[Macworld]

Post your comments for Review: FileMaker Pro 10 and Pro Advanced 10 here

[Luis_Alejandro]

quote (excerpted):
"FileMaker comes in two editions, standard Pro and Pro Advanced. http://... For one thing, there is no FileMaker basic—that is, no thin-client version http://..."
Do you say a "standard" "Pro[fesional]"?
Aren't them two different sides of the rope?
And the "basic" would be "standard basic" or "Pro basic."
I'm really pissed off because there is not an "Ultimate Home Premium Basic"!
Too many years of producing Windows' versions has "infiltrated" the soul of FileMaker!
(As far as the features of the "Advanced" are more oriented to developers, it's moniker should be "Developers.")

[thegrot]

One other feature not mentioned in the review is "timers". This is the ability to schedule a script to automatically fire after a specific amount of time has passed. One of the frequent bugbears we have is users who go away from their desk leaving their cursor flashing in a field, preventing other users from editing that record. With a timer I can schedule a script to automatically commit a record change after a certain amount of time (if the record is in the editing state), thus automatically unlocking the record. Timers are also "window specific" not file or layout specific, so if needed you can have more than one window open for the same file or table, and have separate timers for each one. A consequence of this is that scripts no longer necessarily target the front window for the file they are in. Previously developed solutions in earlier versions of Filemaker will probably never notice this, as the behaviour change is only noticeable if you take advantage of it, never the less, this is a really useful, if subtle, addition.

[Rhywun]

I am evaluating FileMaker for the first time and yeah the names throw me off too. If all the products are "Pro", why is the word "Pro" even in there?

[KentD]

If I recall correctly, when they first added "Pro" to the name, many other applications were doing the same. FileMaker began as just FileMaker, then FileMaker Plus (to match the Mac Plus), FileMaker 4, FileMaker II (to match MacWrite II), and then FileMaker Pro. I guess they are stuck with it. How would customers react to dropping the "Pro"? Would they think they are getting a stripped down version? It would cause confusion.
They are not the only company to get weird on versions. On Macs, Adobe Illustrator did not have a 2, but an 88. There was no 4 either.

[hayesk]

I was hoping for actual UI improvements to the databases themselves. As a developer, I want to make solutions that look and act like a MacOS X application.

[Localboy]

I too had hoped that Bento could be used as a thin Filemaker client. The fact that it can't run Filemaker applications was such a missed opportunity and keeps me from buying it.

On the subject of the new Filemaker, this review highlights the positives and I agree version 10 is quite worthy. As far as the height of the status toolbar, using the small icon only option reduces the height a little. Using text only option would really minimize the height except the status bar no longer shows the record number or the quantity of records in the current find.

[Rhywun]

hayesk said:

I was hoping for actual UI improvements to the databases themselves. As a developer, I want to make solutions that look and act like a MacOS X application.

I was thinking similarly, especially that the default layouts are really, really ugly. But there does seem to be a lot of customization possible, but I am not sure how close I could get to something that looks like OS X.

Also I think the cross-platform nature of the product has something to do with this.

By the way, is anyone else miffed that you have to buy a separate license for the Windows version in order to release a stand-alone application for Windows? This program is really expensive already (vastly more expensive than Access--why?).

[dbem]

Re: Do you have to buy two licenses to create standalones for Mac and Windows:

If I read the license correctly, I do not believe you have to purchase to licenses to create both Mac and Windows standalone applications. Here is the relevant quote:

"You may install and use only one copy of the Application on a single computer at a time. Even though
both Windows and Macintosh versions of the Application may be provided in multiple languages, you are only
licensed to use one version of the Application on one platform (i.e., the Windows or Macintosh version) in one
language at a time, except as provided in Section 1(d). You may not use or run more than one instance of the
Software from the same operating system (e.g., using virtualization or other technologies) at the same time."

The following appears in section 1(d): The primary user of the computer on which the Software is installed may make a
second copy for his or her exclusive use on either a home or portable computer.

The critical phrase seems to be "at the same time." So, I have one copy on my Mac (on which I develop the main database) and one copy on my Windows machine. Note, too, that in v10 the "activiation" of the software has changed from previous versions: Now it is automatic, invisible, and a local affair. (You do have to register---but not "activate"-- the software online or over the phone.)

There is an additional subtlety if you are using Parallels or other virtualization on your Mac. The Filelmaker 10 installer will NOT permit you to install it in both Mac OSX and Windows on the same machine because that means you are using them "at the same time." But if you set up your virtualization under Boot Camp (which requires rebooting to get from one "machine" to the other), you can install FM10 Advanced in both partitions. (And Parallels can work with your virtual Window machine installed in that way.) (Warning: I haven't actually tried this yet.)

Warning: I'm not a lawyer and have not asked Filemaker this explicit question, but it seems kosher to me to use one license to develop for both platforms using FM10 advanced.

[MacGuru]

I keep waiting (and waiting, like many others) for FileMaker to support its databases on the iPhone. I'd love to see an iPhone app that lets me work with Filemaker databases stored on a server!

[Rhywun]

I read somewhere on their site--but I can't find it now--someone from FileMaker stating in plain English that you need 2 licenses in order to create stand-alone applications for both Mac and Windows.
RE: "Pro"
Honestly, I don't think anyone would care if they dropped it. Everyone just calls it "FileMaker" anyway. (I didn't even know "Pro" was part of the name until I downloaded the demo the other day.)

[silver99]

I've used both Filemaker and MS Access and I have to say I like MS Access better (I find it better for development - more customizable). It's too bad Microsoft doesn't develop a version of Access for the Mac.

[Manusnake]

As far as I know, FileMaker is more robust thant Access (i.e. it can access more data faster, have more users at the same time, etc...). So for bigger groups, or obviously, for cross-plateform groups, FM might better suits their needs.
For the user experience. Access and FileMaker are just not thought the same way. They are suppose to do the exact same thing (creating and managing databases), but have different approach. In my opinion, there is no "winner" here, but two approaches. Just like Windows and Mac OS : two OS, designed in radically different ways to achieve the same goals.
So, if you prefer Access, go for it. It is sad though, as you wrote, that there is no Mac versions, for those who prefer Access... Anyway, the MacBU at MS can't do everything they'd like to (Stevy wouldn't like it).

[n4hhe]

Can one finally script the selection of a printer?
In my last major use of Filemaker I needed to be able to print envelopes on one printer, membership cards on another, and invoices/letters on the 3rd printer. Ideally all at once.
Filemaker was too helpful in automatically selecting the printer. The best I came up with was a test for the printer name, and if it wasn't the expected printer then throw the printer select dialog at the user.
Just as good, and staying with the Mac ease of use, would be to retain the printer and print setup on a per-layout basis. Printing a layout would always default to the last printer that layout was printed, not to the last printer Filemaker used, not to the last printer the user used.
This was just as broken in FM7 and FM8 on Mac, and FM9 on Windows.