9.0 rant

OK just cracked open 9.0 advanced. Why in the heck did they remove
the feature to move the dialogue boxes(script editor, etc) outside of
the filemaker window? I have two monitors and it has increased my
productivity quite alot in 8.5 to have dialogue boxes open up on the
secondary monitor. Why take away this feature? Sorry this is quite
pathetic unless someone knows of an internal filemaker setting. I
looked in preferences, and did not find such.

Thank you, done ranting, now back to work.

Darren

Re: 9.0 rant

Ok nevermind it is just the script dialogs that have this limitation.
Probably a good reason for such.

darren

Re: 9.0 rant

As you discovered, it is only the ScriptMaker windows that are effected
by this. I find that 9.0 is the first version of FileMaker where I HAVE
to have two monitors in order to use it efficiently. With the script
and debug windows staying open all the time (and the debugger always
wanting to be on top), and with the object info palette now bigger and
not willing to remain partly off-screen, I have found the screen to be
much too chaotic without moving some of this stuff off to a second
monitor. But to do so, you have to now stretch the application window
across both windows. Of course, for many people this defeats the
purpose of having two windows -- having your main app in one while
having other apps (like email) in the other.

Darren wrote:
> OK just cracked open 9.0 advanced. Why in the heck did they remove
> the feature to move the dialogue boxes(script editor, etc) outside of
> the filemaker window? I have two monitors and it has increased my
> productivity quite alot in 8.5 to have dialogue boxes open up on the
> secondary monitor. Why take away this feature? Sorry this is quite
> pathetic unless someone knows of an internal filemaker setting. I
> looked in preferences, and did not find such.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Schlossberg
FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles

FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

Re: 9.0 rant

*snip*
>On Sep 17, 9:03 am, Howard Schlossberg wrote:
>But to do so, you have to now stretch the application window
> across both windows. Of course, for many people this defeats the
> purpose of having two windows -- having your main app in one while
> having other apps (like email) in the other.
*/snip*

I know what you mean - not being able to shrink or chose the options
shown on the object info palette, really bugs me - I can't stow it
away in the corner like I used to. I am running 2 monitors at work,
but the best work around I have found, I run at home...

A Samsung 30 inch monitor running at 2560x1600. Let me just say, "Oh
Yeah, Baby!!!!!!!!" You just can't beat the real estate from that
resolution, and now my 2 monitors at work seam... cramped. Plus, I
threw in a WinTV card and have my HD cable in a small window as well -
awesome! I am thinking of locating a cheap 19 or 20 inch as a 2nd
monitor at home, and move the TV / DVD window and maybe email to that
one. *grin*

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reality is the leading cause of stress...
....amongst those in touch with it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
WinXP Pro 32 & 64Bit / FMP Adv 9.0v1
VoicesInMyHead
a.k.a. The Voices
No, we're not... Yes, we are...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The only reason some people get lost in thought
is because it's unfamiliar territory for them.

Re: 9.0 rant

On Sep 17, 6:03 pm, Howard Schlossberg
wrote:
> As you discovered, it is only the ScriptMaker windows that are effected
> by this. I find that 9.0 is the first version of FileMaker where I HAVE
> to have two monitors in order to use it efficiently. With the script
> and debug windows staying open all the time (and the debugger always
> wanting to be on top), and with the object info palette now bigger and
> not willing to remain partly off-screen, I have found the screen to be
> much too chaotic without moving some of this stuff off to a second
> monitor. But to do so, you have to now stretch the application window
> across both windows. Of course, for many people this defeats the
> purpose of having two windows -- having your main app in one while
> having other apps (like email) in the other.
>
> Darren wrote:
> > OK just cracked open 9.0 advanced. Why in the heck did they remove
> > the feature to move the dialogue boxes(script editor, etc) outside of
> > the filemaker window? I have two monitors and it has increased my
> > productivity quite alot in 8.5 to have dialogue boxes open up on the
> > secondary monitor. Why take away this feature? Sorry this is quite
> > pathetic unless someone knows of an internal filemaker setting. I
> > looked in preferences, and did not find such.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Howard Schlossberg
> FM Professional Solutions, Inc. Los Angeles
>
> FileMaker 8 Certified Developer
> Member, FileMaker Business Alliance

I generally like 9 a lot, but the scripting window management leaves a
lot to be desired. Ugh.

G

Re: 9.0 rant

Howard Schlossberg wrote:

> As you discovered, it is only the ScriptMaker windows that are effected
> by this. I find that 9.0 is the first version of FileMaker where I HAVE
> to have two monitors in order to use it efficiently. With the script
> and debug windows staying open all the time (and the debugger always
> wanting to be on top), and with the object info palette now bigger and
> not willing to remain partly off-screen, I have found the screen to be
> much too chaotic without moving some of this stuff off to a second
> monitor. But to do so, you have to now stretch the application window
> across both windows.

I assume everyone in this thread is talking about the Windows version?

The Mac version of FileMaker doesn't have an application window, so
there is no problem dragging various windows off to a second monitor.

I was startled to see an application window when I used FileMaker 9 on
Windows (first version I've tried in several years). I assumed it would
work similarly to the Mac version, with independent document windows.
It looks incredibly ugly and gets in the way of other things I want to
do on Windows at the same time, as well as limiting where you can drag
windows.

Do other "multi palette" Windows applications (such as Photoshop) use an
application window?

One complaint about running FileMaker with a big monitor: the Manage
Database dialog on the Mac doesn't have a zoom control in the title bar
- the only way to resize it is the resize control in the bottom right
corner.

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Re: 9.0 rant

> I was startled to see an application window when I used FileMaker 9 on
> Windows (first version I've tried in several years). I assumed it would
> work similarly to the Mac version, with independent document windows.

Yes that would have been nice.

At the time FM for Windows was originally written, the Windows way of
doing multi-document applications was to use a parent 'application'
window that contained and managed all the child 'document' windows.

The technique has a name, 'mdi' (multiple document interface) and an
API to support it. Old versions of MS Office used it. It was far more
memory/performance efficient than spawning a new instance of the
application for each document window and then dealing with
interprocess communication when the windows needed to talk to each
other, which is how it would have had to have been done at the time,
if i recall correctly.

There's no reason filemaker windows have to be constrained to the
application window anymore but its an area filemaker has never really
spent effort modernizing. Possibly because it might break existing
filemaker solutions that rely on the idiosyncracies of the current
windowing system.

For example in an MDI app typically if you bring ANY of its windows to
the foreground, it brings the application window to the front, and all
the child windows of the application are 'sub layers' within that one
layer.

In an SDI application you can layer other application windows between
SDI document windows.

In MDI applications, if you move the application window, you move all
the child windows (assuming they are 'contained' by the parent window.
In SDI, if you move a document that's all you move. That can make it a
real pain if you are working with an FM6 application with 40 files
(and therefore potentially 40 windows), for example, and just want to
drag the whole thing a couple inches over.

In SDI document windows are typically displayed in the taskbar, while
in MDI only the application window is. In MDI if you minimize the
application window it takes them all down, with SDI each window is
minimized separaetly ... etc etc etc

> It looks incredibly ugly and gets in the way of other things I want to
> do on Windows at the same time, as well as limiting where you can drag
> windows.
>
> Do other "multi palette" Windows applications (such as Photoshop) use
> application window?

Photoshop CS3 is still MDI, but they've done a lot to let you de-
couple the application window from the document windows and you can
drag nearly anything outside the application window. Memory and
performance consideration has long since ceased to be a concern. These
aren't 486s with 16MB of RAM. Its not all good though... as a
'hybrid' Photoshop is subtlety different from both; not quite
conforming to any standard of behaviour.

Re: 9.0 rant

d-42 wrote:
>> I was startled to see an application window when I used FileMaker 9 on
>> Windows (first version I've tried in several years). I assumed it would
>> work similarly to the Mac version, with independent document windows.
>
> Yes that would have been nice.
>
> At the time FM for Windows was originally written, the Windows way of
> doing multi-document applications was to use a parent 'application'
> window that contained and managed all the child 'document' windows.
>
> The technique has a name, 'mdi' (multiple document interface) and an
> API to support it. Old versions of MS Office used it. It was far more
> memory/performance efficient than spawning a new instance of the
> application for each document window and then dealing with
> interprocess communication when the windows needed to talk to each
> other, which is how it would have had to have been done at the time,
> if i recall correctly.
>
> There's no reason filemaker windows have to be constrained to the
> application window anymore but its an area filemaker has never really
> spent effort modernizing. Possibly because it might break existing
> filemaker solutions that rely on the idiosyncracies of the current
> windowing system.
>
> For example in an MDI app typically if you bring ANY of its windows to
> the foreground, it brings the application window to the front, and all
> the child windows of the application are 'sub layers' within that one
> layer.
>
> In an SDI application you can layer other application windows between
> SDI document windows.
>
> In MDI applications, if you move the application window, you move all
> the child windows (assuming they are 'contained' by the parent window.
> In SDI, if you move a document that's all you move. That can make it a
> real pain if you are working with an FM6 application with 40 files
> (and therefore potentially 40 windows), for example, and just want to
> drag the whole thing a couple inches over.
>
> In SDI document windows are typically displayed in the taskbar, while
> in MDI only the application window is. In MDI if you minimize the
> application window it takes them all down, with SDI each window is
> minimized separaetly ... etc etc etc
>
>> It looks incredibly ugly and gets in the way of other things I want to
>> do on Windows at the same time, as well as limiting where you can drag
>> windows.
>>
>> Do other "multi palette" Windows applications (such as Photoshop) use
>> application window?
>
> Photoshop CS3 is still MDI, but they've done a lot to let you de-
> couple the application window from the document windows and you can
> drag nearly anything outside the application window. Memory and
> performance consideration has long since ceased to be a concern. These
> aren't 486s with 16MB of RAM. Its not all good though... as a
> 'hybrid' Photoshop is subtlety different from both; not quite
> conforming to any standard of behaviour.
>


I think my measurements of the effect of this was 20% of vertical pixels
are wasted on windoze cf. the same window presented on mac. so one has
to allow for this in terms of layout (header + body + footer) total
height. i.e. design for the reduced vertical height imposed by windoze,
or force...

regards

Chris

Re: 9.0 rant

On Sep 19, 5:30 pm, Chris Brown
wrote:

> I think my measurements of the effect of this was 20% of vertical pixels
> are wasted on windoze cf. the same window presented on mac. so one has
> to allow for this in terms of layout (header + body + footer) total
> height. i.e. design for the reduced vertical height imposed by windoze,
> or force...
>
> regards
>
> Chris

Interesting.

Lets see, I wouldn't be surprised if, say XP, with its default
'colorful' scheme uses and extra 20 pixels on the start menu height vs
the slimmer apple menu. And I can see that the windows window borders
might grab another 10-20 pixels over the Mac equivalents. And that the
extra application level title bar would grab another 20-30 pixels
(assuming you don't run the document windows maximized); and then if
your windows are disorganized windows will impose scroll bars onto the
application window space, eating up another 20-30 pixels.

After ALL that we'rel looking at maybe 100 pixels of vertical overhead
on windows. On an 800x600 that would be around 17% which is in the
same ballpark as your estimate of 20%. But that overhead is fixed, and
most of us are running 1024x768 or 1280x1024 and the percentage drops
to: 13% and 9% respectively.

Of course, that's only allowing for the Apple menu on the Mac, and in
my experience most end users like to have the dock visible, and
reasonably large. at least 50-60 pixels, if not more. So its
ultimately a wash.

If you are designing for either system and don't have absolute control
over the end users settings you're asking for trouble if you use more
than 70-80% of the target screen resolution. All it takes is some user
with a double height start menu, or a Control Strip application, or
even just a non-standard window theme loaded to render your pixel-
perfect layout designs utterly frustrating to use.

-cheers,
Dave

Re: 9.0 rant

On Sep 17, 5:24 pm, VoicesInMyHead wrote:
<>
>
> A Samsung 30 inchmonitorrunning at 2560x1600. Let me just say, "Oh
> Yeah, Baby!!!!!!!!" You just can't beat the real estate from that
> resolution, and now my 2 monitors at work seam... cramped. Plus, I
> threw in a WinTV card and have my HD cable in a smallwindowas well -
> awesome! I am thinking of locating a cheap 19 or 20 inch as a 2ndmonitorat home, and move the TV / DVDwindowand maybe email to that
> one. *grin*

Ah, Testosterone driven monitor lust! That's where I want to get in on
this discussion.

How do you cope with a ppi of 100? Yes it's great to have all that
display real estate but with such a high pixel per square inch count
certain bits of text on FileMaker are a real strain.

In a spreadsheet application you can adjust magnification to the
nearest percent eg 120%, to get over the very dense pixels. Likewise,
you can make FileMaker layouts with larger fonts and bigger buttons to
compensate. What you can't adjust is the text in dialogue boxes,
Scriptmaker, field definitions and value list definitions. I'm just
comfortable with the size they display at on my 80ppi Dell laptop.

That's what's putting me off buying a massive LCD.

Regards
Kevin Smith