1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Changes to .Mac

Discussion in 'Apple/Mac' started by Dale, May 31, 2007.

  1. I don't know if anyone saw the interview yesterday with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates by Walt Mossberg, but Steve let slip about upcoming changes to the .Mac service.

    He said that he's not really happy with the way that .mac has gone, and that changes are imminent (see the link).


    Before I bought my camera, I decided that what I was paying was far too much for the service they offered. The backup application for iLife was what I used the most.

    If they could make iPhoto + Aperture integration slicker, faster and for a bit less, I would seriously consider going back to the service.

    Does anyone here use .Mac for photography, currently?
  2. Yes, I use iWeb along with Aperture to do photo web pages and host images that I post here and a couple of other sites. Slick and easy, not sure he can improve this very much.

    Mail and iCal could use a bit of improvement, particularly in the synching department on multiple computers. I have been a pleased .mac customer for about two years. When they added iWeb into iLife it was a big improvement IMNSHO.
  3. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    I had a .Mac account for a while, but agree that the price was way too high for the services offered. I really looked forward to iWeb, but it disappoints with a lot of sizzle and no steak. The amount of space offered for .Mac accounts is woefully inadequate for any serious use.

    I still use Backup on my iMac, and I miss being able to sync my favorites between computers. However, I could get better versions for a lot less money elsewhere.
  4. Actually, since Leopard is going to have the new "Time Machine" (backup) function, right there that would necessitate some changes to BackUp in .mac....
  5. Connie,

    That has just got me thinking.. I wonder if they'll offer an online time machine?

    Until I bought the D80 a couple of weeks ago, I certainly would not have used 80% of .Mac. Now that I plan to take a lot more photo's, I can see that some more bits would come in handy. I will be waiting the outcome of WWDC.

    Hope they improve the speed too. Uploading and downloading files in the UK was painfully slow, even over DSL. I have heard comments about speed increases to iTunes recently. Hope they plan to bring similar increases to the new .Mac service.
  6. DBrim


    May 30, 2007
    Boston, MA
    I have .mac, but I haven't touched it. I can't see myself using it for anything aside from backup. I do use iPhoto for sorting/importing photos, but I haven't bothered to open the package yet (I got it as a birthday present).
  7. Hi Larry,

    Thanks for your comments. I could see the .Mac iWeb integration being useful once I have some decent images to share, but at the moment, I am still learning.

    I got back from holiday to find most images over exposed. Should have listed to this forum and dialled in -0.7 ev before I even took a shot (next step is to buy the highly rated book titled Exposure), so that I cxan learn what I am doing. I think this has to be a higher priority for me than new lenses.

    The plan is to be posting images soon!

    Hopefully by then, I'll get even more value from .Mac.
  8. I had .mac for a long time when it first came out (iTools anyone?) but dropped it about 2 years ago because the space was not worth the money. If Apple would increase the amount of space, I would go back, but right now it's hard to pass up Smugmug's pro account. (unlimited space)
  9. Commodorefirst

    Commodorefirst Admin/Moderator Administrator

    May 1, 2005

    I have been very happy with the .mac service and hosting service. It is very very fast, and during my 5 years with it, I don't think I have ever had a red x or other problem with my site.

    Granted the tools are old, and for me to switch from the old .mac tools to even the newer iweb, would require re doing my entire image library.

    I like having a full access public place and I can easily set parameters on each and every page, and I can have folks upload 10, 20, 50MB files if needed, or download from there those size files too.

    If I was starting out new right now I would probably go with smugmug pro, however, things do what I desire, and my upload and bandwith is actually pretty good.

    Sure it is more expensive than others, but when you have over 2000 images online, combined between my family page and my display page, changing isn't an option.

    Knowing the system, I can take an image, resize, place it in my folders have it on the web in less than a minute. Stable and fast, what I need. There was a major speed bump about 1.5 years ago so if you haven't visited in a while, things are faster now than earlier.

    Cheers, just another viewpoint.

  10. Wade,
    do you have the stock .mac storage or did you upgrade?
  11. Commodorefirst

    Commodorefirst Admin/Moderator Administrator

    May 1, 2005

    I have the stock storage, I think 2 GB, maybe only one, haven't checked in a while, I don't remember. My bandwith is 5GB every two weeks, max of 10 per month, I came close only once when some photos were linked over at DPR, Fred Miranda, the cafe, and Nikonians all in the same week, (D200 banding examples and post repair work when the camera first came out. Showing before and after repair pics) But even then I only went to 4.1 GB during a two week period.

    The key is just not to have large files on your website. I have none larger than 200KB and most are between 80-160kb in size.

    I have considered going to another tier level for huge bandwith and storage and storing some data off site, but for now I haven't. Sure $99 is steep, but I don't mind paying the fee for the stability I seem to have, and I also have numerous email accounts and email aliases too with the account.

  12. DBrim


    May 30, 2007
    Boston, MA
    For what it's worth, my hosting blows .mac out of the water for services. 500GB storage, 5TB bandwidth, $5.00 per month. Seems like a better deal to me.
  13. .mac offers a lot more than just hosting. iCal, Address Book, bookmarks synching on up to five computers, email service along with a limited number of aliases to mention a few. Also there is iWeb which makes it quick and simple to do a Web site.

    Is it perfect, no. Is it very convenient and user friendly, yes. Is it a bargain, no. It is well worth what it costs for all that it will do and its ease of use IMNSHO. YMMV
  14. DBrim


    May 30, 2007
    Boston, MA
    I should have been more clear, I guess. My hosting blows .mac out of the water for things that I use it for. I never use iCal or address book. My hosting offers e-mail services. I coded my site myself, which I like doing a lot more than using iWeb (which I've tried).
  15. Commodorefirst

    Commodorefirst Admin/Moderator Administrator

    May 1, 2005
    Glad you are happy, and clarifying your statement, websites, like cameras, is based upon what your needs and wants and desires, what are you comfortable using, etc. etc. what some find limiting, others find useful and good, others need mega pixels, others AF speed, others good glass,

    Thanks for the clarification, and you are welcome to code your own site :biggrin:, my days of cascade style sheets, coding, programming and knowing C, basic, fortran, pascal, etc. etc. are way way behind me,

    by the way, nice images on your site,


  16. jfrancis


    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    As much as I wanted to like and use it, I just couldn't see the advantages of a .mac account for the price. My needs were mainly for photo hosting and for a little more money a SmugMug pro account did way more for me.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.