Talk:FileMaker

,

Intro reads like a marketing blurb
This bit from the first line of the article, "known for its combination of power and ease of use", is marketing talk, and entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I suggest someone changes the tone to something a bit more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.154.190 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the *whole article* reads exactly like a marketing glossy. Desperate advertising for a very limited, non-standards compliant database?

Crossplatform?
This article begins by stating that FileMaker is "cross-platform" but makes no mention versions other than for the Mac. -- Viajero 14:53, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

There is also a windows version of FileMaker. That should be added. --SeanO 22:11, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * Surely these are covered by the info box? Barefootguru 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons
from what I can tell this is comparable to Access and Alpha Five.

I also haven't found any mention of SQL in relation to it. I'm curious how easy it is to export to other formats or more powerful databases.

> easy but messy

->It is easy using SQL statements, I am filemaker developer and it would be messy if you don't have an organized file.

Unfeasibly large links section
The links section is not only growing all the time, but at 35 links seems to be in contradiction to what Wikipedia is (WP:NOT).

I think it should be groomed to 2 entries:


 * FileMaker Inc. website, including Technical Knowledge Base
 * Dancing-Data, detailed history from 1980 to 1989

The other sites are easily found using Google, and we shouldn't be trying to list all developer resources and user groups here.

Thoughts?

Barefootguru 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Grstain 18:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your points of view. Why not to propose some external ressources for users and/or developers? Looking around I see that type of resources for MySQL, Postgre or Microsoft_Access. My opinion is that the list should be limited to the main non-commercial ressources as: FMPug, FMForums, Advisor (FileMaker Conference)... odevriese 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've pulled the links to user groups. Not only do they go against WP:EL, but they are also only interesting to users in that specific area. However, if there is one (or two) portal for developers with further information (and maybe a list of user groups), we could list that here. Averell (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Version history
Hi. The article is alternating between having a complete version history of FM and not. GraemeL seems to be the protagonist for removing it, while Grstain and 71.141.245.74 have restored it.

So I thought I’d bring this edit skirmish into the open ☺

Personally I think we should have the version history but lose the bug fix versions from the table: I can see the value of the former but not the latter.

Looking around I see Tiger, Safari, and iTunes with complete history; Excel, Word, and Adobe InDesign with major revisions only.

Thoughts?

Barefootguru 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A list of bug fixes belongs on the vendor's web site, not in an encyclopaedia, even a Wikipedia-like one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.246 (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Linux?
Anyone know if there's an equally user-friendly DB for Linux? kwami 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Though not completely like FileMaker, Open Office (Open Office has a module called Base which provides an easy to use, rapid database environment, and a basic query environment. --Timothy Trimble 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages
What languages does it use for scripting and/or queries? What other technologies is it based on?

62.163.197.25 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Filemaker uses it's own internal script editor and language. Filemaker is highly AppleScriptable on the Mac and access to external Dll's and executables on the PC.


 * So it is not based off SQL? That seriously limits its use to small, low-end applications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.246 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Publisher
The version table lists FileMaker II version 1.1v2 as a Nashoba Product. I had that version and it was definitely on a Claris Disk in a Claris box. Claris published the last version of FileMaker II Jameywiki 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

USR file format
Does anyone have details on the USR file format? It seems to be an archive file of some sort.

Does anyone know how the data in the file is encrypted? As the USR file is compressible by 9:1 I have to suspect some XOR method rather then DES/AES/etc.

THANKS -- Michael Janich (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing About XML/XSLT?
I'm currently working on FileMaker and XSL and this article has nothing. Hopefully someone more knowledgable than me will add something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Connecting to SQL databases without SQL?

 * FileMaker, since version 9, includes the ability to connect to a number of SQL databases without resorting to using SQL, including MySQL, SQL Server, and Oracle.

Connecting to SQL databases without SQL? How do you connect to MySQL w/o SQL? Didn’t you mean “ODBC”? Ceplm (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure, but I suspect it means that you do not need to know how to perform a SQL query to return data and you don't need to know how to perform updates, inserts, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes sense, but it is really really poorly worded. Ceplm (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

More on version history: Which versions go with which file formats?
FileMaker has changed file formats several times. I'm a long-time FileMaker user, but I have no experience with versions 11 and later.

-- .fp3 file format is compatible with FileMaker Pro versions 3 and 4

-- .fp5 file format is compatible with FileMaker Pro versions 5, 5.5, and 6

-- .fp7 file format is compatible with versions 7 through 11

and there is a file format .fmp12 that was introduced with FileMaker Pro 12. The change in file format with version 7 is noted in the article's "Major updates" section and the table of version history, but not the change with version 12. My impression is that .fmp12 is compatible at least thru version 15, but I'm not sure about that. There is some recently-updated info regarding conversions here. Is that a sufficient source to edit the article? If not, can someone find a suitable source and edit the article, especially for the change to .fmp12 file format? Oaklandguy (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested moves
Hi,

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker refers pretty much exclusively to FileMaker Pro, a now discontinued product.

I'd like to request moving this article to FileMaker Pro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker_Pro), and moving the FileMaker, Inc. article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker_Inc to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlstampy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea, but not how a move request is made. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Query

 * FileMaker Pro POV review of obscure software. Mrdice 08:34, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * Delete. FileMaker already exists. Maybe a redirect, as this product is often referred to both FileMaker and FileMaker Pro? --Vikingstad 09:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am pretty sure filemaker and filemaker pro are distinct, and both are very common software.
 * As a matter of fact, FileMaker and FileMaker Pro are, when people talk about them, the same product. Just take a look at the FileMaker page. I am still for a redirect. --Vikingstad 09:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I'll vote for a redirect too.
 * Keep as redirect. Not of great importance but the redirect is helpful. Andrewa 09:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. As a power-user of FM/Pro: Yes they are the same. No it's not that obscure! :-/ Elf 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to FileMaker. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's definitely not an obscure software. BL 10:06, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My future mother-in-law's employment is basically doing stuff in FileMaker Pro.  Incidentally, she always calls it "Pro", so if we redirect, based on my experience, FileMaker should be the redirect, not FileMaker Pro. Jwrosenzweig 19:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Later updates and Version history: Corrections regarding Versions 6, 7 and 8
I spotted a detail that's wrong. Also, I'm not satisfied with other parts of existing wording. I will leave it to others to do these edits b/c I'm not certain of them -- they should be sourced. First, the "graphical relationship editor." Version 7 greatly enhanced the program because it allowed a single file to include more than 1 table. But this enhancement didn't yet include the graphical relationship editor. That came with Version 8. Users of Version 7 had to use a more cumbersome way to establish the relationships between tables. I tried going to the Claris website, here, but I believe the vendor's own document is incorrect on this point. I tried to get the message to Claris, but due to the Covid-19 crisis, I was unable to send or telephone this information. Second, it is stated that Version 7 required Mac OS X. I believe there was a parallel upgrade in system requirements for Windows users. I don't recall whether Windows Me would suffice -- maybe Version 7 required Windows XP -- but either way, Version 7 was incompatible with Windows 98. Those using Windows 98 or Mac OS 9 had to stay with FileMaker Pro 6. Third, what mattered in Version 7? The "Later updates" section includes this wording: "supporting file sizes up to 8 terabytes (an increase from the 2 gigabytes allowed in previous versions). Individual fields could hold up to 4 gigabytes of binary data (container fields) or 2 gigabytes of 2-byte Unicode text per record (up from 64 kilobytes in previous versions). " This is, I believe, correct, but the emphasis is wrong. For most users, the biggest improvement was the single file with multiple related tables. Version 7, IIRC, also allowed users to have more than one window open at a time on the same database. Furthermore, logic became easier. Earlier versions required nested If functions to do important kinds of logic, but the nested If functions were cumbersome. Version 7 introduced the Case function, so that logic became much easier to edit. Upgrades like these improved the usefulness of FileMaker to typical users, far more than the byte capacities of files and fields. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

FileMaker Pro → FileMaker – This article covers the FileMaker platform, which includes FileMaker Pro, FileMaker Go, FileMaker Server and FileMaker Cloud. "FileMaker" is an inclusive title which covers all of these. Looking at the references, "FileMaker" is also the WP:COMMONNAME. Lonaowna (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see that argument, but it was originally called FileMaker and so when discussing its history, I can see the shorthand used. "Pro" was added in 1990 and has been part of its name for longer than it has the FileMaker or FileMaker Plus name, which is what WP:COMMONNAME is, and so is probably better left here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that if this article were to cover only the desktop software, which is called FileMaker Pro, that title would be most appropriate. But the current article covers other products besides Pro, which is why I think FileMaker is the better title. See also Netoholic's point below who explains this better. Lonaowna (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article's early history seems to be about the single product now called "FileMaker Pro" and gradually expanded to cover the entire platform. If there was any desire to split it, material on the "platform" should be moved to FileMaker and this page reduced back to being about the singular software product. If no split is called for, then perhaps this rename is appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is spot on. I think the current article, which covers the entire platform, is best described with the title "FileMaker". I see no reason to split it since all products are closely related. (They are basically the same software but for different operating systems) Lonaowna (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

this is basically undoing your move from last year. I disagree with your reasoning "refers pretty much exclusively to FileMaker Pro": all sections (Internationalization and localization, Scripting, SQL and ODBC support, Integration) apply to Go, Server and Cloud as well. It is true that History is mostly about Pro, because that is where the platform originated, but Later updates explains how it branched into the other products. Lonaowna (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Authority control
The Authority control links to FileMaker, the company... But this article is about FileMaker the software. This is just plain wrong. 17.235.128.142 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no more FileMaker company. But the history of FileMaker Inc. is listed properly within FileMaker. So this page covers both. --2003:EA:7F2B:ED00:740F:6189:6596:6E2 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)