Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.databases > #223 > unrolled thread

FileMaker Archaeology

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.databases

Contents

  FileMaker Archaeology Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2015-12-14 14:00 -0500
    Re: FileMaker Archaeology Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-12-14 19:23 +0000
      Re: FileMaker Archaeology android <here@there.was> - 2015-12-14 20:42 +0100
      Re: FileMaker Archaeology ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-12-14 21:06 +0100
        Re: FileMaker Archaeology dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-12-15 11:28 +1300
          Re: FileMaker Archaeology ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-12-15 02:19 +0100
            Re: FileMaker Archaeology dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-12-15 15:15 +1300
    Re: FileMaker Archaeology JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-12-14 15:02 -0500
    Re: FileMaker Archaeology Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-15 00:51 +0000
      Re: FileMaker Archaeology nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-14 20:05 -0500
        Re: FileMaker Archaeology Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-15 04:23 +0000
          Re: FileMaker Archaeology nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-14 23:45 -0500
            Re: FileMaker Archaeology Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-15 15:18 +0000
              Re: FileMaker Archaeology nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-15 10:59 -0500
                Re: FileMaker Archaeology Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-15 18:32 +0000
                  Re: FileMaker Archaeology nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-15 16:32 -0500
                    Re: FileMaker Archaeology dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-12-16 11:07 +1300
                      Re: FileMaker Archaeology nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-15 17:14 -0500
                        Re: FileMaker Archaeology Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2015-12-16 08:09 +0000
                          Re: FileMaker Archaeology Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-12-17 13:59 +1300
                            Re: FileMaker Archaeology Martin Τrautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> - 2015-12-17 02:51 +0000
                      Re: FileMaker Archaeology Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-16 13:30 +0000
                  Re: FileMaker Archaeology Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-12-15 13:35 -0800
                    Re: FileMaker Archaeology Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-12-16 13:05 +1300
          Re: FileMaker Archaeology dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-12-15 17:52 +1300
            Re: FileMaker Archaeology dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-12-15 18:48 +1300
          Re: FileMaker Archaeology Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-12-14 21:49 -0800
    Re: FileMaker Archaeology Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2015-12-15 13:18 -0500
    Re: FileMaker Archaeology Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-15 11:38 -0800
      Re: FileMaker Archaeology Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-12-16 13:14 +1300
        Re: FileMaker Archaeology Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2015-12-16 06:20 +0100
          Re: FileMaker Archaeology Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-12-16 19:20 +1300
      Re: FileMaker Archaeology Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2015-12-16 07:48 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#223 — FileMaker Archaeology

I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
traffic than this one (if possible).

I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find 
I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older 
databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the older 
databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca 2009).

Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be 
opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to 
run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to 
at least OS 8.5.

Better, is there some freeware somewhere which can open these things?

I have the same problem with Word and Excel documents, but that's 
another newsgroup :)

What good is digitizing all your data if the technology to read it 
disappears?  I should have used papyrus.

-- 
Nelson

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#224

On 2015-12-14, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
> traffic than this one (if possible).
>
> I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find 
> I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older 
> databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the older 
> databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca 2009).
>
> Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be 
> opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to 
> run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to 
> at least OS 8.5.
>
> Better, is there some freeware somewhere which can open these things?
>
> I have the same problem with Word and Excel documents, but that's 
> another newsgroup :)
>
> What good is digitizing all your data if the technology to read it 
> disappears?  I should have used papyrus.

You might try running the older versions of FileMaker in a VM or
emulator...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#225

> On 2015-12-14, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
> > traffic than this one (if possible).
> >
> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find 
> > I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older 
> > databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the older 
> > databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca 2009).
> >
> > Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be 
> > opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to 
> > run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to 
> > at least OS 8.5.
> >
> > Better, is there some freeware somewhere which can open these things?
> >
> > I have the same problem with Word and Excel documents, but that's 
> > another newsgroup :)

You could try Open Office or Libre Office for legacy MS Office files...
> >
> > What good is digitizing all your data if the technology to read it 
> > disappears?  I should have used papyrus.
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227

Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-12-14, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less
>> traffic than this one (if possible).
>>
>> I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find
>> I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older
>> databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the older
>> databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca 2009).
>>
>> Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be
>> opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to
>> run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to
>> at least OS 8.5.
>>
>> Better, is there some freeware somewhere which can open these things?
>>
>> I have the same problem with Word and Excel documents, but that's
>> another newsgroup :)
>>
>> What good is digitizing all your data if the technology to read it
>> disappears?  I should have used papyrus.
>
> You might try running the older versions of FileMaker in a VM or
> emulator...

If I recall right the backward compatibility for opening / converting is 
as this.
- FM/FMP pre v.2.0v3 kan be opened in FMP 2.x, 3.x and 4.x
- FMP 2.1.x can be opened in FMP 3.x, 4.x and 4.5.x
- FMP 3.x and 4.x can be opened in FMP 4.x, 5.x and 5.5.x
- FMP 4.x and 5.x can be opened in FMP 5.x and 6.x
- FMP 5.x and 5.5.x can be opened in FMP 5.5.x and 6.x
- FMP 6.x and 7.x can be opened in FMP 7.x, 8.x and 9.x
- FMP 7.x can be opened in any newer version including latest version.

If there aren't too many relations and cross-references versions from 
0.9 to 6.x can be opended in BBedit Lite 6.1.3 Classic or OS X version. 
Unfortunately BBedit Lite 6.1.3 stopped working with the arrival of OS X 
10.5.x.

All FM/FMP databases can be opened as text-only in the full BBedit to be 
saved either as 'Tab-Deliminated-Text' (= Tab Separarated Text) or 
'Plain Text'.

NOTE. All relations and cross-references will be saved as 'text-only 
paragraphs' in text documents.
NOTE2. If a database is password protected hte password is stripped out 
by default. This /may/ give some problems since a FMP password is 
'hidden' somewhere inside the database to avoid hacking. This means that 
the password is a part of a text-line, a date & time stamp, the code for 
a frame etc..

Also MacLinkPlus 15.x OS X ver. can convert many FM/FMP databases to ' 
Tab-Deliminated-Text' or 'Plain Text'. But here I'm not sure which FMP 
versions are supported newer than v.6.x.x.

Cheers, Erik Richard

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen <mac-daneRE@MOVEstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
Openoffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#228

ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > On 2015-12-14, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less
> >> traffic than this one (if possible).
> >>
> >> I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find
> >> I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older
> >> databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the older
> >> databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca 2009).
> >>
> >> Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be
> >> opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to
> >> run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to
> >> at least OS 8.5.
> >>
> >> Better, is there some freeware somewhere which can open these things?
> >>
> >> I have the same problem with Word and Excel documents, but that's
> >> another newsgroup :)
> >>
> >> What good is digitizing all your data if the technology to read it
> >> disappears?  I should have used papyrus.
> >
> > You might try running the older versions of FileMaker in a VM or
> > emulator...
> 
> If I recall right the backward compatibility for opening / converting is
> as this.

Rather loose, and obscuring details about file format changes.

> - FM/FMP pre v.2.0v3 kan be opened in FMP 2.x, 3.x and 4.x
> - FMP 2.1.x can be opened in FMP 3.x, 4.x and 4.5.x
> - FMP 3.x and 4.x can be opened in FMP 4.x, 5.x and 5.5.x
> - FMP 4.x and 5.x can be opened in FMP 5.x and 6.x
> - FMP 5.x and 5.5.x can be opened in FMP 5.5.x and 6.x
> - FMP 6.x and 7.x can be opened in FMP 7.x, 8.x and 9.x
> - FMP 7.x can be opened in any newer version including latest version.

I have no direct experience with versions prior to FileMaker Pro 3, but
based on evidence of what later versions will convert, FileMaker Pro 2
and 3 had different file formats.

FileMaker II, Pro 1 and Pro 2 files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 3
through 6 (according to FileMaker Inc., and the manual for Pro 6
mentions Pro 1 and 2 as import options).

FileMaker Pro 3 and 4 have the same file format (.fp3 is the recommended
extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 5 through 11.

FileMaker Pro 5 and 6 have the same file format (.fp5 is the recommended
extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 7 through 11.

FileMaker Pro 7 through 11 have the same file format (.fp7 is the
standard extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 12 or
later.

FileMaker Pro 12 and later (up to 14 so far) have the same file format
(.fmp12 is the standard extension).

Within each file format, the individual versions added features, and
those features don't work in earlier versions. As a rule of thumb, if
you avoid new features, databases saved by newer versions within the
same group can still be used with older versions within the same group,
but it is recommended that you don't use older versions once a database
has been used with a newer version.

> If there aren't too many relations and cross-references versions from
> 0.9 to 6.x can be opended in BBedit Lite 6.1.3 Classic or OS X version.
> Unfortunately BBedit Lite 6.1.3 stopped working with the arrival of OS X
> 10.5.x.
> 
> All FM/FMP databases can be opened as text-only in the full BBedit to be
> saved either as 'Tab-Deliminated-Text' (= Tab Separarated Text) or 
> 'Plain Text'.

Only in your alternate universe. FileMaker Pro databases are not text
files. Text in fields inside the database might extractable by loading
them into a plain text editor like BBEdit, but the files contain a lot
of binary structure which can't easily be cleaned out by a text editor.

(Yes, I checked, using simple single file/table databases in .fp3, .fp5
and .fp7 format.)

> NOTE. All relations and cross-references will be saved as 'text-only 
> paragraphs' in text documents.
> NOTE2. If a database is password protected hte password is stripped out
> by default. This /may/ give some problems since a FMP password is 
> 'hidden' somewhere inside the database to avoid hacking. This means that
> the password is a part of a text-line, a date & time stamp, the code for
> a frame etc..
> 
> Also MacLinkPlus 15.x OS X ver. can convert many FM/FMP databases to '
> Tab-Deliminated-Text' or 'Plain Text'. But here I'm not sure which FMP
> versions are supported newer than v.6.x.x.

I can't verify that as I don't have version 15, but versions 13 and 16
don't mention FileMaker Pro as a supported file format, so it seems
likely that this claim about version 15 is also wrong.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#231

David Empson wrote:
> FileMaker II, Pro 1 and Pro 2 files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 3
> through 6 (according to FileMaker Inc., and the manual for Pro 6
> mentions Pro 1 and 2 as import options).
>
> FileMaker Pro 3 and 4 have the same file format (.fp3 is the recommended
> extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 5 through 11.
>
> FileMaker Pro 5 and 6 have the same file format (.fp5 is the recommended
> extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 7 through 11.
>
> FileMaker Pro 7 through 11 have the same file format (.fp7 is the
> standard extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 12 or
> later.
>
> FileMaker Pro 12 and later (up to 14 so far) have the same file format
> (.fmp12 is the standard extension).
>
> Within each file format, the individual versions added features, and
> those features don't work in earlier versions. As a rule of thumb, if
> you avoid new features, databases saved by newer versions within the
> same group can still be used with older versions within the same group,
> but it is recommended that you don't use older versions once a database
> has been used with a newer version.

If it is as you write it isn't the first time that the FMSupport isn't 
quite right. I've too many times had to contact our local FMSupport to 
get some help and/or clearifications to their websites.

And I find it very strange that I haven't been able to open and convert 
elseway than using various apps as I write it. I have been using 
Filemaker from FM II and FMP 2.0 and up to ver. 11.x which is my latest.

>> All FM/FMP databases can be opened as text-only in the full BBedit to be
>> saved either as 'Tab-Deliminated-Text' (= Tab Separarated Text) or
>> 'Plain Text'.
>
> Only in your alternate universe. FileMaker Pro databases are not text
> files. Text in fields inside the database might extractable by loading
> them into a plain text editor like BBEdit, but the files contain a lot
> of binary structure which can't easily be cleaned out by a text editor.
>
> (Yes, I checked, using simple single file/table databases in .fp3, .fp5
> and .fp7 format.)

I didnot mention anything about retaining /any/ kind of formattings. But 
you're right it takes quite a lot of time to strip out formatting codes 
etc..

>> Also MacLinkPlus 15.x OS X ver. can convert many FM/FMP databases to '
>> Tab-Deliminated-Text' or 'Plain Text'. But here I'm not sure which FMP
>> versions are supported newer than v.6.x.x.
>
> I can't verify that as I don't have version 15, but versions 13 and 16
> don't mention FileMaker Pro as a supported file format, so it seems
> likely that this claim about version 15 is also wrong.

I can only tell that I used MLP 15 to open a +600mb hudge database and 
could see and copy content, but not /convert/ to a usable database 
format. So I gave up and opened it instead in BBedit and copued the 
parts that the owner needed here and now... It was vital data which a 
doctor needed for a surgery. - He got the data for the case and was 
satisfied.

Cheers, Erik Richard

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen <mac-daneRE@MOVEstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
Openoffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#232

ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> wrote:

> David Empson wrote:
> > FileMaker II, Pro 1 and Pro 2 files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 3
> > through 6 (according to FileMaker Inc., and the manual for Pro 6
> > mentions Pro 1 and 2 as import options).
> >
> > FileMaker Pro 3 and 4 have the same file format (.fp3 is the recommended
> > extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 5 through 11.
> >
> > FileMaker Pro 5 and 6 have the same file format (.fp5 is the recommended
> > extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 7 through 11.
> >
> > FileMaker Pro 7 through 11 have the same file format (.fp7 is the
> > standard extension). These files can be converted by FileMaker Pro 12 or
> > later.
> >
> > FileMaker Pro 12 and later (up to 14 so far) have the same file format
> > (.fmp12 is the standard extension).
> >
> > Within each file format, the individual versions added features, and
> > those features don't work in earlier versions. As a rule of thumb, if
> > you avoid new features, databases saved by newer versions within the
> > same group can still be used with older versions within the same group,
> > but it is recommended that you don't use older versions once a database
> > has been used with a newer version.
> 
> If it is as you write it isn't the first time that the FMSupport isn't
> quite right. 

I can't confirm FileMaker Inc.'s claims about FileMaker II and FileMaker
Pro 1.0 files as I've never encountered them. I have converted FileMaker
Pro 2.0 files using FileMaker Pro 6.0, which disagrees with your list
but matches what FileMaker Inc. says, so I'm inclined to believe them.

Everything after that is based on personal experience (backed by
documentation), as I've used almost every version from Pro 3 to Pro 14
(I don't think I've used 4.1, and skipped 8.0 and 8.5 for personal use
but have used them elsewhere).

> I've too many times had to contact our local FMSupport to 
> get some help and/or clearifications to their websites.
> 
> And I find it very strange that I haven't been able to open and convert
> elseway than using various apps as I write it. I have been using 
> Filemaker from FM II and FMP 2.0 and up to ver. 11.x which is my latest.

I have used version 11 to convert files from versions 3/4 and 5/6. Works
just as well as when I did the same conversions back in version 7.

> >> All FM/FMP databases can be opened as text-only in the full BBedit to be
> >> saved either as 'Tab-Deliminated-Text' (= Tab Separarated Text) or
> >> 'Plain Text'.
> >
> > Only in your alternate universe. FileMaker Pro databases are not text
> > files. Text in fields inside the database might extractable by loading
> > them into a plain text editor like BBEdit, but the files contain a lot
> > of binary structure which can't easily be cleaned out by a text editor.
> >
> > (Yes, I checked, using simple single file/table databases in .fp3, .fp5
> > and .fp7 format.)
> 
> I didnot mention anything about retaining /any/ kind of formattings. But
> you're right it takes quite a lot of time to strip out formatting codes
> etc..

I wasn't talking about formatted text in the database (which would be
even harder to deal with).

Using a text editor to extract data from a FileMaker database is
completely impractical.

For version 3 and 5 files: text in fields overlaps parts of older
versions of the field, making it hard to identify where the latest
version ends. Number and date fields are not stored in text form - they
would require converting the binary representation.

Version 7 files contain nothing identifiable as text from the database
content. Nothing useful can be copied out with a text editor. (The only
text I could find was XML containing printer setings.)

> >> Also MacLinkPlus 15.x OS X ver. can convert many FM/FMP databases to '
> >> Tab-Deliminated-Text' or 'Plain Text'. But here I'm not sure which FMP
> >> versions are supported newer than v.6.x.x.
> >
> > I can't verify that as I don't have version 15, but versions 13 and 16
> > don't mention FileMaker Pro as a supported file format, so it seems
> > likely that this claim about version 15 is also wrong.
> 
> I can only tell that I used MLP 15 to open a +600mb hudge database and
> could see and copy content, but not /convert/ to a usable database 
> format. So I gave up and opened it instead in BBedit and copued the 
> parts that the owner needed here and now... It was vital data which a
> doctor needed for a surgery. - He got the data for the case and was 
> satisfied.

I tried opening simple FileMaker Pro 5-6 and 7-11 databases in MLP 16.
It recognised that the file was a FileMaker Pro database but would not
let me translate it, nor do anything with it other than open a window
with a line or two of text which had nothing to do with the database
content (one was a FileMaker copyright message).

I don't know what you did, but I highly doubt you translated a FileMaker
Pro database using MLP 15. You might have exported a database from
FileMaker Pro in a different file format, then translated the resulting
output file into a different format using MLP.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226

On 2015-12-14 14:00, Nelson wrote:
>
> I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.  I now find 
> I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of those older 
> databases. 


I went through a similar exercise, trying to convert I think it was
Cricketraw or other old Apple stuff to postscript of something usable.

Basically: install Sheepshaver to run MacOS in emulation.

Then hunt the internet for binaries of the application you miss.

You are likely to get a .SIT or other archive format. It may or may not
be a issue to move the .SIT to the MacOS drive because the file you have
saved on OS-X disk does not have the tradictional MacOS resources, you
may need to add them manually with res-edit.

You then install and run the old version, extract your data to usable
format. (Sheepshaver allows the MacOS to access the "Unix disk" as a
local disk, and you map that disk to a directory on your OS-X disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229

In message <0001HW.D2947BF80002EDACB01029BF@news.astraweb.com> 
  Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
> traffic than this one (if possible).

> I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.

Claris did not buy Filemaker.

> I now find I'd like to go back and retrieve data stored in some of
> those older databases.  My current version (12) refuses to open the
> older databases, even, to my mind, some relatively recent ones (ca
> 2009).

Have you contacted Filemaker, Inc?

> Is anyone aware of a table showing which database versions can be 
> opened by which FileMaker versions and which Mac OS's are required to 
> run those versions?  I know I am probably going to have to go back to 
> at least OS 8.5.

Mac OS 8.5 is 20 years old.

-- 
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice 'You must be' said the Cat 'or you
wouldn't have come here.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#230

In article <slrnn6up4p.jp5.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
> > traffic than this one (if possible).
> 
> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> 
> Claris did not buy Filemaker.

yes they did, from nashoba systems

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#233

In message <141220152005056968%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn6up4p.jp5.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
>> > traffic than this one (if possible).
>> 
>> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
>> 
>> Claris did not buy Filemaker.

> yes they did, from nashoba systems

You are grossly misinformed.

-- 
This is our music from the bachelor's den, the sound of loneliness
turned up to ten. A harsh soundtrack from a stagnant waterbed and it
sounds just like this. This is the sound of someone losing the plot
making out that they're OK when they're not. You're gonna like it, but
not a lot. And the chorus goes like this...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234

In article <slrnn6v5i6.mlq.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
> >> > traffic than this one (if possible).
> >> 
> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> >> 
> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
> 
> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
> 
> You are grossly misinformed.

you're grossly ignorant.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
  In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly
  released a rebranded version called FileMaker II. In the meantime,
  development began on major overhauls of their entire product line,
  including FileMaker. Each of these would be eventually released as
  part of the Pro series of products.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238

In message <141220152345582156%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn6v5i6.mlq.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even less 
>> >> > traffic than this one (if possible).
>> >> 
>> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
>> >> 
>> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
>> 
>> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
>> 
>> You are grossly misinformed.

> you're grossly ignorant.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
>   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly

Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple.
Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.


-- 
'And I promise you this,' he [Carrot] shouted, 'if we succeed, no-one
will remember. And if we fail, no one will forget!'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#239

In article <slrnn70buu.o07.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even
> >> >> > less traffic than this one (if possible).
> >> >> 
> >> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
> >> 
> >> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
> >> 
> >> You are grossly misinformed.
> 
> > you're grossly ignorant.
> 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
> >   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly
> 
> Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple.
> Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.

nonsense, but even if that were true, filemaker was still bought.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241

In message <151220151059208787%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnn70buu.o07.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> >> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even
>> >> >> > less traffic than this one (if possible).
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
>> >> 
>> >> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
>> >> 
>> >> You are grossly misinformed.
>> 
>> > you're grossly ignorant.
>> 
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
>> >   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly
>> 
>> Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple.
>> Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.

> nonsense,

Not at all. In fact, the purchase of FileMaker and the spinning out of
Claris were nearly synchronous events. Without the purchase of FileMaker
Claris would never have been spunout because the whole reason for
creating Claris was to continue to sell FileMaker to PC users.

> but even if that were true, filemaker was still bought.

Not the point at all. But thanks for playing.


-- 
"It's unacceptable to think" - George W Bush 15/Sep/2006

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243

In article <slrnn70nar.qqg.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> >> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets even
> >> >> >> > less traffic than this one (if possible).
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
> >> >> 
> >> >> You are grossly misinformed.
> >> 
> >> > you're grossly ignorant.
> >> 
> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
> >> >   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly
> >> 
> >> Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple.
> >> Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.
> 
> > nonsense,
> 
> Not at all.

it is nonsense. claris was independently managed and they can (and did)
buy several products, filemaker being one of them. 

> In fact, the purchase of FileMaker and the spinning out of
> Claris were nearly synchronous events. Without the purchase of FileMaker
> Claris would never have been spunout because the whole reason for
> creating Claris was to continue to sell FileMaker to PC users.

more revisionist history.

> > but even if that were true, filemaker was still bought.
> 
> Not the point at all. But thanks for playing.

it was the point.

even if apple told claris to buy filemaker (which they didn't but let's
assume they did), filemaker was purchased and the original poster *did*
own it before claris had it, as did many people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <slrnn70nar.qqg.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > >> >> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets
> > >> >> >> > even less traffic than this one (if possible).
> > >> >> >> 
> > >> >> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> > >> >> >> 
> > >> >> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> You are grossly misinformed.
> > >> 
> > >> > you're grossly ignorant.
> > >> 
> > >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
> > >> >   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and quickly
> > >> 
> > >> Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple.
> > >> Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.
> > 
> > > nonsense,
> > 
> > Not at all.
> 
> it is nonsense. claris was independently managed and they can (and did)
> buy several products, filemaker being one of them. 

AppleWorks GS is another which comes to mind (from personal experience,
it happened the year after I got my Apple IIgs). It was previously being
developed by a different company as "GSWorks". Wikipedia reminds me that
the original developer was StyleWare. That was in 1988, the same year
that FileMaker was acquired by Claris and re-released as FileMaker II.

> > In fact, the purchase of FileMaker and the spinning out of
> > Claris were nearly synchronous events. Without the purchase of FileMaker
> > Claris would never have been spunout because the whole reason for
> > creating Claris was to continue to sell FileMaker to PC users.
> 
> more revisionist history.

"Continue" to sell FileMaker to PC users? Claris _introduced_ FileMaker
to Windows, with FileMaker Pro 2.0 in 1992, four years and two versions
after Claris acquired FileMaker. All earlier versions using the
"FileMaker" name (including those written by Nashoba Systems) were Mac
only.

Judging from documentation I've found, this resulted in oddities such as
later versions of FileMaker Pro on Windows only supporting conversion of
FileMaker Pro 2.0 and newer documents (since there were no earlier
versions to support), while later versions of FileMaker Pro on the Mac
also supported converting FileMaker Pro 1.0 documents (and presumably
FileMaker II documents).

> > > but even if that were true, filemaker was still bought.
> > 
> > Not the point at all. But thanks for playing.
> 
> it was the point.
> 
> even if apple told claris to buy filemaker (which they didn't but let's
> assume they did), filemaker was purchased and the original poster *did*
> own it before claris had it, as did many people.


-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#246

In article <1mfir0f.jy70yt1o7i87jN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> > > >> >> >> > I posted this in comp.databases.filemaker but that group gets
> > > >> >> >> > even less traffic than this one (if possible).
> > > >> >> >> 
> > > >> >> >> > I have been using FieMaker since before Claris bought it.
> > > >> >> >> 
> > > >> >> >> Claris did not buy Filemaker.
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >> > yes they did, from nashoba systems
> > > >> >> 
> > > >> >> You are grossly misinformed.
> > > >> 
> > > >> > you're grossly ignorant.
> > > >> 
> > > >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claris#Creation>
> > > >> >   In 1988, Claris purchased FileMaker from Nashoba Systems and
> > > >> >   quickly
> > > >> 
> > > >> Claris could not buy anything, being a wholly owned subsidiary of
> > > >> Apple.
> > > >> Apple bought FileMaker and assigned it to Claris.
> > > 
> > > > nonsense,
> > > 
> > > Not at all.
> > 
> > it is nonsense. claris was independently managed and they can (and did)
> > buy several products, filemaker being one of them. 
> 
> AppleWorks GS is another which comes to mind (from personal experience,
> it happened the year after I got my Apple IIgs). It was previously being
> developed by a different company as "GSWorks". Wikipedia reminds me that
> the original developer was StyleWare. That was in 1988, the same year
> that FileMaker was acquired by Claris and re-released as FileMaker II.

yep.

<http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/bob/clarisworks.php>
  Meanwhile, Apple had formed a software subsidiary, named Claris, to
  develop and market application software. Initially Claris sold
  MacWrite, MacPaint, and MacDraw, for the Macintosh, and AppleWorks,
  for the Apple II. (The original plan was that Claris would become
  completely independent from Apple someday, and go public. But that
  never happened.)
  Naturally Claris was interested in this forthcoming AppleWorks-like
  program for the IIGS. In 1988, Claris bought StyleWare, moved the
  development team to its offices in Santa Clara, and rechristened
  GSWorks as AppleWorks GS. (I was already living in the SF bay area by
  then: I'd moved out in 1987 to be with my fiancé, Liz Harding, who
  was in grad school at Berkeley.)

> > > In fact, the purchase of FileMaker and the spinning out of
> > > Claris were nearly synchronous events. Without the purchase of FileMaker
> > > Claris would never have been spunout because the whole reason for
> > > creating Claris was to continue to sell FileMaker to PC users.
> > 
> > more revisionist history.
> 
> "Continue" to sell FileMaker to PC users? Claris _introduced_ FileMaker
> to Windows, with FileMaker Pro 2.0 in 1992, four years and two versions
> after Claris acquired FileMaker. All earlier versions using the
> "FileMaker" name (including those written by Nashoba Systems) were Mac
> only.

yep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#251

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:14:54 -0500, nospam wrote:
>  <http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/bob/clarisworks.php>
>    Meanwhile, Apple had formed a software subsidiary, named Claris, to
>    develop and market application software. Initially Claris sold
>    MacWrite, MacPaint, and MacDraw, for the Macintosh, and AppleWorks,

offtopic, but MacDraw was such an excellent application. I am so sorry
that there has been that little progress in improving drawing
applications since - especially looking at the lack of proper drawing
capabilites within MS Word, Libe/Openoffice etc.

The proper concepts of aligning, grouping, moving were just so natural
and obvious to use. And copy/paste to other documents, or scaling where
excellent that time. I even could take a ruler on the screen of my
Mac Classic, up to the Powerbook 190 (which I liked more than the
5something), in order to measure and position anything.

Same was true that time for FMP.

Is there anything as good by current standards, as MacDraw was that
time? I'd vote for Sketchup - which is a perfectly different, but
excellent to use 3D app. But I don't know any for Mac (knowing not much
more than e.g. Intaglio, just wondering why 2.9.4 still works with
10.10, but 3.1 doesn't).

FMP evolved a lot since, too. The concept of relations was one of the
most significant real improvements. But whatever came since was useful
many times, but not such a major thing as I feel since my experience of
FileMaker II and its great usefulness.
For my daily data work I still expect most a proper spreadsheet like
operation for multi cell copy/paste and a (scriptable?) option to toggle
instant resort, which is somehow useful, but on data massage a
pain-in-the-ass many times.

I don't like the direction FMP is moving towards nowadays. It still
lacks major drawing capabilites (now speaking of MacDraw again?), of
more powerful chart functions - or a proper data input handling, with
full tracking which field was entered when from what to what, offering
the option to undo certain of the modifications. 

The "replace" operation is one of the most powerful options, but
it's still one of the most dangerous things, too, to lose your data. And
the replace operation still lacks a kind of history management, as e.g.
TextWrangler does for search/replace

- Martin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#254

In article <slrnn72727.3kn.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>, Martin
?rautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 17:14:54 -0500, nospam wrote:
> >  <http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/bob/clarisworks.php>
> >    Meanwhile, Apple had formed a software subsidiary, named Claris, to
> >    develop and market application software. Initially Claris sold
> >    MacWrite, MacPaint, and MacDraw, for the Macintosh, and AppleWorks,
> 
> offtopic, but MacDraw was such an excellent application. I am so sorry
> that there has been that little progress in improving drawing
> applications since - especially looking at the lack of proper drawing
> capabilites within MS Word, Libe/Openoffice etc.
> 
> The proper concepts of aligning, grouping, moving were just so natural
> and obvious to use. And copy/paste to other documents, or scaling where
> excellent that time. I even could take a ruler on the screen of my
> Mac Classic, up to the Powerbook 190 (which I liked more than the
> 5something), in order to measure and position anything.
> 
> Same was true that time for FMP.
> 
> Is there anything as good by current standards, as MacDraw was that
> time? I'd vote for Sketchup - which is a perfectly different, but
> excellent to use 3D app. But I don't know any for Mac (knowing not much
> more than e.g. Intaglio, just wondering why 2.9.4 still works with
> 10.10, but 3.1 doesn't).
<snip>

Not quite the same as the excellent MacDraw / ClarisDraw (which I still
use from time to time), but there is possibly EazyDraw, OmniGraffle,
MacDraft, Intaglio as you mentioned, Adobe Illustrator, Inkscape, plus
a few CAD applications and "room design" apps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.databases

csiph-web