Filemaker vs. Access

[John B]

Is Filemaker better than Access? I have been using Access since Access97 and
find it quite easy to understand and can pretty much do anything with it.

Has anyone used both? Comments please.

JB

 

[Josh O.]

All depends on what you are doing with it.

My personal opinion: FileMaker is easier for some things. Access does has
some powerful features that are missing in FileMaker. At the same time, a
lot of users don't need the extra features.

FileMaker can be frustrating at times, just because of terminology
difference, if you are going from Access to FileMaker. But once you are used
to one or the other, it is hard to compare which is "better". It is mostly
preference and needs.

 

[John W. Vinson]

Is Filemaker better than Access? I have been using Access since Access97 and
find it quite easy to understand and can pretty much do anything with it.

Has anyone used both? Comments please.

JB

Is a Toyota sedan better than a Chevrolet minivan? Sort of depends on what you
want to do with it.

In my experience - extensive with Access, limited but nonzero with FMP -
Filemaker is less relational than Access; perhaps somewhat easier to use for
simple applications; much harder to use for flexible queries; requires a bit
more programming to do anything sophisticated. They're both capable programs,
but I do prefer Access. I certainly wouldn't switch just to be switching.

John W. Vinson [MVP]

 

[rox]

I have exactly 2 weeks experience (the last 2 weeks) and about 8 years
experience with Access.

FM apparently requires you to flatten your data before you can build a
report out of it. So you have to create tables and fields to hold lots of
data that you're already holding in other fields, in other tables in order
to get all the right bits lined up to feed your report. To me that's a
recipe for bad data.

It does let inexperienced users set up semi-impressive looking stuff really
quickly. Is that your priority?

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B:

Has anyone used both? Comments please.

My FM experience is with an older version.

My Access experience is with v11.

Also, it's concept of tables is very different. I don't even
know if it's possible to ODBC or ADO to an FM DB's tables they're
so different.

Bottom line for me:
--------------------------------------------------------------
- FM may be easier to develop a simple quick-n-dirty app in

- FM can be deployed across both Windows and MacIntosh
machines concurrently and transparently. This is
*really* slick if somebody needs/uses it.

- Going back into an FM app after I've forgotten the details
of how it works (with the stipulation that I normally
can't recall what I had for breakfast... and I check my
tooth brush to see if it's already wet....) can be
quite difficult compared to MS Access where things can
be spelled out via object naming conventions and VBA code.

- Last time I checked, FM's tables couldn't be linked to via
ODBC or ADO'd to.

- Given a choice and no requirement for Mac/Windows
deployment, I'd take MS Access hands down.

 

[XL Programmer]

All depends on what you are doing with it.

My personal opinion: FileMaker is easier for some things. Access does has
some powerful features that are missing in FileMaker. At the same time, a
lot of users don't need the extra features.

FileMaker can be frustrating at times, just because of terminology
difference, if you are going from Access to FileMaker. But once you are used
to one or the other, it is hard to compare which is "better". It is mostly
preference and needs.

FM doesn't have separation of tables and interface, because of that
you have Table Occurances and the Relationship Graph. Which is almost
the same thing but it really isn't that simple any more. They also
now have custom functions and variables which is an improvment but
adds complexity. You don't have a programming language only scripting
language. You can do alot with it but you have to learn how. There
is no Or search but there is another way to do it. With version 9 you
can connect directly to SQL Served tables. You can't do updating
directly on the Server but you can query them as I understand 9 which
I haven't used. You could update it directly but there is no record
locking on the SQL Served table side. There might be a work around.
There isn't ADO but that is a microsoft thing I think or a VBA thing,
but I guess that is true I'm not sure you can't write a script to
access the tables using ADO???

 

[XL Programmer]

All depends on what you are doing with it.

My personal opinion: FileMaker is easier for some things. Access does has
some powerful features that are missing in FileMaker. At the same time, a
lot of users don't need the extra features.

FileMaker can be frustrating at times, just because of terminology
difference, if you are going from Access to FileMaker. But once you are used
to one or the other, it is hard to compare which is "better". It is mostly
preference and needs.

There is no T-SQL but the Table Occurences are similar to views.

 

[John B]

Thanks to all the advice!

I get the jist of it. Toyota vs. Chevy.

I am in an Mac Environment so Filemaker is idea but alternatively I can run
Access via VMware.

Will stick to MS Access for now. Filemaker is a little pricy for something
that appears to be on level terms with Access.

Based on the price I thought it was like Toyota (Access) vs. Lexus (Filemaker)

JB

 

[Josh O.]

Just a note on a couple of these posts. I have experience with both and
there are a lot of mis-conceptions about both. Both are good programs, but
the posts here seem skewed (probably because this is a Microsoft forum).
Most people here are obviously more comfortable with Access...that's why they
are here.

From XL Programmer:
"FM doesn't have separation of tables and interface"
This is possible and not to hard with 8.5 and higher (especially with 9.0).

"You don't have a programming language only scripting
language."
Very true. In an enterprise environment, this is a serious limitation.
Some creativity can get around it.

"With version 9 you
can connect directly to SQL Served tables. You can't do updating
directly on the Server but you can query them as I understand 9 which
I haven't used. You could update it directly but there is no record
locking on the SQL Served table side. There might be a work around.
There isn't ADO but that is a microsoft thing I think or a VBA thing,
but I guess that is true I'm not sure you can't write a script to
access the tables using ADO???"
You can update directly. The short-fall is in updating the FM view. You
need to force a Window refresh in a multi-user environment. The rest is more
of a difference in terminology. And most things have a work around.

From John W. Vinson:
"In my experience - extensive with Access, limited but nonzero with FMP -
Filemaker is less relational than Access"
Less relational? Not in recent versions. Some of the relationship stuff
works slightly different, just because of the way the program works. Not
really a flaw as it is design.

From rox:
"FM apparently requires you to flatten your data before you can build a
report out of it."
Never had a problem with this. It's possible that the 2 weeks of experience
isn't enough to get mastery over the process. The reports work a little
different than Access.

"So you have to create tables and fields to hold lots of
data that you're already holding in other fields"
While there are instances of this, I haven't run into a problem like this.

From (PeteCresswell):
"Also, it's concept of tables is very different. I don't even
know if it's possible to ODBC or ADO to an FM DB's tables they're
so different."
Table concept different, yes. Will most people notice, no. ODBC is
possible with with the newer versions (Pete mentions his experience is with
an older version). Although, note prior to FM 9.0, ODBC is limited to import
only (some SQL funcitonality, but difficult to use).

I like both Access and Filemaker. Access is definitely more robust, but has
limitations if you need a mac app. FileMaker is much easier to use with a
point/click interface. Both require a learning curve. But both can function
well even in complex solutions.

 

[John W. Vinson]

Just a note on a couple of these posts. I have experience with both and
there are a lot of mis-conceptions about both. Both are good programs, but
the posts here seem skewed (probably because this is a Microsoft forum).

Thanks a lot, Josh. My experience with FMP was some years back and there's
obviously been some improvements! I would certainly recommend FMP if someone
needs cross-platform (e.g. Windows and Mac) capability, and it sounds like I
ought to investigate the newer version.

And yes... I'm biased toward the familiar <g>

 

[Josh O.]

Thanks a lot, Josh. My experience with FMP was some years back and there's
obviously been some improvements! I would certainly recommend FMP if someone
needs cross-platform (e.g. Windows and Mac) capability, and it sounds like I
ought to investigate the newer version.

And yes... I'm biased toward the familiar <g>

Yeah. It's totally natural. FM definitely got better. Alot of it is also
knowing how to accomplish what you want. Although, sometimes it still seems
backwards. But I am also used to the way Access handles a lot of things, too.

I really like both programs. Pros and cons to both.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John W. Vinson:

I would certainly recommend FMP if someone
needs cross-platform (e.g. Windows and Mac) capability, and it sounds like I
ought to investigate the newer version.

My experience with FMP and cross-platform comparability (and LAN
issues in general) was absolutely *magic*.

If it can be messed up, Yours Truly will do it every time - and I
had no problems whatsoever. *Really* foolproof.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it seems to hearken back to the
old MacIntosh days.