We have need for a maintenance database to be shared on two networked
PC's and used simultaneously. I'm thinking there are at least three
ways to approach this: 1. Design database with the developer version
of FilemakerPro 8 and use as a Runtime solution. 2. Design with a
standard version of FileMaker Pro 8 and publish as a single
internet-accessible solution. 3. Install solution on commonly
accessible drive on our network. Any thoughts on which might be the
best method? We are a not-for-profit education organization so funds
are limited. Is there any way we can do this with purchase of just one
license? Thanx in advance.

Pan out the GOLD

Option 1) Design database with the developer version of FilemakerPro 8 and
use as a Runtime solution.

Answer) Pros: None. Cons: FileMaker Pro Developer does not allow multi-user
or network access from runtimes. Only standalone single-user versions. This
is remarkably shortsighted of FileMaker Inc., and it's a disaster for your
project. Runtime users cannot use the database simultaneously. They will
each have their own copies of the file, which would have to be synchronized
with a master copy. Messy, messy. Yuck.
---------------------------
Option 2) Design with a standard version of FileMaker Pro 8 and publish as a
single internet-accessible solution.

Answer) Pros: Highly cost effective if you never need more than five
simultaneous users. Requires only one license of FileMaker (for authoring
and hosting). Cons: Some limitations when designing for the Instant Web
Publishing interface, but surprisingly, not as many as you would think.
---------------------------
Option 3) Install solution on commonly accessible drive on our network.

Answer) This is not exactly how FileMaker Pro would handle a multi-user
database. In practice, you would establish one copy of FileMaker to "host"
the file and other copies would connect to the host. You *could* just put it
on a file server but performance would be very poor/slow, combersome.... and
unreliable as whoever becomes opens the file first becomes the host, and may
not care to properly close their sessions when other people are connected.
If you do dedicate a computer to be the host... Pros: enables full access to
all of FileMaker's capabilities for clients. Cons: Requires full copies of
FileMaker Pro for each client accessing the file. Plus, one license if you
decide to dedicate a computer to the hosting function (with no user at the
keyboard).

If your objective is to purchase one license then Option 2 is your obvious
choice. I would get the developer version even though it's not specificially
required, because of the extra stuff you can do with it.

Bill

"Jo" <goldbdwyjogold (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

In article <jl6ao1tdib4iksl4biq3jp5321t98oa148 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Jo
<goldbdwyjogold (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Bill Marriott has already answered the question, but as a
"not-for-profit educational organisation" you should qualify for
educational pricing on FileMaker Pro (and many other things), which is
considerably cheaper than buying at normal retail price, so maybe two
licenses aren't out of the question. )

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

In article <jl6ao1tdib4iksl4biq3jp5321t98oa148 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
goldbdwyjogold (AT) hotmail (DOT) com says...
As bill said. No go.

If you must, then you must. Peer-networking is a much nicer experience,
but this will do in a pinch.

No. This NOT how to share a database at the best of times as Filemaker
is NOT ok with running databases off network shares. Even if it would
run; (it won't because FM scan's the LAN to check for activation key
duplication and it will see the other copy running) it would still be a
CLEAR violation of the license to have 2 users using it simultaneously.

One user at a time.

Or build it in something else that doesn't require a per-seat license.
Since it sounds like you are at the pre-'design' stage, that is an
option. You could always write it in Delphi or VB/C# against the
BDE/dbExpress or SQL Server Lite (whatever MS is calling MSDE this year)
as those all support small workgroups for free or even mysql/postgresql.

You lose out on the *many* advantages of filemaker, but you don't have
to contend with licensing it. It will almost surely take you longer to
build with the above options... but if the developer time is free --
well... the fm licenses can't compete with that.

Best regards,
Dave

Dave,

IWP is much much more than "do in a pinch" -- it's an excellent solution for
90% of the things people need to do with a database. Especially with some of
the new enhancements in FileMaker 8. In fact, I think it's a very appealling
solution for the original poster.

You can literally get a complex database-driven web site up in minutes. What
you see in FileMaker is what you get on the Web, and that is nothing short
of amazing.

Sure there are limits... but anything having to do with importing or complex
scripts can be done at the "host" station. Meanwhile she can have the whole
office working with the database via a web browser.. without writing any
HTML code or cracking the books on

"Delphi or VB/C# against the BDE/dbExpress or SQL Server Lite (whatever MS
is calling MSDE this year)"

....Whatever that alphabet soup means. And honestly, now that they've gotten
rid of that silver stripe down the side, printing an IWP web page is *very*
functional.

Seriously, sometimes I can't tell if you're joking or not

Bill

"42" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

In article <brmdnURF0qHtxRjenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org
says...
No worse than FM8A w/ IWP on XP

Frankly I've found certain limitations of IWP to be very frustrating.
The inability to deal with large found sets in any sort of convenient
manner, in particular.

I've also encountered several layout limitations, with layering,
overlapping, font sizing, etc, so you really have to bear IWP in mind
during design and implementation. Its not as simple as building a db,
turning on iwp, and tweaking a few glitchs, at least not in my
experience. (Although The issue of script steps that don't work in iwp,
on the other hand, has rarely been a problem for me.)

I've also found it flaky with portals with large datasets. And just
generally a bit flaky...even in IE, but especially if you are working in
anything but the very latest version of IE -- including Safari,
Netscape, Firefox, Konquerer, and Opera.

For me, one of the key theoretical values of IWP is to make an fm
database available to a user who isn't running Windows 2k/XP or the
latest MacOSX. (e.g. MacOS9, Linux, BSD, Solaris etc...) or to users out
somewhere on the internet where you don't have the ability to install
filemaker pro. (e.g. your customers) -- unfortunately you don't have the
ability to dictate what os or browser your customers use either.

The ability to use IWP on a LAN using machines that are entirely under
my control, with an operating system and browser that are ideal for
IWP... (ie the latest Windows or OSX OSes with the latest IE or Safari)
is not terribly exciting to me. In that situation, I might as well
install filemaker pro. Granted there is a price for that, but most of
the time, the cost for a pair of FM licenses is not a deal breaker.

-regards,
Dave

It's true that you cannot go nuts with the tricky formatting methods some
people like to use when building their FileMaker Pro layouts. These problems
are compounded when using other browsers because no real standard exists for
CSS (still). Most famously, you cannot use rounded rectangles, and the
"emboss" feature often results in misaligned borders on buttons. If you
insist on formatting layouts that way, you'll get very fristrated with IWP.

You'll also get better results when you stick to fonts that are designed for
browsers, like Verdana and Georgia. If you have to use fancy buttons, put
them into container fields

I built a very large and complicated solution for a hospital that is
designed for IWP and while I did have to do things a little differently, I
found it remarkably easy to implement. The IWP side is working beautifully.

Bill

"42" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

In article <gPednfwcI_Z72BvenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, wjm (AT) wjm (DOT) org
says...
The standard exists, Microsoft just hasn't bothered to make supporting
it a priority. Filemaker, regrettably, perpetuates the problem by
prioritizing making it work in IE6 over making it work with the
standard.

Not that I blame them, per se; they can't afford NOT to support IE6.

Agreed. If you are going to use IWP, you have to build for IWP.

-dave