Wow! Thanks for the lengthy response, and all of the
information/suggestions. Because of customer requirements, I'm
constrained to version 7, which doesn't seem to support direct
import/export between FM and Excel. Someone asked why I was exporting to
dbf format, and that was why. No, my fonts aren't corrupt, and yes, 6
pt. Times New Roman is not legible when zoomed. It is probably because
the zoom function extrapolates rather than using a larger font size.
Obviously, I'm not a FM guru. I chose it because seemed to be the most
widely used low end cross-mac/pc platform DB product. For the most part,
I like it. I'm a competent software developer with 27+ years of
experience, mostly on pc and unix platforms. I found that Windows FM had
many UI anomalies and non-standard interfaces that don't exist in other
Windows programs. I chalked this up to cross-platform issues, and the
developers' probable lack of Windows programming expertise, and I can
live with it. But, sorry, I can't pretend that it doesn't exist, or that
I'm doing something wrong.. I started compiling a list, but it got to be
too much work. I can try to dig it up if you are interested. For
instance, I've seen FM refresh/repaint its window excessively (like
10-15 times) and unnecessarily, when it gain/loses focus. Many of the
controls(i.e., list boxes) do not conform to Windows standards or
guidelines. An example of keystoke incompatibility is using shift-click
to add to a selection, rather than the correct ctl-click. I suspect that
the UI was first coded for a very old version of Windows, (like maybe
3.1), and then updated minimally as Windows evolved. Then there are just
annoying omissions, like not being able to easily make a bunch of fields
the same size in a layout.. I can hear the response now. "Sure you can.
All you need to do is...bring up the object size window..". No, easy
is" group the fields, select the field that you want all the other
fields to be the same size as, and click a resize button". I think the
gold standard in terms of layout and UI development tools for Windows is
probably MS Visual Studio/.NET. And even though I hate Microsoft as much
as the next guy, I'm a pragmatist, and I don't see much point in
trashing a well-designed tool just because it was produced by the
evil-doers in Redmond.

I think what I find interesting about this discussion is that
experienced 'WhizBang' developers/users will always tell you that
whatever you are trying to do, it will always be easier to do it in
'WhizBang', whereas it might not necessarily be so for someone less
experienced/sophisticated in 'WhizBang'. I spent the same amount of time
unsuccessfully trying to generate properly formatted labels in FM as I
did coming up with a successful solution through the export method,
although for a more experienced developer, the converse would probably
be true.

Thanks for your help,

David

Bill Marriott wrote:

David,

I can understand why a hard-core developer might feel a little constrained
by FileMaker Pro. But let me try to address some of your points:

I can assure you that FileMaker does not "extrapolate" the font. It uses
TrueType/OpenType, and the zoomed font (on a properly configured Windows
machine) looks beautiful. I can provide a screen shot if you are interested.

They are, in a sense, cross-platform issues, but not programming
incompetence.

FileMaker strives to create identical user experiences on both platforms. It
is designed for anyone to design screens and reports that work
pixel-for-pixel on both platforms, as closely as possible. When a database
designer builds a label layout that prints properly on a Windows PC, it
generally prints just the same on a Macintosh. If they were to document the
usage of a Macintosh solution, the same keystrokes and procedures would
apply to the Windows version. This is also why you encounter "graphical"
buttons in solutions that don't automatically inherit Windows themes.
Sometimes this priority on ease of authoring and consistency means not
taking advantage of everything a particular platform has to offer.

This feature was added in FileMaker 8.

By the way, FileMaker 7 and 8 share the same file format. Perhaps as the
designer of the system you might use the current version, FileMaker 8.5
Advanced, to take advantage of the various design enhancements. You could
still distribute the solution to FileMaker 7 users.

You won't get any argument from me that Visual Studio is very nice. But
remember, their universe is far more constrained, in that they only have to
worry about one platform -- one that they control. If something doesn't work
the way they want in Windows, they can hop on a shuttle bus and have a chat
with the developers the same afternoon. The close collaboration seen when
major initiatives like Office and Vista are released concurrently. If the
relationship between the Office group and the OS group is friendly, the one
between OS and development tools is downright intimate. I don't think
FileMaker can even claim this kind of closeness with Apple.

It's not so much that, as FileMaker experts, we are trying to "lock" you
into FileMaker methods for your solutions. But I think you'd agree that
clicking a button, seeing the print dialog come up, clicking OK and walking
over to the printer to pick up your perfectly-formatted label job is far
fewer steps, and less prone to error, than any export procedure. We just
want to make sure you're getting the most out of your FileMaker experience.

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative response. I agree with almost
everything you say. I'll take a look at the font issue again, but as I
said before, I don't have any problems rendering 6 pt Times New Roman in
other software, so I don't think it is a system configuration or font
problem.

In terms of FM 8.5, are you saying that any DB/scripting/UI developed in
8.5 would be 'forward compatible' with FM 7? This would imply that there
would be no new script commands/UI elements, etc. in FM 8.5. Or is
there a FM 7 compatibility mode in 8.5? If this is the case, and
assuming there are improved layout and development features in the later
version, then I'd probably use that for development. One feature that
I'd desperately like to see is external script development, i.e., with
a text editor, parser, interpreter, etc.

I thoroughly understand and appreciate your cross-platform arguments. I
am a master Java developer. Though I think to a large extent the reason
why Java has failed as a UI vehicle is because users of different
platforms are not as concerned with seeing the exact pixel-for-pixel
representation of the same UI on different platforms (a claim that even
Java could never quite completely live up to), as they are with having
the UI work as expected on their chosen platform. After all, how often
does the same user actually run the same program on different platforms,
switching back and forth? Developers are the only ones likely to do
this. However, it is certainly easier on developers to have the same UI
code base for different platforms. But it is also certainly possible to
have the same base code render in a more native fashion based on the
platform--it is just a lot more difficult to do. That being said, if it
comes between having a less than optimal FM on Windows vs. no version at
all, I would obviously take the former.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

David


Bill Marriott wrote:

Well, yes, it's "backwards" compatible. There is no "compatibility mode" and
there ARE new features. It's just that those new features won't function
when opened in FileMaker 7. For example, tabs. FileMaker 8 introduced tab
panels (an amazingly wonderful thing), but FileMaker 7 doesn't support them.
If a FileMaker 7 user opens a file that has Tab panels, they will "see
through" the region as if the tab structure didn't exist. So, you have to
"remember" not to use incompatible features. But you can still "edit" in 8,
and take advantage of handy new stuff like the field resizing thing.

No, you can't use your favorite text editor to build FileMaker scripts/field
definitions/etc., and I doubt you ever will be able to do so :/

BTW, make sure you've applied the latest "free" updater to your copy of
FileMaker Pro 7, and I do hope you take the plunge on FileMaker 8.5
Advanced. See another thread here for info on why it's worthwhile, and for
membership in FileMaker Solutions Alliance.

nospam (AT) pacbell (DOT) net wrote:
I find this a bit condescending...look, you can export your data into
whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy, it is the same to me either
way. But I did NOT suggest printing your labels with filemaker because
I just LOVE filemaker and it is automtacally the thing I want to work
in.

I suggested it because it is clearly, without doubt, without exception,
the absolute easiest, best, most elegant, least prone to failure, most
user friendly way to do it.

To reiterate, export all you want, but it seems to me that after 27
years, you would want to be working smarter, not harder. Coming here to
ask your question was smart, even though you asked the wrong question
and we had to figure out the right question for you.