Sorry, is now OK after a restart of the iMac!
New problem with 12v5 on OSX 10.6 in german:
Password safe in keychain can be activated, but at next start of the file 12v5 aks again for password. Old key in keychain deleted, newly checked "safa in keychain" but problem exists further.
no information available ?
Nobody than me interested ?
what kind of bugs are you hoping to see addressed "Intex"?
(it just says bugs regarding Mavericks compatibility or so ..)
/* i doubt there is anything else fixed - otherwise there would be a Windows version of FMP 12v5 .. */
says nothing more: "Bugs fixes were made to provide support for OS X Mavericks version 10.9."
I would be interested whether this really is an urgent must have update for the upcoming Mavericks or only some cosmetics fixing really rare bugs in seldomly upcoming events. Do I have to hurry to get this out to our customers and demos or is it just something we can wait a while with ...
I have few answers for you, but I do have a comment. After doing the upgrade on Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.8.5, FileMaker launches and frooze with the spinning wheel of death and even ended up freezing Finder until I forced quit it. However, all was good after a restart. So if you install the 12v5 update, but sure to restart before trying to use FileMaker.
well one thing that is fixed is that when you closed a database and then restarted it showed a message about a port conflict and cant open the file etc. And you had to force qyit filemaker and resart it (very annoying) now it is fixed
Slightly off topic, but you've raised a really important issue in that businesses and in particular large organsiations cannot continually deal with OS releases and the incompatibility and bugs they introduce. We've worked for hospitals that were quite recently replacing Windows 2000 with XP (released 2001) PCs due to the complexity of making central systems work with newer operating systems. We refer to as the 'Apple disease' (big Mac fans by the way) as they cottoned on that they could earn more money by releasing a new OS(s) every year, which Microsoft has now copied. The net result of this is that software vendors now reduce the the amount of time they will support their products, interestingly we now see that FileMaker 12.0v5 has meant Snow Leopard is in the deprecated list.
Little wonder that cloud computing and virtualisation is gaining traction. We recently had an enquiry from a Belgium company running Macs, using a very large and complicated FMP v6 database. Yes, they know they need to modernise, but it is going to cost a small fortune and they need a new Mac now, which must run their central FM system. Providing browsers remain relatively compatible and the likes of Citrix continue to be on the ball in releasing new versions of their Citrix Receiver, then organisations can continue to work on their systems regardless of the age of the computer in use. Setting up a new Mac/PC/IOS/Android device to access FileMaker is as quick as downloading the latest version of Citrix Receiver and log in via the web - voila, there is your copy of FileMaker already pointing to your server.
Although most of our Citrix cloud servers are used by our customers who need fast mobile, or multi-office FileMaker access, we believe the stability of not being forced to constantly upgrade and the (hidden) cost savings this brings will be as big a driver away from locally run systems as mobility currently is. Yet another elephant in the room!
Obviously, if nothing changes, that is easiest for a software developer. Total OS stagnation makes things much more predictable. It also doesn't allow OS's to add new features and doesn't address the bad boys' changing attack approaches (viruses, trojans, etc.). The extremely long life of Windows XP was very convenient for software developers. But in the long run, it hurt Microsoft by falling behind in OS features and security. But are Apple's OS releases too frequent? Maybe. It does mean that software developers have to actively be keeping up with OS developments or their software will become incompatible quickly. One reality is that every release of a new OS brings in a wad of new money from licensing and corporations are money driven. If more frequent releases helps the bottom line, I suspect the OS corporations will be pressured to have more frequent releases even if it is not necessarily in the best interest of software developers or consumers. But they have to balance this with how backwards compatible new releases are to avoid backlashes of dissatisfaction.
Citrix is a good stable solution supporting many OS's and it is proprietary. Alternatively, some people thought that the OS would become irrelevant and everything would just run in the cloud through a web browser and java. There is still a move in this direction, but it has not become the panacea that was predicted. It is rare that an app in the Cloud works as well as a native OS app can, and even when it does, it often is not as fast. Ironically, such solutions are where we get back to a main frame doing all the work and the user interface devices are just dumb terminals like comptuers were before the 1990s. Interesting cycle to see happening. But I guess ultimately the best solution is one where the User Interface is best of human interaction regardless of what OS is under the hood. We have a long ways to go in UI development including speech control, systems that watch where your eyes focus to make selections, biometric security, better touch (finger) controls, etc.
And while the horn is very loud in favor of the "cloud-based system"...there is a major drawback. What if the network, or internet service, is spotty or goes out temporarily??? For a mission critical system, any downtime is unacceptable. Not being able to control/fix the 'bigger' network that is the www, is one variable most businesses aren't willing to put their money on. The stability of a local system is key.
How does that apply to multi-office companies? Since they require people to access the same data? The sync! It's why sync technology has been talked about so much. Even if you get disconnected, you can continue working and when you get reconnected, the data gets pushed back to the mainframe. Not that businesses will not use cloud based systems. They are ever so convenient. However, I can't imagine a time when it would work for any business I've worked with, where they will just sit around or shut down because their software is on another server somewhere else...and they only remotely connect to it...and their ISP is down.
Taylor and Josh, wise words as always. However, I didn't want to take this thread off topic and become a cloud vs non cloud discussion. We believe the 'what if the Internet goes down' concern is behind us, otherwise there would be no such thing as VOIP and that a combination of sync and cloud is the way to proceed. Taylor, IT has always presented old ideas as new and the merry-go-round continues.
The one thing that every business wants is stability, whether that be within currencies, cash flow, staff, etc. and this also applies to technology. Yes new features are exciting and eventually do provide benefits, but the cost/benefit ratio to the average business in our view is too high. The IT vendors have too much power now over their customers (not us the developers, but the people actually purchasing the licenses). FileMaker 12 was a classic example, where the software was released too early, has had so many bugs in it we're up to v5 now, yet emails were received from FMI less than a year after this major release (26th Feb) that, "FileMaker is discontinuing its distribution of FileMaker 11". This isn't a direct complaint against Filemaker, it is just an example of how the industry now works.
Joshua, I would love to expand some of your points you raised under another thread, but sync does not resolve the stability problem and is still completely dependent on the OS and software version. There is no guarantee, after a new version release, that your brilliantly crafted sync solution will still work, whereas a Citrix streamed solution should.
Windows XP was an extreme case of stability and we fully understand Microsoft's desire to move forward, but do we really need new versions every year? If this is to be the norm in the future, then business needs some guarantee of backwards compatibility. FileMaker in many ways has got it right, with major updates roughly every 7 years (.fp3, .fp5, .fp7 and .fmp12) with feature driven updates in between - Apple and Microsoft would do well to learn from this.
So the future brings Maverick and presumably Windows 9, IOS 8 and the next version of FileMaker, so we're all very confident that all FileMaker users will be able to continue to do their job without any problems as a result of these updates? Going back to Taylor's cycles, we'd be very surprised if they can!
I don't disagree with you at all Andy. I think Citrix is viable and useful technology in the right circumstance.
The thing I disagree strongly with is the idea that we are beyond concern about "what if the internet goes down". In our world, we live in areas where 99.999% up-time is the norm. But it's not like that everywhere, in the US or elsewhere. And the up-time of a server, doesn't help if the local ISP is having problems...which happens in many cities on a regular basis. Not to mention that not every business is setup in a large city.
Even the growth of mobile devices and cellular networks hasn't resolved that problem. I live in a fair sized city, and am constantly hitting areas where there is no cellular coverage for any one of the carriers here. Throw in the existence of small towns, and well, you start to realize that not everyone has access to reliable, high-performing broadband. Even many of the developers on this forum have issues with keeping connected at times. Sitting in on the Friday Night FM Chat, we have developers that constantly get disconnected because of their ISP problems...and these is a large metropolitan area.
I love the idea of what session virtualization and separating the app from OS. But for most of the businesses that I have dealt with, they still have the many of their employees still doing work offline ( sales reps, traveling, etc ).
would be great if we could come back to the original question ...