Okay, I slagged iSync earlier because I want a Mac-to-Mac syncing. But I also asked for a solution.
Chronosync sounds like it might hit the spot. Thank you for that mention, Ronniemac. I’ll give it a whirl, and give a report.
You should give Backup 3.0 (just reviewed by . . . was it Bambi?) a go, and report your verdict here, as part of the ongoing debate about the value of .Mac account.
It is a good debate, with merits on both sides, and I hope it can be renewed another day, with cooler prevailing winds.
Bambi did a review on Backup 3.0, which is a component of .Mac. The previous versions of Backup were not well received, and I had sufficient problems with dependability that I stopped using it. Bambi’s review of version 3.0 is mostly positive, though it’s only the first day after release.
From my initial look at Backup 3.0, it’s obvious that the product is aimed at the masses. That’s not good or bad, just an observation, as the interface is simple and straightforward and the options few (say, when compared to ChronoSync).
For those whose eyes may still be bleeding, .Mac and iSync are not the same. iSync synchronizes a Mac and peripheral devices; PDA, Cell Phone, iPod. .Mac is a service which includes a multi-Mac synchronization utility (which used to use iSync, but is now, in Tiger, relegated to the System Preferences. I’ve had trouble getting consistent, dependable syncs with .Mac (sporadic problems of who knows what cause).
That hasn’t been the case with other backup/sync utilities such as SuperDuper! or ChronoSync. The former is very simple to operate, can get complex with scripts, but is dependable. The latter is also simple for basic syncs, but can handle more complex syncs with different files, folders, etc. (but can be more effort to set up), and is dependable.
Apple is in dire need of a good backup utility for Mac OS X Tiger (and beyond) but also must walk that fine line so as not to crush the third party developer market.
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
I’ve always had problems synchronizing files between Macs. Well, more ‘fear’ than problems, I guess. I started keeping all my important files in the Documents folder, and, based on a tip from Tera some time back, started using Chronosync to keep the files in sync. That works very well, regardless of which Mac I use to initiate the synchronization.
However, that’s only the basic files in Documents. Other files, like iCal, Addressbook, Bookmarks, some preferences, and so on, were more easily handled by .Mac. I think that’s by design so Apple can make a few more bucks from us.
Tera gave me a list of files to sync up using Chronosync that helped immensely.
Jack, please excuse my ignorance, but does it matter which Documents folder? That is, there is a documents folder on the first level, immediately when you enter your harddrive. And then I have another Documents folder in my ‘user’ level. With utter disregard to protocol or design—no one ever taught me the ‘right’ way to use them—I have all kinds of documents in both Document folders.
I know this is off-topic, but which one is more easily synced, using, say, Chronosync?
Jack, please excuse my ignorance, but does it matter which Documents folder? That is, there is a documents folder on the first level, immediately when you enter your harddrive. And then I have another Documents folder in my ‘user’ level. With utter disregard to protocol or design—no one ever taught me the ‘right’ way to use them—I have all kinds of documents in both Document folders.
I know this is off-topic, but which one is more easily synced, using, say, Chronosync?
Tom
As you’d suspect, it all depends.
As to the Documents folder, it doesn’t matter. It’s whichever folder you put all your documents in. Since Documents is already there, that’s where I put my files. All except Music, Pictures, and Movies.
In terms of synchronization or backup, .Mac is pretty easy but has severe limitations. It’s over the Internet, it’s slow, it’s limited to 1 gigabyte. That said, it’s good for selecting important files to backup/sync.
Chronosync is awesome but takes a little work to set up. The scheduler is simple, though. It’s got a 30-day free trial so give it a shot.
Just read where Palm is heading to Windows Mobile, ditching Palm OS. That must be a tough business to be in. Apple is playing it well by keeping sync to basics. Still, it’s obvious that there’s no easy solution to synchronizing certain data from one Mac to another without .Mac. Many Mac users wouldn’t have any idea where to look on their Macs for iCal data, or AddressBook info, and the like. I wouldn’t, though I know who to ask.
I’m inclined to agree that Apple should make Mac sync a little easier and a lot less expensive.
....my Treo650 syncs quite well with my Powerbook, except the fact that you use iSync just to first pair Treo and Mac, and then it’s the Palm Desktop software that does it all…(iSync just pops up to ask if it can add new events in iCal or new contacts in AddressBook…)
....my Treo650 syncs quite well with my Powerbook, except the fact that you use iSync just to first pair Treo and Mac, and then it’s the Palm Desktop software that does it all…(iSync just pops up to ask if it can add new events in iCal or new contacts in AddressBook…)
Lorenzo
Venice, Italy
I guess I should have been more specific. The Treo syncs fine with the Mac so long as you use Palm Desktop to replace Address Book and iCal, which I refuse to do. Otherwise, massive dataloss occurs.
For instance, the Mac has a “Birthday” field, which doesn’t sync to the Palm. The Mac has a “Spouse” field, the Palm doesn’t. The Mac has both “Work” and “Home” per contact, the Palm doesn’t. Thus, if you have both a work and home contact for one contact on your Mac, you lose the “Work” address when you sync, since the Palm can’t handle multiple addresses (Meanwhile, your home address shows up as a work address on the Palm, go figure). The palm doesn’t support the Mac’s categories, the Palm doesn’t understand the Mac’s multi-day events and instead show up as a single day….....this goes on and on forever. So as you can imagine, the second you sync your Treo with iCal and Address Book, your data is instantly hosed.
*sighs*
yeah..that’s true…let’s wait for an Apple pda…the rebirth of newton?
I don’t think we’ll ever see an Apple PDA. First, it has to work well with Windows and that’s always a challenge. I think we’ll see more functionality in the iPod first. For example, the ability to enter and sync information.
Regardless, I’m convinced that the PDA market is heading toward cell phone territory and the Treo should be the first round of proof. If Apple decides to design a cell phone, get someone to make it, and get Cingular (and then other carriers) to sell it for them, it’ll be a big hit. iTunes, iPod-like, iCal/AddressBook even for Windows users. Awesome.
I’m convinced that the PDA as a device is near dead. That said, the ‘PDA’ as a set of features and functions is certainly NOT dead, they’re just finding newer and more fertile territory.
For example, all the PDA data you’d ever want is basically contained in iCal, Mail, AddressBook. That data can be moved from Mac to Mac and made accessible on the web (via the overpriced but handy .Mac). iSync gets most of the basic data into other devices like the iPod and cell phones. So Apple has avoided the money-losing PDA business but still provides most of the same functionality.
Now, give me a videoPad with wireless capability and let it sync up my Home directory and life will much more fun than now. The PDA is dead. Long live the PDA!!!
Yeah, I think you’re on to something regarding the standalone PDA. All the basic info from iCal, AddressBook, etc., can be copied over to the iPod seamlessly. That makes the iPod a PDA except for data entry.
I’m surprised someone hasn’t come out with an add-on that lets you enter data into the iPod.
I bought a few Palm devices and ended up not using them because my cell phone carried the same info (thanks, iSync) and the Palm devices were still painful to enter information. Maybe that’s the key and a good reason for Apple to stay out of PDAs. Carrying around the valuable data is a good thing. Putting data into a PDA (not the Mac or PC) is what’s painful. No one wants to sit in on a meeting going ‘click, click, clickety, click clack…’
