Yes, I've seen FileMaker's official statement, which I consider a cop out, designed to get people to upgrade. I found some encouraging reports here: http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/elcapitan/index.html
I've used FM12 for some testing with a Beta Version of El Capitan. I had no issues.
Yes FileMaker's intention is to get you upgrade. Why shouldn't they. Why should they ensure previous versions are compatible with El Capitan?
Support has already ended for FM11.
Their official statement doesn't say you can't upgrade.
As someone once suggested to me .. if my FileMaker solution is so important, then I would be foolish not to test it in it's 'new' environment before going live with it. I never upgrade an OS or major application like FM without first testing it in it's pending environment.
And it's easier to do this testing than ever before.
And I do that even if the new software is compatible with the new OS system, or vice-versa.
It's just not worth the headache to find the issues once you've overcommitted. The onus is really on us.
Michael Holden schrieb:
Why should they ensure previous versions are compatible with El Capitan?
So far even their current versions of PRO, Advanced and Server aren´t declared "compatible" ...
So, why should one upgrade to FM 14?
As to my experiences FM 13 works fine with El Capitan. Checked for the problems FM14 has "officially" and couldn´t replicate one of these issues in 13.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Responding to my own question. I've been using FileMaker Pro 12 w/o any issues ever since El Capitan was released. However, this is only for a relatively simple database I use for a non-profit. I don't use it with a server.
But . . . why not upgrade to 14? Especially if you're concerned about issues between El Capitan and 12? I suppose one reason could be the dough involved and I can't fault you for that if it's a concern. FM upgrades are quite expensive.
Exactly, plus there are no compelling features in 14 that I need - yet.
A lot of us who have been in tech support a long time still swear by the saying:
The oldest software on your boot disk should be the operating system.
Upgrading is a cycle; when you upgrade the system, it's safe to assume much more must follow.
I deal with lots of potential clients that won't keep current on software, or worse, what they have is pirated. They rarely buy hardware until it crashes too, as well as other IT risky behaviors. This is fine if it is your personal home computer with mostly non-valuable information. I have also been hired by many of such companies and charged them many thousands of dollars to recover what little I could and heard them complain and gripe. Not my problem.
If you are running a business and data is important to you, then keeping software and hardware current is important for more than just features, it is important for security. By the way, most breaches are not with big companies, but with small companies that lack the sophistication to even know they have been breached. For those who say they have not been breached, I ask them what tools they have to measure or know they have been breached. And waiting to be served a law suit is not a good measurement tool.
Just search how much the average company ends up costing per breach that is found. IBM 2016 Cost of Data Breach Study - United States It is astronomical. If you are some small 1 man operation, that risk may be acceptable. But any reasonably sized company would not take such risks, most all of which would bankrupt them. It ranks up there with not having business insurance, etc.
Regarding who my company does business with, if companies are not serious about keeping current, they probably aren't serious about supporting their IT support either. It just isn't a good match and I turn down their business. By policy, we simply will not work with companies that are more than 1 version old other than to go through upgrade processes. It simply is an unacceptable business practice.
PS: There are good reasons to stay back at least one upgrade patch and not upgrade to new versions until the first patch is out.
Why do you so called pros assume just because it's a home computer that the data on it is not important? Just because it not used to make thousands of dollars has nothing to do with value of the data on it.
But you do have the latest MacOS, apparently. And by the way, I don't think "FileMaker's official statement, which I consider a cop out, designed to get people to upgrade" which simply says "While these earlier versions may install and run, you may encounter installation and stability issues for which there is no resolution." This is nothing more than a fair warning that FM has not tested earlier versions with El Capitan, it might still run OK, but if it doesn't your on your own.
Easy to answer. If you consider it valuable then protect it. If you don't consider it valuable then don't.