Any other FileMaker II folks out there?

[Scott Baret]

I feel very alone in my choice of database. I use the old FileMaker II, back when Claris had disks without pictures on them. It's a nice simple program that's easy to use and has a great online help system.

It first came up in my computer class that I had to take in school. We had to use MS Access (ugh) and when the teacher said it was the gold standard of databases, I quickly brought up FileMaker. She didn't seem to know of it. I tried doing some of the database projects in FileMaker II and surprisingly they were successful.

Anyone else use this little gem of a program??? I feel I may be the only one on the planet who does. It's compact too--only two 800K disks. Not bloated like FileMaker Pro, which I heard was like eight disks.

 

[equill]

I suspect that this matter has received some prior comment in this forum. FileMaker is a database program, and always has been, with the grace and appearance that the supporting System allows. I first used it when it was but FileMaker (unqualified), running on a Plus and an SE under 6.0.7. When those new-fangled HDDs arrived it made storage of the 'base as a single file a great deal easier, and also gave a user fewer heart-in-mouth experiences occasioned by FDD misalignments between machines. I still use FileMaker, but nothing newer than Pro 6 under 10.4.11, despite almost weekly inducements from fm inc. to upgrade/update/leap into space. My largest DB is a 25,000+ recorded music (as opposed to disc) catalogue, with attached lookups for shelf numbers, composers, ensemble memberships, and whatever else that I may need for FileMaker to print a ready-to-use programme running-sheet for broadcast or print publication. It also copes with running-sheets for concert and studio recordings that I have made and edited, and their integration into the main catalogue, as necessary.

By contrast, in almost every imaginable way, and probably in ways that I hope never to meet, Access is an obscene realization of its parent company's beliefs about how stupid computer users should be marshalled in thought—and impeded in 'access' (a sour joke) to their data—in a data-burying program that was crafted to compel their utter subservience. Access is utterly intransigent against any significant searching or remarshalling of data.

de

 

[.]

Well said about Access! [] ]'> Years ago I switched high schools half way through the semester and had to complete a project in IT class using Access. All the other students had the benefit of a half-semester to learn the program, and I was expected to just pick it up and do the project. Needless to say, it was several weeks before I could even attempt to begin the project and even then, I really had no idea what I was doing. Horrible program, like all Microsoft.

FileMaker is excellent though. I used to use 2, but upgraded to Pro some years ago. I never bothered to get an OSX version because it gives me one more excuse to use my 68k Macs.

 

[Scott Baret]

I never even bothered to go Pro. FileMaker II is still doing the job fine. I'm in the process of cataloging my entire computer collection on it.

MS stuff in general seems clunky. I've got Works 2.0 for Windows and that too isn't that pleasant. Aside from the "wizards" that came with it I find it sure wasn't written with the consumer in mind.

I have Access 97 as part of Office 97 Professional. It took a combination of the manual, the online help system, and the Dummies book to get me from point A to point B.

The database in ClarisWorks 3/AppleWorks 5 reminds me a bit of FileMaker, but not as powerful.

 

[RadioPatrol]

SNIP
Anyone else use this little gem of a program??? I feel I may be the only one on the planet who does. It's compact too--only two 800K disks. Not bloated like FileMaker Pro, which I heard was like eight disks.

I have used FM 5 on a Mac and Currently have FM 7 and 8 available for my PC ..... with FM 5 I created a simple db to catalogue my VW Parts I have collected over the yrs ....

I am currently using FM 8 to build a fictional Sci Fi galaxy system with records for Planets, Solar Systems, groupings of Systems called Sectors and the Imperium as a whole .... complete with transportation routes similar to bus or subway routes .... all in a quest to lay the foundations for a Book ...

I have MS Access 97, 2000, 2003 and have yet to figure out how to make the 1st table ....... :?:

 

[LCGuy]

We've got a lecturer at uni who, to be honest, quite openly refers to Access as a "Toy database", which I've started doing myself, haha.

Speaking of the devil, have you guys had a go at Access 2007 yet? Quite a horrible program...(which surprises me, as I actually don't mind Word 2007)

 

[Cory5412]

I haven't actually tried Access 2007 in much detail yet, but I do look forward to it.

While I wouldn't call Access the "gold standard" of databases, I also wouldn't call it a toy database, and I've got to admit that I actually do think of Access as being more powerful (at the cost of some friendliness, unfortunately, but you can never have everything) than FileMaker Pro.

Of course, if Access is a toy database, the real databases are the MSSQL and Oracle types, that aren't even accessed directly, but through a web or custom application, or are looked at with a command-line interface tool.

For a long-standing custom database with a lot of records and relatively unchanging needs, I can understand how any older database system would be fine. I've heard of libraries that are still working with custom software on Apple IIs as circulation terminals. I forget exactly what they were using as a server, quite possibly that was also an Apple II. Although I don't know how many patrons they were serving or how big their collections were, because I can imagine handling even a moderately sized library collection with even just a hundred patrons would get really tedious really quick. (Actually, the example used to be on the KOHA website, or in a LinuxJournal magazine I bought long ago, I thought.)

 

[RadioPatrol]

I've heard of libraries that are still working with custom software on Apple IIs as circulation terminals. I forget exactly what they were using as a server, quite possibly that was also an Apple II. Although I don't know how many patrons they were serving or how big their collections were, because I can imagine handling even a moderately sized library collection with even just a hundred patrons would get really tedious really quick. (Actually, the example used to be on the KOHA website, or in a LinuxJournal magazine I bought long ago, I thought.)

I ran across a Storage Rental Place, that used and had been using an Apple ][ for 13 yrs as a "server" that held the db for the gate access system ....