Filemaker chose the Macworld conference to launch version 10 of its SME-focused Filemaker Pro database. Rather than concentrating on new features, the firm revamped the user interface in a bid to woo new users to the product.

Rick Kalman, senior project manager at Filemaker, explained that because the firm hadn't refreshed the interface for a long while, there was already a barrier for people used to interacting with browsers and modern applications when it comes to using an application like this.

But Filemaker is coming up increasingly against browser-based technologies like Zoho Office, which now offers a free online database that can be configured using simple online options.

Enhancements to the Filemaker system include dynamic reporting, which enables users to configure reports on the fly, and a status toolbar that puts commonly-used functions in an easily-accessible place. The system also includes script triggers that let users tie automated sequences of actions to events such as editing a particular field.

However, because the system is still a cross-platform database for both Windows and the Mac, Kalman explained that the company cannot fully exploit the Core graphics functionality of Windows or the advanced graphics capabilities of Windows.

It has reserved more modern graphics capabilities for the Mac-only Bento program. That exploits the Mac's graphics engine more fully, but unlike Filemaker it is a single user-only product.

Author: Danny Bradbury

Posted by Madeline Bennett on January 7, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been having a try out with the BlackBerry Storm, Research in Motion's (RIM's) first touch-screen device. My colleague Daniel Robinson has carried out a full review or you can get a look at the Storm in action by watching our video review.

I was keen to get my hands on the device for two reasons. Firstly, I've long coveted an Apple iPhone, mainly for its lovely looks, and screen size and quality and so was interested to have a try out on RIM's touch-screen version; and also because I've just switched over from using my old 8700 BlackBerry and a separate Nokia mobile handset to having just one device, the BlackBerry Bold and so wanted to see how the Storm would compare.

Previously in my old unconverged world of separate mobile/emailer I never used the BlackBerry for anything but checking my email and replying to the odd one here and there; I made the occasional phone call and sent the odd text but much preferred my mobile for those things. So moving to the Bold was quite an experience and I'd advise anyone considering a switch away from two devices to a combined phone/emailer to thoroughly try out the keyboards of any potential handsets before making a purchase.

I found the BlackBerry SMS and phone capabilities difficult to get used to, mainly due to what seem like minor changes from a normal mobile handset but they caused a lot of frustration for me.

For example, the Bold and Storm save all messages in one folder, while I'm used to separate folders for received/sent/draft texts; while trying to change the phone settings, including selecting a ring tone and choosing between the vibrate/ring/vibrate+ring options, proved a real chore, requiring navigating through several different pages and dozens of options before finding the correct Profiles/Advanced/Normal/Phone sequence and arriving at the right place. I also found the requirement of repeating the same choice of Volume/Number of Vibrations and so on for the phone when it is out of holster or in holster an unnecessary duplication of effort; the same process was then required for setting up my preferred SMS profile.

Having said all that, I still rate the BlackBerry as an emailer device, and RIM has made huge improvements since I first began using one a few years ago, especially in terms of the speed of mobile browsing and the ability to view spreadsheets and other business documents.
From my fairly brief look at the Storm, I couldn't spot many different features from the Bold apart from the obvious touch-screen upgrade. Both devices have the same icons, browser, and phone capabilities.

One key upgrade with the Storm was the inclusion of a Chat icon in the menu, offering direct links to download pages for popular instant messaging tools. However, I didn't have much joy with this feature. I managed to download Google Chat, but was unable to log in to my account to try it out.

The music and video players are the same on both devices; the video quality was particularly impressive on both, with high quality picture and sound.

One strange difference was in the charger. I didn't take the charger for the borrowed Storm home with me overnight and when the battery died that evening I automatically went to plug in my Bold charger, only to find they have different connectors. It would be great to see RIM, and in fact all mobile handset makers, standardise on chargers across their different models and it would certainly earn them some green brownie points.

So now onto the Storm's headline-grabber - the touch-screen capability. The general consensus around the vnunet.com office was underwhelming - most people found the virtual keys very difficult to get used to, even with the addition of a "click" when pressing down on the screen - and this was my initial reaction too.

However, having used the Storm as my main emailer/phone for a few days I got used to the way the keyboard worked - I found it helped to aim to put my finger slightly to the left of keys rather than direct centre of them. I also really liked the ability to go back to using a SureType keypad and predictive text, especially for sending SMS messages, something I really miss with the Bold.

A final point: the way the screen switches view to reflect whether you're holding the phone sideways or upright is a neat feature, but it is slow in switching between the views. In the end I found myself favouring a sideways full keyboard view for emailing; and upright SureType for texting.

Overall my first touch-screen BlackBerry experience was good enough to make me consider a full-time move to a similar device in the future - but preferably one with a more satisfying mobile phone experience.

Posted by Madeline Bennett on December 8, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (17)

When Steve Jobs stepped up to the podium at Macworld earlier this week, I’m sure notebook PC makers were -- how can this politely be expressed? -- demonstrating signs of trepidation. Today, they’re going to be a lot calmer. Calmer and happy too.

Apple has done an amazing job on the PC industry ever since Jobs’ return. For once, the term "messianic" might be appropriate, or as close as it ever becomes in terms of technology. Where Apple had not executed in the Jobs 2.0 era was in mobile computing where its products often looked heavy and unwieldy. Little wonder that most of us expected a subnotebook that would offer a truly portable alternative for rail commuters and others who need something that really does sit comfortably on the lap rather than perch like a suitcase on beer pump. We were expecting something wonderful, disruptive and market making

The MacBook ain’t it.

With a 13.3in screen, this is a device that sits halfway between what I would have thought would be the two main target audiences. Hard-core graphics workers will lament the lack of an even larger display and feel that processor and RAM options are limited. Generalists will wonder why they need such an unusual mixture of lightweight product and full-size format.

Adding to the list of caveats, there will be big concerns about external optical drives, lack of fixed Ethernet, and the sole USB port. OK, so you can buy add-in extras but this is a specification that has “compromise” written through it like Blackpool rock. It is also a product that screams like a catwalk vamp about Apple's old failure -- a preference for style over substance.

Both sets of users will be thinking long and hard about the price. The US sticker is harsh enough but the UK tariff is just abusive. Whatever happened to the special relationship, you guys?

Apple has been on a golden run for a long time and the MacBook Air would appear to have redeeming features interms of its trackpad and screen. But this is product would appear to be more iScrewedup than iPhone.

Posted by Editor on January 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (10)

Computers should last for decades, according to the received wisdom, so long as moving parts like the hard disk don't wear out. While this may be true, the sad truth is that new software releases will quickly render your state-of-the-art purchase inadequate for the job after a few short years.

And so I have come to the conclusion that it is time to replace my main system at home with a new model, preferably one smaller and less noisy than the one I currently rely on. (Note to self: don't build own PC from separately bought components ever again – it isn’t worth the hassle).

Having decided to bite the bullet, I find myself wondering whether my new system should be another PC, or should I opt for a Mac instead? The Mac Mini in its compact little desktop case looks very appealing, and with Apple now using Intel chips, it is possible to run Windows alongside Mac OS X, so I can keep my old applications.

In fact, with the latest release of the Parallels Desktop virtualisation software, it is possible to run Windows apps so that they appear to be native, and Parallels even provides a tool that can convert an existing PC into a virtual machine image ready to be transferred to the Mac.

For many users, choosing between a Mac and a PC may not be such a critical choice any more. Many applications that people use are browser-based, and this applies to consumer as much as enterprise applications. Email and IM can be provided by tools such as Google Mail, and even productivity tools such as word processing are available as online applications. Even if you prefer to keep software installed locally, there are Mac versions of Microsoft Office, and open standards such as the OASIS Open Document Format (ODF) are making cross-platform compatibility less of an issue.

The decision to buy Mac or PC is therefore likely to come down to personal preference as much as anything else. As for me, the nature of my work means that I will be installing and running Windows applications much of the time, so it may make more sense just to plump for a new PC. After all, there are some equally appealing mini desktop designs around nowadays, such as Acer's Veriton 1000 or Shuttle's XPC range. Now, where did I put that Vista install disk…

Posted by Daniel Robinson on February 28, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (5)

Apple managed to confound its critics in style at its Macworld show by announcing a product that many people (myself included) believed to be nothing more than vapourware; the iPhone.

The device, which combines the functions of a camera phone and an iPod music player, looks most impressive and is sure to be a hit in the consumer market when it ships later this year. After all, most iPod users seem fanatically devoted to them, and almost certainly have a mobile phone as well. Who wouldn't rather have just a single device to carry around, provided it can fulfil both functions equally well?

But I wonder whether Apple might also find some interest from the enterprise market. Many workers have been crying out for a more intuitive user interface in their mobile devices, and if the iPhone lives up to the early hype about its high-resolution touch-sensitive display, then the company could be onto something.

Even more significant is the built-in 4GB or 8GB of storage, which is primarily there for the iPhone's music player functions. There must be mobile developers out there that are even now dreaming of the kind of applications they might build with this much local storage available in a handheld client device.

Of course, many executives are virtually wedded to their BlackBerry, and enterprises have generally preferred to adopt a Microsoft-based strategy for mobile and wireless applications.

But another factor in the iPhone's favour is that it runs OS X – the same operating system as Apple's desktop systems. This should mean that existing developer tools can be used to build applications for the device, and there are a great many programmers already familiar with these tools.

Depending on how similar the iPhone version of OS X is to the Mac version, Apple might have just handed developers a robust and high-performance platform for mobile applications, one that might give Microsoft's mobile division serious cause for concern.

The iPhone is most definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Posted by Daniel Robinson on January 10, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)