?
Solved

Questions from a FM novice

Posted on 2004-11-25
36
Medium Priority
?
899 Views
Last Modified: 2008-01-16
Ok heres the deal i am a professional multimedia producer. I currently work in the feilds of video, dvd, graphic design and web dev.

I am considering starting to use FileMaker Pro, however i don't know all that much about it so i hope someone could give me some advice.

I want to start using a project management database to track assests, jobs clients etc. Currently this is done in a rudenmentary format in access. The reason i use access is that a lot of the web dev work i do is dynamic dev in ASP and access is useful for creating small backends. However i find access to be cumbersome and ugly and in some ways limited. The other issue is that i am mostly mac based using a G5 and powerbook for most of my work, but whenever i want to use a database i have to either use the PC or make it in ASP and use it over the web (and in any case the access backend still can only be created and edited on the pc). So my reasons for looking at filemaker are to move to something more powerful and also so that i can use it on my mac. so a few questions i have are:

1/ Is it possible to have filemaker in one central network folder and then access it from both my macs an pc over the network, the way i would do it in access is to have a 1 backend with the data and 3 frontends
2/ are there any good project management apps for filemaker out there? (prefereably free or low priced ones) or would i have to make the db myself?
3/ What are my options with filemaker web wise? for example i would like to have elements of my project management database viewable online so my clients can see them (also edit them if possible?)
4/ Lastly i currenly use access for all my ASP web dev, is it possible to use filemaker instead of access backends, ie: just with a different connection string? or is this not possible?

As you might be able to tell i know very little about FM, so just tell me if i'm way off the mark. i have taken a look at the FM website and documentation but i would like a little impartial human advice!!! thanks in advance, alex
0
Comment
Question by:alex_wareing
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • +2
36 Comments
 
LVL 28

Assisted Solution

by:lesouef
lesouef earned 668 total points
ID: 12678011
1/ Is it possible to have filemaker in one central network folder and then access it from both my macs an pc over the network,
----------------
yes: you can have 3 clients (regular FM version) and have 1 of them to share its bases to others. but better have a FM server and 3 clients, safer, faster. Macs, PCs no difference almost; you only have to work using fonts existing on both, and avoid to use functions supported only on 1 platform like system calls for PCs or applescripts for macs; the system tells on which platform you run, so you can make decisions according the to current platform. The server is available for windows, osX, and linux, clients for win and osX (for os9, only former version FM6)

2/ are there any good project management apps for filemaker out there? (prefereably free or low priced ones) or would i have to make the db myself?
-----------
not as far as I know, but this is not my concern... I'll let you if I can locate something on usual sites

3/ What are my options with filemaker web wise? for example i would like to have elements of my project management database viewable online so my clients can see them (also edit them if possible?)
------------
web built in interface on FM client if the base is local or server (advanced version). The layout is pretty limited.
If Bill comes around , he'll give a better answer as he's more on web things than me, and I won't be better since I prefer the metaframe approach than the web tricks which take ages to get up to the level of the regular user interface.

4/ Lastly i currenly use access for all my ASP web dev, is it possible to use filemaker instead of access backends, ie: just with a different connection string? or is this not possible?
---------
not an expert on this either, maybe the 1st thing to try is to use its ODBC driver (FM can be ODBC server, but not very fast)
About direct ASP access, I think you need some kind of middleware. For php (just in case), there a library you can use to connect to FM directly without ODBC. Bill is gonna be more helpful on this too
0
 
LVL 9

Assisted Solution

by:Lieven Embrechts
Lieven Embrechts earned 664 total points
ID: 12685873
1/ if you simply put the filemaker file on a central folder, different clients cannot access it simultaneously.
if you want to do that, you need a filemaker client or server that keeps the file open an acts like a server.
if there's no need to work on it simultaneously, a shared folder is fine.

2/ depends on what you mean with project management: what do you want to focus on ?
tasks/subtasks & priorities, time/billing, sales & open order portfolio, etc. ???  Have a look at eg. :
- Filemaker Tasks (http://www.filemaker.com/applications/tasks_home.html)
  it's not web enabled but a test showed me that it can be easely added (IWP)
- search on keywords in the 3rd party products (http://www.filemaker.com/products/third_party.html)

3/ yes, with Instant Web Publising (IWP), this is possible. IWP looks attractive (almost no development) but also has a lot of limits: poor perormance, poor stability, very limited layout possibilities.
Filemaker has it's on web page language for detailed layout (like asp) but why use another language ...

4/ No, you cannot. The build in odbc commands only allow to transfer some records. A database connection from filemaker is not possible. This is where filemaker is weak: there's no growth path to larger systems, there's no middleware to 'connect' to other systems.  You can connect a filemaker database from another system (odbc) but you cannot connect another system from filemaker. Therefore filemaker is not a good central platform if you want a growth path.

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps.
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12685987
Lieven,
item 1: I said one client opens the file and shares it to others! I am not the only one to read quickly!
item 2: fm examples are nice to look at, but pretty useless, and project management is a big step beyond this.
item 3: may we could sum up IWP as ok to check your address book from a remote location, but not much more.
item 4: what do you call "database connection from filemaker"? FM can be ODBC server, even if far from efficient...
0
VIDEO: THE CONCERTO CLOUD FOR HEALTHCARE

Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.

 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12686032
Lesouf, you seem to like to comment other experts, please focus on the question instead.
I'm just trying to help alex with my 2 small cents of experience.
It all depends on how experienced the person is who aks the question;
then elaborating an answer from a different perspective can make a lot of sense.

> fm examples are nice to look at, but pretty useless, and project management is a big step beyond this.

I don't agree, to learn filemaker or to get ideas in unknown topics, there's nothing more usefull then examples.
People can't develop everything from scratch either: standard software with minor development is the way to go these days.
Alex, could you explain what you want to accomplish with the words 'project management' ?
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12686101
Lesouf, you seem to like to comment other experts, please focus on the question instead.
-------- relax man, you are too serious!
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12686144
I know, i'll have a beer and drink on our health. Cheers !
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12686366
ok, but be back before 3, otherwise i'll have to tell yr parents.
0
 
LVL 19

Accepted Solution

by:
billmercer earned 668 total points
ID: 12692555
Hi folks! There's an important question that needs to be asked which will significantly affect these answers. Alex_wareing, which version of FileMaker are you looking at?

In a nutshell: FM 7 offers many powerful new capabilities, better engine performance, better scripting, more sophisticated relationships, and a MUCH better ODBC driver, but puts more limitations on web publishing.
 
FM 6 has more powerful web publishing, but has field and file size limitations, and an ODBC driver that blows greasy chunks.

FM 7 is restricted to the latest operating systems (OS X on Mac, WinXP or 2K on Windows)
FM 6 is compatible with older OSes.  

If all your macs are on OS X, FM 7 is definitely the way to go. If you're still using OS 9, you must either upgrade the OS or use FM 6.

"1 Is it possible to have filemaker in one central network folder and then access it from both my macs an pc over the network, the way i would do it in access is to have a 1 backend with the data and 3 frontends"

As both Lesouef and Lieven_Embrechts have said in different ways, this can be done with the client application. The FM Server product provides better performance and stability, but is more expensive. It may be overkill if you only have three simultaneous users and aren't doing continuous data processing. Sharing the files from a workstation is much cheaper and easier. If the machine used to host the database is not being used for any other purpose, it will be almost as stable as the server.

If you do this, your best bet is to store the files on the host workstation's local drive rather than having the host open them from a network location. You'll have better speed and reliability, and greatly reduced network traffic. You can copy the files to a network location on a regular scheduled basis if you want them there for backup purposes.

"2/ are there any good project management apps for filemaker out there? (prefereably free or low priced ones) or would i have to make the db myself?"

Here I agree with Lieven. It depends on what you mean by project management. With version 7, FileMaker has released a free business management product called the Business Tracker. It's mainly a customer/product management solution, but is fully unlocked, and can easily be extended. You could use it as a starting point for your own custom solution. There are some good free resources available from the FileMaker Solutions Collection, including a Gannt chart builder and a time tracking function that could be incorporated.
http://collection.filemaker.com/collection/
There are more pre-made solutions available for FileMaker 6 simply because it's been around longer, but FM 7 is the way of the future.

If you have the time and/or skills, rolling your own system customized for your specific workflow would be best.

Finally, if you want a powerful project management and scheduling program that includes features like CPM scheduling, Gannt charts, etc, without doing it yourself, take a look at FastTrack Schedule. It's not FileMaker-based, but it can be integrated with FileMaker via Applescript, and it's the most powerful project management product I've seen for Mac OS.

"3/ What are my options with filemaker web wise? for example i would like to have elements of my project management database viewable online so my clients can see them (also edit them if possible?)"

As Lesouef and Lieven have both pointed out, this is definitely possible, though again FM version makes a difference.

FM Pro 7 has a limit of 5 concurrent web users with the instant web publishing feature. If your clients will be occasionally logging in to view status or make requests, this will actually support considerably more than 5 clients since only a few of them will be using it at the same time.
 
In order to allow more web users with 7, you have to get Server Advanced, which allows up to 100 simultaneous web users. But Server Advanced is VERY expensive, about US$2500, and you'd want to get a Windows server (the Mac version has major limitations). If you buy FM Developer 7, it comes with a limited developer license for Server Advanced which only allows three simultaneous web users, but otherwise supports all the features of Server Advanced.

With FM 6, all web publishing is done only with the clients, there is no server-based web publishing. The regular FM 6 web publishing has a limit of 10 connections instead of 5. This sounds better than 7, but is actually worse, because the limit is based on logging different IP addresses in a 12 hour period, not simultaneous connections. That means a single user with dialup or dynamic NAT could easily consume all ten "connections", locking everyone else out, simply by logging in repeatedly. If you want more web users, you have to buy Filemaker 6 Unlimited, which eliminates this limitation, but also costs a lot more. Also, FM 6 Unlimited is no longer sold by FileMaker, so you have to get it from a reseller who still has it in stock.

"4/ Lastly i currenly use access for all my ASP web dev, is it possible to use filemaker instead of access backends, ie: just with a different connection string? or is this not possible?"

On this one I agree with Lesouef. You can definitely use FM's ODBC driver as a connection to ASP. However, the version makes a huge difference. The ODBC driver for FM6 is crap: limited, slow, and quirky. The one that comes with FM 7 is very good, and I have actually started using it as a way to do quick queries from a SQL utility without having to create any layouts or relationships in FM. Your ASP would probably need to be tweaked, mainly due to differences in the data types and indexing used by FileMaker and Access, but that's true with any change of back-end database engine.

If you work cross-platform, then a cross-platform web application language like PHP or Lasso might make more sense than the platform-specific ASP.
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12693742
About point 4: doing quick queries from within filemaker isn't exactly switching a back-end.
You cannot switch filemaker with another database like you would change access by sql-server by simply changing the connection settings.
0
 

Author Comment

by:alex_wareing
ID: 12698441
Wow guys thanks, information overload. Gonna read through it and give out some points accordingly. thanks guys
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12699764
"About point 4: doing quick queries from within filemaker isn't exactly switching a back-end."

True, but I wasn't trying to imply that. I was just pointing out how much better the new ODBC drivers are than previous versions. I now use ODBC with FileMaker all the time, whereas with previous versions I would have rather gone to the dentist.

That said, most folks interfacing FileMaker 6 with other systems seem to be going with XML rather than ODBC. However I believe the new limitations on web publishing with FM 7 may push some people back to ODBC.

Here's what Mariano has to say about ASP and Filemaker...

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Databases/FileMaker/Q_20814899.html 
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Databases/FileMaker/Q_20766672.html
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:prifre
ID: 12710573
Everybody have said theirs, so there is not much to add.

I would rather then answering on the "technicalities" suggest you think about the benefits of FM as such and if they are relevant.

FileMaker is the best for making a UI mockup of a db-solution.
It is superb for quick database/register solutions. For quick "register onto web" or "a register to all" solutions.
It is fun. It is quick. It is flexible. It is pretty. It is easy to understand.
Just think of a typical difference between Access and FileMaker: in FM, all Text-fields are of unlimited length, and indexed when needed. In Access you have to specify textlength for each text-field, or say a "memo"-field.
FM is NOT a hackers tool. MySQL is.

4/
Just a quick note - funnily enough, ODBC does work great, but only if you are using Windows. As far as I know, there is currently NO ODBC for OS X for the Mac.

with a sad Macintoshinfluenced smile
/prifre
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12710652
"4/ Just a quick note - funnily enough, ODBC does work great, but only if you are using Windows. As far as I know, there is
currently NO ODBC for OS X for the Mac."

What's really sad about this is that they don't even offer a lower price for Mac users on the upgrade kit for FM Server 7. Basically, you pay full price for half the product. FileMaker is a great program, but some of the company's business decisions seem like the actions of rhesus monkeys on drugs...

0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12710750
"It is fun. It is quick. It is flexible. It is pretty. It is easy to understand."

I've worked with Oracle, Progress, dBase/Foxbase, Filemaker, Access, MS-SQL
and for cleaning & squeezing and playing with data Filemaker is great fun to work with.
Don't try to build a filemaker app on 300.000 records though; it works but scripts become so slooooow...
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12713779
Should we hack the filemaker site to redirect the filemaker server page to this one? this is a real "See what users say about it"!
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12715548
"Don't try to build a filemaker app on 300.000 records though; it works but scripts become so slooooow..."

Hmm, I have to disagree. I've not seen any difference in the speed of scripts running on large tables versus small ones, and I have tables with over a million records. Unless you mean scripts that process every record in the table, which would of course have to be slower with more records, but that's true of any database.  In my experience the physical size of the tables actually has more impact on performance than sheer number of records.


0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12715633
Sorry but I can prove it with applications, i experienced it. If it's a flat file, of course it doesn't matter a lot, but if you use several relationships, calculation fields, summary fields, it becomes terribly slow. Try to eliminate double records in a database of 300000 records... Try to print a report from an application with several relationships and several summary fields --> slow !
Then the real db engines (like oracle, ms-sql, db2, progress) show what they are worth because they will handle those amounts with a smile ;-)
But for playing with data, filemaker is the best.
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12715863
I would be more on Lieven'side, simply sorting 300000 records takes time compared to Access for instance (which I hate!).
Sometimes working FM as ODBC client with mySql is faster than using a native FM base from yr local disk.
But we all love it for user interface, cleaning data, server/client, crossplatform, etc... performance and web interface is still weak compared to 4D or windev which I consider as real competitors of FM.
They also have quite a few marketed features which are a gimmick on the media side. You can insert images and videos, but I define this for stamp collectors. I am working in the prepress area, and there is nothing you can do with images seriously, especially because thay cannot handles many formats, large images, and no file handling at all; you have to use Troi stuff for alsmot everything...
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12716050
As I said, operations that affect all the records in a table are going to be slower with more records. But simply having lots of records in the table does not in itself slow down the speed at which scripts run, which was what Lieven seemed to be saying before. That's all I was disagreeing with.

 

 
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:prifre
ID: 12730021
Fun thread.

Yes FileMaker is quick - but of course the purpose is what must be taken into account. I think it is the quickest solution for doing datase mockups. But yes, for heavy "Amazone" type of apps, it is not realistic.
Using ODBC & SQL & ASP/PHP/JSP or whatever is as fast/slow as the programmer is good/bad.
Bad programming of SQL is definitely slower that using standard scripts in FM. But to do a lot of scripting in FileMaker is not for the weak-minded. You quickly get tired of clicking...

But to relate to the original question - for a "multimedia producer" FileMaker should be able to offer a lot of satisfaction.

with a smile
/prifre
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12730075
Lesouef: unpatiently awaiting your filemaker-site hack ...
If you need help, open up a new question ;)
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12730523
I would probably need help to do that, I am not a web man at all, not able to write a single line of html; if I need some, I use dreamweaver, html is so bloody boring, even more than filemaker scripts; ah yes, I hate FM scripts too, so heavy to manipulate (even if I wrote a few hundreds too); when you think that writing a unix or NT shell script or even an applescript is easier because you can use the bloody copy/paste! how can filemaker be so blind? I already sent hundreds of mails to the filemaler wish list, none of them has been done and of course, no answer either. I'd wish I live in California to pay them a visit, and make them ashamed of their scripting tool, almost the same as in FM3...

Back to the subject (sorry for the diversion, but that's Lieven's fault), I would say that FM can be used to track and plan mmedia work, but I would not insert any of the media files in the base, just the file path, and maybe a preview of it.
Best choice is probably the Troi file plug-in to manipulate images and videos's paths, another real shame filemaker can't do this natively: import an image of which the name is a field...
If you are 4D familiar, it is a better choice to me to do yr stuff.
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12730973
<lesouef quote> html is so bloody boring</lesouef quote>
<div class="startled response">You mean you don't like typing &gt; and &lt; over and over again?</div>
:)
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:Lieven Embrechts
ID: 12733576
a perfect thread to start a long html discussion...
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12733965
indeed! on top my language has accents...
html has been deflected from its orginal purpose, but now html is ridiculous, a bit like FM: when something needs so many plug-ins, it definitly lacks too many things. My major complains are:
HTML editors are crappy, they leave redundant /span stuff very often while a prepress software never does, and mind you, it works exactly the same, by hiding typographic codes from the user's view. Its behaviour on client's browser is very unpredicatble: as a prepress man, it sounds silly, there are so many formats which can achieve that, for a long time. Even when using c. style sheets, you are still not sure it will look the way you expect since fonts are not embedded, and no comment on printing it: a pure disaster. To me this is the major drawback to "intranetize" applications, you can't print a bloody form which looks nice.
Sorry Alex, this is Bill's fault now...
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12736659
Oh no, Lesouef, now you've got me started...

First, you're not using the right editors. Most of the "Editors" are really just HTML generators that use terrible kludge methods to try to make something look a certain way. If you have a bunch of junk in your HTML, it's because your editor sucks, not because HTML sucks. If you want to see a good HTML editor, take a look at HTML-Kit.
www.chami.com

Remember, the whole purpose of HTML is to present content to the end user in a way that the end user can decide how the content will be formatted and displayed. Most of the problems you describe derive from efforts to take control away from the end user and put it into the hands of the page designer. Things like random <span> and <table> tags throughout what seems like a simple page are a warning sign of really out-of-date software.

I've done prepress, and I know this is heresy to a prepress person, but fonts are simply not that important on the web. No matter what you do, the browser can always override your font choices, and a significant number of users will never see your fonts anyway (think wireless web, raw text browsers, search engine robots, Unix workstations, etc.) My wife likes to see everything in Comic Sans of all things.

I agree that it's stupid to try to make every application "internet-ready". That's like putting a toaster in the bathroom...


0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12736886
I knew it was gonna work!!
Thanks for chami, I'll have a look at it.
About leaving the end user decide on the look of the page, there are situations where you'd like to make sure how it will look: 90% of users won't even alter character size if it does not fit. If you want to make invoices for instance, you'd like to make sure they won't miss thr last legal line at the bottom... Same for the web companion, it a font is substitued, yr layout will look like a draft copy...
I agree that what you say is what HTML was meant for. Now, it has so many others apps than simply hypertext, that  it lacks features to achieve what a pdf file does + a html editor capable to work (unless chami is the one, I'll tell later one).
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12738597
Lesouef, with respect to printing issues, you should probably be using the CSS media type properties for print and paged media.
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_mediatypes.asp

I can't say enough good stuff about HTML-Kit. It's nothing like Fireworks, Dreamweaver, etc. It's a real programmer's editor, with syntax highlighting, keyword completion, extension recognition, and it even has HTML-TIDY built in so you can make sure your code complies with W3C standards on the fly.

It doesn't give you a WYSIWYG mode, instead it actually shows you a real preview window that renders your page for real using either the MSHTML or Gecko rendering engine, and you can switch back and forth between rendering engines with a single click. It also supports nested code, so you can use it with ASP, PHP, etc. And it lets you create your own plugins if you want to extend the functionality, so you could create a CDML plugin if you wanted to.
 
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12738612
Alex_wareing, apologies for hijacking your thread with this discussion, but you asked an interesting question. I promise to shut up now if Lesouef does... ;)

0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12739079
shut up... how long?
anyway, the guy is fall asleep by now!
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:prifre
ID: 12740829
Hehe,

I am looking forward to see if I should switch from TextPad that I'v been quite fond of, to HTML-kit. I mean, I have tried DW (and do use it sometimes, since I like their reference and some features...) and HomeSite (messy), BBEdit (great, but for Macintosh only), and I'v tried a  bunch of others.
What I love with TextPad is that it is quick.

dont shut up guys!

with a broad smile
/prifre
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12740957
By the way, I forgot to mention the best feature of HTML-Kit. It's completely FREE!

0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12743459
was that long enough?
DW: the leader, but so many tools boxes, so many releases in a short while... At least, you do not have to type code for static stuff.
BBedit, very good, no equivalent in the windows world...
But I personnaly do not accept the idea of writing code for static HTML. I even wonder why it is a commonly accepted thing to have to write code for a HTML page while this has been rejected in the prepress world for ages; I am so old that I have been working on non wysiwyg systems and command line only OSs, dos, unix before X, vms, so I have some skill for coding and scripts, but what a waste of time.
About HTMLkit, I had a quick look, that looks a bit like ACEhtml. Bill, any advantage in betweens them if you tried AceHtml?
Anyway, I won't spend much energy on this as I am sure that in a few years/months time, there will be editors able to generate XML+XSL exactly as a prepress application: when you specify a style sheet, you do not type code in, you check the font, etc...  Which tool allows to define XSL files like this at the moment? you may know more than I do...
0
 

Author Comment

by:alex_wareing
ID: 12750228
Opened a can of worms here i think!!! Have given out some points based on the original question. thanks a lot guys
0
 
LVL 28

Expert Comment

by:lesouef
ID: 12751926
hate fishermen...
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:billmercer
ID: 12753447
I haven't used ACEHtml, but from looking at their web site it does look similar.
Re BBEdit, my personal favorite generic editor for Windows is UltraEdit. It's a generalized text/binary file editor.
I tend to use for the same things in Windows I'd use BBEdit for on the Mac.
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: Path Explorer

An intuitive utility to help find the CSS path to UI elements on a webpage. These paths are used frequently in a variety of front-end development and QA automation tasks.

One of a set of tools we're offering as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Conversion Steps for merging and consolidating separate Filemaker files The following is a step-by-step guide for the process of consolidating two or more FileMaker files (version 7 and later) into a single file with multiple tables. Sometimes th…
Having just upgraded from Filemaker 11 to Filemaker 12 over the weekend, we thought we would add some tips for others making the same move.  In general, our installation went without incident. Please note that this is not a replacement for Chapter 5…
Please read the paragraph below before following the instructions in the video — there are important caveats in the paragraph that I did not mention in the video. If your PaperPort 12 or PaperPort 14 is failing to start, or crashing, or hanging, …
Screencast - Getting to Know the Pipeline
Suggested Courses

840 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question