FileMaker for packaged solutions

Hello,

I have been evaluating the Mac version of FM. I am thinking about
using FM to do software development solutions for resale. My question
is this: Do Mac users look down on software developed with FileMaker?
I know allot of folks have problems with software developed in Java
and I was hoping this is not the case here.

Any insight would be great as I am going to try and make a purchase
decision in the very near future.

Thanks,
Noble

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

On 2007-12-30 05:44:50 -0800, Noble said:

> I have been evaluating the Mac version of FM. I am thinking about
> using FM to do software development solutions for resale. My question
> is this: Do Mac users look down on software developed with FileMaker?
> I know allot of folks have problems with software developed in Java
> and I was hoping this is not the case here.
>
> Any insight would be great as I am going to try and make a purchase
> decision in the very near future.

Go to

http://www.briandunning.com/tomarket/

and read about the ToMarket seminars and materials. It will give you
much more insight into developing software products in general and
Filemaker products in particular than anything we could tell you here.

There are large numbers of Filemaker-based vertical market solutions
out there already, so many developers have made the decision to work
with FM rather than in another programming environment. Your
particular market/product will have to be evaluated carefully to
determine whether or not FM fits.
--
Lynn Allen
--
www.semiotics.com
Member Filemaker Business Alliance
Long Beach, CA

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article
<7ae642d8-740c-4d73-9d88-ff82dbd887c8@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Noble wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been evaluating the Mac version of FM. I am thinking about
> using FM to do software development solutions for resale. My question
> is this: Do Mac users look down on software developed with FileMaker?
> I know allot of folks have problems with software developed in Java
> and I was hoping this is not the case here.
>
> Any insight would be great as I am going to try and make a purchase
> decision in the very near future.
>
> Thanks,
> Noble

Lynn has given a good link and advice, but you do have to bear in mind
that FileMaker is NOT a "programming environment" and is not anywhere
near as flexible as proper programming languages like Java, REALBasic,
Runtime Revolution, variations of C, etc.

FileMaker is a DATABASE development package, so it does have
limitations as to what you can and cannot do (for example, you cannot
automate placement of windows around the screen). There are plug-ins
that get around some of these limitations, but it really depends on
what solutions you create are intended to do. If your solutions are
database-driven, then FileMaker is a great tool, otherwise you may be
better off looking elsewhere.

Any solutions made will require the user to have a copy of FileMaker
(and basically the correct version) installed, although you can use
FileMaker Advanced to create "standalone" solutions that do not need
FileMaker itself ... but these are rather large when compared to
applications compiled in Java or C since a cut-down version of
FileMaker is included. Also, unlike REALBasic, you must create the
specific version on the specific operating system (ie. Windows version
on a Windows computer or something like Parallels, and Mac version on a
Mac), although the data files can be fully interchanged between all
versions, including full FileMaker.




Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

On Dec 30, 2:25=A0pm, Helpful Harry
wrote:
> In article
> <7ae642d8-740c-4d73-9d88-ff82dbd88...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Noble wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > I have been evaluating the Mac version of FM. I am thinking about
> > using FM to do software development solutions for resale. My question
> > is this: Do Mac users look down on software developed with FileMaker?
> > I know allot of folks have problems with software developed in Java
> > and I was hoping this is not the case here.
>
> > Any insight would be great as I am going to try and make a purchase
> > decision in the very near future.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Noble
>
> Lynn has given a good link and advice, but you do have to bear in mind
> that FileMaker is NOT a "programming environment" and is not anywhere
> near as flexible as proper programming languages like Java, REALBasic,
> Runtime Revolution, variations of C, etc.
>
> FileMaker is a DATABASE development package, so it does have
> limitations as to what you can and cannot do (for example, you cannot
> automate placement of windows around the screen). There are plug-ins
> that get around some of these limitations, but it really depends on
> what solutions you create are intended to do. If your solutions are
> database-driven, then FileMaker is a great tool, otherwise you may be
> better off looking elsewhere.
>
> Any solutions made will require the user to have a copy of FileMaker
> (and basically the correct version) installed, although you can use
> FileMaker Advanced to create "standalone" solutions that do not need
> FileMaker itself ... but these are rather large when compared to
> applications compiled in Java or C since a cut-down version of
> FileMaker is included. Also, unlike REALBasic, you must create the
> specific version on the specific operating system (ie. Windows version
> on a Windows computer or something like Parallels, and Mac version on a
> Mac), although the data files can be fully interchanged between all
> versions, including full FileMaker.
>
> Helpful Harry =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships =A0;o=
)

I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
"Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

Noble wrote:

> I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?

The runtime engine for FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced is in the order of 67 MB
on the Mac, similar on Windows. A standard configuration also includes
10 MB of dictionaries, which you may be able to cut back if you don't
need multiple language spell checking.

The database files are relatively small by comparison, unless they
contain large numbers of records or big items like graphics in
containers.

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article
,
Noble wrote:

> I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?

I haven't used the newer versions of FileMaker (which are probably have
bigger sizes), but for FileMaker 4 the Mac runtime application alone is
3MB - to that you have to add a few additional files for the System
Folder as well as any plug-ins, peculiar fonts, etc. the solution
requires ... and of course the data file(s) themselves.

The runtime application is really just a cut-down version of FileMaker
itself. Basically the bits needed to make changes to the database's
design / structure have been taken out, but everything else is still
there. (For comparison, the full FileMaker 4 application is 3.6MB.)


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

On 2007-12-30 12:46:41 -0800, Noble said:

> I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?

Big. They bind the entire database engine into the master file you
designate during runtime creation. In these days of software delivery
by download this is not that big a deal, but if you include any
sizeable amount of data already in a solution, such as for a catalog,
you might have concerns getting the runtimes onto a CD.

The major downside of runtimes is that they do not network, they will
not serve web publishing, and they don't work as ODBC sources. It's one
per machine. If this fits your intended product, then fine. Only by
buying a full client copy of FM Pro for each machine can FM files be
shared.

The upside is that security settings let you eliminate any design
access to the files during binding, which means that even if someone
gets a password-hacker, they can't get into the file structure.
--
Lynn Allen
--
www.semiotics.com
Member Filemaker Business Alliance
Long Beach, CA

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article <1i9zkth.191hsqt106xg5yN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Noble wrote:
>
> > I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> > "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> > a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> > trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> > version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?
>
> The runtime engine for FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced is in the order of 67 MB
> on the Mac, similar on Windows. A standard configuration also includes
> 10 MB of dictionaries, which you may be able to cut back if you don't
> need multiple language spell checking.
>
> The database files are relatively small by comparison, unless they
> contain large numbers of records or big items like graphics in
> containers.

67MB!?!? That is MUCH bigger than the 3MB runtime applications you get
in FileMaker 4. :o(

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

Helpful Harry wrote:

> In article <1i9zkth.191hsqt106xg5yN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > Noble wrote:
> >
> > > I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> > > "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> > > a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> > > trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> > > version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?
> >
> > The runtime engine for FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced is in the order of 67 MB
> > on the Mac, similar on Windows. A standard configuration also includes
> > 10 MB of dictionaries, which you may be able to cut back if you don't
> > need multiple language spell checking.
> >
> > The database files are relatively small by comparison, unless they
> > contain large numbers of records or big items like graphics in
> > containers.
>
> 67MB!?!? That is MUCH bigger than the 3MB runtime applications you get
> in FileMaker 4. :o(

Yes. It has grown significantly with each version of FileMaker Pro. It
is so big that it isn't very pracitical to distribute a runtime via the
Internet.

I don't have other developer/advanced versions for direct comparison,
but just looking at the FileMaker Pro application itself for the
versions for the Mac which I have handy:

Version 5.5 is 18.1 MB
Version 6 is 25.1 MB
Version 7 is 42.4 MB
(I don't have access to version 8)
Version 8.5 is 203 MB
Version 9 (Advanced) is 251 MB

The master copy of my version 9 runtime application (as of 9.0v3) is
72.8 MB. The one I was looking at earlier was generated with 9.0v1 so it
might have got bigger since 9.0v1, or the master copy might have been
trimmed down as part of the binding process.

Looking inside the package, the internal breakdown is 37M for
frameworks, 27M for code, 288K for plugins, 8.1M for language resources
(ten languages).

The code size is about evenly split between PowerPC and Intel for the
main executable.

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article <1ia06uu.1be2eny1ycr335N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Helpful Harry wrote:
>
> > In article <1i9zkth.191hsqt106xg5yN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > Noble wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have worked with other "Database-Only" development packages such as
> > > > "Alpha 5", "Dbase", "FoxPro", and good ole "Access". I also program in
> > > > a few languages as well. So, I am kinda familiar with allot of the
> > > > trade-off's. I would be using the runtime stuff of the advanced
> > > > version. Just how big are the file sizes if you don't mind me asking?
> > >
> > > The runtime engine for FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced is in the order of 67 MB
> > > on the Mac, similar on Windows. A standard configuration also includes
> > > 10 MB of dictionaries, which you may be able to cut back if you don't
> > > need multiple language spell checking.
> > >
> > > The database files are relatively small by comparison, unless they
> > > contain large numbers of records or big items like graphics in
> > > containers.
> >
> > 67MB!?!? That is MUCH bigger than the 3MB runtime applications you get
> > in FileMaker 4. :o(
>
> Yes. It has grown significantly with each version of FileMaker Pro. It
> is so big that it isn't very pracitical to distribute a runtime via the
> Internet.
>
> I don't have other developer/advanced versions for direct comparison,
> but just looking at the FileMaker Pro application itself for the
> versions for the Mac which I have handy:
>
> Version 5.5 is 18.1 MB
> Version 6 is 25.1 MB
> Version 7 is 42.4 MB
> (I don't have access to version 8)
> Version 8.5 is 203 MB
> Version 9 (Advanced) is 251 MB

I think you're adding up too much here (or your hard disk is using a
big block size). The Mac version FileMaker 5.5 application I've got
here is only 5.4MB.



> The master copy of my version 9 runtime application (as of 9.0v3) is
> 72.8 MB. The one I was looking at earlier was generated with 9.0v1 so it
> might have got bigger since 9.0v1, or the master copy might have been
> trimmed down as part of the binding process.
>
> Looking inside the package, the internal breakdown is 37M for
> frameworks, 27M for code, 288K for plugins, 8.1M for language resources
> (ten languages).
>
> The code size is about evenly split between PowerPC and Intel for the
> main executable.

Ah! There's part of the explanation - on the Mac side you currently
need both Intel and PowerPC code, so that bloats the size quite a bit.
You could possibly delete any of the language files you don't need.


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

Helpful Harry wrote:

> In article <1ia06uu.1be2eny1ycr335N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > Helpful Harry wrote:
> >
> > > 67MB!?!? That is MUCH bigger than the 3MB runtime applications you get
> > > in FileMaker 4. :o(
> >
> > Yes. It has grown significantly with each version of FileMaker Pro. It
> > is so big that it isn't very pracitical to distribute a runtime via the
> > Internet.
> >
> > I don't have other developer/advanced versions for direct comparison,
> > but just looking at the FileMaker Pro application itself for the
> > versions for the Mac which I have handy:
> >
> > Version 5.5 is 18.1 MB
> > Version 6 is 25.1 MB
> > Version 7 is 42.4 MB
> > (I don't have access to version 8)
> > Version 8.5 is 203 MB
> > Version 9 (Advanced) is 251 MB
>
> I think you're adding up too much here (or your hard disk is using a
> big block size). The Mac version FileMaker 5.5 application I've got
> here is only 5.4MB.

This was a copy of a FileMaker Pro 5.5 installation on my PowerMac 8600
(running Mac OS 9) which I copied over to my MacBook Pro so I could test
it under Leopard. It is a package, totalling 15,499,319 bytes, or 18.1
MB on disk (with 4 KB allocation blocks).

The total size includes all of the help files (in HTML), which accounts
for most of the internal block wastage, as well as the templates. The
actual application inside the package is 6.9 MB.

I don't know how another Mac installation of 5.5 could be so much
smaller.

Doing a similar comparison to later versions (just looking at the
application inside the package):

5.5 is 6.9 MB
6.0 is 10.1 MB
7.0 is 10.2 MB and also has 13 MB of frameworks
8.5 is 30 MB and also has 118.1 MB of frameworks
9.0 Advanced is 31.6 MB and also has 126.3 MB of frameworks

(8.5 and 9.0 are Universal, i.e. they contain both Intel and PowerPC
code, so that roughly doubles the size of the application code and
frameworks.)

Even if you take out the help and templates, the application will need a
lot of other bits and pieces inside its package, so this isn't
necessarily a fair comparison between the versions. Later versions have
a higher degree of internal restructuring, so there are more bits
outside the application code which are "essential".

> > The master copy of my version 9 runtime application (as of 9.0v3) is
> > 72.8 MB. The one I was looking at earlier was generated with 9.0v1 so it
> > might have got bigger since 9.0v1, or the master copy might have been
> > trimmed down as part of the binding process.
> >
> > Looking inside the package, the internal breakdown is 37M for
> > frameworks, 27M for code, 288K for plugins, 8.1M for language resources
> > (ten languages).
> >
> > The code size is about evenly split between PowerPC and Intel for the
> > main executable.
>
> Ah! There's part of the explanation - on the Mac side you currently
> need both Intel and PowerPC code, so that bloats the size quite a bit.

It roughly doubles the size of the code (and most of the binary portion
of the frameworks). It accounts for almost 32M of the total size (half
of 37+27).

The Windows version is similarly huge, and it doesn't have the excuse of
supporting multple architectures (as far as I know, it is just a Win32
x86 application). A Windows runtime I built with 9.0v1 has about 55 MB
of runtime engine, DLLs and dictionaries; it only includes English
support for the engine itself, but has dictionaries for all languages in
the Extensions folder. The "Internal Runtime Libraries" folder in
FileMaker Pro 9 Advanced (source for creating a new runtime) is 128 MB,
which includes full support for multiple languages.

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article <1ia1hyb.2lthsg8zfudrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Helpful Harry wrote:
>
> > In article <1ia06uu.1be2eny1ycr335N%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > Helpful Harry wrote:
> > >
> > > > 67MB!?!? That is MUCH bigger than the 3MB runtime applications you get
> > > > in FileMaker 4. :o(
> > >
> > > Yes. It has grown significantly with each version of FileMaker Pro. It
> > > is so big that it isn't very pracitical to distribute a runtime via the
> > > Internet.
> > >
> > > I don't have other developer/advanced versions for direct comparison,
> > > but just looking at the FileMaker Pro application itself for the
> > > versions for the Mac which I have handy:
> > >
> > > Version 5.5 is 18.1 MB
> > > Version 6 is 25.1 MB
> > > Version 7 is 42.4 MB
> > > (I don't have access to version 8)
> > > Version 8.5 is 203 MB
> > > Version 9 (Advanced) is 251 MB
> >
> > I think you're adding up too much here (or your hard disk is using a
> > big block size). The Mac version FileMaker 5.5 application I've got
> > here is only 5.4MB.
>
> This was a copy of a FileMaker Pro 5.5 installation on my PowerMac 8600
> (running Mac OS 9) which I copied over to my MacBook Pro so I could test
> it under Leopard. It is a package, totalling 15,499,319 bytes, or 18.1
> MB on disk (with 4 KB allocation blocks).
>
> The total size includes all of the help files (in HTML), which accounts
> for most of the internal block wastage, as well as the templates. The
> actual application inside the package is 6.9 MB.
>
> I don't know how another Mac installation of 5.5 could be so much
> smaller.

I was only counting the application itself since you don't need all the
help files, examples databases, etc. when making a standalone
application - the size of the FileMaker application itself should give
you a rough guide to the size of the runtime application.

My FileMaker 5.5 application is definitely only 5.4MB. I can't remember
the hard disk's block size is (I know I changed the default), but if
mine is smaller than 4KB it would account for the apparently smaller
file size. :o)

The FileMaker 4.1 application is even smaller (of course) at only 3.6MB.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

Noble wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been evaluating the Mac version of FM. I am thinking about
> using FM to do software development solutions for resale. My question
> is this: Do Mac users look down on software developed with FileMaker?
> I know allot of folks have problems with software developed in Java
> and I was hoping this is not the case here.
>
> Any insight would be great as I am going to try and make a purchase
> decision in the very near future.

Gut reaction: be careful unless this is a vertical application for a
market that won't care about the user interface or experience.

FM is not "Mac-like" anymore. It feels dated and just looks "wrong" on a
Mac.

When I use FileMaker, I make sure the user understands that I won't be
delivering something that looks like a Cocoa app. Not even a REALbasic
app. No, this will look like a FileMaker database.

If that's not an issue, then FM is great for some projects.

- CSW

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

Helpful Harry wrote:

> In article <1ia1hyb.2lthsg8zfudrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > Helpful Harry wrote:
> >
> > > I think you're adding up too much here (or your hard disk is using a
> > > big block size). The Mac version FileMaker 5.5 application I've got
> > > here is only 5.4MB.
> >
> > This was a copy of a FileMaker Pro 5.5 installation on my PowerMac 8600
> > (running Mac OS 9) which I copied over to my MacBook Pro so I could test
> > it under Leopard. It is a package, totalling 15,499,319 bytes, or 18.1
> > MB on disk (with 4 KB allocation blocks).
> >
> > The total size includes all of the help files (in HTML), which accounts
> > for most of the internal block wastage, as well as the templates. The
> > actual application inside the package is 6.9 MB.
> >
> > I don't know how another Mac installation of 5.5 could be so much
> > smaller.
>
> I was only counting the application itself since you don't need all the
> help files, examples databases, etc. when making a standalone
> application - the size of the FileMaker application itself should give
> you a rough guide to the size of the runtime application.

Only for older versions. In later versions they also include many of the
frameworks, and in a version 9 runtime the frameworks are larger than
the application itself. They are still only a small portion of the
frameworks inside the FileMaker Pro application, since that will include
support for all the database definition and script editing (which isn't
in a runtime).

> My FileMaker 5.5 application is definitely only 5.4MB. I can't remember
> the hard disk's block size is (I know I changed the default), but if
> mine is smaller than 4KB it would account for the apparently smaller
> file size. :o)

4 KB is the standard block size for HFS+ (Mac OS Extended). In any case,
for a single file the maximum "wastage" due to block size is just under
one block (4 KB), two blocks if it has a resource fork, so that doesn't
account for the difference beteween your 5.4 MB and my 6.9 MB.

The application itself has a data fork of 6,068,041 bytes (5.79 MB on
disk) and a resource fork of 872,803 bytes (856 KB on disk) for a total
of 6,940,844 bytes (6.62 MB on disk).

"Wastage" due to block size is tiny: 6.62 * 1048576 = 6941573, so there
are about 700 bytes of wasted space due to the block size.

There is no way this could be made any smaller unless you and I have
different versions of FileMaker Pro 5.5 (mine is 5.5v2).

--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Re: FileMaker for packaged solutions

In article <1ia297w.t2limrjyak1vN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Helpful Harry wrote:
>
> > In article <1ia1hyb.2lthsg8zfudrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>,
> > dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> >
> > > Helpful Harry wrote:
> >
> > My FileMaker 5.5 application is definitely only 5.4MB. I can't remember
> > the hard disk's block size is (I know I changed the default), but if
> > mine is smaller than 4KB it would account for the apparently smaller
> > file size. :o)
>
> 4 KB is the standard block size for HFS+ (Mac OS Extended). In any case,
> for a single file the maximum "wastage" due to block size is just under
> one block (4 KB), two blocks if it has a resource fork, so that doesn't
> account for the difference beteween your 5.4 MB and my 6.9 MB.
>
> The application itself has a data fork of 6,068,041 bytes (5.79 MB on
> disk) and a resource fork of 872,803 bytes (856 KB on disk) for a total
> of 6,940,844 bytes (6.62 MB on disk).
>
> "Wastage" due to block size is tiny: 6.62 * 1048576 = 6941573, so there
> are about 700 bytes of wasted space due to the block size.
>
> There is no way this could be made any smaller unless you and I have
> different versions of FileMaker Pro 5.5 (mine is 5.5v2).

Mine is standard FileMaker Pro 5.5v2 and it definitely is 5.4MB
(5,730,494 bytes) for just the application file itself. I haven't
"made" it any smaller - it is simply the file after a normal
installation. I use it most days with various database files and it
shows no signs of problems / corruption.

But this is getting off the original topic and simply wasting time for
both of us.


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)