Alpha vs FileMaker

[Jeannette Cook]

We have an enquiry as to what the differences are between Alpha Five and FileMaker are.

The client is currently using FM (or is familiar with it) and is contemplating a transition to Alpha, but wants to know how they "tally up" against each other.

From an Alpha Customer Service standpoint, I would love any and all responses -so that I may respond to this enquiry and others in the future.

Many thanks!

[Charlain]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Filemaker does not have field masks -- you have to program the formatting for fields containing SS#, Phone Numbers etc. every time.

Another problem I have with Filemaker, is that even if you set a field to capitalize first names, it will store the information exactly as you typed it -- rather than as you want to see it. This can cause problems when you print a statement, etc., and the customer's name prints out as "john Smith".

Hope this helps!

[French]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Initial file setup with Filemaker is easier for database beginners because there is no need to specify field lengths.

Filemaker may handle inclusion of graphics and multimedia more easily.

Building scripts may be a bit easier in Filemaker.

Filemaker offers repeating fields which have no parallel in Alpha. They were a way of simulating a one-to-many file structure before Filemaker became a relational database, and beginners typically find them easier to understand and use than a relational structure.

Filemaker works cross-platform on both Macs and PCs

Filemaker claims to import XML.

Filemaker allows you to publish a database to the web.

================

Having said all that, any serious project I've started with Filemaker, I've ultimately finished with Alpha Five. For a little more effort put into development, Alpha Five opens up a great deal more potential. Alpha has much greater flexibility in implementing lookups, a more powerful report writer, the ability to do more with scripts, and more control over more of what the program does.

This works for me because I don't need the features Filemaker offers that Alpha does not. I use a lot of features Alpha offers that Filemaker does not.

[Selwyn Rabins]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

it seems to me that a blanket statement like "building scripts in filemeaker is (or even may be) a bit easier than a5)" is somewhat meaningless without qualifying it by saying what you want the script to do.

for example, building a script in a5 to "advance to the next record" involves
1. drawing a button on the form.
2. at the next dialog that comes up, going to the "pre-defined actions" tab on the dialog and selecting "next record" from the list.
3. click ok.

you have just built a script that performs one action, but if you want, you can add more actions to it. that's easy. really couldn't be any easier.

but not really that useful as an answer.

what's useful in comparing products it to take "realworld" scenarios of what you might want your script to do, and then compare how you would do them in filemaker, and in a5.

of course, since filemaker does not have a full programming language underneat it, there are lots of things you might want to do, that you simply can not.

[French]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Selwyn,

I note no corresponding response to the following blanket statement that was also part of my earlier post:

"Alpha Five opens up a great deal more potential. Alpha has much greater flexibility in implementing lookups, a more powerful report writer, the ability to do more with scripts, and more control over more of what the program does"

Do we only object to certain blanket statements? ;-)

Let me clarify a bit. For folks who try to make the move from Filemaker, there are places where Alpha Five's wealth of features and options (another generalization, I know) may seem confusing. You simply don't find the variety of choices in Filemaker that you do in Alpha Five. How many different ways are there in Alpha Five to Query or filter or select records? How many different types of headers and footers does the report writer offer? How many types of lookups are possible with Alpha Five?

For most of these things (and others), there are not the same number of choices in Filemaker. Fewer decisions to make. Simpler. Easier. Less powerful.

If I didn't say it clearly enough earlier, for a LITTLE more time and effort invested, Alpha Five provides a LOT more functionality, power, and flexibility.

I have worked with Filemaker and Lotus Approach, dabbled with Access, and tried various other database products. Given a choice, I have never developed a major project using a database other than Alpha Four or Alpha Five (starting with Alpha Four version 2). I don't know of any other database products that give a user access to so much capability for the same amount of effort invested.

With some products, such as Filemaker, as easy as it may be to use, the power simply isn't available to tap. With others, such as Access, it takes a great deal more effort tap power that Alpha Five makes readily available.

[Selwyn Rabins]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

point well taken and well made. thanks.

[Steven Spencer]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Some comments on this discussion..

Jeanette and friends,

Although I am a minicomputer AS/400 programmer, we have a warehouse app in Filemaker already, I am choosing Alpha rather than building on the Filemaker for lots of the reasons mentioned (my alternative was mainly Clarion, which is more of a template-driven programming language.. it would also be nice to dabble in the Magic world, but that seems
to be even more high-end with a high leraning curve)
=======================================================

Paul's last letter was really the basic summary, but
I would like to go over some specifics..

Overall, if you have some database gestalt, and the advantages of Filemaker don't apply, use Alpha

=======================================================
DATA DESIGN

Filemaker (and I think Access), don't separate data from
programming design, this to me is a kindergarten-level
design blunder, although perhaps deliberate to keep things
proprietary, your date is "entrapped" and has to
be exported and imported to be used, moved or accessed
in any other way than the Filemaker programs, and this
complicates support when you change a design and the user
has changed the data...

=========================================================
UNMENTIONED

Cost and runtime usage (maybe edge to Filemaker)

Developer/Users Base
(slight edge to Filemaker, though this forum shows
Alpha moving along fine now...)

Focus of company (after a couple of years unfocused,
Alpha seems back to being far ahead to being a
developer's company than Filemaker, where
the developers are often second fiddle)

Speed
Neither is compiled, so both are below alternatives
like Clarion and Delphi and FoxPro...

Network/Multi-User - not sure, who is better on
things like record-locking..

=====================================================
MORE EMPHASIS, all for ALPHA

The Filemaker "portals" and "repeating fields" don't
have the versatility, clarity, power and function of the
Alpha "sets"

Filemaker has no programming language, just scripts..
If you are really building an app, ultimately you
really want some code level to tweak (and to develop
a "code base" to share among apps)
btw, Filemaker forums spend tons of times explaining
the "workarounds" to get around this and other
deficiencies... (aka kludges :-)

Transparency - Alpha does a better job of allowing
you to hide the "environment"

Functionality - there are probably tons of places
where Alpha leads.. handling of subfields and
nested lookups, tab interface, although a real
savvy person could share better on this..

=========================================================

Charlain mentioned Filemaker- Not masking fields --
... in all of these "field rules" issues Alpha is great...

Also for a seasoned product, Filemaker does some weird
things, you can define field as a maximum of 3 characters,
it still is defaulted to a large field, that annoyed me
no end in playing... that is like an beta 1.0 version :-)

======================================================
Filemaker ++'s per Paul (who alsways switches to Alpha)

Graphics, simple scripts, repeating fields, Mac/PC, XML,
Web..

The scripts were touched upon, the repeating fields
(Pick Operating System !) is a nice cheap way to handle
simple functions.. on the Web Alpha is trying to catch up..

btw, Alpha should just make the implementation of popups a
little simpler/clearer (they seemed easier in Alpha4 than
today, *so far*, to me) and then the repeating fields is a
non-issue workaround..

The only clear advantage of Filemaker is Mac's and an
earlier focus on the Web
---------------------------------------------------------

Overall, as Paul said, a little extra effort with Alpha,
will bring back a far greater return, and a far larger,
easier growth path ..
---------------------------------------------------------

[Selwyn Rabins]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

what a great response. thanks.

[George Pelkofer]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Jeannette:

I'm not a Filemaker user, but a good place to further your research would likely be the Filemaker web site.

A 30-day trial version is available:

http://www.filemaker.com/products/try_filemaker.html

Also, Filemaker has been reviewed in various trade publications. Most reviewers generally point out shortcomings (as perceived by the reviewer, anyway), as well as strong points.

The Filemaker site has a page of links to product reviews:

http://www.filemaker.com/news/product_reviews.html

The reviews may give you a basis from which to build a 'comparison matrix'.

My impression of Filemaker, as derived from a brief review of their web site, is that Filemaker wants to position itself as a (simple, one size fits all) solution for the (larger) corporate workgroup and departmental (i.e., non-I.T.) developer.

Depending on the background and/or needs of your client, this may be a positive, or a negative. Sometimes smaller is better - I seriously doubt that Filemaker users / developers have access to Selwyn's counterpart, nor do they have the quick responsiveness to enhancement requests, bug fixes, etc.

I am curious as to knowing what is driving your client to consider switching from Filemaker to Alpha.

Anyway, Good Luck. As Sun-Tzu said, Know thy enemy, know thyself...

[Raymond Lyons]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

>> The only clear advantage of Filemaker is Mac's...

[French]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Whether or not we believe Alpha Five is easier, it is clearly different from Filemaker.

People moving to Alpha Five from a different database environment (even Alpha Four) frequently have a period of adjustment during which they are heard to mutter things that don't sound like praises for Alpha Five. This transition period is usually not prolonged, and the same individuals often emerge as enthusiastic supporters of Alpha Five.

It seems that database products, far more than word processors or spreadsheets, each have their own vocabulary for various things, and while people can bounce from one word processor or spreadsheet to another and be at least moderately productive in a relatively short period of time, the same is often not true about database products.

At one time, I started constructing a table that cross-referenced the different terminology database products (Filemaker, Access, Approach, Alpha Five) used for similar features. What Alpha Five refers to as a browse on a form for viewing child records in a set, Filemaker refers to as a portal for viewing related records in a relationship. What Alpha Five refers to as a query, Filemaker calls a find request.

Just the differences in vocabulary alone are enough to put off those trying to move from one database product to another, but there are other differences as well. Filemaker is closer to Lotus Approach in terms of overall user experience, while Alpha Five looks more like Access (although far more functionality is available to non-programmers). There is a period of adjustment when moving from one style of program operation to another.

I guess the point of this (if there is one) is that I think it better to tell potential converts that there are differences, that there is a learning curve (especially if they're familiar with how another database program operates), and that if they work through it, it's well worth the effort.

It might also be useful (as if the documentation folks aren't busy enough) to put together a brief guide explaining the differences in how to do the basics of building a database by explaining that while Filemaker does it this way and calls it a certain name, Alpha Five does it the other way and calls it the other name.

[forskare]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

To followup on Paul's comments, I used Access before using the windows version of Alpha 5. It seemed pretty straightforward and I had no problems with the learning curve.

When I began learning A5v4, there was a considerable amount of frustration in several areas until one day, I decided that I had to STOP thinking of how I did it in Access and concentrate on how to do it in A5. That was a major hurdle and now, Access, while still used, is a thing of the past.

I presume this is the same style of learning curve from Filemaker (or any other database)to A5.

The secret to a smoother transition: Forget the other database, block it out and concentrate on how A5 does it.

kenn

[Mark Appleby]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Many thanks for all the replys concerning Alpha 5. It is much appreciated. I am thinking of moving over to alpha 5 for a number of reasons.

Filemaker does have an ODBC problem which is very frustrating it is limited ODBC. It only works one way with Excel for instance. I am running a database that is using a large ammount of images. This is a problem for Filemaker, as you can not script in the link up of an image. You must put each one into the database in a PICT format it is like storing .bmp files within your database. This uses vast ammounts of space. It is possible to link images but not to automate it.

If you want to store several thousand you start to approace the 2gb limit that exists within it also.

What must be said for it is that it is a very easy database to use, and to create. Even if it has it's limitations.

There are workarounds to most problems. But you often have to purchase plug-ins and these can be more difficult to set up.

Regarding Alpha 5 I have until now found it a little frustrating as the help sections at the moment are not up to the mark in my opinion. And it is a valid one as it has not helped me learn the product. I have though just bought Susan Bush's new book so I hope that I will be more in the know in the next short while.


I expect you will see a lot more questions on the message board.

Mark

[forskare]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Mark,

Perhaps this will help some.

The quickest way to learn Alpha is to NOT try to do it in Alpha the way you did it in Filemaker. That was my problem as well and as soon as I forgot about doing it the way Access did it and focused or zoned in on A5, the lower my frustration level dropped and the shorter the learning curve.

kenn

[Mark Appleby]

RE: Alpha vs FileMaker

Kenn

Have you any suggestions on how to learn Alpha 5 fast?

I have started susan bushes book on version 5, but I live in Ireland and there would not be many courses over here.

Filemaker has a good facility for learning it with cds from MacAcademy. I would call these the best method I have ever had for fast tracking the learning experience, they are clear and concise, a real bonus to Filemaker.

Mark