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.
Agreed, it would be a major task to set up and run, especially in the US. Maybe they could partner up with an existing supplier, and re-brand their service.
The only thing anti virus programs do for mac is to prevent yourself from spreading WINDOWS VIRUSES to other people.
And that is important - you can't send clients virus,' so you buy an anti-virus software. Also virus' have been made for the Mac they just haven't got very far or done much damage - and with the market share going up the amount of virus' is only going to increase.
And that is important - you can't send clients virus,' so you buy an anti-virus software. Also virus' have been made for the Mac they just haven't got very far or done much damage - and with the market share going up the amount of virus' is only going to increase.
agreed. and people tend to forget that a lot of the servers IN BETWEEN all of our macs are *gasp* windows-based. so when something like the melissa email virus floods every mail server and brings them crashign to a halt, it DOES affect us a great deal.
agreed. and people tend to forget that a lot of the servers IN BETWEEN all of our macs are *gasp* windows-based. so when something like the melissa email virus floods every mail server and brings them crashign to a halt, it DOES affect us a great deal.
In addition virus protection is important, complacency is not the answer. Malicious code is written and Macs will be vulnerable in the future - less so than Windows due to the security of the OS but a real threat is still there.
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 convenience of putting up and changing photos simply online is why my mother got it - for pictures of her holiday rental flat online. I use the safari bookmark sharing so if I'm visiting my parents I've got my safari - I wouldn't pay for that though!
It would be nice if there was an iDiskFTP using our own FTP space(s), wherever they are, and syncing correctly between machines. And an extension to iPhoto which creates iPhoto web pages on our existing web site. Even paying for .Mac but using my ISP's servers would be more efficient.
[edit] I would value a completely identical setup between my home and my parents Mac. Same file access for all small files, same email setup - though I have too much email and files to do this VIA .mac, they'd have to sync directly I think.
I like the updated .Mac start page. I can instantly see how many emails I have, plus I can see my own calendar - I'll definately have to get my iCal up to date and synced now .
yeah you can't flag messages, mark them as junk or unread etc! that's all pretty baisc, but the interface looked a bit rubbish before - it's much more Apple now. The online seminar is also out but requires quicktime 7.
depends on your definition of the term "worse." like i said earlier, norton got all "kernel extension happy" when they had to update stuff for mac os x. this, in turn, broke other apps and updates because they weren't expecting those kernel extensions to be there. basically, norton took an os 9 mentality to dealing with os x. to my knowledge, norton is still the only disk maintenance and anti-viral company that uses this method to do its work.
All AV software uses kext's (kernel extensions). They need to in order to scan files as they are opened or closed. There's no user-space way to be notified when a file is opened or closed by any program. This "scan on use" is the most common way to detect viruses, since it scans e-mail attachments when they are written to the disk and it scans files downloaded by the Web browser. And I bet if you use any other AV program you'll notice they have kernel extensions loaded as well (I know McAffee's does...perform a kextstat on the command line to see what I mean).
Comments
Originally posted by hirsch22
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.
Agreed, it would be a major task to set up and run, especially in the US. Maybe they could partner up with an existing supplier, and re-brand their service.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Has it gone up? I would be, can i PM you with my email?
Yea, i need to get rid of my invites. PM me with name and e-mail address. I have many accounts each with 50 invites.
Originally posted by akhomerun
The only thing anti virus programs do for mac is to prevent yourself from spreading WINDOWS VIRUSES to other people.
And that is important - you can't send clients virus,' so you buy an anti-virus software. Also virus' have been made for the Mac they just haven't got very far or done much damage - and with the market share going up the amount of virus' is only going to increase.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
And that is important - you can't send clients virus,' so you buy an anti-virus software. Also virus' have been made for the Mac they just haven't got very far or done much damage - and with the market share going up the amount of virus' is only going to increase.
agreed. and people tend to forget that a lot of the servers IN BETWEEN all of our macs are *gasp* windows-based. so when something like the melissa email virus floods every mail server and brings them crashign to a halt, it DOES affect us a great deal.
Originally posted by rok
agreed. and people tend to forget that a lot of the servers IN BETWEEN all of our macs are *gasp* windows-based. so when something like the melissa email virus floods every mail server and brings them crashign to a halt, it DOES affect us a great deal.
In addition virus protection is important, complacency is not the answer. Malicious code is written and Macs will be vulnerable in the future - less so than Windows due to the security of the OS but a real threat is still there.
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?
The convenience of putting up and changing photos simply online is why my mother got it - for pictures of her holiday rental flat online. I use the safari bookmark sharing so if I'm visiting my parents I've got my safari - I wouldn't pay for that though!
It would be nice if there was an iDiskFTP using our own FTP space(s), wherever they are, and syncing correctly between machines. And an extension to iPhoto which creates iPhoto web pages on our existing web site. Even paying for .Mac but using my ISP's servers would be more efficient.
[edit] I would value a completely identical setup between my home and my parents Mac. Same file access for all small files, same email setup - though I have too much email and files to do this VIA .mac, they'd have to sync directly I think.
Welcome to the 1990s
Originally posted by CosmoNut
As of right now, .Mac is unavailable on Apple's Web site.
It's back up, and it's very pretty.
Originally posted by audiopollution
It's back up, and it's very pretty.
Nice touch.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Did anything else change besides the layout on the front page, Tiger sync info, and new templates?
Doesn't seem like it.
There is that widget placeholder.
Erm.
That's all.
No Backup 3...
Wish they would update the Web Mail UI...
And you still can't edit your calendars online...
ho.. hum... hopefully there will be good widgets.
Originally posted by ChrisG
Too bad..
No Backup 3...
Wish they would update the Web Mail UI...
And you still can't edit your calendars online...
ho.. hum... hopefully there will be good widgets.
yeah you can't flag messages, mark them as junk or unread etc! that's all pretty baisc, but the interface looked a bit rubbish before - it's much more Apple now. The online seminar is also out but requires quicktime 7.
It's more of a 2.5.
Originally posted by rok
depends on your definition of the term "worse." like i said earlier, norton got all "kernel extension happy" when they had to update stuff for mac os x. this, in turn, broke other apps and updates because they weren't expecting those kernel extensions to be there. basically, norton took an os 9 mentality to dealing with os x. to my knowledge, norton is still the only disk maintenance and anti-viral company that uses this method to do its work.
All AV software uses kext's (kernel extensions). They need to in order to scan files as they are opened or closed. There's no user-space way to be notified when a file is opened or closed by any program. This "scan on use" is the most common way to detect viruses, since it scans e-mail attachments when they are written to the disk and it scans files downloaded by the Web browser. And I bet if you use any other AV program you'll notice they have kernel extensions loaded as well (I know McAffee's does...perform a kextstat on the command line to see what I mean).