PDA

View Full Version : Dot Mac users?



Chilton
08-12-2006, 12:29 PM
Hi,

Just a quick poll.

1) Are you a Dot Mac subscriber now?
2) Do you plan on getting a Dot Mac Subscription in the future?

Thanks,
-Chilton

BazC
08-12-2006, 12:45 PM
I'm thinking about it.

Jeffers
08-12-2006, 01:12 PM
Yes I am, and have been for just over 12 months!

gerry_g
08-12-2006, 04:10 PM
Yeah me too, but Apple being an arrogant bunch of basterds won't let me use the underscore in my user name ( presumably ‘His Steveness’ has decreed that this should be Holy writ), so I keep resisting out of pure spite

Weepul
08-12-2006, 06:20 PM
1. Yup.
2. Yup.

richardsan
08-12-2006, 08:26 PM
been one for several years, have been mostly satisfied with it, until recently...where it 'got so bad' i had to wipe and re install the os and that still didn't fix the problem !!
[mail.app would start to load and then quit, and posting an error report to send into apple]
and then it suddenly just loaded and behaved...but i am a little leery for it.

riki
08-12-2006, 09:58 PM
what's dot mac? okay never mind I just worked it out.

Avebeno
08-12-2006, 11:52 PM
Just officially subscribed a couple of weeks ago. It's way too convenient to share file with fellow mac users! The love the easy access to my .mac public folder as well as the iCal syncing.

avkills
08-13-2006, 02:18 AM
Used to have it, couldn't justify spending a hundred or so a year to keep it.

-mark

Kuzey
08-13-2006, 03:45 AM
I also used too have one.....might take it up again if I really needed one.

Kuzey

Kevin Olson
08-13-2006, 04:52 AM
I've got one

jeremyhardin
08-13-2006, 09:22 AM
got it for my wife to use with iWeb. Instant design and publishing was too good to pass up.

it's iWeb functionality is not quite working for me personally right now due to some special ftp needs that i have, but i plan to implement it as I reorganize some things.

Chilton
08-13-2006, 09:26 AM
iWeb was a bit of a letdown for me. I was really hoping they'd do something less template based.

-Chilton

Lightwolf
08-13-2006, 09:27 AM
1) No
2) No

I wouldn't even know why I'd want it... I'm not a normal Mac user though I guess ;)

Cheers,
Mike

jeremyhardin
08-13-2006, 09:34 AM
iWeb was a bit of a letdown for me. I was really hoping they'd do something less template based.

-Chilton
Really? I hate web design (much like I hate DVD design). So I welcomed the ease (as I did with iDVD), so long as each template could be customized (which most can).

Though I do wish that iWeb would generate more human-readable code and would implement a Code View that I could edit in (ala dreamweaver).

Oh, and an ability to make one's own template with custom hot-boxes, etc. Same goes for iDVD by the way.

But for me it's been a timesaver overall. I was able to focus my iDof (http://www.lwidof.net) time on the Lscript itself rather than making a pretty webpage.

avkills
08-13-2006, 10:09 AM
iWeb would be great if it didn't just make a bunch of image slices for half the stuff (which is what users have been telling me it does).

Basic HTML and CSS is really not that hard to learn, and SubEthaEdit is very handy about showing you the code color coded.

-mark

jeremyhardin
08-13-2006, 10:19 AM
you know...i know html, css, java, flash, etc. i can make any website imaginable. but i don't like building webpages, so i avoid it when possible.

i know what the code means, but like photoshop, it's code is a lot less clean than something i would code. check out the source for http://www.lwidof.net or http://jeremy.lwidof.net/premiere
both were made with iWeb.

Lightwolf
08-13-2006, 11:24 AM
:offtopic:

check out the source for http://www.lwidof.net or http://jeremy.lwidof.net/premiere
both were made with iWeb.
Hm, I wouldn't call that "clean" code. Add a decent CSS and the HTML would be a third of the current size and more readable.
Then again, none of the more graphic oriented HTML editors create decent code without human intervention either...

Cheers,
Mike

jeremyhardin
08-13-2006, 11:43 AM
:offtopic:

Hm, I wouldn't call that "clean" code. Add a decent CSS and the HTML would be a third of the current size and more readable.
Then again, none of the more graphic oriented HTML editors create decent code without human intervention either...

Cheers,
Mike
That's exactly my point. iWeb doesn't create clean code. (Nor does photoshop.) Forgive my miscommunication. But I was linking to those sites to show the type of code iWeb generates.

Oh (another iWeb complaint), it also doesn't change links from "My Homepage" to "my_homepage.html". I hate that. I should be able to use spaces when creating new page titles and not have it generate a space in the actual filename. c'mon.

Lightwolf
08-13-2006, 12:07 PM
That's exactly my point. iWeb doesn't create clean code. (Nor does photoshop.) Forgive my miscommunication. But I was linking to those sites to show the type of code iWeb generates.

Ah, allright then, I got you wrong, sorry... :agree:

Cheers,
Mike
P.S. The OT smiley was intended as a smiley, not as a :( type...

Jeffers
08-13-2006, 02:06 PM
Jeremy,
I am the same! I know html, css, flash etc but I hate building websites!!!!!
Weird eh?

Darth Mole
08-13-2006, 04:20 PM
Yeah, had .Mac since it came out - mainly for the @mac.com email. Just spent a few days building my 3D graphics website in iWeb - the content's rubbish so no link :-)

I don't mind how crappy its code it - I don't have time to learn htmlcssjavawhatever and friends can view the pages fine so who cares?

I gather iWeb 2 will be a lot cleverer. Be nice to add a few flash gizmos, but it does its job well enough for me.

amigo
08-13-2006, 05:10 PM
No and no.

I'm sure most of you have heard of alternatives to .Mac service, offered by several other web sites for free. On top of that those of you who run your own web servers can install a set of scripts to allow you to mimic some of .Mac features on your own without the need for real .Mac account.

I guess those who don't want to mess too much with perl and apache can go for one of those freebies, but overal, there's always a choice.

Ryhnio
08-13-2006, 06:24 PM
Chilton,

1. Yes I am a dot mac user.
2. Do you plan on bringing .Mac support to Lightwave? Because that would be spectacular.
3. I can't express my thanks to you enough for being Newteks Mac "REP".

-Ryhnio

RonGC
08-13-2006, 11:47 PM
Ditto to what Ryhnio said.

Have had the dot Mac account since its creation. Use it for a ton of items, mail,webpages,photo albums,video albums, file storage/sharing etc.

Ron

loki74
08-14-2006, 12:37 AM
I have a dotmac account.. use it mainly for the email, but also if I need to host an image thats bigger than the photobucket limit.

Yacomo
08-14-2006, 01:04 AM
Yes, I have one and I'm going to keep it for the foreseeable future :) .

dsol
08-14-2006, 04:03 AM
I have one, got it to help with synching work schedules with my regular collaborators. I'm not overwhelmingly impressed by it as a whole, though a lot of that is down to the fact I don't like Apple's Mail and Calender apps - particularly Mail - which is a spam magnet (it doesn't give you the option of disabling external http access for HTML emails - AFAIK).

Entourage still rules my email roost - despite the pesky centralised corruption-prone database nature of it :P

jimmy luck
08-14-2006, 12:41 PM
never had it, might get on board soon.

JeffRutan
08-14-2006, 06:42 PM
My wife and I both have .Mac accounts (had it from the beginning). I use it mainly for email, but my wife publishes photos for family/friends to view.
-Jeff (jeffrutan at mac dot com)

Dany
08-18-2006, 10:14 AM
Yes, Have an account since the beginning of .Mac service.
Good email (And email aliases)
Good integration with Mac OS X finder.
Easy to share images
Never had any difficulty with the .Mac service

KPS
08-18-2006, 10:55 AM
Yep!
Have it for 4 years now.

Gui Lo
08-19-2006, 12:59 AM
Yes, Yes.
.Mac is not great but there's nothing else like it.
iWeb is fantastic at some things but only ok for others but it can only get better.

TomT
08-20-2006, 12:49 AM
Yes & Yes. But I don't see .mac integration as very high on my list of issues for LW . . .

-T

Chilton
08-20-2006, 07:30 AM
Hi TomT,

Dot Mac integration is something I'm toying with. Until recently, I didn't have the fastest network connection, so using it for anything other than a repository for freeware and family photos seemed rather pointless. I also don't want to tip our hand to our competitors regarding why I even bothered to ask.

But that leads me to an idea for another thread...

-Chilton

Weepul
08-20-2006, 04:32 PM
As someone who just uses .Mac as an email service and webspace/file repository (no syncing/address book/calendar/etc.), I have no clue in what ways could LW integrate with it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Chilton
08-20-2006, 04:47 PM
As someone who just uses .Mac as an email service and webspace/file repository (no syncing/address book/calendar/etc.), I have no clue in what ways could LW integrate with it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

My plans at this time are entirely super-secret. I'm just curious who has it, and what they're already using it for.

Of course, if anyone cares to speculate, I'd be glad to assimilate any better ideas people come up with, and say *those* were my plans.

-Chilton

jeremyhardin
08-20-2006, 05:13 PM
well, modeler and layout already use TCP to communicate through the hub...and screamernet is obviously a network tool...so...

I think .Mac could potentially be used for remote client work? One person modeling in modeler while another person animates/lights/renders in layout somewhere else? Just a thought.

Also, using .Mac as part of screamernet maybe? So one user and multiple connected CPUs could render from the iDisk?

Those are the uber-obvious vague thoughts from me. Hmm.

Project management/back up for projects following the standard content directory structure?

Group collaboration tools for those working in multiple locations? Schedules and brainstorming sessions with deadline calendars and budget tracking?

Preset presentation tools (think, "Export to Web..." in the render output panel, including basic HTML generation and .Mac publishing). Or a quicktime object for insertion into iWeb 2.0 (which I believe will be more flexible for external objects than the current one).
On that note, you could have options like "Export Iteration" which would create a WIP webpage with incremental or dated numbering and includes the rendered frame as thumbnail and fullsize (much like a simpler and more integrated version of my PreviewMaker (http://jeremy.lwidof.net/lscript/#previewmaker) script), then "Export Final", etc.

Other .Mac or iLife tie ins. Like:

Export to iMovie...
Create video podcast...
Export with Movie Trailer formatting


Just some random brainstorming there. Could think of more I'm sure.

Chilton
08-20-2006, 05:36 PM
Jezza,

Keep going! That's good stuff!

-Chilton

eidetiken
08-20-2006, 05:53 PM
Chilton, you do know we want everything that's been listed so far, and we also expect Window's users to have to wait 1, 2, no... 3 years before they get any of the cool new features that are available in the Mac OS X UB version of Lightwave?

That's right, we expect the Mac engineers at NewTek to take the lead in coming up with innovative solutions to all things 3D.

(Put this in the wrong thread... to many windows open)

archiea
08-20-2006, 06:00 PM
Hi,

Just a quick poll.

1) Are you a Dot Mac subscriber now?
2) Do you plan on getting a Dot Mac Subscription in the future?

Thanks,
-Chilton

I have one and will conitnue maintinaing one.. how about an official poll to make your life easier!!! ;D

eblu
08-21-2006, 07:47 AM
Hi,

Just a quick poll.

1) Are you a Dot Mac subscriber now?
2) Do you plan on getting a Dot Mac Subscription in the future?

Thanks,
-Chilton


1. yes
2. yes

i get it for the email, the backup/config sharing resources, and the convenient (although, not cheap) storage space.

pantone
08-21-2006, 08:46 AM
I re-upped my .mac account last year after they implemented their synching technology. It's nice to be able to synch my bookmarks, RSS feeds, keychain access items, and many more between the different macs that I use.

I could see LW using the synch service to keep copies of configs, preferences, and plugs in a central location. Every time you make a little adjustment to your interface that you like synch it and all the computers you use LW on could pick it up.

sjon
08-22-2006, 12:02 PM
1.Yes
2.Yes

I have had it for almost a year, but I don't really use it a lot. I have a little site there, but I keep my main stuff on my personal and business sites.

Sjon