Re: Argosy HD-363N

After reading all this, and considering the general drawbacks of low-end
NAS devices such as:

- not being able to load server software (easily) if you need it
- incomaptible file formats (as used by the NSLU2) or lousy ones like
FAT32 used by the Argosy
- poor I/O performance
- general bugginess

Is there any reason besides power consumption and space that an old PC
wouldn't be better?  Infinitely more flexible, more expandable (via IDE
or USB drives), faster thruput, NTFS file system, and if you want, low
cost.  Before it died, I was running WinXP on a PII, 233 - how much
would one of those cost on eBay?

Kyle



john wrote:

>Hmmm, it may not be a red-herring after all...
>
>Check this out:  http://support.microsoft.com/?id=326549
>
>"...The Read-only and System attributes is only used by Windows Explorer to determine whether the folder is a special folder, such as a system folder that has its view customized by Windows (for example, My Documents, Favorites, Fonts, Downloaded Program Files), or a folder that you customized by using the Customize tab of the folder's Properties dialog box. As a result, Windows Explorer does not allow you to view or change the Read-only or System attributes of folders..."
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Turtle Beach Audiotron User Forum on behalf of Robin Mitchell
>Sent: Fri 2/4/2005 1:37 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [AT] Argosy HD-363N
>
>
>
>On Thursday, February 3, 2005, 10:21:24 PM, Tim Hill wrote:
>
>
>
>>Does the Read-only attribute correspond to the folders you cannot see
>>withTOCMaker?
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry, I didn't describe that very clearly.  None of the folders
>are actually read-only; they just have an odd attribute display in
>WinXP Windows Explorer.  Pretty much whenever I right-click on a
>folder and select "Properties" from the menu, the dialog box that
>comes up has a funny green square in the "Read only" attribute
>checkbox.  It's not the checkmark that would be there if the folder
>really were read-only, nor the empty box that would be there if it
>weren't.  And I see that even if there are no read-only files in the
>folder, so it isn't that either.
>
>Anyway, whatever it is, it's almost certainly a red herring here and I
>probably shouldn't have mentioned it.  When I do a "DIR \\NAS\AT /A:R"
>to list all of the read-only folders, none show up, so I don't think
>that's causing the problem.
>
>Sorry about the confusion...
>
>   -- Robin
>folders, none show up, so I don't think
>that's causing the problem.
>
>Sorry about the confusion...
>
>   -- Robin
>
>
>
>