Does .Mac limit creativity?

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.
 
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!).
 
What's wrong with 10.1.5? Still 1000x better than another unnamed OS out there... <G>
 
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.
 
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;-)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top