Re: old filemaker 3

[Note: followups set to comp.databases.filemaker. I'd recommend using
that newsgroup for further questions about the upgrade process.]

Steven wrote:

[original post:]

> I've been using, literally daily, in OS 10.4.9 an old filemaker 3 that
> functions pretty seamlessly in classic. Any way to upgrade to current
> filemaker, or suggestions for a different database that works with
> current OS (including Intel-based, which we don't currently have but
> are considering) that I could "migrate" this file to? Simple is
> good.
> Thank you.

[See thread in comp.sys.mac.apps for my detailed reply and others. In
message <1i4nwlk.1g5uboq8j5tuxN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> I gave details
about upgrade options for later versions, summarised major milestones
and networking issues, and asked for further clarification.]

> Wow! What great and thorough replies. Thank you David, Bill, Fred.
> There is a lot to digest here. Essentially, yes, Filemaker 3 meets my
> needs which are not overly complex, but do include perhaps a dozen
> layouts, some form letter generation that extract information from
> other FM files, etc. I think what I do is not relational, but I'm
> not entirely sure, so that says a lot about how little I really know
> about databases.

If you are looking up data in other FileMaker database files then you
are using the relational features of FileMaker Pro 3 to at least a
minimum degree.

This can be done using lookup operations to copy data once from another
database, or by directly using related fields on a layout (which shows
live data from the other database), or in a portal (which can show a
changing view of one or more records from the other database).

All of these are based on defining a relationship between two database
files, which specifies how the two databases are related (a key field
must match).

Version 7 and later allow more complex relationships (e.g. two key
fields which must match, or ordered comparisons between keys), and
multiple database tables in a single file.

> Essentially I have 2000+ names on a mailing list, with a fair bit of
> history about those who have been customers. I use it essentially to do
> simple sorts, prepare reports in various layouts, form letters, envelopes,
> etc. Don't use it on the web, and don't foresee that need. I'd probably
> stay forever with 3, which I must have bought over 10 years ago (yes - I
> keep my cars that long too:-) As my next computer will be an Intel Mac,
> that means, I think, I won't be able to then run Classic anymore, so will
> need to make some change.

Given reporting and printing requirements, using a web-based solution
will be tricky. A newer version of FileMaker Pro is likely to be your
best option.

The lowest impact would be to try to locate an upgrade or full install
copy of FileMaker Pro 6, which should be able to convert your existing
databases and keep using them with minimum changes. (5.5 would do, but 6
has a few useful improvements.)

Given the complexity of the database, it sounds like a conversion to
FileMaker Pro 9 would not be difficult. There will probably be a little
cleanup of scripts required, and you could choose to restructure some
parts of the database, e.g. by merging data from separate files into a
single file (by using multiple tables). You could do this at a later
stage.

I did a similar jump with a simple membership database related to one
other file, converting them from version 6 to version 7. It required
very little work to tidy it up after the conversion (and I'm now using
it in version 9 with no further changes).

FileMaker Pro 6 will run natively in Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X on a PowerPC
Mac, and in Rosetta on an Intel Mac. On an Intel Mac, it will consume
more RAM and be slower than an Intel-native application, but probably
still a lot faster than FileMaker Pro 3 on your old Mac, and possibly
less resource hungry than FileMaker Pro 9.

FileMaker Pro 9 will run natively on Mac OS X (10.4.8 or later) on a
PowerPC or Intel Mac.

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz