Version:
Only suitable for…
Feedback Type: Review
Contributed by: tech-man Tuesday, March 25 2003 @ 01:16 PM PST
Product Platform:
Used Product For: Unspecified
Only suitable for viewing databases...no way they can possibly put all the functions from the full desktop appliation into FMMobile. Five stars for working well as a viewer...three stars for limited editing...four stars average.
Overall Rating:
Comments
Filemaker Mobile re-install - TECHWORKS
'Five stars for working well as a viewer...three stars for limited editing...four stars average.'Sorry, but I must disagree after using FM Mobile for a while- it deserves its low rating. Why? Because it crashes, requiring a reinstall, and doesn't like syncing records with characters beyond the basic ASCII letter set. Then, good luck finding which character sets it off. Beware the dreaded 'error:1' and the 'Some records contain characters that are not supported by the device'. Gladly there are alternatives.
Finally (yes even though it's only $49) the lack of support and upgrades (until the next $500 Filemaker is out) is apalling.
Doesn't work real well, lacks debugging before release, no updates, poor sync (although better than its predecessor). So I'm giving it 2's all 'round. That's generous only because its improvement over previous version.
Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:28 AM PDT
Filemaker Mobile re-install - TECHWORKS
'Five stars for working well as a viewer...three stars for limited editing...four stars average.'Sorry, but I must disagree after using FM Mobile for a while- it deserves its low rating. Why? Because it crashes, requiring a reinstall, and doesn't like syncing records with characters beyond the basic ASCII letter set. Then, good luck finding which character sets it off. Beware the dreaded 'error:1' and the 'Some records contain characters that are not supported by the device'. Gladly there are alternatives.
Finally (yes even though it's only $49) the lack of support and upgrades (until the next $500 Filemaker is out) is apalling.
Doesn't work real well, lacks debugging before release, no updates, poor sync (although better than its predecessor). So I'm giving it 2's all 'round. That's generous only because its improvement over previous version.
Reply to This
Thursday, May 05 2005 @ 04:28 AM PDT