Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by steju » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:54:06



Can someone point me in the right direction to making my Filemaker apps not
appear to be Filemaker apps. For example suppress the FM logo at start up,
get rid of the Filemaker name in the main window, etc...

I want my potential clients to view the app as their solution produced by
me, not by Filemaker and don't want them mucking around inside the app
either. Is this possible?

tia
Steve Pugh
G. Steven Associates

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by STL » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:42:27


Buy and use FileMaker Developer!

/Steve


> Can someone point me in the right direction to making my Filemaker apps not
> appear to be Filemaker apps. For example suppress the FM logo at start up,
> get rid of the Filemaker name in the main window, etc...

> I want my potential clients to view the app as their solution produced by
> me, not by Filemaker and don't want them mucking around inside the app
> either. Is this possible?

> tia
> Steve Pugh
> G. Steven Associates


 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Michael Stou » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:56:51


Developer does not supress the splash screen. The only way around it that
I'm aware of currently is to hack and the would be against the license
agreement.

Steve,

I don1t think there is a away to totally remove all instances of FileMakers'
name from their product.

As far as the mucking part there is Secure FM and FileMaker Developer.

I personally have no problem with my clients seeing FileMaker in conjunction
with my products. I believe they deserve the recognition. Just my two cents.

--
Michael Stout

http://www.fmpdev.com/

> Buy and use FileMaker Developer!

> /Steve


>> Can someone point me in the right direction to making my Filemaker apps not
>> appear to be Filemaker apps. For example suppress the FM logo at start up,
>> get rid of the Filemaker name in the main window, etc...

>> I want my potential clients to view the app as their solution produced by
>> me, not by Filemaker and don't want them mucking around inside the app
>> either. Is this possible?

>> tia
>> Steve Pugh
>> G. Steven Associates

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Thu, 26 Sep 2002 05:54:40




> Developer does not supress the splash screen. The only way around it that
> I'm aware of currently is to hack and the would be against the license
> agreement.

> I don1t think there is a away to totally remove all instances of FileMakers'
> name from their product.

> As far as the mucking part there is Secure FM and FileMaker Developer.

> I personally have no problem with my clients seeing FileMaker in conjunction
> with my products. I believe they deserve the recognition. Just my two cents.

You used to be able to disable the splash screen in FileMaker Developer
4.x, but there's now way to do it - partly thanks to ungrateful people
who didn't want FileMaker's logo on their solutions, despite the fact
that FileMaker made it so easy for them to make the solution in the
first place.  :o\

Although I think I always disabled the splash screen in the 4.x days, I
also ALWAYS put a "made with FileMaker Pro" logo on my solution's About
screen and/or front menu screen.

Now, instead of a small logo where you wanted it, we have to put up
with a large-ish window during startup.

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Paul Brunea » Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:45:22



> You used to be able to disable the splash screen in FileMaker Developer
> 4.x, but there's now way to do it - partly thanks to ungrateful people
> who didn't want FileMaker's logo on their solutions, despite the fact
> that FileMaker made it so easy for them to make the solution in the
> first place.  :o\

Ungrateful? Hey, man, they put the checkbox in there to be used. My
guess is the (mostly) logical developer team put it in there in v4, then
the marketing weenies smashed it in v5.

I still haven't gotten over the low-class move of taking out that
checkbox, although I don't whine about it a lot...I just don't buy
another developer. Today I whine, since soon I think I shall have to buy
the new one.

PB

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by steju » Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:07:55


It's not a matter of being ungrateful, just trying to shield the client from
unnessary information. As far as buying developer, I think not, I'll seek
another language that is closer to being a 'real' database.

Thanks for the input
Steve


Quote:> Can someone point me in the right direction to making my Filemaker apps
not
> appear to be Filemaker apps. For example suppress the FM logo at start up,
> get rid of the Filemaker name in the main window, etc...

> I want my potential clients to view the app as their solution produced by
> me, not by Filemaker and don't want them mucking around inside the app
> either. Is this possible?

> tia
> Steve Pugh
> G. Steven Associates

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:02:01




Quote:> It's not a matter of being ungrateful, just trying to shield the client from
> unnessary information. As far as buying developer, I think not, I'll seek
> another language that is closer to being a 'real' database.

> Thanks for the input
> Steve

Almost all of the easy to use "progamming" environments ask you to put
a "made with" logo somewhere on the final product as part of the
license agreement (which few people bother to read), but depending on
what you're actually trying to create, NONE of them are as easy to use
and cross-platform, while still being as highly versitile as FileMaker
Pro.

The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Paul Brunea » Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:07:12



> Almost all of the easy to use "progamming" environments ask you to put
> a "made with" logo somewhere on the final product as part of the
> license agreement (which few people bother to read), but depending on
> what you're actually trying to create, NONE of them are as easy to use
> and cross-platform, while still being as highly versitile as FileMaker
> Pro.

> The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
> real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

I find that to be a completely arbitrary statement.

PB

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:34:54





> > Almost all of the easy to use "progamming" environments ask you to put
> > a "made with" logo somewhere on the final product as part of the
> > license agreement (which few people bother to read), but depending on
> > what you're actually trying to create, NONE of them are as easy to use
> > and cross-platform, while still being as highly versitile as FileMaker
> > Pro.

> > The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
> > real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

> I find that to be a completely arbitrary statement.

Errr ... what is?!?   ?:o\

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Richard Gaski » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 04:34:14






> > It's not a matter of being ungrateful, just trying to shield the client from
> > unnessary information. As far as buying developer, I think not, I'll seek
> > another language that is closer to being a 'real' database.

> > Thanks for the input
> > Steve

> Almost all of the easy to use "progamming" environments ask you to put
> a "made with" logo somewhere on the final product as part of the
> license agreement (which few people bother to read), but depending on
> what you're actually trying to create, NONE of them are as easy to use
> and cross-platform, while still being as highly versitile as FileMaker
> Pro.

> The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
> real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

Revolution lets you build any type of GUI application for Mac, Windows,
and UNIX/Linux, and includes hefty database support and ODBC.

Revolution only requires the string "Made  with Revolution" and a small
logo -- you have total control over the About box and all other aspects
of your application.

With this flexibility comes a trade-off:  developing in FMP is often
faster since its feature set is very focused, while Rev pretty much lets
you build anything you can imagine, database or otherwise.  But its
language is very similar to the friendly HyperTalk, and has an
order-of-magnitude shorter development cycle than C or even Java -- and
runs wicked fast on all platforms.

See <http://www.runrev.com>

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:13:51


In article


> > Almost all of the easy to use "progamming" environments ask you to put
> > a "made with" logo somewhere on the final product as part of the
> > license agreement (which few people bother to read), but depending on
> > what you're actually trying to create, NONE of them are as easy to use
> > and cross-platform, while still being as highly versitile as FileMaker
> > Pro.

> > The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
> > real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

> Revolution lets you build any type of GUI application for Mac, Windows,
> and UNIX/Linux, and includes hefty database support and ODBC.

> Revolution only requires the string "Made  with Revolution" and a small
> logo -- you have total control over the About box and all other aspects
> of your application.

> With this flexibility comes a trade-off:  developing in FMP is often
> faster since its feature set is very focused, while Rev pretty much lets
> you build anything you can imagine, database or otherwise.  But its
> language is very similar to the friendly HyperTalk, and has an
> order-of-magnitude shorter development cycle than C or even Java -- and
> runs wicked fast on all platforms.

> See <http://www.runrev.com>

I've only had a quick look at Revolution, but it does look pretty good.

But, like ALL easy to use "programming" environments (including
FileMaker Pro) the final runtime application is HUGE - although by
today's monolithic applications that's a relative term.  :o\

The reason for this is that the runtime application usually has to try
and cover ALL the bases, rather than just what your solution actually
needs.

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Paul Brunea » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:55:27



> Errr ... what is?!?   ?:o\

this one:

 >The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
 >real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

There is no natural law that says if a programming/development
environment assists you that a splash screen is mandatory. It's a
marketing decision, nothing more.

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:33:50





> > Errr ... what is?!?   ?:o\

> this one:

>  >The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
>  >real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

> There is no natural law that says if a programming/development
> environment assists you that a splash screen is mandatory. It's a
> marketing decision, nothing more.

I'm afraid it's not.

MOST (if not all) of the easy to use programming environments actually
state in the license agreement that you have to put their logo on the
final product. Most people don't even bother reading this agreement and
luckily most companies don't bother going to court over it, but it IS a
(semi)legal requirement of using the programming environment.

When using a "real" programming language like C you can do whatever you
like since you're writing all the code - although, if you "borrow" code
from other places, then you should really acknowledge that in the About
window.

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Paul Brunea » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:51:08






>>>Errr ... what is?!?   ?:o\

>>this one:

>> >The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
>> >real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

>>There is no natural law that says if a programming/development
>>environment assists you that a splash screen is mandatory. It's a
>>marketing decision, nothing more.

> I'm afraid it's not.

Yes, it is.

Quote:> MOST (if not all) of the easy to use programming environments actually
> state in the license agreement that you have to put their logo on the
> final product.

And when they do, it is a MARKETING DECISION.

PB

 
 
 

Filemaker Apps - generic look and feel

Post by Helpful Harr » Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:24:28







> >> >The only way to get a product that is truely "yours" would be to use a
> >> >real programming language like C, then you can do whatever you want.

> >>There is no natural law that says if a programming/development
> >>environment assists you that a splash screen is mandatory. It's a
> >>marketing decision, nothing more.

> > I'm afraid it's not.

> Yes, it is.

> > MOST (if not all) of the easy to use programming environments actually
> > state in the license agreement that you have to put their logo on the
> > final product.

> And when they do, it is a MARKETING DECISION.

Believe what you want - the fact remains that the license agreement
says you HAVE to put their logo on your solution and that IS a leagl
requirement.

Helpful Harry                  
"Just trying to help whenever I can."      :o)

 
 
 

1. Gut feeling: Which query looks better

Without getting into details about table structure, indexes, number of rows,
etc. Which query do you think would run better on SQL Server.

Or do you think that SQL Server will always use the EXACT same plan, since
they are (or seem to me to be) the same query:

Query1
=====
SELECT Users.UserGUID, Users.Username, Users.Fullname FROM Users
INNER JOIN (
   SELECT DISTINCT(UserGUID) FROM AuditLog
   WHERE TableName = 'Reservations'
   AND ChangeType = 'INSERTED'
) dt
ON Users.UserGUID = dt.UserGUID

Query2
=====
SELECT Users.UserGUID, Users.Username, Users.Fullname FROM Users
WHERE Users.UserGUID IN (
   SELECT DISTINCT(UserGUID)
   FROM AuditLog
   WHERE TableName = 'Reservations'
   AND ChangeType = 'INSERTED')

The english explanation for the query is, i want all users who can created a
reservation. So i find all audit log table entries for "Insert" into the
"Reservations" table.

The sweeping generalization i want addressed is:
"Which is better, INNER JOIN or WHERE IN?"

And don't get hung up on "depends on the situation, table sizes, indexing
strategies, etc."
Feel free to make broad sweeping generalizations.

2. #table

3. jTree - Look and Feel

4. QbE-Data Model: passing var to QbE

5. Looking to feel, touch, taste

6. Copy table via script

7. APT Motif look-and-feel

8. Ingres II on NT

9. Exporting Look and Feel

10. Ingres Windows4gl, look and feel portability.

11. FoxPro look and feel (Changing)