jake.sadie

Woops, sorry I didn't see your post. Glad to see I'm not the only one wanting that feature. Having folders sorted by the date they were added to my sync list (the way it is now) is a very silly restriction.

No, I understand the point of the default share but my point is that, if I want to keep a remote share set as automatically downloading, it won't copy the nested directory structure when I believe it should. Hence, this is the feature request section, not the bug section. For the sake of argument, let's say I don't want to back up all of the directories in My Documents, but only some. In this case, I'll select these directories and add them from device A, where they are originally located. Then from device B I'll pair it and things will start syncing to the default directory - no problems. Now, when I want to share a subdirectory, for example: My Documents\directory A\subdirectory A, I expected that the backup device (set to automatically download) would automatically create directory A and then continue to sync subdirectroy A. I see the point of the default directory trying to make things easy to find but I find it silly that one would not want to obey the same directory structure. Things can get really messy.

It would be great to be able to sort/organize shared folders in a number of ways: clicking on the column title to arrange in orderclick, hold, and dragging to rearrangegrouping based on type (connected, syncing, available)probably other ways people care about

Perhaps I'm confused by how this is supposed to be working, but it appears that when I connect two computers together in 'My Devices' anything shared on device A will automatically be shared/made available on device B in the default directory of device B. This is not ideal for a number of reasons: 1. What if I want to share something from device A that is in a subdirectory (see my earlier post)? 2. What if I want to sync something from device A to device B but I really don't want to sync it in Device B's 'default folder location'? For example, I sync my music directories across a few computers and I really don't want them to be in My Documents but I'd rather save them in C:\music 3. What if I want to share something not with my devices but with someone else only? To get around these situations I have to share from one device, allow the ghost directory to be seen in the other device, and change the desired directory of second device if that's what I want to do. What's worse - I can't disconnect a folder from just one device because it disconnects that folder from all of my devices. Feature request: if you are going to encourage me to pair my devices (I see the value in that), you should create a feature that allows me to initiate a share on device A as a 'non-my devices' share. This would allow me to start exclusive shares with other devices as well as create new shares between a selection of my devices. I could also create a 'non-my devices' share on device A and still connect to it with device B, but I would be able to control where it syncs rather than being tied to the default folder location.

I connected two of my Windows devices and set the default directory of both to be the My Documents folder. This is already where I keep a large number of directories I have been using with Sync in the past, so this makes sense. Now, because nested directories have not worked in the past, I have shared a number of subdirectories in My Documents. When I select one of these subdirectories, it begins to sync (or become available) in my second machine, but this new directory is now located in the root of the default directory rather than being listed in the subdirectory. It would be great if the following features were available: a) not being chained to a single default directory that must act as a root for all of my synced data if a subdirectory is shared from computer A, the known directory structure is copied on all other computers synced in My Devices and the subdirectory is synced in it's proper location c) you devised another, more elegant solution for nested directory sharing

Precisely. This announcement provided no pertinent information and only served to anger a good number of people. Where are the details?! Regarding a yearly (or per any unit of time) cost, this could make sense if there will be support services like phone support. This is a cost worth paying for assuming you need regular help with your setup. However, it will be a hard sell for most people to pay a yearly cost just for enriching software features, especially when it costs each person their own money to set up their "unlimited" storage. My use case is as follows: I run the data server for my multi-user research laboratory. Every user has a personal account and home directories, as you would expect. Because I liked BTSync from personal experience, I made it easy for everyone to set up BTSync instances to sync their personal directories with their personal machines. I'm not sure how the cost is going to pan out in my case, since so many people are being supported by this 'cloud'. Further, this situation is identical to at least three other laboratories in my workplace alone, since I raved about how well it worked and they followed suit. If we want the Pro software, it is very unclear how that would be handled in my non-unique use case. It seems pretty clear people will want the Pro version versus the Free version, because the announcement implies features, not tangible services, are going to be the difference. In that case, who wouldn't want the most feature-rich option? The mistake made here is not providing any useful information and simply saying, "there will be differences and you will have to pay". Perhaps you'll think a bit more carefully before making such announcements in the future. Judging by the fact that it's been about 24 hours since the announcement and there only about 20 comments on this thread, it seems most people don't know or don't care, but for those of us who do know and care, it is pretty clear we're all on the same side and the defense of your position/decision will be interesting to watch unfold.