Hi all,

We recently received a contract to create a new database system for a
client.  they purchased the equipment and software themselves, which
included a new OS X server with FM Server 7.  However, we have found
that FM Server 7 leaves much to be desired, and would like to switch
back to FM Server 5.5, which we have been using steadily and soundly
for years.  The problem is, we didn't discover this until a great deal
of work was put into database development.  We have four large
databases with literally thousands of fields, many involving complex,
interrlated formulas.

The good news is, everything that was done in the FM 7 databases was
done with tools that existed in FM 5.5.  My question is, is there any
sort of utility out there that will allow us to automatically move the
database structures from FM 7 to FM 5.5?  This would save us a
tremendous amount of time, as I am sure you can all imagine.

Thanks,

Matt

Matt <matt.singerman@gmail.com> wrote:

> The good news is, everything that was done in the FM 7 databases was
> done with tools that existed in FM 5.5.  My question is, is there any
> sort of utility out there that will allow us to automatically move the
> database structures from FM 7 to FM 5.5?  This would save us a
> tremendous amount of time, as I am sure you can all imagine.

Matt, you have to realize, if you think about it, such an inquiry isn't
going to find a positive answer.  It's like asking "If I build a program
to run on Win XP, can I port it back to run on Win 3.1 too?"  Or Mac OSX
to Mac System 7, not to be platform-centric.

Why don't you, instead, ask if there are fixes or upcoming version
upgrades that will address the shortcomings of Server 7 which seem to be
show-stoppers for you. I assure you that at this time, 18 months after
the introduction of 7, there are plenty of satisfactory installations of
Server 7 in production environments.  Particularly on the Windows 2000
or 2003 Server platform, FM Server 7 is plenty stable.

FM 5.5 is obsolete technology. Everyone who currently has such a system
is or should be planning their upgrade strategies, even if their current
system is running optimally, and such a rebuild is years out.  The
conversion from 5/6 -> 7 is hard enough, a backward conversion would
be...how to put this tactfully...a non-optimal use of resources.

Go with what you've got. Anticipate a new version being released "soon"
(that's 'soon' in software speak) that should address some of whatever
issues there are with FM 7.  We hope. Fervently.

Lynn Allen
--
Allen & Allen Semiotics        www.semiotics.com
FSA Associate       Filemaker Design & Consulting  

Hi Lynn,

The issue we have faced is a change in the deployment plan.  The
databases are now to be web-enabled using Lasso; however, FMS 7 itself
is simply not capable of this.  We would have to upgrade to FMSA 7 for
$1500 to get the same funcionality that comes with FMS 5.5, which is
money a small nonprofit simply does not have to spend.  As such,
backporting is our only viable option, unless you know of a way to
enable the Web Companion option that was available in FMS 5.5 with FMS
7.  Thanks for your help.

Matt <matt.singerman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Lynn,
> 
> The issue we have faced is a change in the deployment plan.  The
> databases are now to be web-enabled using Lasso; however, FMS 7 itself
> is simply not capable of this.  We would have to upgrade to FMSA 7 for
> $1500 to get the same funcionality that comes with FMS 5.5, which is
> money a small nonprofit simply does not have to spend.  As such,
> backporting is our only viable option, unless you know of a way to
> enable the Web Companion option that was available in FMS 5.5 with FMS
> 7.  Thanks for your help.

And rebuilding in 5.5 isn't going to cost more than $1,500? 

BTW, in 5.5, you need Filemaker Unlimited, not FM Server, to web-enable
to more than 10 incoming IP addresses in 24 hours.  I suspect you can
get around it with Lasso, but that does violate FM's licensing
restrictions.  So there's $$$$ again, if you can even find a copy of
FMU. 

Any client with any level of funding has to be aware that "changes in
deployment plans" never come without an attendant cost.  I too have
non-profit clients, but "non-profit" != "no money".  Their money just
comes from different funding sources than for-profit entities.   

A retrogression in version is not the cheapest answer, in my opinion. 

You should talk to your FMI inside sales rep. Filemaker Inc has special
pricing for non-profits. You may find that if you've purchased seats of
FMP and a server at regular pricing, you can work a deal to upgrade to
FMSA at little or no cost, once non-profit pricing is taken into
account.   In some cases, for sufficiently worthy causes, FMI will
donate software. 

Lynn Allen
--
Allen & Allen Semiotics        www.semiotics.com
FSA Associate       Filemaker Design & Consulting 

Rebuilding it will not cost $1500, no.  The man-hours required to
reprogram it to work with FM 5.5 would not equal the cost of upgrading
to FMSA 7, Lasso 7, and the cost of the man-hours to get these running
properly, which is, unfortunately, considerable.

I am aware that FMS 5.5 requires a Web Companion-enabled client running
FileMaker Unlimited, which we have.

We have already discussed pricing with FM, and the prices we have been
quoted at the ones I have listed.

Thank you for your thoughts on non-profits and funding.  I will pass
them along to my boss for his consideration.

On 15 Aug 2005 06:50:30 -0700, Matt wrote:
>  We recently received a contract to create a new database system for a
>  client.  they purchased the equipment and software themselves, which
>  included a new OS X server with FM Server 7.  However, we have found
>  that FM Server 7 leaves much to be desired, and would like to switch
>  back to FM Server 5.5, which we have been using steadily and soundly
>  for years.  The problem is, we didn't discover this until a great deal
>  of work was put into database development.  We have four large
>  databases with literally thousands of fields, many involving complex,
>  interrlated formulas.
> 
>  The good news is, everything that was done in the FM 7 databases was
>  done with tools that existed in FM 5.5.  My question is, is there any
>  sort of utility out there that will allow us to automatically move the
>  database structures from FM 7 to FM 5.5?  This would save us a
>  tremendous amount of time, as I am sure you can all imagine.

Hi Matt,

what kind of data structure do you mean?

The data itself is an easy job. Just export from FMP to a reasonable
format and open this with FMP (e.g. via the Excel format in order to
include and create Fields).

This will not include all of the field verifications, autoenter options
or layouts ans scripts.


For a non-profit approach I'd recommend: forget about FMP and switch
over to MySQL plus a frontend via php or perl. It's much more powerful
and much more efficient, although it does require a much steaper
learning curve.

Good luck,
Martin

In article <slrndg374k.idn.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de>, t-
use@gmx.net says...
> On 15 Aug 2005 06:50:30 -0700, Matt wrote:
> >  We recently received a contract to create a new database system for a
> >  client.  they purchased the equipment and software themselves, which
> >  included a new OS X server with FM Server 7.  However, we have found
> >  that FM Server 7 leaves much to be desired, and would like to switch
> >  back to FM Server 5.5, which we have been using steadily and soundly
> >  for years.  The problem is, we didn't discover this until a great deal
> >  of work was put into database development.  We have four large
> >  databases with literally thousands of fields, many involving complex,
> >  interrlated formulas.
> > 
> >  The good news is, everything that was done in the FM 7 databases was
> >  done with tools that existed in FM 5.5.  My question is, is there any
> >  sort of utility out there that will allow us to automatically move the
> >  database structures from FM 7 to FM 5.5?  This would save us a
> >  tremendous amount of time, as I am sure you can all imagine.
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> what kind of data structure do you mean?
> 
> The data itself is an easy job. Just export from FMP to a reasonable
> format and open this with FMP (e.g. via the Excel format in order to
> include and create Fields).
 
> This will not include all of the field verifications, autoenter options
> or layouts ans scripts.
> 
> 
> For a non-profit approach I'd recommend: forget about FMP and switch
> over to MySQL plus a frontend via php or perl. It's much more powerful
> and much more efficient, although it does require a much steaper
> learning curve.

By steeper learning curve he means you should have someone who's 
prepared to call themselves a "computer programmer" around who 
volunteers their time.

Given FMs pricing (special pricing for non-profits iirc), and Rapid 
Application development capabilities, you'd be hard pressed to get 
anything custom written for less. The initial 'capital cost' of FM pays 
for itself pretty quick. Any remotely savvy user can set up an FM 
report, generate an oddball found set and export it, tweak a layout, 
etc. Unless your perl/php/sql-guru is working for free I'd expect it to 
cost a lot more in the long run.

b4 you go to all this trouble, check out FMWeb School's FX Forge. It is
a series of Wizards to help you build web pages (active not static
pages) from a FMP database. As a member of FMPug (fmpug.com) I am in
the process of reviewing FX Forge but am not at a point where I can
speak to it specifically. BTW, the entire fmpug.com site is a FMP 7
database served with php. 
http://www.fxforge.net/

> By steeper learning curve he means you should have someone who's
> prepared to call themselves a "computer programmer" around who
> volunteers their time.

perfectly true. However, comparable hosting prices seem to be much lower for
SQL than for FMP!?

Apart from that yo have to take what FMP offers. If this is good enough for
you, you're well off. But don't expect any further option: FMP then will be
most annoying to bypass its limitations.

In article <4302639C.E7A5E88@gmx.de>, csa@gmx.de says...
> > By steeper learning curve he means you should have someone who's
> > prepared to call themselves a "computer programmer" around who
> > volunteers their time.
> 
> perfectly true. However, comparable hosting prices seem to be much lower for
> SQL than for FMP!?


True.

Largely due to the fact that when you pay for hosting you are covering 
the licensing through your subscription. mysql runs on linux and neither 
have licencing fees.

FM requires license, and it runs on Mac / Windows which also require 
licenses.

If you're paying for hosting, then your capital costs are nil because 
the host provides the licensing, and you just have to balance the 
increased hosting costs against the liklihood of much greater 
development costs. :)

If you're hosting your own server then you don't need hosting. In this 
case, it looks like they've already purchased the requisite software, so 
they've already made the initial cost outlay, and switching to mysql now 
isn't going to get that back. :|

 
> Apart from that yo have to take what FMP offers. If this is good enough for
> you, you're well off. But don't expect any further option: FMP then will be
> most annoying to bypass its limitations.

/agreed

There is no denying FM is more limited than many systems out there... 
its also one of the fastest and easiest systems to build working 
applications in because of it. As always you've got to use the right 
tool for the job. If FM meets all the requirements its generally a good 
tool. If FM doesn't meet the requirements - no amount of rapid 
application development or ease of maintenance is going to do you much 
good if the application can't do what its supposed to do.

If you are considering switching to a SQL backend, but want to keep at least
some of the RAD capabilities of FileMaker, consider Servoy: www.servoy.com.
Servoy uses a SQL backend (almost any of them) instead of having its own
native db. The cost is comparable, and in fact cheaper in many scenarios.
There's still a bit of a learning curve, but even the creating methods
(scripts) with JavaScript is similar to how you create calcs in FM; select a
function, add your parameters.

As an added plus, many of us who use Servoy either are or were also
FileMaker developers, so there are plenty of "interpreters". :-)

-- 

Chris Cain
Extensitech, Inc.
ccain@extensitech.com


"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6c56cf35fb8f24989c87@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...
> In article <4302639C.E7A5E88@gmx.de>, csa@gmx.de says...
> > > By steeper learning curve he means you should have someone who's
> > > prepared to call themselves a "computer programmer" around who
> > > volunteers their time.
> >
> > perfectly true. However, comparable hosting prices seem to be much lower
for
> > SQL than for FMP!?
>
>
> True.
>
> Largely due to the fact that when you pay for hosting you are covering
> the licensing through your subscription. mysql runs on linux and neither
> have licencing fees.
>
> FM requires license, and it runs on Mac / Windows which also require
> licenses.
>
> If you're paying for hosting, then your capital costs are nil because
> the host provides the licensing, and you just have to balance the
> increased hosting costs against the liklihood of much greater
> development costs. :)
>
> If you're hosting your own server then you don't need hosting. In this
> case, it looks like they've already purchased the requisite software, so
> they've already made the initial cost outlay, and switching to mysql now
> isn't going to get that back. :|
>
>
> > Apart from that yo have to take what FMP offers. If this is good enough
for
> > you, you're well off. But don't expect any further option: FMP then will
be
> > most annoying to bypass its limitations.
>
> /agreed
>
> There is no denying FM is more limited than many systems out there...
> its also one of the fastest and easiest systems to build working
> applications in because of it. As always you've got to use the right
> tool for the job. If FM meets all the requirements its generally a good
> tool. If FM doesn't meet the requirements - no amount of rapid
> application development or ease of maintenance is going to do you much
> good if the application can't do what its supposed to do.

In Filemaker 7 you can print all fields via File > Define > Database
select the 'Fields' tab
select all fields
Print
Print all pages as pdf
so every field with info is printed, after that you can select the text 
and rebuild it in Filemaker 5.5......

On 2005-08-15 15:50:30 +0200, "Matt" <matt.singerman@gmail.com> said:

> Hi all,
> 
> We recently received a contract to create a new database system for a
> client.  they purchased the equipment and software themselves, which
> included a new OS X server with FM Server 7.  However, we have found
> that FM Server 7 leaves much to be desired, and would like to switch
> back to FM Server 5.5, which we have been using steadily and soundly
> for years.  The problem is, we didn't discover this until a great deal
> of work was put into database development.  We have four large
> databases with literally thousands of fields, many involving complex,
> interrlated formulas.
> 
> The good news is, everything that was done in the FM 7 databases was
> done with tools that existed in FM 5.5.  My question is, is there any
> sort of utility out there that will allow us to automatically move the
> database structures from FM 7 to FM 5.5?  This would save us a
> tremendous amount of time, as I am sure you can all imagine.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt