Although Pages 2 does actually do all of those now.
It is however missing an outliner and group collaboration/versioning which from my old tech document authoring days would be a major hindrance. It's got comments now which is halfway there.
I really don't like the descriptions of it being more a layout program than a word processor though. It's a perfectly adequate word processor for most tasks. The fact the layout tools are exemplary doesn't detract from it's word processing calibre.
It's not a layout program. Ie. it's not InDesign or Quark. Both of which are great layout/DTP programs but absolutely terrible word processors. I personally think MS Word is both an average word processor AND terrible at layout. It scores on the group collaboration front. Pages 2 is better than Word at pretty much everything except where a feature is missing. What it has, it does well. What it doesn't have, it doesn't have yet.
If you're after writing a novel or long journalistic piece, then IME you can't beat a good text editor. Word processors aren't what you need. There's too much extra stuff that stops the creative flow.
I have Pages 2 here, and believe me, if anyone had to rely on these poorly thought out features, they would get nothing done.
There is a reason why FrameMaker is an expensive, complex program that takes some time to learn.
It's still pretty much the card index system it was back in the 90s, is a bad carbon app that doesn't tie in with OS services very well and only recently had SQL bolted on, badly.
I'd rather use Access and even Apple would rather use 4D internally.
And here I was reading the lovely advertisements and thinking fondly about getting this FileMaker. I could use a good database and need to learn one.
The more I think about it, I think I see where iWork is coming from.
Keynote was built because Jobs wanted best-in-class presentation software for Apple presentations.
What if Pages was built for similar, Apple-related purposes?
There is a program that Apple employees need and have been requesting for years.
Framemaker.
Apple needs an app with long document features to produce all those manuals that come with all those cool Apple gadgets.
And Adobe hasn't updated Framemaker for OS X.
.
Yes, a lot of people were unhappy that Adobe put FrameMaker in to extinction, on the Mac, anyway. They should sell it if they do not want to do anything with it. I don't know how helpful that would be at this point, but it seems a shame to do nothing with it. Mellel's creators say that they are figuring to aim at the FrameMaker market, I read.
And here I was reading the lovely advertisements and thinking fondly about getting this FileMaker. I could use a good database and need to learn one.
Well, thanks for an honest assessment.
While I'm not a big user of databases, I can't agree with that assesment. There have been simply too many good things said about the product over the years.
Below is just a few reviews and comments about ver 8.
While I am *not* familiar with the inner workings of Filemaker or its qualities or ills, I find it strange that through all these years and all this experience of computer centers, data work, corporation, et al, I have *never* seen a copy of Filemaker on any Mac/Windows.
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
While I am *not* familiar with the inner workings of Filemaker or its qualities or ills, I find it strange that through all these years and all this experience of computer centers, data work, corporation, et al, I have *never* seen a copy of Filemaker on any Mac/Windows.
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
Type Filemaker into the Google search bar. you will come up with a large number of companies that do corporate add-ons, and training, as well as custom apps. That shows that there is corporate use of this.
Type Filemaker into the Google search bar. you will come up with a large number of companies that do corporate add-ons, and training, as well as custom apps. That shows that there is corporate use of this.
Obviously, you don't *read* what you cite. I never said there isn't any corporate use, I said that while the program is obviously popular, *I* have never seen it. It's a coincidence. It's a coincidence that I have never seen it. Not some hidden message on my part.
Obviously, you don't *read* what you cite. I never said there isn't any corporate use, I said that while the program is obviously popular, *I* have never seen it. It's a coincidence. It's a coincidence that I have never seen it. Not some hidden message on my part.
I didn't *cite* you. I responded to you. I did read what you said. I wasn't arguing with you. I was merely pointing out that there IS a decent amount of corporate use, and that some evidence of that use can be found, if you're interested.
Thanks for the several links to reviews of FileMaker. I had read some reviews, but you included some I had not, which I just went through and read. The TidBits review, by William Porter, a former classics professor, and the Tokerud blog were the most interesting for me to read.
One of his comments that was of interest was that he thought FileMaker would be well served by creating an in between edition of FM that would serve as not FileMaker (pro) but a simpler filemaker, a thin client. I suppose that some had done some thinking and conversing about such a thing becoming a part of iWork.
[B]While I'm not a big user of databases, I can't agree with that assesment. There have been simply too many good things said about the product over the years.
Below is just a few reviews and comments about ver 8.
The first paragraph of that review says it all for me. If you're a developer that needs serious SQL access to the database then use Access 2003. That's always been the bug-bear with Filemaker for me. You just can't get dirty enough with it. It's like MacOS 9 or earlier - no raw commandline access and a technology that is from a previous era.
I'd add that as a serious database developer, I'd not even consider using Access for database development. On windows it'd be Oracle or SQLServer. Filemaker is fine for small business apps but just doesn't scale. And for small business app development, I'd rather do it in PHP/MySQL, which is free.
While I am *not* familiar with the inner workings of Filemaker or its qualities or ills, I find it strange that through all these years and all this experience of computer centers, data work, corporation, et al, I have *never* seen a copy of Filemaker on any Mac/Windows.
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
Filemaker does rock.
However, you normally don't see corporate copies unless you work in specialized parts of an enterprise, such as customer service, inventory, distribution etc.
Usually a Filemaker database contains fairly confidential information about a company and its inner workings, so it's no surprise most people never really see it at work.
The first paragraph of that review says it all for me. If you're a developer that needs serious SQL access to the database then use Access 2003. That's always been the bug-bear with Filemaker for me. You just can't get dirty enough with it. It's like MacOS 9 or earlier - no raw commandline access and a technology that is from a previous era.
I'd add that as a serious database developer, I'd not even consider using Access for database development. On windows it'd be Oracle or SQLServer. Filemaker is fine for small business apps but just doesn't scale. And for small business app development, I'd rather do it in PHP/MySQL, which is free.
I would never compare Filemaker (or Access) to a heavy duty system such as Oracle or SQL server. They serve different functions, and are in vastly different price ranges. While PHP/MySQL is nice, it has its own problems, and a smaller marketshare than Filemaker does, .
AFA databases, why not just slap a candy-Apple interface on MySQL, which is free, and has lots of corporate and enterprise market penetration? It also plays nice with Apache and PHP, which are included with OS X, and like apache and php, has a huge following and active developer community.
AFA word processors, people actually pay money for them?! I've used (and like) AbiWord, a native OS X app, and NeoOffice/J 1.2 just came out which I imagine is not entirely useless (never used it).
Me, I use TextEdit (in OS X.4 it has standards-compliant html/xhtml transitional/strict export! Cool!) for most things and the free CotEditor for php and html coding.
I would never compare Filemaker (or Access) to a heavy duty system such as Oracle or SQL server. They serve different functions, and are in vastly different price ranges. While PHP/MySQL is nice, it has its own problems, and a smaller marketshare than Filemaker does, .
That's the problem really. Most DBAs and programmers don't consider Filemaker or Access worth doing anything with. Crappy accounting companies who have no programmers worth their job title writing apps in Filemaker or Access VBA aren't worth scraping off the bottom of your foot. Both are the 'Frontpage' of the DB world.
MySQL is the third most deployed database in the world behind Oracle and SQL Server with a market share of over ten times that of Filemaker.
However, you normally don't see corporate copies unless you work in specialized parts of an enterprise, such as customer service, inventory, distribution etc.
Usually a Filemaker database contains fairly confidential information about a company and its inner workings, so it's no surprise most people never really see it at work.
Exactly. That's probably why I've never seen it. But go and explain that to melgross...
Most DBAs and programmers don't consider Filemaker or Access worth doing anything with. Crappy accounting companies who have no programmers worth their job title writing apps in Filemaker or Access VBA aren't worth scraping off the bottom of your foot. Both are the 'Frontpage' of the DB world.
I've been the one called in to sort out why a company's system built out of an organically grown Access or Filemaker 'application' doesn't allow more than 1 user at a time on it or won't scale to cope with 200 employees all hitting it.
I've been the one called in to sort out why a company's system built out of an organically grown Access or Filemaker 'application' doesn't allow more than 1 user at a time on it or won't scale to cope with 200 employees all hitting it.
Now doubt. But, often, it is less the tool than the one that has used it, that's all I am saying. Of course some tools lend themselves to poor design more than others.
I also don't claim that FileMaker is on par with Oracle (it isn't). But, you were a tad vitriolic just the same.
I have no doubt that, in the right hands, FileMaker (and probably Access too) can be used to create very good applications for which Oracle is way overkill (along the lines of using a chainsaw to sharpen a pencil).
Sure, but even Apple stopped using Filemaker some time ago and migrated their applications to 4D internally. And the apps they ship use SQLite, Core Data or even Postgres.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Although Pages 2 does actually do all of those now.
It is however missing an outliner and group collaboration/versioning which from my old tech document authoring days would be a major hindrance. It's got comments now which is halfway there.
I really don't like the descriptions of it being more a layout program than a word processor though. It's a perfectly adequate word processor for most tasks. The fact the layout tools are exemplary doesn't detract from it's word processing calibre.
It's not a layout program. Ie. it's not InDesign or Quark. Both of which are great layout/DTP programs but absolutely terrible word processors. I personally think MS Word is both an average word processor AND terrible at layout. It scores on the group collaboration front. Pages 2 is better than Word at pretty much everything except where a feature is missing. What it has, it does well. What it doesn't have, it doesn't have yet.
If you're after writing a novel or long journalistic piece, then IME you can't beat a good text editor. Word processors aren't what you need. There's too much extra stuff that stops the creative flow.
I have Pages 2 here, and believe me, if anyone had to rely on these poorly thought out features, they would get nothing done.
There is a reason why FrameMaker is an expensive, complex program that takes some time to learn.
Originally posted by the cool gut
How is Filemaker "crufty"?
A question that I was going to ask.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's still pretty much the card index system it was back in the 90s, is a bad carbon app that doesn't tie in with OS services very well and only recently had SQL bolted on, badly.
I'd rather use Access and even Apple would rather use 4D internally.
And here I was reading the lovely advertisements and thinking fondly about getting this FileMaker. I could use a good database and need to learn one.
Well, thanks for an honest assessment.
Originally posted by Frank777
The more I think about it, I think I see where iWork is coming from.
Keynote was built because Jobs wanted best-in-class presentation software for Apple presentations.
What if Pages was built for similar, Apple-related purposes?
There is a program that Apple employees need and have been requesting for years.
Framemaker.
Apple needs an app with long document features to produce all those manuals that come with all those cool Apple gadgets.
And Adobe hasn't updated Framemaker for OS X.
.
Yes, a lot of people were unhappy that Adobe put FrameMaker in to extinction, on the Mac, anyway. They should sell it if they do not want to do anything with it. I don't know how helpful that would be at this point, but it seems a shame to do nothing with it. Mellel's creators say that they are figuring to aim at the FrameMaker market, I read.
Originally posted by NordicMan
And here I was reading the lovely advertisements and thinking fondly about getting this FileMaker. I could use a good database and need to learn one.
Well, thanks for an honest assessment.
While I'm not a big user of databases, I can't agree with that assesment. There have been simply too many good things said about the product over the years.
Below is just a few reviews and comments about ver 8.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,122265,00.asp
http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2310p050bid122265.htm
http://www.biosmagazine.co.uk/rev.php?id=365
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/...lemaker_pro_8/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1853571,00.asp
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08254
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1878255,00.asp
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news....ht=2,filemaker
http://www.cyber-aspect.com/sreviews/filmakerpro8.htm
http://www.grandtech.com.sg/news/pro...asp?newsid=308
http://www.macworld.com/2005/09/revi...pro8/index.php
http://tokerud.typepad.com/filemaker/
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
While I am *not* familiar with the inner workings of Filemaker or its qualities or ills, I find it strange that through all these years and all this experience of computer centers, data work, corporation, et al, I have *never* seen a copy of Filemaker on any Mac/Windows.
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
Type Filemaker into the Google search bar. you will come up with a large number of companies that do corporate add-ons, and training, as well as custom apps. That shows that there is corporate use of this.
Originally posted by melgross
Type Filemaker into the Google search bar. you will come up with a large number of companies that do corporate add-ons, and training, as well as custom apps. That shows that there is corporate use of this.
Obviously, you don't *read* what you cite. I never said there isn't any corporate use, I said that while the program is obviously popular, *I* have never seen it. It's a coincidence. It's a coincidence that I have never seen it. Not some hidden message on my part.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Obviously, you don't *read* what you cite. I never said there isn't any corporate use, I said that while the program is obviously popular, *I* have never seen it. It's a coincidence. It's a coincidence that I have never seen it. Not some hidden message on my part.
I didn't *cite* you. I responded to you. I did read what you said. I wasn't arguing with you. I was merely pointing out that there IS a decent amount of corporate use, and that some evidence of that use can be found, if you're interested.
One of his comments that was of interest was that he thought FileMaker would be well served by creating an in between edition of FM that would serve as not FileMaker (pro) but a simpler filemaker, a thin client. I suppose that some had done some thinking and conversing about such a thing becoming a part of iWork.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]While I'm not a big user of databases, I can't agree with that assesment. There have been simply too many good things said about the product over the years.
Below is just a few reviews and comments about ver 8.
http://www.biosmagazine.co.uk/rev.php?id=365
The first paragraph of that review says it all for me. If you're a developer that needs serious SQL access to the database then use Access 2003. That's always been the bug-bear with Filemaker for me. You just can't get dirty enough with it. It's like MacOS 9 or earlier - no raw commandline access and a technology that is from a previous era.
I'd add that as a serious database developer, I'd not even consider using Access for database development. On windows it'd be Oracle or SQLServer. Filemaker is fine for small business apps but just doesn't scale. And for small business app development, I'd rather do it in PHP/MySQL, which is free.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
While I am *not* familiar with the inner workings of Filemaker or its qualities or ills, I find it strange that through all these years and all this experience of computer centers, data work, corporation, et al, I have *never* seen a copy of Filemaker on any Mac/Windows.
The only copies of Filemaker (I believe version 7) that I saw, on a computer, where the ones used in our dorm labs in college, when we used to use PowerMac G4's for our graphic design class. It's funny how popular one thing is and yet you manage to never see somebody actually working on it.
Filemaker does rock.
However, you normally don't see corporate copies unless you work in specialized parts of an enterprise, such as customer service, inventory, distribution etc.
Usually a Filemaker database contains fairly confidential information about a company and its inner workings, so it's no surprise most people never really see it at work.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The first paragraph of that review says it all for me. If you're a developer that needs serious SQL access to the database then use Access 2003. That's always been the bug-bear with Filemaker for me. You just can't get dirty enough with it. It's like MacOS 9 or earlier - no raw commandline access and a technology that is from a previous era.
I'd add that as a serious database developer, I'd not even consider using Access for database development. On windows it'd be Oracle or SQLServer. Filemaker is fine for small business apps but just doesn't scale. And for small business app development, I'd rather do it in PHP/MySQL, which is free.
I would never compare Filemaker (or Access) to a heavy duty system such as Oracle or SQL server. They serve different functions, and are in vastly different price ranges. While PHP/MySQL is nice, it has its own problems, and a smaller marketshare than Filemaker does, .
AFA word processors, people actually pay money for them?! I've used (and like) AbiWord, a native OS X app, and NeoOffice/J 1.2 just came out which I imagine is not entirely useless (never used it).
Me, I use TextEdit (in OS X.4 it has standards-compliant html/xhtml transitional/strict export! Cool!) for most things and the free CotEditor for php and html coding.
Originally posted by melgross
I would never compare Filemaker (or Access) to a heavy duty system such as Oracle or SQL server. They serve different functions, and are in vastly different price ranges. While PHP/MySQL is nice, it has its own problems, and a smaller marketshare than Filemaker does, .
That's the problem really. Most DBAs and programmers don't consider Filemaker or Access worth doing anything with. Crappy accounting companies who have no programmers worth their job title writing apps in Filemaker or Access VBA aren't worth scraping off the bottom of your foot. Both are the 'Frontpage' of the DB world.
MySQL is the third most deployed database in the world behind Oracle and SQL Server with a market share of over ten times that of Filemaker.
Originally posted by Frank777
Filemaker does rock.
However, you normally don't see corporate copies unless you work in specialized parts of an enterprise, such as customer service, inventory, distribution etc.
Usually a Filemaker database contains fairly confidential information about a company and its inner workings, so it's no surprise most people never really see it at work.
Exactly. That's probably why I've never seen it. But go and explain that to melgross...
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Most DBAs and programmers don't consider Filemaker or Access worth doing anything with. Crappy accounting companies who have no programmers worth their job title writing apps in Filemaker or Access VBA aren't worth scraping off the bottom of your foot. Both are the 'Frontpage' of the DB world.
Careful there sparky.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Careful there sparky.
Sorry. Been there, Done that.
I've been the one called in to sort out why a company's system built out of an organically grown Access or Filemaker 'application' doesn't allow more than 1 user at a time on it or won't scale to cope with 200 employees all hitting it.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sorry. Been there, Done that.
I've been the one called in to sort out why a company's system built out of an organically grown Access or Filemaker 'application' doesn't allow more than 1 user at a time on it or won't scale to cope with 200 employees all hitting it.
Now doubt. But, often, it is less the tool than the one that has used it, that's all I am saying. Of course some tools lend themselves to poor design more than others.
I also don't claim that FileMaker is on par with Oracle (it isn't). But, you were a tad vitriolic just the same.
I have no doubt that, in the right hands, FileMaker (and probably Access too) can be used to create very good applications for which Oracle is way overkill (along the lines of using a chainsaw to sharpen a pencil).