![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the FileMaker Dynamic Markup Language page were merged into FileMaker on 28 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
,
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)[reply]
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)
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.
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#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files).
I think it should be groomed to 2 entries:
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)[reply]
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, PostgreorMicrosoft_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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anyone know if there's an equally user-friendly DB for Linux? kwami 10:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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_Inctohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlstampy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Dlstampy: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]