Very Computer

I've been working with FMP5,0 for more than a year building files for the
company's library and for competitive intelligence.  There are 3 other
employees that are using my files through client FMP license and they seem
to like it.  With everything going well, I made a plan to make my files
available to everyone who needs them in the company either through FMP or
webcompanion.  That would have become the base to the Intranet in the
company.

I couldn't get approval right away for my project because a management
change was in process and needed to wait until a new VP was hired.  This new
VP had experience before with InMagic products and thinks the best of them.
He told me that their softwares would be best adapted for our library than
FMP in the long run (as it gets bigger).

I'd rather stick with FMP since I put so much effort into it, but he's the
boss and I am willing to make the change, but only if he's right that
InMagic would be better adapted for us.

The questions are:

Does any of you have experience with InMagic and could you tell me how it
compares with FMP?

Would InMagic perform better than FMP on a 60 users network?

How easy it is to setup and maintain InMagic?

Any toughts?

Consider this a highly conditional reply --its been many years since
i've used InMagic (back in its DOS days): InMagic (and its Windows/Web
successor DBTextWorks) is heavily used in the corporate/special
library sector, and seems to be well-suited for that market. Of late,
InMagic/DBTW is being spun as a general knowledge management solution
(but what isn't?). Not sure what services your library offers, but
library systems can be fairly complex, particularly if you are running
a  circulation system (checking books in/out), journals subscription
info, thesaurus/subject management, etc. This is where InMagic may
offer an advantage -- i.e., in terms of its built-in templates /
modules that would help you get a library/resource center up and
running faster.

InMagic, as i recall, is (like FMP) well suited to managing content of
different types / sizes. InMagic is quasi-relational (more so than
FMP) and is more costly (look into the cost of InMagic's web-server
module -- used to be pricey!). You may find InMagic less intuitive
than FMP though it may do a better job separating data from format
than FMP (speaking from FMP 4.1 perspective here).

What are the longer term objectives of your company's library? Will it
serve both as a physical library w/ a circulating collection, or
primarily as a "virtual" library organizing / providing access to
electronic resources? If more the latter, I would seriously question
the need for InMagic. 60 users is not that many, and in any case, you
could continue with FMP and then upsize to something else if required
in the future. (Both have ODBC drivers, which i presume would allow
you to export/import data between the two.)

Another point: InMagic is but one, among many products, in the library
/ information management sector. If you're anticipating something
larger-scale (e.g., a full-blown data warehousing project + physical
library), I think the company'd be better served by a needs analysis
comparing various apps than by automatically defering to the boss's
favorite flavor.

HTH,
DK