carsten.uhlig

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About carsten.uhlig

  • Rank
    New User
  1. @HobbledGrubs 2. mmh. well i think it depends on the definition of folders. since bittorrent inc argues the way that you still can synchronize unlimited folders, just that you are not able to have them in more than 10 different places. and that is the point where they "cheated" before you could do that. have unlimited separate places to save your files in. now just maximum 10 without any ways like symlinks etc. but to compare you could see dropbox or onedrive or google drive which all have just one separate folder. and people never complaint about them. well to be fair you can share unlimit
  2. Exactly. But that would probably not be representative, since only people caring about how many people actually are in favor btsync and against are relevant for that. Most users who don't care would probably not even consider checking out the forums. That said, the only really relevant indicator would probably be the sales numbers, that only bittorrent inc. knows of. Don't know, but i've read about performance issues as well, when it comes to high numbers of files. My opinion as well. Yes, that's my concern as well. That includes, as already stated from various other people here, lost tr
  3. Totally agree with that. That's what i thought as well. If it works it works, if not then not. Problem here trust is important. More like control. -> 3rd party auditing on security each year. On top of that i think that the folder limit really is a problem. It should have been much higher. If you use dropbox and just have 2 gb, but share lots of folders, for projects etc. you get everything for free. (ofc security is the issue here, but still) so what i think should be possible is, when you accept a share from somebody else then this should not count towards the 10 folders limit. I think,
  4. No i didn't misunderstood it . And yes i understand that people don't want to pay for a subscription model. I would agree with that too, but for me it is just more convenient and i believe it is cheaper as well. I think it also depends on the people, since it is another way of thinking. I am pretty sure that another company could have sold that product for easily 150 USD as for version 2.x. If you rethink it, it might be cheaper even to "rent" it. But then it might be better to give both possibilities. They of course did it to keep an income in the long-term. That s why i mentioned, that in ca
  5. Attention! - Long statement ahead ^^ - Attention! I am a pro user, who discovered Bittorrent Sync recently (2 months ago) and i was really impressed by the sheer simplicity of this product, that just works (like Apple products, well not anymore that much, but that's offtopic). I used the 1.4 Beta version and tried the 2.0.52 Alpha as well. I tested it on various devices and considered (and still considering) it for my family (parents, etc.) to put on a NAS. Also to include this at work would be awesome. I have to say, that there is a point, that Bittorrent Inc. did not stay true to what th