Filemaker pro advanced 13 full mega free download

Looking for:

Filemaker pro advanced 13 full mega free download. Filemaker pro 12 advanced licence key tutvid teach

Of course, I am aware that your latest versions Filemaker 16 and 17 don’t have issues with the Mojave software from Apple, but I am still using Filemaker 9 and Filemaker 13, because I cannot buy every year a complete new software version from you. Why Filemaker has these problems at all with apple software updates? I am now urged to buy me a new version of Filemaker 17 advanced to run my old programs I hope I can update the files to FM17??? And actually this makes me really angry.

I have only two choices: buy or burry. It would be a pity to trash all my developments which I am currently using. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram. Close Search for. Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website. Re: Thanks for share! Runs great! Re: Thank you guys for working so hard on the crack, really appreciate it. Re: Thanks for the hard work bro. Re: Yay! Re: Thanks! Re: amazing! Re: Thank you for your continuous work :.

Re: Thanks guys installed everything worked great me for me, all languages works fine. Re: Thanks i was waiting for it.

Re: Filemaker pro 12 advanced licence key Thanks a lot, it works great! Re: Looks pretty nice. Ruling authority link building with. Re: Hi! Thanks for the work. There is a way to change the language in spanish? Re: yes in the settings. Originally Posted by Luka Red Giant. Re: Does it work, anyone tried it out yet?

Yesterday, AM Re: works perfectly. Originally Posted by Red Giant. Re: fast upload as usual, thanks uploader! Similar Threads Counter strike 1. Replies: 7 Last Post: The development costs for FileMaker will be the same. The distribution costs of downloads will be very much the same maybe increased traffic – but that is cheap. I would have my own server instead of renting space on one. I would generate many more FileMaker clients with server needs. This is a queastion of pure logistics By the way FileMaker Pro could be simplified into a cheap thin client with no editing tools – only leaving Advance able to edit and develop solutions.

Really, if all your customers are going to jump ship to GoogleDocs, then why not let them? Are you going to cut your developer rates in half too?? NO, thought not, then why should FIleMaker? This is the first product in the maket that has even tried this kind of thing that YOU can programme, and there is a cost of entry.

Up to us to find those new customers for whom we now have a brilliant solution. I agree John. It IS going to be a dramatic shift if the business. And WebDirect takes a lot of horsepower to run. This opens up some areas where FM could not compete before.

It does make certain niche markets harder if you can’t change your business model. No change in the model will kill our businesses if FMI wasn’t able to find a way to maintain revenue. Actually FileMaker has, over the past versions, helped my customers to lower the development costs a lot, by making better development tools, IWP and Go. I certainly understand your enthusiasm if you can get new business with larger clients, that can afford the new license models.

As for me I have specialized in small creative clients – and I just lost a very good tool. Again the price tag on the Pro is too high. Clients compare FileMaker with Office. And even though FileMaker is much more powerful, many users are used to dealing with ad hoc database like structures in Excel.

If the server was cheaper, the sharing features could be skipped from the Pro. Instead of having 2 or 3 Pro in peer to peer, more would have the server right away. They are eager to get something better than Excel – if they can afford it. Well Adobe did just that in the mid nineties. Cut the price of Illustrator in half. That made them sell 5 times the volume. And it made them look very good. But surely they have forgotten all about that.

They just pissed off a lot of their costumers making a lot of them eager to switch, when an alternative arrises. It can be hard to push FileMaker into bigger organisations. I guess that is what FileMaker wants to change. But FileMaker has had a good reputation in the grassroots and creative areas If FileMaker fails to expand into new areas and cuts off their old market I don’t totally disagree. But the customers will likely be able to use their 12 systems for a LONG time.

So the buying prices is, what they look at. Remember all the hate Adobe got in forums, when they introduced their renting model. I personally know a lot of designers and advertising companies that stay with older versions of Photoshop and so on just because of this pricing model.

Myself personally and most companies I know prefer to purchase software outright. Adobe had to adopt that model because too many people we pirating the software and they were losing revenue. I do not see that kind of problem happening with Filemaker in the slightest bit compared to the pirating of Adobe products. I keep an older version of CS5.

Office is not useful for anyone I know. People use Google Docs and Dropbox from what I see. Small businesses do not want tools that expire. They really prefer a fixed one time cost for something that will eternally work and they can pay for upgrades if they feel like it. Charging per connection I get the idea, but it really keeps people from trying to grow the use of their FM solution because of the costs. For example, wouldnt it be great if Bob down at the company guard shack collected pictures and or signatures from visitors on an iPad along with the ID of their escort that are stored in the database?

Heck yeah that sounds cool and useful. If there was not such a cost associated with the cnnection itself so much more would happen starting with the purchase of more iOS devices from Apple.

This inhibits development. The biggest difference between Filemaker and Adobe is that Adobe does not need to sell or market its software. It sells itself since it is pretty much the software of choice for so many and there is not a lot of competition for software that is used by small business all the way to enourmous companies.

Filemaker is obviously not as popular. To add to some talk that peolpe who have site licenses have confirmed that they will receive unlimited connections in FM13, I would still like to keep the 9 connections I had peer to peer in FM I do not have a problem with the costs.

I can afford to pay for all the crap they want me to deal with but the fact is we can operate without it and the principle of it really bothers me and other decesion making people in our operation. I will be staying with FM12 as long as possible. We had a meeting about this and everyone liked the new features of FM13, but the value was not there for a 7 user system and no one liked the idea of renting software. The idea of renting a connection was slightly more tolerable. We have the option of running with a FM hosting service.

However everyone prefers to keep our data local. I spoke with a developer friend that works with another platform about making somehting that will move us out of FM and have nearly the same functionality yesterday.

He laughed a bit at the situaiton. It seemed to him that WebDirect is a heavy web app and he could do it no problem and it would be faster with unlimited connections. As well there would be a lot of flexibility with the layout and a layout tool to change stuff easily. I have let Filemaker know about my concerns directly and I hope they will put 5 peer to peer connections on the menu or up the standard to 9 like I had. Our database is not very big and it moves just fine without a server.

One must not forget, that FileMaker has built in several show stoppers for quickly and happily upgrading to Popovers and Sliders are nice, but are they worth it? Even with runtimes I tend not to upgrade, since of the new OS restrictions. We might loose potential customers by offering popovers – not a good deal XP is completely unsupported by even Microsoft next April. Are you really suggesting that FMI should??

And there are also, from the sessions I have been to, technical reasons about methods and classes in the newer MS operating systems that enable new behaviours that are just unavailable in XP. Not all progress is good, but not all progress is bad – even if it involves having to leave some things behind. There must be a Marshall McLuhan quote somewhere that someone can dig out. FMI has clearly made no money from people happily running FM5 or 6 systems, who may even still be using System 9.

How far back is it appropriate to go? Only as far as YOU decide? We live in a world where the only certain thing apart from death and taxes is that the pace of change itself in increasing at exponential rates. You have to buy what is on the shelf at the time and see what you can make of it – the very heart of an innovator or entrepreneur.

WHAT empiracle evidence do you have to support such a ludicrous statement? As you seem to only have one point that you are repeating like a spoilt child let me repeat mine from earlier. This is a land of opportunity, that, while I too might think is overpriced, provides me with a unique opportunity to sell my process analysis and FileMaker programming skills to a whole new set of SOHO businesses who will be more than satisfied with the improvements to productivity this toolkit can bring.

I do not hear anyone talking about how they have clients that are really excitied to use the features of 13 for the cost. You can do a popover in FM12 with some work. I am not a developer by trade, but I have been around and I do a lot of internal stuff rather than hiring a developer for extra costs. IWP is what people want actually. Lightweight data access and entry. There is no real need for it to be too pretty and from what I have seen it is not all that bad.

I do not hear anyone talking about or showing off the cool new groundbreaking things they are doing with the expensive new features. As well it is recommended that I run one DB server and a web server. I missed that earlier. I remember when MS started down the path of throwing hardware at sloppy software to make «programming» easier.

The entire process lead to people needing more resources just to run the applications that were loading a bunch of stuff into memory they did not need because it was «part of the package. Anyone who attended DevCon in Miami will recall the deal reported by Dominique Groupil with the senior folk at FMI made with Steve Jobs when he returned to Apple – they would continue to make money each quarter and they could get on with it – without interference from Apple.

You will also be aware that FMI are the only real subsidiary of Apple – other than a finance co – everything else they have acquired has become part of Apple. So those are the circumstances that must underpin every decision they make – and with the best will in the world they are a business and not a charity.

FMi also receive criticism – including in this thread – for not moving ahead quickly enough – i. So they appear to be damned either way – if they modernise and embrase new technology then folk winge because they want to continue using old OSs and if they continue to support old tech folk winge because they aren’t embrassing new tech. After a long period from for about 8 years we have FM7 and now they have transitioned to FM Whilst I do understand obvious concerns about change of price and features – since that challenges us as developers – as well as giving us new opportunities – I do have difficulty in understanding some of the complaints on this thread – because we are all developers – I assume – hence in our own smaller ways we have to make the sort of decisions that FMI has to make and thus we surely have some understanding that the world moves on and you cannot stay in business and keep everyone happy all of the time.

I moved my business to a monthly payment per user model earlier this year, after more than 2 years development and trialing of our own licensing server – all built with Filemaker. The only way to have a predictable revenue is to be paid per period by folk who wish to continue to use your software – hence although no doubt some folk would like to pay once then run it until it dies – we will now not sell other then on a rental basis.

This means we can keep everyone up-to-date and support is much easier because we are only supporting our current software not trying to support old stuff. FMI like every software co wants that predictable revenue and folk generally are now used to paying monthly for a wide variety of services. This means they need to offer a viable method of cloud hosting and licensing. The missing element right now is that hosting cos cannot manage distribute and manage licenses amongst several clients – when they can do that they will be able to offer small clients 1 or more licenses from a much bigger VLA – until then I guess folk need to stick with 12 for a few months.

I agree. Look at all the very cool things that have been discovered and manipulated in FM12 by creative people. I am sure similar things will continue to happen with FM If you are really not happy with what you can buy Go build a database platform yourself. As much as I might not agree with some things FM has done they do make a darn good and useful product. If I was a full time developer with a few years experience into FM12 with clients already you bet I would be running out to a FM webhost and striking a deal for hosting all my clients stuff and switching them over to FM13 subscriptions or doing whatever I could to help use the software to help them succeed.

A developer is not just a programmer but a bit of a visionary and I think most people do not see the value in that. There are more XP users than Macs at all. I have no empiracle evidence, have you any for your statement? Popovers can be easily replaced by modal windows, different layouts, dialogues with or without plugins and even reproduced with some tricks – hey, we did that for decades and nothing was wrong with that.

So they are optically nice, they work better on iOS and appear directly next to the content which is kind of useful sometimes – but nothing of that is a real game changer. And those sliders can be rebuilt with some scripting and hidden tabs easily. OK no animation and swiping possible, but we are in database business.

Unfortuneately, this is true. There is some dated but very useful industrial software that will not work on anything newer and most everything still works on XP.

I think there are some issues with FM13 right now. I will let the dust settle and the «big» users of the product will tell how the features will evolve. I was always taught that if I need new technology I should buy it now. If not, wait until I do. I will be happy to see the new features that start to pop up in FM Great and positive idea. Make it as a product suggestion. Get all your friends to do the same. Do it once a week, they all get read by a human. At least not in the way that those form of words imply.

We are in a business that is redefining how to interact with data to make better business decisions and process interactions – at arguably one of the most exciting times in the last 30 years.. No one cares that is a database, but they get, by the millions, that here is something I can use in a simple and easy way to do something with stuff to make my business more productive.

And HTML5 interfaces are driving that. In the old days the strugle was to acquire and simply store and manage heaps of data. There are 85 ways from Sunday to do that easily now. Now it is about making the data easy to use and finding new ways to let the users interact with the data.

You do not see people with data use needs trying to find an old WinXP machine to hook up to the old database for one new user. You find companies looking to find a way to put an iPad in every employees hand to stay connected to live data all the time. I too have a win machine that is still used occasionally.

I too prefer my XP macines in the graphics office and I too am learning to hate Windows 8. I too have some System 9 laptops to run a very powerful AV automation programme on. My shiny Jaguar outside. Its a diesel, it does 50mpg and mph, and while its not in any way an E-Type – it is progress. I suspect that people supporting this price increase do NOT have: 1 existing FMGo projects; 2 small clients who use peer-to-peer; 3 enterprise clients who need to be eased into FileMaker before they’re willing to pay for more complex i.

It’s wonderful to talk mindlessly about potential new clients who are not deterred by price. Absolute balderdash. If you believe otherwise, you are not running a business. The existing market must be maintained while, at the same time, new markets explored and expanded.

Unfortunately, you cannot expand your market by loosing existing customers who – overnight – are asked to pay 3 times the cost for the same functionality they had yesterday. FMGo and peer-to-peer who will see no immediate benefit.

I think we can…but not overnight, and not at the expnse of a growing market. I deal with a lot of industrial companies. They have tons of machinery that run on old computers. Many of them have data acquisition hardware that rely on COM ports.

These things are highly specialized but still use old tech because the equipment developer is some old guy who does not know any other way. Lots of people using Excel with something like Wedgelink to capture data. They are then limited by Excel in their use of the data.

I would love to see this stuff change for the better. FileMakers force is the the speed of development and that one person can do a lot in a short time. But if the costs of deploying the solution is going up, it might be a better idea to use FileMaker as a prototyping tool and get the production system built using open source tools. I am developing a database for model railroad equipment. Purely my own project and completely non-profit. It is a huge project with lots of tables and relations.

I am flabbergasted by the speed – and what can be achieved with IWP. If I couldn’t use IWP this project would never had happened. The complexity of the data and relations, and the many user needs, that surfaced during the development would have made the project extremely expensive using another platform. Web Direct will surely make my project much better And who’s gonna pay?

I don’t intend to kill my project by charging the users IWP is great and I do know one company that uses it to manage an ecommerce inventory with a large number of vendors managing their own stock. They manage hundreds of thousands or records and turn over more than a hundred million dollars a year using IWP and some CWP. Simply amazing. The number of users is outrageous and it never really has issues with speed or reliability.

The interface is basic and great for the users. I know they would need to consider an unlimited connection setup. Keep in mind this only runs the backend inventory managment. The front end is run by ODBC connecting to something a bit more suited to even more users. This is because they are busy coding and not posting on forums about it. Charging a lot is a thing.. No matter its price. If Filemaker inc. I really think that it’s amazing the great results so many talented and skilled developpers here could have gotten with what’s in the pot for so many years.

And by the way, hiding an object on a form is a thing I»ve been doing in Delphi since Problem is, that you and others are always adding FM pricing and development cost. While that is true for individual programming customers, it is completely not true for buyers of normal software. We have developed a bunch of programs for several purposes and branches and sell these as standard software starting at Most expensive solution is All based on FM runtimes, so no additional cost.

And then the price trouble starts, because the second seat is It could be pretty close to free. Companies care about the cost of doing business period. The costs of WebDirect are untenable in terms of both the revolving client licenses and the hardware costs.

Please give me an example of any other technology where the slaves to the DB server have to be egregiously more powerful than the master. To host from connections with web direct requires either a 6 core i7 or Xeon which will provide the 6 hardware and 6 virtual cores required. I really do not know what your technical qualifications are and I personally have nothing against you, but if you cannot make the connection that the hardware requirements are necessary because the system as a whole was poorly designed to begin with then I could not have a serious conversation with you.

Services that power a web application are divided between server side languages php, asp. The future of web applications is compiled JavaScript i. If emscripten becomes a big thing it’s game over for a lot of people as entire monolithic desktop codebases will be able to be straight ported to the web.

Your point about the enduser not caring only correlates when the cost of going with a technology is tenable. The term, «cloud» is and has been all the rage for quite a while, but you cannot lump Filemaker as a technology into that. True cloud based situations are great for companies because they are able to pick up their ball code and go over a new friend’s house host whenever they want if their relationship with their previous friend host isn’t working out so well.

Any host you choose will put the same set of tech at your disposal as the previous host – php, python, ruby for s. MySQL et al for the backends. Does going with a solution coded from the ground up cost more than point and click?

Of course it does and that is where you were able to make a use case for FileMaker, but at these prices that is not possible. You can argue with me all you want, but my experience and what I have been able to push out and make work on commodity hardware may shock you. Now with what you get paying for on demand cloud hosting Amazon – Rackspace makes it a no brainer to invest in the code and not worry about the cost of hosting and buying licenses for proprietary software. This move to me puts FileMaker in the position of Alpha Software.

There is no sense in moving forward and learning a new toolset if the costs do not make sense. I have one client who emailed me as of this past weekend to say, «I read your FM13 review and I called them.

I agree, its robbery. All the posters here in FileMaker’s camp are using the same arguments against other tech they were using before the drastic change in pricing. Perhaps they will change their tunes when a year from now the market for FileMaker as a whole has declined drastically.

I could be wrong in that, but I doubt I am. I totally agree that Web Direct will be a great alternative to having a FileMaker Pro installed on the machine. And from that perspective I guess it will be cheaper than installing Pro. And from that perspective IWP was doing a hell of a good job.

Web Direct will do an even better job. Believe me I am trying very hard to find a way to move to FileMaker But I always have to compare with solutions made in open source – and if the clients doesn’t fully understand – or don’t need a lot of relations and synergy in the solution, the steep price for getting started will turn them towards a cheap ordinary webservice with PHP and MySQL. From this discussions and my own brainstorm the last couple of days, I guess we will soon see solutions like this:.

We as developers pays the monthly fee to get the server license with x number of connections. We develop solutions that only needs to run in Web Direct. Then we turn our clients from buying FileMaker Pro into paying us for the needed connections. My quick calculations shows me, that that will be cheaper and much more flexible for the users.

Bigger investment for me – but in the end it might even generate more money for me. FileMaker won’t sell any Pro licenses well maybe one as a robot for each client to make printing work – and only a limited number of servers to each developer. We host almost accounts on shared FileMaker Servers. WebDirect has made us look at our numbers closely. In so doing, we have come up with two conclusions.

IWP is a loss leader. Then please do argue with me Lee. Because all I hear from you is that you are not capable of putting something together in another system.

That you have tried and you yourself couldn’t justify the cost basis. That’s fine, but that’s not me or anyone else that’s you. My whole argument is that the price of the license coupled with the hardware cost is insane for what you are getting. You assert you just purchased new hardware and you are excited about the possibilities of what you are going to get out of it in conjunction with FileMaker – that’s fine too!

It is your money after all! But, Lee do you know what I think when you tell me you went out and spent a good chunk of money on a server such as you just purchased?