alex_wareing
asked on
Questions from a FM novice
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
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
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
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' ?
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' ?
Lesouf, you seem to like to comment other experts, please focus on the question instead.
-------- relax man, you are too serious!
-------- relax man, you are too serious!
I know, i'll have a beer and drink on our health. Cheers !
ok, but be back before 3, otherwise i'll have to tell yr parents.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
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.
You cannot switch filemaker with another database like you would change access by sql-server by simply changing the connection settings.
ASKER
Wow guys thanks, information overload. Gonna read through it and give out some points accordingly. thanks guys
"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...
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20814899/Retrieve-data-from-Filemaker-using-asp-net.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20766672/ASP-Connection-String.html
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...
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20814899/Retrieve-data-from-Filemaker-using-asp-net.html
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20766672/ASP-Connection-String.html
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
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
"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...
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...
"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...
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...
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"!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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
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
Lesouef: unpatiently awaiting your filemaker-site hack ...
If you need help, open up a new question ;)
If you need help, open up a new question ;)
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.
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.
<lesouef quote> html is so bloody boring</lesouef quote>
<div class="startled response">You mean you don't like typing > and < over and over again?</div>
:)
<div class="startled response">You mean you don't like typing > and < over and over again?</div>
:)
a perfect thread to start a long html discussion...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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).
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).
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.
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.
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... ;)
shut up... how long?
anyway, the guy is fall asleep by now!
anyway, the guy is fall asleep by now!
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
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
By the way, I forgot to mention the best feature of HTML-Kit. It's completely FREE!
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...
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...
ASKER
Opened a can of worms here i think!!! Have given out some points based on the original question. thanks a lot guys
hate fishermen...
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.
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.
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...