iCloud based apps for nonMac users has the potential to be huge. In my working career, MS was the only allowed software in the large corporation. I have used Filemaker since it started. It is a very good and extremely powerful relational database. Very powerful and capable. You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a nail (Oracle, etc) and it will interface. Many people who have used Filemaker to prototype databases decide to never use anything else after they have been prototyped. It is that good. Don't underestimate it. Try it out. I think you can even try it for free at Filemaker.com. iPads & Phones are not left out either. I know if you have used something else, it may be hard to think that something like FM will work, but I encourage you to try it. Learn a little about it and you will like it. If you need a sledgehammer, be sure you really need one. Often you do not. Sort of like a gun - you do not usually need a .45 caliber handgun. It is more of a want. I am continue to be amazed how powerful it is and it is growing. There are many consultants also. The iWork suite is great and now it is Browser available to all platforms. That will be a big help and it will be simple to use - of that you can be sure. Enough from me re this. I also use the MS products. This is a good move by Apple / Filemaker. Great Strategic planning.
I used FM when it was called Nutshell!
I remember a demo by the author of Nutshell to the head of IT at John Deere on an original Mac. After interactively defining the tables, he drew the interconnecting lines defining the relationships ... Then created the tables, populated them and accessed them for reports using user-friendly templates (that obscured the underlying SQL).
Boom!
We were blown away -- and I got a pre-release version.
Make a single-user version of FM free on iCloud -- free
Integrate FM with Pages, Numbers and Keynote
It's kinda' odd that MS no longer pushes the MS-Access DB as part of the Office Suite ... It was quite powerful -- though a bit dangerous (lose data, lock the db, etc). But it was quite the rage with lower-level management in the enterprise -- they were encouraged to create ad hoc and speciality dbs to improve their jobs.
I also think ?Search should be something Apple need to have, even if they have to buy in the expertise. DDG would not be a bad start. It doesn't have to be Google level day one and as a default on iOS would be used by the majority of users and that would be a major blow to Google. Google, Bing et al are always a second option.
[CODE] let myGreeting = "Hello there AI iCloud fans" println(myGreeting)
let myFloat = 4.0/2.7 println(myFloat)
let myFloatFormatted = String(format: "%.4f", myFloat) println(myFloatFormatted)
var reversed = sorted(["Chris", "Walt", "Ewa", "Horace", "Daniella"]) { $0 > $1 } println("This is reversed \(reversed)")
println("This is forwards \(sorted(reversed))")
println("This is forwards \(sorted([4, 0, 3, 5, 1]))")
var rect2 = CGRectMake(190, 190, 100, 100)
println(rect2) [/CODE]
What you are seeing is a browser-equivalent (cloud) of a basic implementation of a Swift Playground -- a fun, interactive programming tool!
What's missing form this example is:
[LIST] [*] the rich underlying (proprietary) Apple APIs and Frameworks [*] the integration with Apple's UI components [*] integration with Apple's iCloud apps mentioned above [*] [/LIST]
The following video at 3:30 in, shows interactive Swift Playgrounds:
[VIDEO]
Imagine having that kind of power ay your fingertips -- anywhere, any time, for whatever need ...
iCloud based apps for nonMac users has the potential to be huge. In my working career, MS was the only allowed software in the large corporation. I have used Filemaker since it started. It is a very good and extremely powerful relational database. Very powerful and capable. You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a nail (Oracle, etc) and it will interface. Many people who have used Filemaker to prototype databases decide to never use anything else after they have been prototyped. It is that good. Don't underestimate it. Try it out.
I tried FM around the year 2000. I made a web app for a friend using the Windows version. At the time I was mostly using Mac/Tango/Butler to create dynamic web apps. Butler was an SQL database, so I was very familiar with SQL. FM was not SQL so it was quite foreign to me. I'm not sure whether FM is SQL now or not but personally, I wouldn't recommend any database that is not SQL compliant since that is the standard.
OS X ships with SQLite3 and there are several GUI apps available for it.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
iCloud based apps for nonMac users has the potential to be huge. In my working career, MS was the only allowed software in the large corporation. I have used Filemaker since it started. It is a very good and extremely powerful relational database. Very powerful and capable. You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a nail (Oracle, etc) and it will interface. Many people who have used Filemaker to prototype databases decide to never use anything else after they have been prototyped. It is that good. Don't underestimate it. Try it out.
I tried FM around the year 2000. I made a web app for a friend using the Windows version. At the time I was mostly using Mac/Tango/Butler to create dynamic web apps. Butler was an SQL database, so I was very familiar with SQL. FM was not SQL so it was quite foreign to me. I'm not sure whether FM is SQL now or not but personally, I wouldn't recommend any database that is not SQL compliant since that is the standard.
OS X ships with SQLite3 and there are several GUI apps available for it.
FM was not SQL so it was quite foreign to me. I'm not sure whether FM is SQL now or not but personally, I wouldn't recommend any database that is not SQL compliant since that is the standard.
Yeah ...
It's been a few years, but FM kinda' isn't SQL ... at the same time FM kinda' is SQL.
AFAICT:
you can execute SQL queries on FM dbs.
FM can connect to all the major external dbs and execute SQL Queries
FM hides much of the complexity of the db structure by using high-level templates to define and access the underlying dbs
Apparently, this applies to internal FM dbs, and external SQL dbs, alike.
So, you can use templates and SQL syntax interchangeably -- whether the underlying db is an SQL db, an FM db -- (or something more/less) may be a moot point.
As you point out, SQLite is part of OS X (and iOS) -- so most of the major [single-user] SQL capabilities are available to apps written for Apple platforms. But, SQL Queries are a bit of a PITA to include in iOS or OS X programs. Also, you pointed out the need for a separate SQL browser ...
FWIW, the best way i've ever seen of using SQL within an app was with ColdFusion. The heavy lifting is done with 2 ColdFusion statements:
cfquery -- to issue the SQL Query
cfoutput -- to present the output
Here's the complete ColdFusion [web *] app:
* You could run this on the desktop (or even from a CD/DVD) too!
<cfset Form.Department = "Sales">
<cfquery name="getPhone" datasource="cfsnippets">
SELECT LastName, FirstName, Phone
FROM Employees
WHERE Department='#Form.Department#'
ORDER BY LastName, FirstName
</cfquery>
<h1>Department Phone List</h1>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3">
<tr>
<th>Name</th>
<th>Phone</th>
</tr>
<cfoutput query="getPhone">
<tr>
<td>#LastName#, #FirstName#</td>
<td>#Phone#</td>
</tr>
</cfoutput>
</table>
Interesting take. I was thinking, "about f'ing time." The iCloud ecosystem will not work unless it is available on windows machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Surprising, but a good move.
Not surprising at all. The iCloud ecosystem won't work unless it is available on windows machines.
Now if Apple will just pull its head out and realize that it needs to add simple features like real "paragraph numbering" to Pages, then the legal community could start using it. It pisses me off to no end that I can't automatically number a paragraph and left justify the second line text, which is something that lawyers have to do to submit properly formatted legal briefs and meet page number limitations(which are set by the court). Hello Apple????? Give us f'ing paragraph numbering.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
What don't you like about Yosemite? Is it spotlight? Ever since I updated to Yosemite, Spotlight never returns a search result worth looking at. I have to search the particular application where the document is found (e.g., Mail). What's up with that?
Except for Numbers, which is perpetually terrible. [/quote]
If you need pivot tables or macros, yes. However if you need to put together an attractive looking document with great looking charts, Numbers is a good choice.
Apple search? You want Apple to take on Google and Bing in search when they're outsourcing app curation to Pinterest? Have you tried searching the App Store lately? The experience is not great. Apple needs to focus and stick to what they do best. Remember a thousand noes for every yes? Apple needs to shore up its foundations, not spread itself too thin. This is why I'm glad iOS 9 is supposedly all about stability and bug fixes. Hopefully the newest version of OS X will be the same.
I'll be interested to see if Apple provides the same robust level of cross platform API toolkit access to iCloud functionality as Google does to Google Drive/Apps. Like in, interfaces to legacy and modern programming languages, not just proprietary Apple systems and languages.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
FWIW, the best way i've ever seen of using SQL within an app was with ColdFusion. The heavy lifting is done with 2 ColdFusion statements:
cfquery -- to issue the SQL Query
cfoutput -- to present the output
I'm an expert Coldfusion coder and I can tell you from many years of experience that CF is no better or worse at connecting to databases than any of the other web scripting languages such as .Net, PHP, Python, Ruby, or even Perl. They all connect and output database data with the same number of lines of code.
Currently, my preference is PHP:
1) It has more active developers therefore larger talent pool
2) There are more frameworks and templating engines
3) There are more platforms such as Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla
4) PHP is Free! Coldfusion costs thousands..
#3 is especially important for casual programmers because coding a complete system from scratch is going to be much more vulnerable to a security breech than a platform that has thousands of developers examining the code.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/184781/iwork-for-icloud-now-available-to-users-who-dont-own-apple-hardware#post_2675669 layout=inline]FWIW, the best way i've ever seen of using SQL within an app was with ColdFusion. The heavy lifting is done with 2 ColdFusion statements:[/CONTENTEMBED]
cfquery -- to issue the SQL Query
cfoutput -- to present the output
I'm an expert Coldfusion coder and I can tell you from many years of experience that CF is no better or worse at connecting to databases than any of the other web scripting languages such as .Net, PHP, Python, Ruby, or even Perl. They all connect and output database data with the same number of lines of code.
Currently, my preference is PHP:
1) It has more active developers therefore larger talent pool
2) There are more frameworks and templating engines
3) There are more platforms such as Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla
4) PHP is Free! Coldfusion costs thousands..
#3 is especially important for casual programmers because coding a complete system from scratch is going to be much more vulnerable to a security breech than a platform that has thousands of developers examining the code.
I was trying to illustrate the simplicity of using ColdFusion to program a database.
You you don't have to worry about connecting to the database opening and closing and disconnecting.
With the cfquery tag you don't have to concern yourself with embedding the SQL statements in a quoted string.
The cfoutput tag allows you to easily iterate over the SQL results of the cfquery for presentation.
In my experience, fewer more concise statements make the program easier to write, debug, understand and maintain over time (by you or someone else).
I have not done any serious web programming since 2001 so my information may be a little dated.
Edit: A coldFusion development system is free -- a production system does cost thousands of dollars but that is born by the client. The production system includes many site management capabilities beyond those provided by just a programming language.
I have not done any serious web programming since 2001 so my information may be a little dated.
That happens. I have a number of huge CF implementations and I can't find anyone to maintain them. Porting them to PHP would cost several thousands each.
I was sitting in the office at a client's office and some old guy came walking through the hall and he remarked, "That is a SCO guy. I can spot them from a mile away".
I have not done any serious web programming since 2001 so my information may be a little dated.
That happens. I have a number of huge CF implementations and I can't find anyone to maintain them. Porting them to PHP would cost several thousands each.
That saddens me… I would charge around $10,000 for a typical website.
Having started with Perl and a few others, I really liked the language.
In fact, with a little unofficial help from Macromedia employees, I ported ColdFusion from Linux to mac OS X -- first for development purposes only, then we beat them over the head so much that they supported it for production on the Mac.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
-PopinFRESH
Notice the ‘Important’ part? I can’t use iCloud’s Pages unless I upgrade my account to use iCloud Drive. If I update to iCloud Drive I *have to* install OS X Yosemite. Ergo, I am unable to use the online Pages app while remaining on Mavericks, where users on other platforms will have the privilege before me. How is what I said not true? That, in my mind, is a forced upgrade.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
-PopinFRESH
Notice the ‘Important’ part? I can’t use iCloud’s Pages unless I upgrade my account to use iCloud Drive. If I update to iCloud Drive I *have to* install OS X Yosemite. Ergo, I am unable to use the online Pages app while remaining on Mavericks, where users on other platforms will have the privilege before me. How is what I said not true? That, in my mind, is a forced upgrade.
Incorrect, You can certainly use the iWork for iCloud Pages app while remaining on Mavericks. What you can not do is exactly what I said in my previous response. You can not use iWork for iCloud while maintaining the sync between the OS X (or iOS) versions of iWork through Documents in the Cloud. "What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps". More precisely, you can not use iCloud Drive natively on the older OS's. The same will be true with the switch from PhotoStream to iCloud Photos. This transition requires you upgrade that portion of iCloud from PhotoStream to iCloud Photos and as such native systems that supported PhotoStream, but are not supported by iCloud Photos will no longer have access to PhotoStream if you choose to upgrade to iCloud Photos.
Regardless, there are numerous features within the iCloud service and much of these function perfectly fine with older OS's so to say "As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service?" is incorrect. Again, none of the above means that upgrading to iCloud Drive (or iCloud Photos) renders all of the contacts, calendar, notes, keychain, mail, reminders, or safari syncing incompatible.
Furthermore, should you choose to upgrade from Documents in the Cloud to iCloud drive you would have the same experience as you would if you were operating on a Windows PC. Windows users do not have a native iWork suite to sync to so breaking your sync via Documents in the Cloud would result in the same experience as a Windows user utilizing only the iWork for iCloud web apps. So the last sentiment of your original post "A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple" is also incorrect.
You could also (in error) make this argument with regards to someone using an Android device vs an iOS 7 user. This would be somewhat true regarding iOS 7 or older due to the way Apple handles requests from Mobile Safari which will direct you to the iCloud settings in the Settings app to configure the native services. Thus you can not simply navigate to www.cloud.com and access the iWork for iCloud web apps from mobile safari. You can however use a third party browser just as you would on an Android device to access iWork for iCloud web apps (and would likely get just as lousy of an experience as you would doing this from an Android deivce).
Lastly, I'm not sure why you feel the way you do regarding Yosemite. In reference to "I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state.", I would have agreed with your hesitation with respect to OS X 10.10.0 and to a lesser extent with OS X 10.10.1. I do disagree with that notion regarding OS X 10.10.2 as (to my knowledge) the installation issues that many users experienced with OS X 10.10.0 have been addressed and the majority of the WiFi / Bluetooth issues that many users initially experienced have largely been addressed. There are still reports of users experiencing problems with WiFi performance being significantly slower than expected on compatible hardware (such as 802.11n/ac not achieving the expected speed on an 802.11n/ac wireless network).
It's not too difficult to use an external hard drive with sufficient capacity to enable and use TimeMachine to make a backup of your system and then disconnect the disk and attempt the upgrade to OS X 10.10.2 and see if your Mac experiences any issues. If it does, use a bootable OS X 10.9 USB install disk to format and reinstall a clean install of OS X 10.9 and during the setup process connect your external disk with your TimeMachine backup and choose to restore from your TimeMachine backup. Unless you have access to another Mac, I would recommend creating the bootable USB disk before upgrading to OS X 10.10 and then test it to make sure that you are able to boot to the disk and the installer loads properly. Then hold the power button on your Mac until it powers off, disconnect the USB disk, and boot back into your installation of OS X 10.9 to start the upgrade (also after you had already completed the TimeMachine backup).
I hope that this has been clear and concise enough that you can objectively reflect on your original post with more information at hand. I also hope that after reading the above links you may consider attempting the upgrade to OS X 10.10 as it is a wonderful OS especially if you have a Mac and iOS device that supports continuity.
Comments
I used FM when it was called Nutshell!
I remember a demo by the author of Nutshell to the head of IT at John Deere on an original Mac. After interactively defining the tables, he drew the interconnecting lines defining the relationships ... Then created the tables, populated them and accessed them for reports using user-friendly templates (that obscured the underlying SQL).
Boom!
We were blown away -- and I got a pre-release version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker
I think, this is how Apple should roll:
It's kinda' odd that MS no longer pushes the MS-Access DB as part of the Office Suite ... It was quite powerful -- though a bit dangerous (lose data, lock the db, etc). But it was quite the rage with lower-level management in the enterprise -- they were encouraged to create ad hoc and speciality dbs to improve their jobs.
I agree!
Robust-featured, User-friendly
[LIST]
[*] Pages Word Processor
[*] Numbers Spreadsheet / Graph generator
[*] Keynote Presentation maker
[*] FileMaker SQL DB
[*]
[/LIST]
Mmm ... What's missing from the above?
I suspect that many would say that Numbers is the weakest link compared to MS Excel!
Honestly, they are correct -- Excel has many pro features that Numbers lack.
One of these features is the ability to [I] program [/I] Excel spreadsheets ...
Mmm ... What could Apple use to program Numbers (and FileMaker, and Keynote, and Pages) ...
Mmm ... What if Apple offered the ability to interactively program in general -- with, or without the other iCloud apps ...
Have a look at this:
http://www.swiftstub.com/
Then paste the following Swift
[CODE]
let myGreeting = "Hello there AI iCloud fans"
println(myGreeting)
let myFloat = 4.0/2.7
println(myFloat)
let myFloatFormatted = String(format: "%.4f", myFloat)
println(myFloatFormatted)
var reversed = sorted(["Chris", "Walt", "Ewa", "Horace", "Daniella"]) { $0 > $1 }
println("This is reversed \(reversed)")
println("This is forwards \(sorted(reversed))")
println("This is forwards \(sorted([4, 0, 3, 5, 1]))")
var rect2 = CGRectMake(190, 190, 100, 100)
println(rect2)
[/CODE]
What you are seeing is a browser-equivalent (cloud) of a basic implementation of a Swift Playground -- a fun, interactive programming tool!
What's missing form this example is:
[LIST]
[*] the rich underlying (proprietary) Apple APIs and Frameworks
[*] the integration with Apple's UI components
[*] integration with Apple's iCloud apps mentioned above
[*]
[/LIST]
The following video at 3:30 in, shows interactive Swift Playgrounds:
[VIDEO]
Imagine having that kind of power ay your fingertips -- anywhere, any time, for whatever need ...
iCloud based apps for nonMac users has the potential to be huge. In my working career, MS was the only allowed software in the large corporation. I have used Filemaker since it started. It is a very good and extremely powerful relational database. Very powerful and capable. You don't need a sledge hammer to drive a nail (Oracle, etc) and it will interface. Many people who have used Filemaker to prototype databases decide to never use anything else after they have been prototyped. It is that good. Don't underestimate it. Try it out.
I tried FM around the year 2000. I made a web app for a friend using the Windows version. At the time I was mostly using Mac/Tango/Butler to create dynamic web apps. Butler was an SQL database, so I was very familiar with SQL. FM was not SQL so it was quite foreign to me. I'm not sure whether FM is SQL now or not but personally, I wouldn't recommend any database that is not SQL compliant since that is the standard.
OS X ships with SQLite3 and there are several GUI apps available for it.
SQLiteBrowser is a free one: http://sqlitebrowser.org
FM was not SQL so it was quite foreign to me. I'm not sure whether FM is SQL now or not but personally, I wouldn't recommend any database that is not SQL compliant since that is the standard.
Yeah ...
It's been a few years, but FM kinda' isn't SQL ... at the same time FM kinda' is SQL.
AFAICT:
FM hides much of the complexity of the db structure by using high-level templates to define and access the underlying dbs
Apparently, this applies to internal FM dbs, and external SQL dbs, alike.
So, you can use templates and SQL syntax interchangeably -- whether the underlying db is an SQL db, an FM db -- (or something more/less) may be a moot point.
As you point out, SQLite is part of OS X (and iOS) -- so most of the major [single-user] SQL capabilities are available to apps written for Apple platforms. But, SQL Queries are a bit of a PITA to include in iOS or OS X programs. Also, you pointed out the need for a separate SQL browser ...
FWIW, the best way i've ever seen of using SQL within an app was with ColdFusion. The heavy lifting is done with 2 ColdFusion statements:
Here's the complete ColdFusion [web *] app:
* You could run this on the desktop (or even from a CD/DVD) too!
<cfset Form.Department = "Sales"> <cfquery name="getPhone" datasource="cfsnippets"> SELECT LastName, FirstName, Phone FROM Employees WHERE Department='#Form.Department#' ORDER BY LastName, FirstName </cfquery> <h1>Department Phone List</h1> <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"> <tr> <th>Name</th> <th>Phone</th> </tr> <cfoutput query="getPhone"> <tr> <td>#LastName#, #FirstName#</td> <td>#Phone#</td> </tr> </cfoutput> </table>Interesting take. I was thinking, "about f'ing time." The iCloud ecosystem will not work unless it is available on windows machines.
Surprising, but a good move.
Not surprising at all. The iCloud ecosystem won't work unless it is available on windows machines.
Now if Apple will just pull its head out and realize that it needs to add simple features like real "paragraph numbering" to Pages, then the legal community could start using it. It pisses me off to no end that I can't automatically number a paragraph and left justify the second line text, which is something that lawyers have to do to submit properly formatted legal briefs and meet page number limitations(which are set by the court). Hello Apple????? Give us f'ing paragraph numbering.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
What don't you like about Yosemite? Is it spotlight? Ever since I updated to Yosemite, Spotlight never returns a search result worth looking at. I have to search the particular application where the document is found (e.g., Mail). What's up with that?
[/quote]
If you need pivot tables or macros, yes. However if you need to put together an attractive looking document with great looking charts, Numbers is a good choice.
Apple search? You want Apple to take on Google and Bing in search when they're outsourcing app curation to Pinterest? Have you tried searching the App Store lately? The experience is not great. Apple needs to focus and stick to what they do best. Remember a thousand noes for every yes? Apple needs to shore up its foundations, not spread itself too thin. This is why I'm glad iOS 9 is supposedly all about stability and bug fixes. Hopefully the newest version of OS X will be the same.
I'll be interested to see if Apple provides the same robust level of cross platform API toolkit access to iCloud functionality as Google does to Google Drive/Apps. Like in, interfaces to legacy and modern programming languages, not just proprietary Apple systems and languages.
Somehow I doubt it. Would be nice if they did.
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
-PopinFRESH
I'm an expert Coldfusion coder and I can tell you from many years of experience that CF is no better or worse at connecting to databases than any of the other web scripting languages such as .Net, PHP, Python, Ruby, or even Perl. They all connect and output database data with the same number of lines of code.
Currently, my preference is PHP:
1) It has more active developers therefore larger talent pool
2) There are more frameworks and templating engines
3) There are more platforms such as Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla
4) PHP is Free! Coldfusion costs thousands..
#3 is especially important for casual programmers because coding a complete system from scratch is going to be much more vulnerable to a security breech than a platform that has thousands of developers examining the code.
I was trying to illustrate the simplicity of using ColdFusion to program a database.
You you don't have to worry about connecting to the database opening and closing and disconnecting.
With the cfquery tag you don't have to concern yourself with embedding the SQL statements in a quoted string.
The cfoutput tag allows you to easily iterate over the SQL results of the cfquery for presentation.
In my experience, fewer more concise statements make the program easier to write, debug, understand and maintain over time (by you or someone else).
I have not done any serious web programming since 2001 so my information may be a little dated.
Edit: A coldFusion development system is free -- a production system does cost thousands of dollars but that is born by the client. The production system includes many site management capabilities beyond those provided by just a programming language.
I have not done any serious web programming since 2001 so my information may be a little dated.
That happens. I have a number of huge CF implementations and I can't find anyone to maintain them. Porting them to PHP would cost several thousands each.
I was sitting in the office at a client's office and some old guy came walking through the hall and he remarked, "That is a SCO guy. I can spot them from a mile away".
That saddens me… I would charge around $10,000 for a typical website.
Having started with Perl and a few others, I really liked the language.
In fact, with a little unofficial help from Macromedia employees, I ported ColdFusion from Linux to mac OS X -- first for development purposes only, then we beat them over the head so much that they supported it for production on the Mac.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
-PopinFRESH
Notice the ‘Important’ part? I can’t use iCloud’s Pages unless I upgrade my account to use iCloud Drive. If I update to iCloud Drive I *have to* install OS X Yosemite. Ergo, I am unable to use the online Pages app while remaining on Mavericks, where users on other platforms will have the privilege before me. How is what I said not true? That, in my mind, is a forced upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCoastBoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopinFRESH
As a Mac hardware owner I *have* to upgrade to Yosemite to use this online service? I have no desire to upgrade to Yosemite in its current state. I feel that Apple is essentially penalizing me for not upgrading. A Windoze box will get the privilege before I do. Thanks Apple.
This is incorrect. You do not have to upgrade to OS X 10.10 to use iCloud. There are some features that will not be available to users of previous versions of OS X (such as iCloud Drive and Photos), however, you may still use the service for much of it's feature set. As for using the web versions of iWork for iCloud, the OS you are running is largely irrelevant as long as the browser is supported. What you will not get on some older Mac OS's with regard to iWork is the syncing of data from the newer iWork OS X apps and the iWork for iCloud web apps.
-PopinFRESH
Notice the ‘Important’ part? I can’t use iCloud’s Pages unless I upgrade my account to use iCloud Drive. If I update to iCloud Drive I *have to* install OS X Yosemite. Ergo, I am unable to use the online Pages app while remaining on Mavericks, where users on other platforms will have the privilege before me. How is what I said not true? That, in my mind, is a forced upgrade.
Here is a link to an article on creating a bootable OS X 10.9 USB disk.