Readers report that according to SurfBits, GlobalScape is currently beta testing CuteFTP for the Mac.
CuteFTP appears to be a popular FTP client for the PC.
CuteFTP appears to be a popular FTP client for the PC.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CuteFTP PC->Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
cuteFTP is an AWESOME ftp client.
When i moved to the mac platform 1.5 years ago, one thing that i really missed, was a good ftp client. And although since then Transmit has moved in as my favorite, it still doesn't match what is on the windows side.
I'm taking this 2 ways. One, cuteFTP sees a market on the mac side, because all the other ftp clients are really lacking in features (Queue, logging, fxp, general UI). And two, this is really great for Apple. This is a very well established company trying their hand on the mac side. They obviously like Os X and see that it is a viable platform to make some revenue off of.
I'm am extremely excited, and hope that the project turns out great!
When i moved to the mac platform 1.5 years ago, one thing that i really missed, was a good ftp client. And although since then Transmit has moved in as my favorite, it still doesn't match what is on the windows side.
I'm taking this 2 ways. One, cuteFTP sees a market on the mac side, because all the other ftp clients are really lacking in features (Queue, logging, fxp, general UI). And two, this is really great for Apple. This is a very well established company trying their hand on the mac side. They obviously like Os X and see that it is a viable platform to make some revenue off of.
I'm am extremely excited, and hope that the project turns out great!
Captain FTP
The FTP world used to be pretty weak on Mac OS X. But it has improved tremendously in the past year.
Transmit is very good. RBrowser works pretty well.
I'm now using Captain FTP. It is the most stable of the 3. So, Cute FTP is pretty good on Windows, but Captain FTP is already a great option on OS X.
The FTP world used to be pretty weak on Mac OS X. But it has improved tremendously in the past year.
Transmit is very good. RBrowser works pretty well.
I'm now using Captain FTP. It is the most stable of the 3. So, Cute FTP is pretty good on Windows, but Captain FTP is already a great option on OS X.
This comment is on the right track...
Maybe since this is a relatively accepted PC software application company that sees an opening for a stable port of thier software to X, then others will see how easy it was, and do the same with their stuff.
That's not to say more = better, because quantity does not equal quality. I just want the good software to port. Leave the crap apps for the PCs. I don't want them anyway.
Why would we need CuteFTP when we have Transmit?
It's like "yeah! they're porting viruses!". We don't need everything the Windowsworld has.
Transmit works perfectly for whatever you need to do FTP-wise, and it's a LOT more elegant and easy to use than CuteFTP.
It's like when they ported ACDSee to Mac. We don't need bad quality ports, when we can get much better native software (which doesn't exist for Windows).
And for the "misposter" (hello! mac sucks for games): you should compare Quake or Unreal on a high-end Mac and equivalent PC.
hello!! mac rocks for games
It's like "yeah! they're porting viruses!". We don't need everything the Windowsworld has.
Transmit works perfectly for whatever you need to do FTP-wise, and it's a LOT more elegant and easy to use than CuteFTP.
It's like when they ported ACDSee to Mac. We don't need bad quality ports, when we can get much better native software (which doesn't exist for Windows).
And for the "misposter" (hello! mac sucks for games): you should compare Quake or Unreal on a high-end Mac and equivalent PC.
hello!! mac rocks for games
I agree, but then again, I don't use 90% of the features in CuteFTP ... perhaps Transmit lacks features that some heavy FTP users need. For what I do, Transmit is great and I see no need to use another client.
I think what we're starting to see in the OS X software world is that pro software is moving very quickly to Mac. I bet there's some good market research out there that proves Mac users tend to buy more and more expensive software ... so if you have a product like CuteFTP that lives off of people who spend $20 for the pro version, it makes sense to port to a platform where users are more likely to buy the pro version.
Re: Why would we need CuteFTP when we have Transmit?
Agreed on the whole Transmit thing. I love it. But as for ACDSee, I haven't found a suitable replacement yet. Does anyone have any suggestions? (not iPhoto or Preview, please)
Agreed on the whole Transmit thing. I love it. But as for ACDSee, I haven't found a suitable replacement yet. Does anyone have any suggestions? (not iPhoto or Preview, please)
Re: Why would we need CuteFTP when we have Transmit?
CuteFTP does a much better job managing long downloads and upload while using a queue. Transmit has a queue, but if you are downloading folders, it lists just that, folders. I need to see the individual files.
cuteFTP also will hold those files in the queue between sessions. If i close transmit, it loses what was in there.
I download a lot of stuff using ftp, and cuteFTP does suchhhhh a better job managing that stuff. Sure if you are just uploading your little html files to your webhost, transmit is fine. Besides, use SCP for that. I use transmit all the time for my ftp client, and i like it. But there is much to be desired.
CuteFTP does a much better job managing long downloads and upload while using a queue. Transmit has a queue, but if you are downloading folders, it lists just that, folders. I need to see the individual files.
cuteFTP also will hold those files in the queue between sessions. If i close transmit, it loses what was in there.
I download a lot of stuff using ftp, and cuteFTP does suchhhhh a better job managing that stuff. Sure if you are just uploading your little html files to your webhost, transmit is fine. Besides, use SCP for that. I use transmit all the time for my ftp client, and i like it. But there is much to be desired.
Re: Why would we need CuteFTP when we have Transmit?
yes in response to this ftp topic, yes it is about time that cute ftp was made for the mac and this is how my post relates to games coming second for mac, always delayed and outdated versions for the macintosh platform.
yes in response to this ftp topic, yes it is about time that cute ftp was made for the mac and this is how my post relates to games coming second for mac, always delayed and outdated versions for the macintosh platform.
Two Mac OS Alternatives:
RBrowser. one of the best multi-protocol FTP clients I've ever seen. It already beats CuteFTP in feature set and has a Mac OS feel. Extremely powerful, intuitive and only $29. http://www.rbrowser.com/
Finder. [cmd]+[K], then just type in the ftp address. Simple, and free. http://www.apple.com/macosx/
RBrowser. one of the best multi-protocol FTP clients I've ever seen. It already beats CuteFTP in feature set and has a Mac OS feel. Extremely powerful, intuitive and only $29. http://www.rbrowser.com/
Finder. [cmd]+[K], then just type in the ftp address. Simple, and free. http://www.apple.com/macosx/
No "Fetch" fans?
To be honest, I've using Fetch 4 for quite a while, ever since, like, it was the only game in town.
I'm not a big fan of Fetch although it did get the job done, but I am curious about some of these others you've mentioned here, like Transmit. I will certainly check them out!
--t
To be honest, I've using Fetch 4 for quite a while, ever since, like, it was the only game in town.
I'm not a big fan of Fetch although it did get the job done, but I am curious about some of these others you've mentioned here, like Transmit. I will certainly check them out!
--t
Re: No "Fetch" fans?
I used to use Fetch, back in version 3.0.3, but when they decided to take one of the best pieces of MacOS freeware and leverage their monopoly on mac FTP to turn it into shareware for OS X, I elected to learn to use FTP in the command line.
I used to use Fetch, back in version 3.0.3, but when they decided to take one of the best pieces of MacOS freeware and leverage their monopoly on mac FTP to turn it into shareware for OS X, I elected to learn to use FTP in the command line.
If everybody starts naming their favorite ftp client, I can not stay behind although it's a little bit off topic...
osXigen from http://www.osxigen.com.
it has all: ftp, sftp, queues, bbedit integration, multithreaded, etcetera
osXigen from http://www.osxigen.com.
it has all: ftp, sftp, queues, bbedit integration, multithreaded, etcetera
Some webhosts require sftp. I found Fugu to be very good at that:
http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/fugu/
http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/fugu/
Re: Re: Two Mac OS Alternatives:
Amen - the built-in Finder FTP in OS X looks like an attempt by a junior programmer... it _sometimes_ works, but in most cases it crashes Finder so hard for me I need to do a hard reboot...
Amen - the built-in Finder FTP in OS X looks like an attempt by a junior programmer... it _sometimes_ works, but in most cases it crashes Finder so hard for me I need to do a hard reboot...
There haven't been any recent builds of ncFTP for the reason that the new FTP they include with OS 10.2.x is nearly as feature rich now that they have synched it with the BSD tree.
See here:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2002/Apr/09/retiringthencftpcommands.001.txt
No Interarchy comments?
I know Interarchy back when it was called Anarchie was considered one of the best. It has evolved a bit differently lately and is not purely an FTP client. Also, I believe, for a while people hated its upgrade scheme and pricing.
I'm curious as to how people think it stacks up against the rest of the FTP clients on OS X.
I know Interarchy back when it was called Anarchie was considered one of the best. It has evolved a bit differently lately and is not purely an FTP client. Also, I believe, for a while people hated its upgrade scheme and pricing.
I'm curious as to how people think it stacks up against the rest of the FTP clients on OS X.
Transmit & command line (which I hardly use).
I'm glad to see more Mac/PC software that will sure make it easier for some switchers.
IMO I don't need it but it can't hurt.
I'm glad to see more Mac/PC software that will sure make it easier for some switchers.
IMO I don't need it but it can't hurt.
Re: Why would we need CuteFTP when we have Transmit?
Yes, like ftps. That's one feature I need, however, as far as I know there's no Mac FTP program besides this horrrible Java client and my own perl scripts, that supports TLS.
Stop posting BS. So you like Transmit? Good for you, but there are people who need more.
Edit: I hope they port the pro version.
Yes, like ftps. That's one feature I need, however, as far as I know there's no Mac FTP program besides this horrrible Java client and my own perl scripts, that supports TLS.
Stop posting BS. So you like Transmit? Good for you, but there are people who need more.
Edit: I hope they port the pro version.