When it's ready
Your nearest Apple Store may still be able to sell you 10.7 Lion on a USB stick. I would guess that if a machine were running 10.7, the App Store would make 10.7 Server available. Try calling Apple and asking - you could still get 10.5 Leopard direct from Apple long after 10.6 Snow Leopard came out due to 10.6 being Intel-only.
Another option: if you or someone you know bought 10.7 Lion from the App store, and you still have a machine running 10.6, log into the App Store on the 10.6 machine and go to the Purchases section. You should then be able to download 10.7. Once it's downloaded, go to your Applications folder and right-click/control-click the "Install OSX Lion.app" and choose "Show Package Contents". That will show you the Contents folder. Go to Contents/SharedSupport, and use Disk Utility to burn "InstallESD.dmg" to DVD or restore it to a USB drive (8GB minumum capacity - 4GB is not quite enough). That should give you a bootable installer DVD/USB drive. Once it's installed, you should be able to get 10.7 Server from the App Store on that machine.
I should also say that I have seen 10.7 Server run fine with FMSA 11.0v4 and 12v1.
I have Lion that is not the issue. I need Lion Server. FMS12 has a known issue with running IWP on Mountain Lion Server. A Server version is required though for FMS Advanced and IWP.
I just checked the App Store on a 10.7 Lion machine, and the only Server offered is the 10.8 Mountain Lion version ("Requires OSX 10.8"). Bummer. Call Apple, and see what they can do for you.
OS X Server is NOT required for IWP. You do need FMSA but it can run on OS X client just fine.
We also need PHP and ODBC and unless I'm wrong, they do require server.
FileMaker Server, yes. OS X Server, no.
I did call Apple. I was on hold for a while while the rep tried to track down a link or disc. He said he checked with multiple deptartments. No one could get it. we will need PHP and ODBC also.
ODBC and PHP can work of Mac OS X Client. So can Apache and MySQL and everything else.
With Mac OS X Server you will get better tools for configuration, and some libraries and functionality will be pre installed and configured during installation - with help from the installation wizard.
Wouldn't it have been nice if FileMaker had acted like a responsible developer and fixed FMSA 12 to work with Mountain Lion before Mountain Lion was released? Did FileMaker Inc. not get the word that there were developer previews of Mountain Lion for months before it was released? How come so many other developers came out with Mountain Lion-ready versions of their apps before Mountain Lion was even released, but FileMaker Inc. still has produced nothing, when it is now becoming difficult to find a copy of an older version of the OS that will support FMSA?
Am I ranting? Yes. I hope the press will notice these rants and publicly embarass FileMaker Inc. into doing what they should have done months ago.
Publicly Embarrass ... Press?
Lets keep it nice and friendly, please
Unless you've purchased a new machine that comes with Mountain Lion you're under no obligation to upgrade.
How many of those Mountain Lion-ready apps are server based? Or mission critical to your business?
Do I wish that FileMaker Server was ML-compatible already - sure, I want to upgrade my development server.
This happens with a lot of applications - Adobe and Microsoft don't have versions of the Creative Suite and Offce that take advantage of Mountain Lion features either.
Back channel, I've been told that companies (like FMI) will often not start testing and developing for the "next" OS until it hits the release-to-manufacturing level. There are too many little things that will change right up until release. Could you imagine spending months working on compatibility only to have Apple, Microsoft or whomever change something and all your work, effort and money has gone out the window?
We've seen FileMaker Server "break" due to software updates that are out of their control - PHP, Java, Apache, etc.
I would much rather wait a while and have a mission-critical application like FileMaker Server having been fully-tested against the release version of an OS rather than a preview release. How much would you be ranting if the update caused data loss? I also want those testing scenarios to be really extensive.
I'm sure the crew at FileMaker have been working dilligently on an update to Server. I'm looking forward to it.
Well, I don't like to publicly or privately embarass anyone, but FileMaker has not done what they should have done, and they are not saying when or if they will ever do it. They have my money for a product that only works with yesterday's operating system, and they had the same chance as any other developer to make their product work, months ago. What else can one do but make noise? FileMaker doesn't seem to be motivated to fix the software that we paid for.
We're not talking about taking advantage of ML features. I don't care if the admin console can go to full screen mode. I do need the basic feature set to work. FM has had great ideas in actually having a server version and actually having IWP, but FM treats those products as second- or third-class citizens. Just look at all of the script steps that are not compatible with Server and with IWP that we work around by having a copy of FMP running on the server machine, doing what FMS(A) obviously should have done. We roll our eyes and ask, "why didn't FMS(A) just do this? Anyway, considering how little regard FM Inc. gives instant web publishing, and how sad it is that they didn't fix this before ML was released, I don't have any confidence that they are motivated to fix this.
We are under practical obligation to upgrade. Computers wear out and break down. Often the most practical thing to do is replace an old computer with a new one. New computers come with the current OS on them. What you are telling me is that I should find another old computer to replace my other burnt-out old computer, or find a way to back-grade a current computer with an old OS (the original poster's problem) in order to keep FMSA working. That's what we do with dead software that is still mission critical -- dead software that we haven't figured out how to replace yet. Software that is still under development and support shuld not have to be this way.
I disagree with your comments about the development cycle. Customer service should come first, if you want to grow your company by your reputation. That means delivering working software promptly. There is a cost associated with that. The options for Fm Inc. were:
1) Keep up with the developer previews of ML through the development process, finding problems and fixing them, at the risk that some of this may be wasted because developer previews are a moving target. Result: FM has a working update of their FMSA product when ML is released, customers have praises instead of complaints, FileMaker's name appears in the many lists that the computer press puts out about ML-ready software. Good press, happy customers, high reputation, some development money spent but well worth it.
2) Wait until ML is released or very near release, ignoring developer previews up to that time to avoid chasing the moving target of bugs/changes/fixes. Then, try FMSA with ML. Then begin the process of fixing FMSA to work with ML. Say nothing to the paying customers of FMSA because the lawyers say not to commit to anything. Instead, issue a Knowledge Base/FAQ article saying that it doesn't work. Customers are left wondering -- is this going to be like Quicken, where the software maker fixes the product to work with the new OS so long after the OS release that most people had to decide to move on to different software before that time? Result: FM has customers wondering about them, working around them, and looking at alternatives, because the customers have to prepare for a successful future. FM Inc has saved money on develpment costs, ticked off its customers, tarnished its reputaiton. Was it worth it?