• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About w411

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  1. People keep exaggerating how unhappy "everyone" is with this change . . . it's fair to say a high percentage of this thread seems unhappy but I'm guessing the percentage of total BTsync users active in this thread is pretty minimal (I have no idea of the actual number of users of course). I can't imagine why BTsync would go back to the original unlimited folder structure. Even if 9 out of 10 users jump ship, it makes a lot more sense to support 10,000 paid users than supporting 100,000 free users.
  2. Anyone else experienced this? Had to remove BTsync from the workstation it was affecting as it interfered with workflow. Tested with a re-install and the same issue still happens
  3. I don't think you will find people that are happy with the change to the directory count. Logically I would say the only 2 groups would be people that are unhappy (it had a negative affect on the way they use Btsync) and people that are indifferent (it has no affect on the way they use BTsync). As far as hearing from users that feel the pro version is worthwhile, also unlikely as people typically only go looking for a way to voice their opinion when they are unhappy. It might be of advantage (and fairness) for BTsync to invite all users to weigh in on the changes, but otherwise, I would e
  4. - My OPINION is that a reduced scope is not a reduction of core functionality. Once again, allow me to put it into simpler terms: - "Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people present incorrect FACTS to others, my apologies." - Does it make sense to you now? - now back to the actual topic "And the most important bit is not whether you or BTS think they lied, it is about us users, and what we think, since there is no future for the product unless the users endorse and support it. If users are unhappy and actually voice that to others, the product will suffer." Yes, it is abs
  5. Agreed, sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people misinform others, my apologies.
  6. You don't need the $99 plan to go beyond the user folders, the $99 plan allows backup of external drives (additional internal drives are also included in the $59 plan). The $59 plan DOES backup all user files by default but you can add any folders you like to the backup. As for being "dishonest" it doesn't violate Carbonite terms and conditions in any way and over the years my reseller reps have commented on what a slick idea that setup is. The Server plans are for systems with an actual Server OS installed on them, a home pc set up with peer to peer networking does not fall under that colu
  7. I didn't gloss over anything all the core functions are there, just the scope of included active folders has changed. Some don't acknowledge a difference between function and scope, that's up to the individual. I don't try to "slam" anything people contribute, however people are putting more effort into singing the blues than adding anything of value, and unfortunately that's what often happens in a free community. Accountability is a rare thing these days, but it isn't just a problem with vendors & developers, users and people in general. It bothers me just as much when a thread is f
  8. Clearly it's a difference of opinion, but I still feel that core functionality is not getting removed, it has had a reduction in scope in some senses. I keep seeing people refer to it as an arbitrary reduction in the number of active folders, do we know it's arbitrary, or is there some fundamental reason for the reduction? I haven't seen anything stating why that number was chosen. People keep making blanket statements on behalf of all the users, making up fiction like something that should end up with an entry on Snopes. It makes sense to post about how the change affects you: previous
  9. Just had this happen after the update to 1.4.111 If I try to delete files, within 10 seconds they get put back in the folder. If I try to add files, within 10 seconds the get deleted again. No logging of the activity shows up on the other devices.
  10. No, we don't disagree on what BTsync does, I'm not sure why you would have assumed that in the first place. Maybe I should rephrase my question to more effectively elicit the answer I am looking for, what made you decide to start using BTsync in the first place if the "service" provided is so menial to you?
  11. Yes, if they HAD lied to original supporters/users (not customers as no one paid for anything) it would have been a bad stumble. It's unfortunate that no one will take the time to read the original "promise" that keeps being referred to: https://web.archive.org/web/20130811154750/http://forum.bittorrent.com/topic/17782-bittorrent-sync-faq-unofficial/#entry44650 For people that don't want to follow the link: "Will BitTorrent Sync remain free, or will they start charging for it once it comes out of beta? BitTorrent Sync will remain free! From BitTorrent:"If tomorrow we want to charge yo
  12. Yes, a local and cloud backup of 3 systems for $59/year . . . not as elegant as the clearly thought out and concise alternative you offered based on your own workflow, but I am only working within the limits of my knowledge. I guess as usual . . . I am wondering what your alternative solution is?
  13. It's not rude, it's just progress . . . in technology and business and life, things constantly evolve. It just is odd to me how much effort people will put into trying to keep things the same. It was never a software intended to give you remote access to your files, but there are some very cost effective options for that out there. Personally I use SplashTop, very good value for the money. Here's just one example of how to justify the cost of BT Sync: - let's say an individual had 2 laptops and a desktop and they want to use a backup service (such as Carbonite) - on the desktop you c
  14. You can sync unlimited data (based on the storage capacity of the devices), between an unlimited number of devices (I haven't seen any device limits mentioned anywhere) regardless of OS across the globe . . . that seems like a pretty damn sexy service to me. But, that's just me, if you don't need any of the pro features, you can use the free version. Or if the pro version doesn't seem worth the price, go weigh out the alternatives. There are all kinds of service providers out there and I hope everyone finds what works for them, home or business.
  15. It's almost comical seeing all the new users in this thread that FINALLY felt the need to register and invest a few minutes of their time to post "feedback". Imagine now spending 1000's of hours developing the software and interacting endlessly with the communities suggestions, complaints and bug reports. When was the last time you spent even a single 1000 hours doing something for people (other than family) and of course did it all for free? I know I haven't, and I say hats off to the developers. 3 pages of complaining with very minimal useful input, don't just bitch about how you don't