maybe if you didnt steal tiger before it came out you'd have a better copy of the OS that would work better
Actually, akhomerun, your reasoning is incorrect.
Apparently, some people that pre-ordered Tiger got it delivered to them early. Also, for some strange reason, iSync in Tiger defaults to erasing the device then synchronizing - which explains why all the contacts on the phone were deleted.
It is not a bad thing per se, but I wil not payto protect other PCs when those PCsa could and should be protected themselves, hell on the windows side, virus protection can be free, is there a free virus scanner for the Mac?
Oh and by the way, from my years of windows experiance, I WILL NOT touch Norton or Mcafee
Please understand that this is a genuine question, not a sarcastic criticism, and I'm hoping for real responses.
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
I pay for my ISP, which includes 5 email accounts for the family and server space sufficient for any website I could want. I would continue to have this expense if I went with .mac since I like the ISP and .mac doesn't provide that service.
I check my mail remotely from my ISP's website, and it works fine for me, so that's not an area of need for me.
I use a PDA, so all of my contacts and appointments are in my pocket.
The idea of backing up my system is appealing, but what's the point if it doesn't have the capacity to hold my music library or home videos?
As far as I can tell, .mac is a supplement to all of our existing ISP's, not really a unique service of its own... right?
Am I missing something that justifies any fee at all, let alone $100 a year?
The owner of the .mac account could set permitions and Apple could always make the prints watermarked
Agreed, for photos where the copyright is owned by the account owner. However, I think what MacCrazy was getting at is that there would be nothing to stop you downloading someone else's copyrighted material, posting it on your site, and selling it.
Please understand that this is a genuine question, not a sarcastic criticism, and I'm hoping for real responses.
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
I pay for my ISP, which includes 5 email accounts for the family and server space sufficient for any website I could want. I would continue to have this expense if I went with .mac since I like the ISP and .mac doesn't provide that service.
I check my mail remotely from my ISP's website, and it works fine for me, so that's not an area of need for me.
I use a PDA, so all of my contacts and appointments are in my pocket.
The idea of backing up my system is appealing, but what's the point if it doesn't have the capacity to hold my music library or home videos?
As far as I can tell, .mac is a supplement to all of our existing ISP's, not really a unique service of its own... right?
Am I missing something that justifies any fee at all, let alone $100 a year?
No, you're not missing anything (except maybe the integrated tools for creating photo albums etc.). This is the argument that many people put forward, and it's a perfectly valid one. There are, as has been mentioned, other benefits, but only you know if they are going to be worth the money you would pay to Apple for .Mac.
That would be neat. That's actually what I thought it was going to be when they first announced .mac. I'm guessing that the mess of providing nationwide service is not something they are interested in. The service is one thing, but actually getting it into homes is a whole other situation.
I think providing massive back-up capacity would be the "killer feature" that got me interested. But considering people hope they someday offer 2GB's, I think it will be a while before I can back-up 60GB media libraries.
I would pay $100 a year for the peace of mind from knowing I had a secure back-up out there.
Agreed, for photos where the copyright is owned by the account owner. However, I think what MacCrazy was getting at is that there would be nothing to stop you downloading someone else's copyrighted material, posting it on your site, and selling it.
well, mine is on the fedex truck in my neighborhood RIGHT NOW. should i tell the driver to come back tomorrow after 6 p.m. so it'll work correctly?
well...if you live close by, I will take it and give you mine tomarow after 6...fedex says I should get it by 5:00 Fri - that means LAUNCH TIME ON THE DOT - 6 edst==5 est
Please understand that this is a genuine question, not a sarcastic criticism, and I'm hoping for real responses.
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
well, the first year it was out, i got way more use out of all the freebies and discounts on software i was going to buy anyway.
but i know how you feel. heck, i forgot about renewing .mac until i saw it on my credit card. oops. guess i'll have it for another year. this is my last hope with tiger and .mac 3.0, though. i've given them time to work out the performance issues of iDisk (which i want to use, and its almost, ALMOST usable for me under panther), iphoto (they finally updated the books you could buy... the old ones were trounced by the quality from shutterbug), backup is the personal backup app that retrospect express could have been if ANYONE at dantz had taken a user interface course and not just programming, homepage is a mixed bag until i see the new templates and online editing (i think a combo of blogger and picasa on the windows side gives homepage a run for its money still), i'm going to just give intego the money for virusbarrier, especially with the bundle deals they have going, etc. since david hyatt has put "contentEditable" working in safari 1.3, it is reasonable to assume that homepage and .mac will acquire some in-safari wysiwyg and drag-n-drop blogging, which will REALLY up the ante against all the competitors out there.
so, in the end, it's still a mixed bag. is it worth $8 a month (or less if you get it as a bundle or on sale)? i still think yes, provided some of the stuff i mentioned above comes through, stays just as good, or improves. but if it all just stagnates, well...
Actually, there is a virus scanner for the Mac. It's a Linux scanner that has been ported over. It's called clamAV. if you actually look at the Tiger Server specs, clamAV is actually included, I'm sure because you can buy and Xserve, use it as you mail server (it not being infected ever) and scanning all mail on the fly.
Someone has built a Mac OS X GUI client for the program here which I've actually done a fairly thorough scan with just to prove that I didn't have any viruses. I did find some in my Caches folder. A couple of Java Applets.
I didn't note whether clamav was included in Tiger client. Apple has a list of all the opensource software in use with their respective packages somewhere. That could become part of the regular Repair Permissions kind of thing even, if you really wanted. They'd probably just build scanning into Mail 2.0 and leave it there.
That would be neat. That's actually what I thought it was going to be when they first announced .mac. I'm guessing that the mess of providing nationwide service is not something they are interested in. The service is one thing, but actually getting it into homes is a whole other situation.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, the main telco (BT) owns the telephone network, but other ISPs can provide the last link from the phone exchange to the users house, using BT's network from the exchange to the house. I hope that makes sense, but if not, google 'local loop unbundling'.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, the main telco (BT) owns the telephone network, but other ISPs can provide the last link from the phone exchange to the users house, using BT's network from the exchange to the house. I hope that makes sense, but if not, google 'local loop unbundling'.
I think that's similar to the arrangement here, except that we don't have a main telco, but many. So agreements would have to be made with each of them. Also, the personnel and equipment necessary for the last link to the home is a HUGE step from the current .mac service. That's the part I think they wouldn't want to deal with. Maybe in select areas, but certainly not nationwide here in the states.
Comments
Originally posted by akhomerun
the only thing anti virus programs do for mac is to prevent yourself from spreading WINDOWS VIRUSES to other people.
This is a bad thing, in what way?
Originally posted by akhomerun
maybe if you didnt steal tiger before it came out you'd have a better copy of the OS that would work better
Actually, akhomerun, your reasoning is incorrect.
Apparently, some people that pre-ordered Tiger got it delivered to them early. Also, for some strange reason, iSync in Tiger defaults to erasing the device then synchronizing - which explains why all the contacts on the phone were deleted.
Originally posted by akhomerun
maybe if you didnt steal tiger before it came out you'd have a better copy of the OS that would work better
I received my copy this morning, stupid little boy.
You won the first place in my ignore list. I do not have time to spend with children.
http://isnoop.net/gmail/
Its an automated site with 1,000,000 invites to give out.
Thats how I got my account.
Originally posted by audiopollution
This is a bad thing, in what way?
It is not a bad thing per se, but I wil not payto protect other PCs when those PCsa could and should be protected themselves, hell on the windows side, virus protection can be free, is there a free virus scanner for the Mac?
Oh and by the way, from my years of windows experiance, I WILL NOT touch Norton or Mcafee
Originally posted by MacCrazy
what about copyright.
The owner of the .mac account could set permitions and Apple could always make the prints watermarked
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
I pay for my ISP, which includes 5 email accounts for the family and server space sufficient for any website I could want. I would continue to have this expense if I went with .mac since I like the ISP and .mac doesn't provide that service.
I check my mail remotely from my ISP's website, and it works fine for me, so that's not an area of need for me.
I use a PDA, so all of my contacts and appointments are in my pocket.
The idea of backing up my system is appealing, but what's the point if it doesn't have the capacity to hold my music library or home videos?
As far as I can tell, .mac is a supplement to all of our existing ISP's, not really a unique service of its own... right?
Am I missing something that justifies any fee at all, let alone $100 a year?
Originally posted by a_greer
The owner of the .mac account could set permitions and Apple could always make the prints watermarked
Agreed, for photos where the copyright is owned by the account owner. However, I think what MacCrazy was getting at is that there would be nothing to stop you downloading someone else's copyrighted material, posting it on your site, and selling it.
Originally posted by akhomerun
maybe if you didnt steal tiger before it came out you'd have a better copy of the OS that would work better
You'd have to be pretty sure it was stolen before you call someone a thief.
Originally posted by hirsch22
Please understand that this is a genuine question, not a sarcastic criticism, and I'm hoping for real responses.
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
I pay for my ISP, which includes 5 email accounts for the family and server space sufficient for any website I could want. I would continue to have this expense if I went with .mac since I like the ISP and .mac doesn't provide that service.
I check my mail remotely from my ISP's website, and it works fine for me, so that's not an area of need for me.
I use a PDA, so all of my contacts and appointments are in my pocket.
The idea of backing up my system is appealing, but what's the point if it doesn't have the capacity to hold my music library or home videos?
As far as I can tell, .mac is a supplement to all of our existing ISP's, not really a unique service of its own... right?
Am I missing something that justifies any fee at all, let alone $100 a year?
No, you're not missing anything (except maybe the integrated tools for creating photo albums etc.). This is the argument that many people put forward, and it's a perfectly valid one. There are, as has been mentioned, other benefits, but only you know if they are going to be worth the money you would pay to Apple for .Mac.
Maybe Apple should launch .Mac as an ISP...
Originally posted by akhomerun
maybe if you didnt steal tiger before it came out you'd have a better copy of the OS that would work better
well, mine is on the fedex truck in my neighborhood RIGHT NOW. should i tell the driver to come back tomorrow after 6 p.m. so it'll work correctly?
Originally posted by digitaldave
Maybe Apple should launch .Mac as an ISP...
That would be neat. That's actually what I thought it was going to be when they first announced .mac. I'm guessing that the mess of providing nationwide service is not something they are interested in. The service is one thing, but actually getting it into homes is a whole other situation.
I think providing massive back-up capacity would be the "killer feature" that got me interested. But considering people hope they someday offer 2GB's, I think it will be a while before I can back-up 60GB media libraries.
I would pay $100 a year for the peace of mind from knowing I had a secure back-up out there.
Originally posted by digitaldave
Agreed, for photos where the copyright is owned by the account owner. However, I think what MacCrazy was getting at is that there would be nothing to stop you downloading someone else's copyrighted material, posting it on your site, and selling it.
and....what stops me from doing that now?
Originally posted by rok
well, mine is on the fedex truck in my neighborhood RIGHT NOW. should i tell the driver to come back tomorrow after 6 p.m. so it'll work correctly?
well...if you live close by, I will take it and give you mine tomarow after 6...fedex says I should get it by 5:00 Fri - that means LAUNCH TIME ON THE DOT - 6 edst==5 est
Originally posted by hirsch22
Please understand that this is a genuine question, not a sarcastic criticism, and I'm hoping for real responses.
Since its inception, I've been unable to understand why I should pay for .mac.
well, the first year it was out, i got way more use out of all the freebies and discounts on software i was going to buy anyway.
but i know how you feel. heck, i forgot about renewing .mac until i saw it on my credit card. oops. guess i'll have it for another year. this is my last hope with tiger and .mac 3.0, though. i've given them time to work out the performance issues of iDisk (which i want to use, and its almost, ALMOST usable for me under panther), iphoto (they finally updated the books you could buy... the old ones were trounced by the quality from shutterbug), backup is the personal backup app that retrospect express could have been if ANYONE at dantz had taken a user interface course and not just programming, homepage is a mixed bag until i see the new templates and online editing (i think a combo of blogger and picasa on the windows side gives homepage a run for its money still), i'm going to just give intego the money for virusbarrier, especially with the bundle deals they have going, etc. since david hyatt has put "contentEditable" working in safari 1.3, it is reasonable to assume that homepage and .mac will acquire some in-safari wysiwyg and drag-n-drop blogging, which will REALLY up the ante against all the competitors out there.
so, in the end, it's still a mixed bag. is it worth $8 a month (or less if you get it as a bundle or on sale)? i still think yes, provided some of the stuff i mentioned above comes through, stays just as good, or improves. but if it all just stagnates, well...
Originally posted by MacCrazy
you need someone to invite you to join - each member gets 10 invitations.
I think i have about 20 that i can currently spare. Been with gmail since the early days.
send a pm if you want an invite.
Someone has built a Mac OS X GUI client for the program here which I've actually done a fairly thorough scan with just to prove that I didn't have any viruses. I did find some in my Caches folder. A couple of Java Applets.
I didn't note whether clamav was included in Tiger client. Apple has a list of all the opensource software in use with their respective packages somewhere. That could become part of the regular Repair Permissions kind of thing even, if you really wanted. They'd probably just build scanning into Mail 2.0 and leave it there.
Originally posted by a_greer
and....what stops me from doing that now?
Good point
Originally posted by hirsch22
That would be neat. That's actually what I thought it was going to be when they first announced .mac. I'm guessing that the mess of providing nationwide service is not something they are interested in. The service is one thing, but actually getting it into homes is a whole other situation.
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, the main telco (BT) owns the telephone network, but other ISPs can provide the last link from the phone exchange to the users house, using BT's network from the exchange to the house. I hope that makes sense, but if not, google 'local loop unbundling'.
Originally posted by digitaldave
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, the main telco (BT) owns the telephone network, but other ISPs can provide the last link from the phone exchange to the users house, using BT's network from the exchange to the house. I hope that makes sense, but if not, google 'local loop unbundling'.
I think that's similar to the arrangement here, except that we don't have a main telco, but many. So agreements would have to be made with each of them. Also, the personnel and equipment necessary for the last link to the home is a HUGE step from the current .mac service. That's the part I think they wouldn't want to deal with. Maybe in select areas, but certainly not nationwide here in the states.