I've had demos from Fetch, Transmit

http://www.panic.com/transmit

then there's also Cyberduck and, apparently, quite a few more.

Although the general consensus is very favourable I never seem to make it work [8-)] for some reason.

Never have any problems via .mac (apart from the vast expense of adding more storage...)

@Another User said:

I'm told Mac doesn't do this natively

this is not 100% true ... provided you're on OS X.
command-K - connect to server - address: ftp://some.server.dom
then a dialog should appear and ask you for your credentials. use it like any other finder-window then
alternatively the syntax is: ftp://myusername:mypassword@some.server.dom which includes the credentials like an URL.
please note that you possibly have to choose passive ftp or not in your network preferences and disable an ftp-proxy depending on the network and/or router you are connected to
christian

@Another User said:

I'm told Mac doesn't do this natively

this is not 100% true ... provided you're on OS X.
command-K - connect to server - address: ftp://some.server.dom
then a dialog should appear and ask you for your credentials. use it like any other finder-window then
alternatively the syntax is: ftp://myusername:mypassword@some.server.dom which includes the credentials like an URL.
please note that you possibly have to choose passive ftp or not in your network preferences and disable an ftp-proxy depending on the network and/or router you are connected to
christian

Thx for that: I knew about command-K but not about the syntax version. Will give it a try soon.

Almost everyone I know uses Transmit with good results. .Mac seems very limited with only 1GB of storage.

.mac, you mean iDisk? you're kidding saying 1 GB is limited - no?

anyway - i'd like to add: be careful if uploading or downloading audio via ftp or http for professional purposes, better put the file(s) into some archive (.sit, .zip, .rar, ect) - since both protocols are *connectionless* media files can loose single frames/samples without reporting to be corrupt.

not a real problem when downloading a demo, but unpleasant when approaching a deadline ... and as a side-effect you're saving bandwidth [;)]
christian

transmit has worked great for me for about 3 years

Thanks to all. I will look into Transmit. I'd tried Fetch, and that same day I experienced the most serious Apple crash I'd ever had. I know Fetch is well regarded, so it may have been pure coincidence. I did upload successfully using Fetch.

Via OSX I have used the syntax christian described, and I can download from FTP. But when I try to upload, I get that "[file] could not be moved because [target FTP folder] cannot be modified." I assume I'm logged in to the FTP site because I'm accessing a password-protected folder. I log in on XP the same way and upload freely.

On OSX I tried alternating the passive FTP setting in Network preferences to no avail. I don't know how to disable a proxy. I think "Transmit" will be my next step.

@cm said:

.mac, you mean iDisk? you're kidding saying 1 GB is limited - no?

Yes iDisk. 1GB gets used up very quickly on my server. Currently I have at least 12Gb with a TV series and a feature film with 5.1 stems.

If using dot mac I highly recommend transit - it's the best I've seen for general ftp and use specifically with dot mac - rarely a problem, very reliable (1000X better than finder for dot mac!). by the way the dot mac upgrade to 3gb is good value.

Miklos.

I've been using Fetch for FTP, and it works fine.

Just out of interest, why is Transit better than the Finder for .Mac? Is if faster? I love the way you can just drag files over, but if it's faster I might want to switch, since we use .Mac all the time.

By the way, did you know that other people can now access your public folder from a browser? It comes in handy for Windows users.

But I use www.YouSendIt.com for sending large files. It works really well and is much simpler than FTP - assuming people wait for their files to upload, which is a common pitfall (it looks like it's finished but it isn't).

I my experience transit is usually enormously faster especially for downloads than the finder but particularly hugely more reliable. I had nothing but trouble with finder and dot mac, never works, files don't refresh, the worst I have to do in transit is log off, log on, in dot mac, I would have to restart the machine! or log out and log in it's the one feature that makes mac osx decidedly windows like in that respect, so I stopped using it and bought transit! In dot mac you can download one file at a time over broadband , in transit, if you drag each file individually (good for large files) I've downloaded up to 8 files simultaneously at about 80kbps for EACH FILE. If you do one, it gets up to 120kbps, so you can download a lot more data at once - not possible with finder. For example if you have 800mb of audio files - a big help. Uploads are still slow but more reliable that's for sure. In finder I always had big uploads or downloads fail, anything over 10mb is almost gauranteed to fail for me in finder, but transit I've done a file up to 250mb in a single file no trouble, I would be confident to do more than 1gig in a single file.

Miklos.

That's good to know. Thanks.

What's the FTP address of a .Mac account? In other words, is it FTP://blablaba.mac.com?

dot mac does not function on ftp protocol it uses WEBDAV which is something different. you can't log in to web dav with ftp on the command line for example (that I know of)

Miklos.

AFAIK iDisk ist webDAV only ... regaring jamriding's problem: it turned up to be two-faced - the webweaver seems not to provide an easy way of publishing files via ftp (looks like only some project files get uploaded) and the provider dosn't support to deliver anything else from their webspace than html and images (the most awkward thing i have ever seen on a windows2003 server, additionally they don't allow to run scripts except their own preconfigured stone-age cgi's), so he might have to rely on his .mac webspace.
christian

@mpower88 said:

If using dot mac I highly recommend transit - it's the best I've seen for general ftp and use specifically with dot mac - rarely a problem, very reliable (1000X better than finder for dot mac!). by the way the dot mac upgrade to 3gb is good value.

Miklos.

I've been looking into that and I can only find upgrades to either 2GB or 4GB. How much actually IS the upgrade (besides, presumably, subscribing to a .mac account in the first place?).

I've only 5 days of free space left before I have to take the plunge... I've finally managed to get (at last) something on the web but a lot of detail seems to be missing using FTP instead of .mac (which works flawlessly).

Presumably, when you're using Transmit, it's just a case of changing the server, user name & password and then amending the FTP to WebDAV in the Protocol box?

I'm not sure but I think the account with the upgrade is in the vecinity of $200USD per year the reason I upgraded to the 4gigs was also because you get 500Gigs per month of web site bandwidth! I've never come close to running even half way. You can host a number of sites from your sites folder all with movies mp3's etc and never run out of bandwidth and have to start paying for the traffic.

Miklos.

BTW I am having my ftp as well as website very reliably hosted by www.siteground.com for $4.95 per month, 40GB storage and 900GB per month bandwidth. Unlimited ftp accounts. (I am not affiliated with them)

I know there are other options out there, I have to take the time to look into it. I have to say, the main thing with dot mac is integration, but it doesn't work! I have to use transit to access idisk... [:(] all the other stuff, much of a muchness, I like iweb but upload it to a different than "auto" directory so, no biggie to have dot mac there either.

I wonder why it doesn't work for you. Putting out a magazine, we live on .Mac (and iChat).

ichat is great, but you don't need dot mac to use ichat... well there is a lot good about it except for the price and that you can get the core service very cheap, the extraneous stuff is, for me, just that - extraneous.