Yeah. I remember the first iteration of FMP when it was a flat-file DB. But it became fully relational a few years later and I'm using FMP Pro 16. I like it because of the reasons I mentioned and because I can scan my targets and import the images for each record.FileMaker "Pro"!!!??? Fascinating!
The reason for the reaction is because I used to use it shortly after FileMaker first came in in 1985 for my Mac+. I highly regarded it as a simple and easy platform to keeping track of data (for a client base, in my case). I even kept the original box and it's contents until just a couple years ago and decided to give it away as a nostalgic museum piece. I wouldn't say it's better than Excel (though I can only imagine the improvements in the Pro version), for many reasons, but I guess it's been a nice piece work to still be on the market.
Yeah. I remember the first iteration of FMP when it was a flat-file DB. But it became fully relational a few years later and I'm using FMP Pro 16. I like it because of the reasons I mentioned and because I can scan my targets and import the images for each record.
It's easy to do. And importing photos is as easy as 1). creating a "container" field on your template and 2). dragging a photo into it.Hmmmm???You've got me seriously considering converting my Excel worksheet over to FileMaker Pro as I really like a feature that would easily tie target images to each record. And it being a "fully relational" data base, I can better tie in my chronograph files as well.
See . . . old dogs can learn new tricks.![]()
![]()