is there a good pda that is mac compatible that will transfer everything i need on a daily basis into programs like iCAL and address book and such things. im sick of a the regular cell fone world. any suggestions? and good experiences you’d liike to share? let me know.

There’s plenty.

Click Here for a look at Apple’s list. I have the Siemens S56 w/Bluetooth and Cingular. Syncing up is just a click on the Mac. My laptop can even access the internet while the cell phone stays in my pocket.

YMMV.

I have one but it’s not required for iSync. Tiger seems to keep .Mac and iSync separate. iSync is for devices, while .Mac is for your Mac.

i’m thinking treo 650, i called tmobile and they said i can use it with their service. any idea on a legitimate site to get one for cheap besides e-bay?

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 12:53 PM

Ron, it would be interesting for you to perform a synch test while you take your computer completely off line and see if it works (without any access to .Mac). I have this feeling it will fail when it can’t “phone home,” but I hope I’m mistaken about this.

It syncs just fine without .Mac.

OMT - I’d think there would have been a huge outcry if Apple had provided sync capability that was ONLY tied to .Mac. I don’t remember hearing any noise.

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 03:06 PM

IÌd think there would have been a huge outcry if Apple had provided sync capability that was ONLY tied to .Mac. I donÌt remember hearing any noise.

Actually, .Mac is required for synching from a desktop to laptop Mac—and this is utterly gratuitous, (and there has been an outcry over it). But as for synching between PDAs, cell phones, etc., and the Mac, I’m glad to hear confirmation that .Mac is not required. Thanks.

Actually, that’s not true. .Mac is required to sync your Mac to .Mac. As part of the deal, you can sync another Mac to .Mac. It’s not Mac to Mac, never was, won’t be.

There’s an outcry? Where? It’s always been that way with iSync and .Mac. If you want to sync to multiple Macs there needs to be a ‘middle’ connection. That’s the .Mac account.

Or, do as probably hundreds of thousands do, sync different.

Open iSync and click on the .Mac icon. What do you get?

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 04:19 PM

Apparently this has been changed as of Tiger. I myself participated in forum discussions in Apple’s forums and in Macworld’s forums about the artificial requirement of .Mac just to synch files between a desktop Mac and a laptop Mac. Many users inexplicably defended this requirement, and I myself argued against it. No one actually said we were proceeding from an erroneous premise. Hmm…

Anyway, it’s a moot point now, and I’m glad to hear that.

I myself am using iSynch to synch to my cell phone on Panther and I don’t have a DotMac account. Works for me myself.

you stay classy - 18 September 2005 08:53 PM

is there a good pda that is mac compatible that will transfer everything i need on a daily basis into programs like iCAL and address book and such things. im sick of a the regular cell fone world. any suggestions? and good experiences you’d liike to share? let me know.

Seems to me it was always about the above… synchronizing info on a Mac to a PDA or cell phone. iSync does just that. And does not require a .Mac account to do it. I used iSync to sync to both phone and PDA on Panther without .Mac.

Perhaps you’re confusing .Mac with iSync.

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 06:29 PM

...let me reiterate that I’m speaking of transferring (and synching) data between a desktop computer and laptop computer. Under Panther it was necessary to have a .Mac account for this—even though it need not have been so.

The original post had to do with transferring from a PDA to a Mac. If memory serves me correctly, iSync does and has always done just that. And in reverse; from a Mac to a PDA, cell phone, iPod, et al. I don’t think a .Mac account was required for that because I remember doing synchronizations without having .Mac.

I’ve learned from Ron that apparently under Tiger this artificlal requirement has been removed and in any case one can synch from one’s computer to a PDA directly without using .Mac as a “weigh station” or intermediary.

Actually, I didn’t say it was removed. I don’t think it was there in the first place. iSync was the sync tool between Mac and device, not Mac to Mac. iSyn would allow a .Mac user to sync to .Mac, then allow other Macs to sync to that.

My main concern in this regard is that many people would wish to synch between their desktop and laptop computers as well, and nothing more should be required for this operation than a crossover Ethernet cable and a utility like iSync. No third-party remote storage accounts (like .Mac) should ever have been necessary.

And to this I agree, though that’s not what iSync currently does or ever did (that I remember; gray hair gives way to scalp during scratching of same).

I haven’t checked, but it’s probably not a big deal to transfer certain data from one Mac to another (say, desktop to laptop). Why Apple doesn’t make this simple is beyond me. Oh, wait. Scratch that. $99 a year for a .Mac account is probably the reason.

If someone came out with a freebie ‘share and sync’ application that worked reasonably well, I’d go for it in a heartbeat.

Why?

Except for the ability to sync certain data between Macs, I no longer think .Mac is worth the money.

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 09:07 PM

Except for the ability to sync certain data between Macs, I no longer think .Mac is worth the money.

Ron, I’m lost. Are you saying that .Mac IS or is not necessary in order to synch the files of two Macs connected on the same LAN?

Certainly .Mac is not necessary to synchronize files between two Macs. I do it all the time using a few different tools. Synchronizing select files on a Mac to another Mac can be much less expensive than .Mac—depending on what you want synchronized, how often, how many Macs, and where they are (LAN, WAN, Internet, Dial Up).

The original post here was about synchronizing a PDA or cell phone to a Mac.  To do so does NOT require .Mac. iSync works fine, and, I think it’s worked fine for Panther and previous iterations of OS X. .Mac was and is used to synchronize select data between Macs, though it does so in an indirect manner. Mac “A” to .Mac, then .Mac to Mac “B.” iSync is not part of .Mac.

See the difference? Somehow this thread got off topic and got moved over to using .Mac to sync two Macs. Indirectly, .Mac does that. iSync is not .Mac. iSync synchronizes select data between a Mac and other devices; iPod, PDA, cell phone, etc.

That said, I’m thinking of dropping .Mac (not iSync) because the value seems less than what I must pay for the privilege of syncing data from .Mac to multiple Macs, web site, rinky dink utilities, et al.

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 09:55 PM

How finely granulated do you want these threads? I’m trying to imagine one thread for Mac-PDA synching, one for Mac-cell phone synching, one for Mac-bluetooth and another for Mac-USB and then another for Mac-to-Mac—argh! I should think you would want some consolidation there but if not I’ll start new threads in the future.

Not so granular that we have a discussion on .Mac for iBooks, .Mac for eMacs, .Mac for PowerBooks, .Mac for iMacs, etc.

However, there was enough of a ‘bend’ in the topic direction that it got confusing.

I’m not worried much about overthreading in this forum. Keeping folks awake is enough of a challenge…

Jeff Mincey - 19 September 2005 10:21 PM

Ron, if the forum poster above is correct, this means that any Apple-supplied synching carries an infinite cost and is a de facto subscription to software rather than a purchase. I fail to see why after three years of use the synch function between two computers should exceed the price of iLife and iWork combined. My God—just a simple synch function?

Let’s try to keep the facts straight.

1 - iSync synchronizes devices such as PDA, Cell Phones, iPods, et al, to a Mac (iCal, AddressBook, etc.).

2 - .Mac is a service which provides software, data storage, email, some synchronized storage between multiple Macs.

#1 is a feature of Mac OS X Tiger. #2 is a service. They are not the same, though certain functions may be similar (synchronizing).

Suppose someone doesn’t see the value added in .Mac and chooses not to subscribe to it—and yet they would still want synching functionality. They would have no choice but to seek it from third parties—and that’s ridiculous (if true). Plus, what if your connection to the net goes down at a given time? If so, then suddenly your synching (via iSync) would then cease to function—even where you had two computers up and running and connected to each other.

iSync and .Mac are not the same thing. If a Mac user does not like .Mac and chooses not to subscribe to it, all that is lost are those features inherent in .Mac. iSync still works. Nothing has changed. iSync does NOT synchronize Macs.

So, I am unclear as to what the issue really is.

My feeling is that .Mac ought to have enough intrinsic value to sell itself without Apple’s artificially “requiring” it for simple functions which shouldn’t have anything to do with accessing a remote server.

Your thoughts?

I fail to see the problem.

What I’m sensing is that some Mac users want iSync to do what .Mac does—synchronize (albeit indirectly) to another Mac. .Mac does that. iSync does not. .Mac costs money. iSync is included in OS X.

So? That’s the way it is. .Mac has other features besides syncing of data between a Mac and .Mac (and other Macs), hence the value is not the same as iSync (since the functions are not the same).

As Tera would say, ‘this is much ado over not much.’

Also, I do not understand the issue of ‘infinite cost’ and a ‘defacto subscription’ to software. ‘Infinite cost’ is a poor choice of wording. .Mac is a subscription service. You pay on an annual basis.

Some could argue that OS X is a subscription service. You pay every 18 months.

Some of the argumentation above is getting silly. “I fail to see why after three years of use the synch function between two computers should exceed the price of iLife and iWork combined. My GodÛjust a simple synch function?”

Really, now. The assumption there is that all that .Mac is is a simple synchronization function for data between .Mac and multiple Macs. So, at $99 a year is grossly expensive. It seems to me that the sync function is merely ONE feature among many. I know many Mac users who have .Mac and have only one Mac. So, no synchronizing between Macs. Those poor fools. Don’t they know they’re supposed to buy another Mac so they can properly use .Mac?

iSync does NOT synchronize two Macs. .Mac does (indirectly). If the Internet connection goes down, you can still sync your cell phone, your iPod and your PDA with iSync, assuming you have a cable and electricity. You won’t be able to .Mac sync until there’s a connection again.

Just for clarification, what’s the problem again?

I’m probably being a little thick here, but I also have a problem with syncing my laptop and my desk machine via the .Mac account.

I completely agree. the .mac account has all kinds of features that make it beneficial to use. However, I have a friend who gives me server space for web site and storage at no cost, so I have no real need for a .mac account.

Until I want to sync my computers.

iSync is a useless app, at least for me, because it won’t sync the only 2 devices I want to sync: two Macs.

I have to agree with Jeff that iSync has no value without a subscription to a .Mac account.

Is there any other way to sync two macs? Yes, yes, yes, I can get them hooked up to each other via firewire or ethernet, and then start dragging stuff back and forth. Is that my only option?

I’ve been reading this debate with interest, hoping there was a solution without a .Mac account. So far, I don’t see one.

Tom

firefly - 20 September 2005 01:03 AM

iSync is a useless app, at least for me, because it won’t sync the only 2 devices I want to sync: two Macs.

I have to agree with Jeff that iSync has no value without a subscription to a .Mac account.

Is there any other way to sync two macs? Yes, yes, yes, I can get them hooked up to each other via firewire or ethernet, and then start dragging stuff back and forth. Is that my only option?

This ‘problem’ has been enormously understated and poorly identified.

1 - iSync does NOT sync between two Macs. Leave iSync out of the discussion. Forever. It doesn’t do what you want.

2 - .Mac syncs a single Mac to .Mac, and allows another Mac(s) to sync to .Mac data.

If you want to synchronize select data between two Macs you have multiple choices that range from expensive and easy (.Mac) to cheap and difficult (drag and drop via Target Drive). There’s probably more than a few other solutions between the two.

The ‘complaint’ appears to be that users (Jeff and others) want iSync to synchronize between two Macs. It doesn’t, so leave iSync out of the discussion. Forever.

Another ‘complaint’ is that some users don’t want to use .Mac to synchronize between Macs because a) it costs money, b) it’s not direct.

Find another solution.

Check the specs on ChronoSync. I’ve used it a few years to… wait! Here it comes—synchronize data between two or more Macs; over a LAN, over a WAN, over a Dial Up connection, even Target Mode.

ChronoSync even has a scheduler; set it and forget it.

Sometimes we forget that Apple is in business to make money and increase shareholder value. Making money requires profit. Increasing shareholder value requires increasing the stock price. Since Steve Jobs came back to Apple in mid-1997, the company has performed well; even better in recent years, if record cash in the bank and record stock price and record product shipments mean anything.

.Mac is one of many products/services which allows Apple to make money, make pofit, hopefully help increase the stock price, yada yada. .Mac provides a variety of services to Mac users for a set price. The user base gets to decide which services to use, and whether or not to use said services.

As users, we also have the right to request, demand, prefer, desire more from Apple.

Jeff said, “Now, assuming you are still with me on this, there is only ONE reason a .Mac account should be required, and that is when we are using the internet to connect the two computers in question.

I don’t like insults, implied, veiled, or direct. Don’t insult me by assuming I don’t understand your poorly worded premise and weak argument (see how you feel?). And, you’re wrong. There is obviously more than ONE reason a .Mac account should be required. In Jeff’s world there might be one reason only, but in the real world there is more than one reason. The first reason probably starts with ‘money.’

Do you want Apple to give you a PowerBook in red instead of aluminum? Too bad. Do you want that PowerBook at $599 because you can buy a Toshiba at Best Buy for $599 (after rebates)? Too bad.

Do you want iSync to synchronize two Macs? Too bad. It doesn’t. Do you want .Mac for free because there’s only one simple reason to have .Mac? Too bad.

After a few thousand words, Jeff attempts to consolidate, clarify, and says, “The problem is this: Why must a Mac user have a .Mac account for using iSync to synch his two computers when the computers are ALREADY connected to each other directly? And why must the Mac user pay an annual fee for this simple function?

Again, Jeff, iSync does not synchonize between two Macs. Why must the Mac user pay an annual fee for this simple function?

Because Apple is in business to make money, yet they have to walk a delicate balance between providing ‘built in’ functionality requested by users, vs. leaving some functionality requirements for third party developers to help grow the application market. In this case, Apple has chose a specific path, one that Jeff doesn’t like (perhaps many others, too) but probably a million or so others who don’t have the same issues (.Mac users with only a single Mac).

I use .Mac and have from day one. I question the value. For me. Remote synchronization and backup is valuable, as is access to mail and bookmarks and a few other goodies. But it’s becoming a ‘fine line’ in the value department, hence my concern.

.Mac does not do a good job of synchronizing or backing up all files. Bookmarks, Addressbook, Mail accounts, LoginID/PWs, OK. Anything else and even the 1 gigabyte storage is not enough and too slow.

For everything else, I use ChronoSync.

I’ve been reading this thread until my eyes started to bleed.

Only until the last post from the Administrator did I fully understand the ‘problem.’ The solution was pretty simple. Chronosync.

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

Jeff said, ÏNow, assuming you are still with me on this…”

Ron replies: “I donÌt like insults, implied, veiled, or direct.”

Yes, and I considered it an insult. Deal with it.

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

Huh? The only reason I used that phrase above is that we both seem to suffer from some confusion as a result of each other’s posts. For example, at one point I said, “I’m lost,” and at another point you said, “I am unclear as to what the issue really is.”

Perhaps that is so because you were not clear?

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

So since you already acknowledged you were not entirely clear as to what I was getting at, I thought it was perfectly natural to pause in my post and say, “...assuming you are still with me…”

What’s perfectly natural to you may not be acceptable to someone else. Remarkable, huh?

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

And now you get in a huff because I dared suggest you might not be clear on what you yourself had previously said you were not clear on.

But only because you didn’t seem to make it clear.

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

Ron, I mean no insult at all. I know you are intelligent and have great technical proficiency—okay? Suggesting that you might not be following me (or, more accurately, just asking for confirmation of that), does NOT call your intelligence or knowledge into question. I was just trying to clarify my position, step by step.

You use more words to ‘clarify’ than anyone I’ve ever seen on a forum.

Jeff Mincey - 20 September 2005 10:16 AM

This continues to be the touchiest and most sensitive forum I have ever seen—that people will find an insult in the simple phrase, “assuming you are still with me…” Amazing.

Now I know why Tera didn’t want you as a moderator. You’re welcome to leave.