're back to square one (with the compatibility button with an "X"). Is there a way to just default the compatibility you want to show for all the scripts you have without having to change each one individually? Hope that makes sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitch Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 That's something I hadn't noticed that's new in FileMaker 14: the selected compatibility setting appears to be stored with each script. Not sure if I like that or not. And no, even if you select multiple scripts and change the compatibility setting, it only stores it for the first script in the group. In previous versions of FileMaker, the compatibilty setting was global. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Searight Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 That's something I hadn't noticed that's new in FileMaker 14: the selected compatibility setting appears to be stored with each script. Not sure if I like that or not. And no, even if you select multiple scripts and change the compatibility setting, it only stores it for the first script in the group. In previous versions of FileMaker, the compatibilty setting was global. Kind of a strange choice for behavior IMO. Thanks for pointing it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 3099 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now