Does .Mac limit creativity?

D

Durbrow

Registered
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.
 
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.
 
.Mac doesn't allow PHP or MySQL (any DB for that matter) right now.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).

:eek: 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
 
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
 
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".
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top