# Does .Mac limit creativity?



## Durbrow (Oct 12, 2004)

Rather than get into the tired "is .Mac worth it" FAQ I was wondering if there are any .mac aficionados who would care to show off their homepages (I was also wondering if .mac allows hosting website systems that require sql). I am still sitting on the fence about .mac. Thanks.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 13, 2004)

I was wondering the same thing myself, thanks for posting the question. I am going to be creating some pages throughout my Masters degree program and was wondering if it was worth it to have the .Mac membership.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 13, 2004)

.Mac doesn't allow PHP or MySQL (any DB for that matter) right now.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 13, 2004)

really? damn, thats exactly what i was hoping to be working with... hmmm


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Oct 13, 2004)

Does .Mac allow you to have a password restricted section of your site (e.g. via .htaccess)?

Kap


----------



## Durbrow (Oct 13, 2004)

Yes. .mac allows you to restrict parts of your site by password protection although I am not sure how good it is. I have yet to hear about sites being tampered with.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 14, 2004)

I sent a letter to the .Mac people a while ago about the lack of PHP/SQL with the account.  For the most part they gave a pretty generic, "we'll look at it" type of response.  

I have heard through the grapevine talk about a possible tiered .Mac service.  Something like them offering 3 levels of service at differing prices.  The upper level would supposedly offer PHP access and a MySQL DB.

Of course the validity of that info is ???  Will it happen, who knows.  Should it, I think so and hope so.


----------



## shorty114 (Oct 19, 2004)

you could host it off your own machines, with the built-in web server and binary PHP and MySQL distros...for me, it's the easiest method.


----------



## Dusky (Oct 19, 2004)

I used .Mac when it was still free and called iTools.  Since then I've gone through several webhosts until I landed with ICDSoft (333MB webspace, 5GB bandwidth, Unlimited Email addresses, MySQL, PHP, etc., for five bucks a month).  Apple provides freebies for its .Mac members, but to this day I haven't seen one that's worth the 60 bucks extra per year that I'd be paying for hosting my site if I were using .Mac.  (ICDSoft charges 40 bucks per year for renewals and additional accounts.)  Nope, Apple won't be getting my webhosting money anytime soon, but at the same time I'm aware that .Mac may be the best solution for other people...


----------



## aicul (Oct 20, 2004)

I also use ICDSoft their support is the part I prefer. When I looked into .mac for hosting I quickly had to change my mind. I think .mac is designed to be used as Apple wants you to use it. It promises a lot but there is a lot of "beef" missing.


----------



## themacnut (Oct 27, 2004)

If you want CGI, multiple scripting languages, databases, your own domain or a large number of email addresses, then .Mac is not the option for you. There are many other web hosts out there that offer all that and more for half or less what .Mac charges.

The main thing .Mac has going for it is it's integration with OS X for various applications like email, file storage (iDisk), photo upload and album creation, iCal etc. Many people are happy with .Mac for those services.

The funny thing is Apple could easily offer the other standard services that many cheaper hosts offer, and if they added that on top of the OS X integration, they would be a KILLER host! Even if they never dropped their prices, even non-Mac users would flock to them.

I guess they don't want the extra bother of supporting all that other stuff.


----------



## callieX (Oct 27, 2004)

I am a .Mac user and like it because it is easy.  Not everyone wants to become a web developer. I want a nice easy way to produce a web site of photos from iPhoto.  Or an easy way to post an iMovie so all my faimily can see.  
I have used the password protect thing, it seems to work but I wouldn't know if any one has broke in or not.  It is a straight html site I built with help from some apps.
I have downloaded the free garageband loops and some others and I like how easy iDisk works.

I guess if you are a hard core techie (do everythng myself) sort of person it is not for you.  If you just want it work then its for you.

As far as it being free before.  All this stuff costs money, both in support, hardware, programmers, etc.  It is ridiculous to think that any company could keep doing it for free for any length of time.  

calliex


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 27, 2004)

I have lots of vacation pictures & such on my .Mac page - and I even have  custom URLs for different parts of it

http://mac.brian.leahy.name
http://family.brian.leahy.name
http://disney.brian.leahy.name

Pardon the ad banners.   Open the upper frame in a new window to get rid of it...


----------



## aicul (Oct 28, 2004)

What bothers me about .mac is that the OSX integration is obligatory. 

Anyone tried, and succeeded, without being a techie, to use iSynch on something else than apple products (.mac, other macs)?

Forcing apple owners to use .mac by "limiting" flexibility of OSX tools such as iSynch is dismal behaviour.

I would really like to have the option at OSX install time to say "do not install any product that relies on a .mac account".


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 2, 2004)

iSync does not rely on a .Mac account -- you can freely sync your contacts and whatever other information is supported by iSync with any number of devices such as PDAs, phones and iPods without being a .Mac member.

Now Backup, on the other hand, requires a .Mac account whether you're backing up to a .Mac server or backing up to a CD/DVD.


----------



## aicul (Nov 2, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> iSync does not rely on a .Mac account -- you can freely sync your contacts and whatever other information is supported by iSync with any number of devices such as PDAs, phones and iPods without being a .Mac member.
> 
> Now Backup, on the other hand, requires a .Mac account whether you're backing up to a .Mac server or backing up to a CD/DVD.



I tried iSynch on my Palm, it didn't work. I had to install the palm desktop to make synching that happen.

As per synching to another disk, why should I be married to .mac account? After all it's just disk space. And I believe most agree 100Mb is pointless (=16*6Mb fotos). 

 So if I have to install Palm desktop, and can only synch to 100Mb (ok extendible) disk why is iSynch so prominently promoted in apple literature as the next best think after sliced bread?



So, ElDiabloConCaca, I don't want to put in doubt what iSynch can do, but I propose that 

A. iSynch be bundled into .Mac and removed from OSX 

OR

B. iSynch be made to iSynch to whatever, regardless of .Mac


----------



## callieX (Nov 2, 2004)

I to have never been able to get isync to work with my palm T3.  I have tried many times and have finally given up.  It worked well with my old handspring.

As I have said before.  I like the convience of .Mac.  I would like it to be cheaper but I would like to know where the cut off would be.  For the people who think it is too exspensive what would be a good price for it?

I know there is free email and cheaper web hosting, but can I click a button and have a website of picutures created for me?  That is why I have .Mac.

calliex


----------



## brianleahy (Nov 2, 2004)

As I'm sure you know, iPhoto can create a .Mac picture website automatically -- but it can also create a web page on your hard drive, which you can then ftp to any web hosting you like.

Just select some pictures, and then do File/Export -- one of the options is "Web Page".


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 2, 2004)

To sync with a Palm, you must install the Palm Desktop software as well as install an iSync Palm Conduit, available on Apple's iSync page.  It's straightforward, but no, iSync does not support Palm out-of-the-box.

While I understand it's frustrating to not be able to sync to a server without .Mac access, iSync is hardly useless without that.

Bundling iSync with .Mac would deny Palm, cell phone and iPod users the ability to sync their stuff.

iSync can sync with everything straight out-of-the-box with or without .Mac -- the only functionality you'd lose is syncing with .Mac.  This prevents you from syncing between computers, true, but that's only a small fraction of what iSync does.

Apple is kind of heavy-handed with iSync being able to only sync to .Mac servers, but then again, if they opened up iSync to be able to sync with other servers, who would people yell at when it didn't work with their choice of server?


----------



## aicul (Nov 3, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Apple is kind of heavy-handed with iSync being able to only sync to .Mac servers, but then again, if they opened up iSync to be able to sync with other servers, who would people yell at when it didn't work with their choice of server?


You are probably right.   

After all if Apple included a defacto .Mac account FREE for all new Macintoshes (hence under warranty) I think they would have a point. Pay for extensions, pay once the warranty expires.

The present set-up with the multiple links to .Mac in various products bundled in OSX, really irritates me.


----------



## MacGizmo (Nov 9, 2004)

Backup, and to some extent iSync, was supposed to be an incentive to buy .Mac, so complaining that it doesn't work with other servers is pointless. iSync will be dead with the release of Tiger in early 2005, so we should just reserve judgement until we see the new beast.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 9, 2004)

Well, iSync will be dead for Tiger users... Panther users will still need iSync (and we all know how some people refuse to upgrade...there's more than one user here that's still using 10.1.5!).


----------



## mdnky (Nov 9, 2004)

What's wrong with 10.1.5?   Still 1000x better than another unnamed OS out there... <G>


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 9, 2004)

Nothing at all wrong with 10.1.5.  I was simply using that to point out how many people don't immediately upgrade when a new OS comes out.


----------



## themacnut (Nov 9, 2004)

I certainly won't be upgrading to Tiger immediately after it comes out-I'll wait about six months or so for the kinks to be worked out (and to get a processor upgrade for my blue and white fast enough to handle Tiger;-)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 9, 2004)

I'm thinking the same thing -- however, I'll get Tiger the day it comes out.  I'm a tech-nut, so at least having a copy of the new system loaded on one of my machines is imperative... 

I'm thinking of trading in my G4/500MHz upgrade ZIF for one of those 1.0GHz or 1.1GHz G3 upgrade ZIFs -- I hear they're mighty fast, and, unlike the 1.0GHz G4 ZIFs, they don't downthrottle your bus to 66MHz.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 10, 2004)

The 1.1ghz G3 ZIF from Powerlogix is a great upgrade.  Just put one in a friend's old B&W and it's a much better performer (Panther, in general) than his old G4 700 Sonnet upgrade was.  Photoshop CS is about the same as it was on the G4 card for most things, faster for just a few.

I'm planning on buying a new laptop or desktop in Jan or Feb, so hopefully it'll come with the upgrade offer.


----------



## aicul (Nov 10, 2004)

What bothers me the most about .Mac is not the price, nor the fact that some utilities in OSX are reserved for .Mac. Its that is just outright not in line with the mac I have on my desk.

I mean, my mac can make movies (we are talking Gb's) and .Mac comes with 250Mb(*) disk. I can make web sites on my mac (PHP is defacto pre-installed) but .Mac does not support PHP. etc.

When you see providers making available reliable full fledged hosting solutions for $60, I wonder why apple does not revisit its .Mac offering particularly with its present $100 price tag.

As per Tiger, any comments on the new release (upgrade patch) of 10.3.6 of existing OSX?

(*) as of eo-Sep .MAC now proposes 250Mb rather that the 100Mb


----------



## themacnut (Nov 10, 2004)

I do agree that .Mac should be about half the price of what it is now, and it should come with the first 3-6 months or so free with a new Mac-or even with the purchase of a new version of the OS.

As for 10.3.6, the patch so far has worked well for me, but others have reported problems-look in the System and Apples News and Rumors Forums for more details.


----------



## Durbrow (Nov 10, 2004)

Is .Mac worth it if you consider discounted software? For example, if one gets .mac isn't there a significant discount on iBlog and Create?


----------



## aicul (Nov 11, 2004)

Durbrow said:
			
		

> Is .Mac worth it if you consider discounted software? For example, if one gets .mac isn't there a significant discount on iBlog and Create?



That theory holds only if buy some new software every year. This way you could leverage the .mac perks to offset the high .mac costs.


----------

