Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

10.5: Automator's iCal events and .Mac synching System 10.5
I've not found this characteristic documented. Had I known/understood, much time would have been saved. The events in an Automator calendar within iCal are not passed on to other Macs that are synchronized through .Mac. This is good thing, and to be hoped for, but this functionality had not occurred to me.

I had created iCal plug-ins via Automator, then moved them to my personal calendar. Overnight, they passed through .Mac to my other Macs, where the timed routines failed because the routines weren't meant for those Macs. Returning the Automator events to the Automator calendar, and re-syncing all my Macs, resolved the issue as the events/routines "disappeared" from iCal on the other machines.
  • Currently 2.25 / 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  (4 votes cast)

10.5: Automator's iCal events and .Mac synching | 2 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the '10.5: Automator's iCal events and .Mac synching' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.5: Automator's iCal events and .Mac synching
Authored by: brw3sbc on Feb 13, '08 08:28:09AM

10.5.2 The above hit is no longer true.

iCal has been changed, and Automator calendars ARE passed to other computers commonly synched through dotMac, however, one can give each Automator calendar a distinct name (i.e. note the source computer), and now there is a Get Info pane for each calendar, enabling the receiving computer to IGNORE the alarms associated with the imported Automator calendar.

[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Automator's iCal events and .Mac synching
Authored by: brw3sbc on Feb 13, '08 08:36:26AM

I forgot to mention, that with this recent update to iCal with 10.5.2, iCal is no longer fully compatible with iCal under 10.4. The older iCal does not have the Get Info pane, and thus can not be set to ignore the imported calendar's alarms.

[ Reply to This | # ]