10 points for knowing your history. Yes, Filemaker originally came from Nashoba Systems in the days when HyperCard was still a thing.
Claris was also known for AppleWorks, which was the grandfather of the iWorks suite Apple provides now. And the original Appleworks dated back to the Apple ][ and /// days...the later Mac versions would even be able to upgrade old Apple II files for quite some time. I remember way back in my Apple days of converting a bunch of Appleworks documents from an Apple /// to MS Word and Excel for a customer. But since the Apple /// used 5.25" floppies and the Mac was 3.5" floppies, I had to use an Apple IIgs we had in the office which could read and write from both. Then I washed the files into Mac Appleworks and then saved them into export formats that Excel and Word could understand. Fun times.
Claris was a company (owned by Apple) whereas AppleWorks was a product, never a company name. Hypercard ... what memories... Remember SuperCard?
I can't recall how many of my clients, back in the 90's, used FMP to 'automate' their businesses, only to paint themselves into a corner: "it all works, except for..." (the 'except for' would usually be a fatal flaw that doomed the entire effort to replacement).
An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of text editors will never be programmers...
10 points for knowing your history. Yes, Filemaker originally came from Nashoba Systems in the days when HyperCard was still a thing.
Claris was also known for AppleWorks, which was the grandfather of the iWorks suite Apple provides now. And the original Appleworks dated back to the Apple ][ and /// days...the later Mac versions would even be able to upgrade old Apple II files for quite some time. I remember way back in my Apple days of converting a bunch of Appleworks documents from an Apple /// to MS Word and Excel for a customer. But since the Apple /// used 5.25" floppies and the Mac was 3.5" floppies, I had to use an Apple IIgs we had in the office which could read and write from both. Then I washed the files into Mac Appleworks and then saved them into export formats that Excel and Word could understand. Fun times.
You don't need to know history; you just need to know how to Google.
Along that vein, AppleWorks for the Mac had absolutely nothing to do with AppleWorks for the Apple ][. AppleWorks for the Apple ][ was a introduced in 1984 and became a stalwart of that platform. In 1988, Apple introduced a second lane of AppleWorks, AppleWorks GS for its Apple IIgs, a GUI-based version of the Apple ][. AppleWorks GS had its own version numbers and was introduced at AppleWorks GS 1.0. AppleWorks GS died after AppleWorks GS 1.1.
AppleWorks for the Mac began life in 1991 as ClarisWorks 1.0. Apple changed the name of ClarisWorks 5 to AppleWorks 5 after it folded Claris. AppleWorks 6 was the last full-release version of the application.
One other thing, iWork is not the successor to AppleWorks. iWork is simply a bundle of three standalone applications--Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. This type of bundle is commonly known as a suite. AppleWorks was a classic works program. It was a single application that incorporated most of the functionality of several standalone applications.
Always said there should be developer app a server app and a client app, the cost for a small business is far too high to implement that's without the cost involved with developing a solution.
The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.
And these days you can make a block buster movie with Final Cut Pro X. The prices of Apple's pro software have become very reasonable these last few years, all expect FMP. I have to think this is because it is cross platform and so doesn't in of itself sell a Mac as does FCPX for example. So I can understand the pricing really.
And these days you can make a block buster movie with Final Cut Pro X. The prices of Apple's pro software have become very reasonable these last few years, all expect FMP. I have to think this is because it is cross platform and so doesn't in of itself sell a Mac as does FCPX for example. So I can understand the pricing really.
Um-m-m-m, no. Your analysis does not scan. As a rule, cross-platform applications do not cost any more than single-platform applications. The fact that you compared FileMaker Pro to Final Cut Pro X means that you have no clue what FMP does. This is not a program that is designed to maintain your list of contact lists and recipes. Database Management Systems (DBMSes) have limited ability to query databases. However, this ability only dusts off their functionality. They are full-fledged development systems that are dedicated to handling massive amounts of structured data. In the case of modern DBMSes, these data may be maintained locally or on other servers in the enterprise or around the World. I recently discovered that my firm uses FileMaker Pro in conjunction with its older Oracle-based integrated system.
FMP is the most popular DBMS on the Mac. It is also the second most popular DBMS for Windows. It began life as a flat-file DBMS. Other DBMSes such as Double Helix and 4th Dimension (now 4D) were Relational DBMSes (R-DBMS). However, FMP is now a R-DBMS, as well. These DBMSes can be used to develop custom double-clickable applications for subsets of your enterprise's data. Double Helix and 4D and others include an extensive procedural programming language to manipulate your data. While still in its flat-file incarnation, FMP did not use a database programming language. As a fully R-DBMS, FMP still does not use use a database programming language. Applications developed using FMP are designed visually with no coding. Of course, your FMP DB may be deployed across Windows and iOS.
If you believe that FMP is expensive, then you should compare it to the competition. I would rate the wonderful 4D Developer Professional v14 as the primary competition for FileMaker Pro. Its list price is $1449 US. Like FMP, 4D originated on the Mac and later went cross-platform. However, its price is dictated by its functionality, not by the fact that it is cross-platform.
Um-m-m-m, no. Your analysis does not scan. As a rule, cross-platform applications do not cost any more than single-platform applications. The fact that you compared FileMaker Pro to Final Cut Pro X means that you have no clue what FMP does. This is not a program that is designed to maintain your list of contact lists and recipes. Database Management Systems (DBMSes) have limited ability to query databases. However, this ability only dusts off their functionality. They are full-fledged development systems that are dedicated to handling massive amounts of structured data. In the case of modern DBMSes, these data may be maintained locally or on other servers in the enterprise or around the World. I recently discovered that my firm uses FileMaker Pro in conjunction with its older Oracle-based integrated system.
FMP is the most popular DBMS on the Mac. It is also the second most popular DBMS for Windows. It began life as a flat-file DBMS. Other DBMSes such as Double Helix and 4th Dimension (now 4D) were Relational DBMSes (R-DBMS). However, FMP is now a R-DBMS, as well. These DBMSes can be used to develop custom double-clickable applications for subsets of your enterprise's data. Double Helix and 4D and others include an extensive procedural programming language to manipulate your data. While still in its flat-file incarnation, FMP did not use a database programming language. As a fully R-DBMS, FMP still does not use use a database programming language. Applications developed using FMP are designed visually with no coding. Of course, your FMP DB may be deployed across Windows and iOS.
If you believe that FMP is expensive, then you should compare it to the competition. I would rate the wonderful 4D Developer Professional v14 as the primary competition for FileMaker Pro. Its list price is $1449 US. Like FMP, 4D originated on the Mac and later went cross-platform. However, its price is dictated by its functionality, not by the fact that it is cross-platform.
That all said, I never understood why Apple killed off Bento/AppleWorks. It would seem a consumer level DB program has been lacking since their demise. As you've pointed out, FileMaker Pro has grown into something much larger serving enterprise. However, while comparatively cheaper than 4D, $349 is expensive for consumers who simply need a basic DB app that ideally, would be included with iWork.
This is not a program that is designed to maintain your list of contact lists and recipes. Database Management Systems (DBMSes) have limited ability to query databases. However, this ability only dusts off their functionality. They are full-fledged development systems that are dedicated to handling massive amounts of structured data.
It isn't really useful for the web though. I developed a web application with the server version years ago. It was a terrible experience. I can see how someone might build a desktop application with it but without being able to connect through popular scripting languages such as php it is a risky platform to invest in, in my opinion.
The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.
Err - I don't think you can class Filemaker Pro as an enterprise level DBMS. Are you seriously comparing FM to Oracle, Progress Openedge, Microsoft SQL Server 2014, Db2 or Sybase?
If you are then you must have limited enterprise level experience.
It isn't really useful for the web though. I developed a web application with the server version years ago. It was a terrible experience. I can see how someone might build a desktop application with it but without being able to connect through popular scripting languages such as php it is a risky platform to invest in, in my opinion.
Live in the past if you want. I am talking about the present--and the future.
Err - I don't think you can class Filemaker Pro as an enterprise level DBMS. Are you seriously comparing FM to Oracle, Progress Openedge, Microsoft SQL Server 2014, Db2 or Sybase?
If you are then you must have limited enterprise level experience.
Read with understanding. I did not say that my firm uses Filemaker Proinstead of its Oracle-based integrated database. I said that it uses Filemaker Prowith our firm's Oracle-based integrated database. This is a growing trend. You may stand back and insist that it can't be done. Firms like mine are doing it and moving forward.
Live in the past if you want. I am talking about the present--and the future.
Read with understanding. I did not say that my firm uses Filemaker Proinstead of its Oracle-based integrated database. I said that it uses Filemaker Prowith our firm's Oracle-based integrated database. This is a growing trend. You may stand back and insist that it can't be done. Firms like mine are doing it and moving forward.
No what you said was 'The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.' - please explain how I am to determine that you are using FM as a front end to Oracle from that single statement?
Live in the past if you want. I am talking about the present--and the future.
It is not a standards based database. It can connect to other standards based databases but other common platforms such as php, ruby, or .Net cannot connect to it. That is why I say it is a risky investment. FMP is mostly a GUI builder and a proprietary database. Does not seem very expandable, especially for web apps. In all honesty I don't have a lot of experience with FM but I like to keep my options open which is why I always use standards based platforms.
No what you said was 'The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.' - please explain how I am to determine that you are using FM as a front end to Oracle from that single statement?
I was discussing the functionality of FileMaker Pro, not my specific applications. I apologize for confusing you.
Comments
Claris was a company (owned by Apple) whereas AppleWorks was a product, never a company name. Hypercard ... what memories... Remember SuperCard?
Does it speak SQL yet? That was my biggest beef when I last played with it (granted that was probably around FM 8).
It does.
I can't recall how many of my clients, back in the 90's, used FMP to 'automate' their businesses, only to paint themselves into a corner: "it all works, except for..." (the 'except for' would usually be a fatal flaw that doomed the entire effort to replacement).
An infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of text editors will never be programmers...
Along that vein, AppleWorks for the Mac had absolutely nothing to do with AppleWorks for the Apple ][. AppleWorks for the Apple ][ was a introduced in 1984 and became a stalwart of that platform. In 1988, Apple introduced a second lane of AppleWorks, AppleWorks GS for its Apple IIgs, a GUI-based version of the Apple ][. AppleWorks GS had its own version numbers and was introduced at AppleWorks GS 1.0. AppleWorks GS died after AppleWorks GS 1.1.
AppleWorks for the Mac began life in 1991 as ClarisWorks 1.0. Apple changed the name of ClarisWorks 5 to AppleWorks 5 after it folded Claris. AppleWorks 6 was the last full-release version of the application.
One other thing, iWork is not the successor to AppleWorks. iWork is simply a bundle of three standalone applications--Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. This type of bundle is commonly known as a suite. AppleWorks was a classic works program. It was a single application that incorporated most of the functionality of several standalone applications.
And these days you can make a block buster movie with Final Cut Pro X. The prices of Apple's pro software have become very reasonable these last few years, all expect FMP. I have to think this is because it is cross platform and so doesn't in of itself sell a Mac as does FCPX for example. So I can understand the pricing really.
FMP is the most popular DBMS on the Mac. It is also the second most popular DBMS for Windows. It began life as a flat-file DBMS. Other DBMSes such as Double Helix and 4th Dimension (now 4D) were Relational DBMSes (R-DBMS). However, FMP is now a R-DBMS, as well. These DBMSes can be used to develop custom double-clickable applications for subsets of your enterprise's data. Double Helix and 4D and others include an extensive procedural programming language to manipulate your data. While still in its flat-file incarnation, FMP did not use a database programming language. As a fully R-DBMS, FMP still does not use use a database programming language. Applications developed using FMP are designed visually with no coding. Of course, your FMP DB may be deployed across Windows and iOS.
If you believe that FMP is expensive, then you should compare it to the competition. I would rate the wonderful 4D Developer Professional v14 as the primary competition for FileMaker Pro. Its list price is $1449 US. Like FMP, 4D originated on the Mac and later went cross-platform. However, its price is dictated by its functionality, not by the fact that it is cross-platform.
Um-m-m-m, no. Your analysis does not scan. As a rule, cross-platform applications do not cost any more than single-platform applications. The fact that you compared FileMaker Pro to Final Cut Pro X means that you have no clue what FMP does. This is not a program that is designed to maintain your list of contact lists and recipes. Database Management Systems (DBMSes) have limited ability to query databases. However, this ability only dusts off their functionality. They are full-fledged development systems that are dedicated to handling massive amounts of structured data. In the case of modern DBMSes, these data may be maintained locally or on other servers in the enterprise or around the World. I recently discovered that my firm uses FileMaker Pro in conjunction with its older Oracle-based integrated system.
FMP is the most popular DBMS on the Mac. It is also the second most popular DBMS for Windows. It began life as a flat-file DBMS. Other DBMSes such as Double Helix and 4th Dimension (now 4D) were Relational DBMSes (R-DBMS). However, FMP is now a R-DBMS, as well. These DBMSes can be used to develop custom double-clickable applications for subsets of your enterprise's data. Double Helix and 4D and others include an extensive procedural programming language to manipulate your data. While still in its flat-file incarnation, FMP did not use a database programming language. As a fully R-DBMS, FMP still does not use use a database programming language. Applications developed using FMP are designed visually with no coding. Of course, your FMP DB may be deployed across Windows and iOS.
If you believe that FMP is expensive, then you should compare it to the competition. I would rate the wonderful 4D Developer Professional v14 as the primary competition for FileMaker Pro. Its list price is $1449 US. Like FMP, 4D originated on the Mac and later went cross-platform. However, its price is dictated by its functionality, not by the fact that it is cross-platform.
That all said, I never understood why Apple killed off Bento/AppleWorks. It would seem a consumer level DB program has been lacking since their demise. As you've pointed out, FileMaker Pro has grown into something much larger serving enterprise. However, while comparatively cheaper than 4D, $349 is expensive for consumers who simply need a basic DB app that ideally, would be included with iWork.
This is not a program that is designed to maintain your list of contact lists and recipes. Database Management Systems (DBMSes) have limited ability to query databases. However, this ability only dusts off their functionality. They are full-fledged development systems that are dedicated to handling massive amounts of structured data.
It isn't really useful for the web though. I developed a web application with the server version years ago. It was a terrible experience. I can see how someone might build a desktop application with it but without being able to connect through popular scripting languages such as php it is a risky platform to invest in, in my opinion.
The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.
Err - I don't think you can class Filemaker Pro as an enterprise level DBMS. Are you seriously comparing FM to Oracle, Progress Openedge, Microsoft SQL Server 2014, Db2 or Sybase?
If you are then you must have limited enterprise level experience.
Read with understanding. I did not say that my firm uses Filemaker Pro instead of its Oracle-based integrated database. I said that it uses Filemaker Pro with our firm's Oracle-based integrated database. This is a growing trend. You may stand back and insist that it can't be done. Firms like mine are doing it and moving forward.
Not that it really matters in this informal setting, but it's actually spelled "bated", not "baited", FYI.
Live in the past if you want. I am talking about the present--and the future.
Read with understanding. I did not say that my firm uses Filemaker Pro instead of its Oracle-based integrated database. I said that it uses Filemaker Pro with our firm's Oracle-based integrated database. This is a growing trend. You may stand back and insist that it can't be done. Firms like mine are doing it and moving forward.
No what you said was 'The price tag is not high. FileMaker Pro is an enterprise-level DBMS.' - please explain how I am to determine that you are using FM as a front end to Oracle from that single statement?
Live in the past if you want. I am talking about the present--and the future.
It is not a standards based database. It can connect to other standards based databases but other common platforms such as php, ruby, or .Net cannot connect to it. That is why I say it is a risky investment. FMP is mostly a GUI builder and a proprietary database. Does not seem very expandable, especially for web apps. In all honesty I don't have a lot of experience with FM but I like to keep my options open which is why I always use standards based platforms.