Posted by deja_bhoot2000 on September 10, 2007, 9:23 pm
Yahoo Photo is shutting down in 10 days.
I have 1300 photos ay Yahoo Photos (782 MB total size), uploaded over
the past few years (I do have origianls of all of those at home PC, so
losing is not a concern). The migration options they present are
Flickr, Shutterfly, Snapfish, Kodak Galley and Photobucket.
Ideally I would have liked to switch to Picasa (Google), but that's
not an option.
I don't like Flickr because unless I pay, they will show only last 200
photos. Also, each month I can upload only 100MB worth of photos, or
between 50 and 100 photos, on average.
Many people on these newsgroups must have faced this issue -- so which
free service is better? My requirements are:
1. Show all photos that I upload, not just last x (Total size limit of
at least 1 GB, preferably 2 GB would be preferred).
2. No inactivity trap -- just cause I don't upload photos for 2 or 3
months, I don't want the account deleted.
3. No fees, and no credit card required for signing.
Perhaps there's no srevice like the above, for free, or perhaps there
is. I would appreciate your feedbacks on the newsgroup.
Thanks.
Bhoot Nath
Posted by <nospam on September 10, 2007, 11:06 pm
If you're using AT&T/SBC/Yahoo/whatever the hell they're calling
themselves this week/ the best option is to switch to an ISP who
provides basic internet services (image hosting, FTP storage etc) at
no extra cost.
I love how AT&T phrased their marketing letter, i.e. "we're dedicated
to providing you better service, that's why we're discontinuing Yahoo
Photos".
> Yahoo Photo is shutting down in 10 days.
> I have 1300 photos ay Yahoo Photos (782 MB total size), uploaded over
> the past few years (I do have origianls of all of those at home PC, so
> losing is not a concern). The migration options they present are
> Flickr, Shutterfly, Snapfish, Kodak Galley and Photobucket.
> Ideally I would have liked to switch to Picasa (Google), but that's
> not an option.
> I don't like Flickr because unless I pay, they will show only last 200
> photos. Also, each month I can upload only 100MB worth of photos, or
> between 50 and 100 photos, on average.
> Many people on these newsgroups must have faced this issue -- so which
> free service is better? My requirements are:
> 1. Show all photos that I upload, not just last x (Total size limit of
> at least 1 GB, preferably 2 GB would be preferred).
> 2. No inactivity trap -- just cause I don't upload photos for 2 or 3
> months, I don't want the account deleted.
> 3. No fees, and no credit card required for signing.
> Perhaps there's no srevice like the above, for free, or perhaps there
> is. I would appreciate your feedbacks on the newsgroup.
> Thanks.
> Bhoot Nath
Posted by <josh on September 13, 2007, 12:06 am
nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net says...
> If you're using AT&T/SBC/Yahoo/whatever the hell they're calling
> themselves this week/ the best option is to switch to an ISP who
> provides basic internet services (image hosting, FTP storage etc) at
> no extra cost.
>
> I love how AT&T phrased their marketing letter, i.e. "we're dedicated
> to providing you better service, that's why we're discontinuing Yahoo
> Photos".
OK, now I'm confused.
AT&T and Yahoo are two different companies, and the decision to
discontinue Yahoo Photos was made by Yahoo, after they acquired flickr
and decided to migrate their photo hosting to the flickr platform.
What does AT&T have to do with it?
--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
Posted by Bill on September 13, 2007, 12:16 am
josh@phred.org wrote:
>
> nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net says...
> > If you're using AT&T/SBC/Yahoo/whatever the hell they're calling
> > themselves this week/ the best option is to switch to an ISP who
> > provides basic internet services (image hosting, FTP storage etc) at
> > no extra cost.
> >
> > I love how AT&T phrased their marketing letter, i.e. "we're dedicated
> > to providing you better service, that's why we're discontinuing Yahoo
> > Photos".
>
> OK, now I'm confused.
>
> AT&T and Yahoo are two different companies, and the decision to
> discontinue Yahoo Photos was made by Yahoo, after they acquired flickr
> and decided to migrate their photo hosting to the flickr platform.
>
> What does AT&T have to do with it?
AT&T owns SBC (or maybe now IS SBC), which has an ISP service
that offers Yahoo as their customer front end, presumably
including Yahoo Photos. I think I got that right.
Bill
Posted by John Higdon on September 13, 2007, 10:57 am
> AT&T and Yahoo are two different companies, and the decision to
> discontinue Yahoo Photos was made by Yahoo, after they acquired flickr
> and decided to migrate their photo hosting to the flickr platform.
>
> What does AT&T have to do with it?
PacBell/SBC/AT&T, or whatever the company name dujour, has been in bed
with Yahoo for a long time. It is one of the reasons I have advised
people to avoid their Internet services at all costs.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
XML site map
> I have 1300 photos ay Yahoo Photos (782 MB total size), uploaded over
> the past few years (I do have origianls of all of those at home PC, so
> losing is not a concern). The migration options they present are
> Flickr, Shutterfly, Snapfish, Kodak Galley and Photobucket.
> Ideally I would have liked to switch to Picasa (Google), but that's
> not an option.
> I don't like Flickr because unless I pay, they will show only last 200
> photos. Also, each month I can upload only 100MB worth of photos, or
> between 50 and 100 photos, on average.
> Many people on these newsgroups must have faced this issue -- so which
> free service is better? My requirements are:
> 1. Show all photos that I upload, not just last x (Total size limit of
> at least 1 GB, preferably 2 GB would be preferred).
> 2. No inactivity trap -- just cause I don't upload photos for 2 or 3
> months, I don't want the account deleted.
> 3. No fees, and no credit card required for signing.
> Perhaps there's no srevice like the above, for free, or perhaps there
> is. I would appreciate your feedbacks on the newsgroup.
> Thanks.
> Bhoot Nath