[TheCount]

rediculous! fire the whole bunch. as if they didnt have enough lead time to get filemaker ready for leopard.

[hayesk]

Quote:

---

BUT NOW.... Now there is virtually NO entry-level graphics/painting softare available for the Macintosh platform.

---

You are gravely mistaken. How about DrawWell or Line Form, or even Create (pro level for a cheap price!)? There are lots, you just have to look for them. VersionTracker is a good place to start.

Quote:

---

There is a BIG OPPORTUNITY here for someone to fill this niche!

---

The have - you just have to go look for them.
Even FileMaker has competition. 4D and Panorama are viable alternatives.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

I doubt it. They try to be as cross platform as possible, so I don't think there's low level stuff that anyone else doesn't have access to.
There could be issues that popped up in later builds that they are working on.

---

I agree. People need to give the FileMaker guys a break. It could be that the software is just more complex and they have more network stuff that needs to be changed.
Converting Tiger software to Leopard software isn't the same across the board. Some applications will have more work to do; some will have less; some will have none. A complex communication software will have more work to do. A calculator app probably has zero work involved.
The expectation that all apps must be ready on day-one is an unrealistic expectation. Plus the reality is that Leopard has been changing all year long. For example, Leopard had a different revision of Java until very recently.

[sandro]

How lame of FileMaker. First, I doubt that if they used Mac OS X's APIs properly that their software would have such problems with Leopard. It sounds like sloppy programming to me.
Second, don't they get the developer versions of Leopard? Maybe they aren't aware of Apple's developer program. Someone should tell them that if they join, they can get early versions of Mac OS X so they can test their software for compatibility and have a chance to fix any problems caused by their sloppy programming. They should be deeply embarrassed. It doesn't speak very well of FileMaker that they failed to prepare for Leopard. Maybe it is time to drop FileMaker altogether.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

How lame of FileMaker. First, I doubt that if they used Mac OS X's APIs properly that their software would have such problems with Leopard. It sounds like sloppy programming to me.
Second, don't they get the developer versions of Leopard? Maybe they aren't aware of Apple's developer program. Someone should tell them that if they join, they can get early versions of Mac OS X so they can test their software for compatibility and have a chance to fix any problems caused by their sloppy programming.

---

How do you know things like this? Maybe they did properly use Mac APIs properly. I'm sure they got all the developer versions of Leopard. It's not like Leopard was the same all year. It changed. In fact, if they had relied upon earlier versions working in April, they would have had problems later in the year. I notice they had a July 07 ship date and this means they would have begun their programming in 06.
Having an application working on day-one doesn't prove that the developer was diligent nor does a broken application prove that a developer was sloppy. What does matter is size of the code base and whether or not the code touches on areas of the OS that have undergone change. A database program like FileMaker has been developed over years and is extensive in scope.
Apps aren't programmed in months. (Smaller apps can be) Larger projects are initiated years before release. Demanding that File Maker be ready on day-one is a ridiculous customer demand.

[dreadnought27]

I've been a FMP user since it was a Claris product, and I am extremely disappointed that it is not compatible. However, I am disappointed with FM, not Apple.
I've read a lot of articles over the years on the love/hate relationship between Apple and FM - pretty much FM does not like being part of Apple, and operates as a completely independent company.
In so many respects, FMP is stuck in an pre-OS X mindset - the interface tools have barely been improved since FMII, and it wasn't until FMP8 that the program supported scroll wheel functionality.
My FM needs are really quite limited - I keep a database of my antique collection in FMP, and a few other things. All of which could probably be accomplished much better in an iWork style version of the program. I am hoping that v.8 works in Leopard, because I have no plans on ever upgrading again.

[hayesk]

All of this complaining tells me that people care more about getting a new toy (Leopard) than actually using their computer for critical work.
Is it dissapointing that FM9 is not ready? Yes. Should FM9 have been ready? Maybe, but we don't really know the issue. People here are just grasping at straws because they can't play with their new toy right away.
Here's a thought, why not wait and see how long before an update comes before passing judgment on something we know nothing about?

[hlawton]

Quote:

---

So we're thinking that ancient, cave-dwelling folk such as myself who might be running v6 Pro are okay? Is it possible that my cheap-skatedness has paid off for once?!

---

Let's hope so! v5.5 Pro user here.
Pass me another brontosaurus burger, Grog.

[flybynight]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So we're thinking that ancient, cave-dwelling folk such as myself who might be running v6 Pro are okay? Is it possible that my cheap-skatedness has paid off for once?!

---

Let's hope so! v5.5 Pro user here.
Pass me another brontosaurus burger, Grog.

---

So, Leopard compatibility should not be an issue for you and your Beige G3, running Mac OS 8.6, right? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Not so uncommon. We actually have a variety of machines from new iMacs and MacPro's going back to beige boxes, depending on the task. I've been testing FMP 9, but I can't upgrade our FMP Server until I get rid of all of the OS 9 boxes. And I can't do that until I convince the boss to upgrade from QuickBooks 4.0! Because, "it works just fine, so why pay to change it?" Arg. It's a vicious circle.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

it would be unthinkable for Apple to release Leopard that isn't compatible with the latest iPhone, iPod, iLife, and iWork.

---

FileMaker is an enterprise application (or at least semi-enterprise) and is not a consumer application. iPhone, iLife, etc. are consumer products and the customers have different needs.
No self-respecting IT department is going to install a new OS on day-one. They will first pilot a handful of machines with shipping Leopard (not betas) and after a month (or even a year) will roll out Leopard to the rest of the company. If the FileMaker developers truly understand their customer needs, they will understand the scheduling of roll-outs. The goal is preserving legacy not getting new toys.
An enterprise app should be fully tested on the shipping version of the OS before it is certified. i.e. there is something wrong if an enterprise app is advertised as ready-to-go on day one--the developer is sloppy if they release this quickly. I don't want to see an enterprise app ready on day-one. I would not trust that app. This is not a consumer market.
The July 07 release should have been focussed on Tiger. They should expect the customer base to remain with Tiger for some time.

Quote:

---

It would be unthinkable for there not to be a version of Windows released that is incompatible with the latest version of Office. Should FileMaker Pro be at that same level?

---

Office is used by consumers and is probably the one software that most home users will have. It is also closely tied to the OS. FileMaker and Office should not be treated the same level.
If Apple wants to get into the corporate market, they need to start behaving like they understand enterprise IT. Corporate market shouldn't be treated like Christmas toys. Stability, security and accountability are the areas where Apple needs to gain credibility. Releasing software quickly is the wrong thing to do.

[hlawton]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So we're thinking that ancient, cave-dwelling folk such as myself who might be running v6 Pro are okay? Is it possible that my cheap-skatedness has paid off for once?!

---

Let's hope so! v5.5 Pro user here.
Pass me another brontosaurus burger, Grog.

---

So, Leopard compatibility should not be an issue for you and your Beige G3, running Mac OS 8.6, right? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

Except I'm on a Dual 2Ghz G5 currently running 10.4.10.

[leicaman]

Forget PowerPoint. Use Keynote! It's pretty powerful. And it can export to PowerPoint just fine. Although Powerpoint sux at handling trasparency. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jims]

So...... Can anyone tell me which applications Apple has on the market right now that is not 10.5 compatible? I haven't heard anything. So. Since Filemaker is a 100% owned company of Apple, Filemaker is under the same requirements for financial responsiblity to the stock owners of Apple. I don't see why filemaker is given any slack on this since it can and will affect the corporation as a whole.
The argument of "give Filemaker a break" doesn't stand water with me. It's like Apple stating today that Final Cut Studio 3 has "issues" with 10.5 How many people would stand for that. You would think that every piece of software being sold and shipping would be workable with any new OS upgrade. If it doesn't, it just shows that Apple doesn't really care. Filemaker is a 100% Apple owned product. Its not an Adobe product, its an Apple product. If Apple doesn't care about all shipping products and compatability, then we need to be concerned because if Apple doesn't care, no one will care.
PS Wouldn't it be hysterical if all non shipping version of FMP 8.5 or less run without a flaw. How messed up is that kids?

[leicaman]

You argument would hold water if the time between 8.5 and 9 was significant. But it was not by any means as long as previous upgrade periods.
I'm not asking for a big discount. But why should I pay $179 like a Filemaker 5 owner? Why not give me $10 or $20 off of that for being a loyal customer? Lots of software companies have tiered upgrade prices. Not only that, but a lot of shlubs bought Filemaker on eBay for $25 and now they want the same deal I get?
Filemaker bombards me with mail and emails almost every week to get me to upgrade. Save the postage (and time) and give me $20 off and I'll buy it.
I'll get it eventually. No doubt about that. I understand your point. But, I'm not asking for the moon. Just a slice of cheese. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif