Everyone who deals with a large amount of files is in need of a file server. With the ever increasing amount of photos, music, videos and documents, you need an efficient and affordable, yet convenient solution. That is why I’d like to spare a moment and share my thoughts on the file server systems from Synology. While there are a plethora of file servers out there, I found the Synology DiskStations to be best in terms of usability, compatibility and cost-effectiveness.
The basic functions of a file server is to share files, and Synology keeps that core function very effectively. Sharing folders based on usernames and passwords are easily created and accessed in both Windows and Mac, just the way you would want a shared folder to appear in Windows File Explorer or Mac Finder.
If that wasn’t enough, Synology file servers have its own web-based operating system that allows you to upload and download files freely using a web browser and can even open certain documents and audio/video files in the browser itself without downloading. This is an excellent alternative to ftp and better than most free or paid file sharing services and you are in control of your own data. You also utilize the bandwidth you already paid for to your internet service provider.
Synology has a line up for almost every file server configuration you would want. From a single drive system to multiple bays of RAIDed configurations that can hold terabytes of data. For home or small businesses, Synology products fit the sweet spot quite remarkably.
Here are the reasons why I like the Synology DiskStation.
1. Works Very Well with Both Windows and Mac OS
Once you create a folder and share it (either public to everyone or user based), you can access it easily in Windows File Explorer or Mac Finder.
2. Convenient Web Access
You can access your files over the internet using the embedded web operating system named DiskStation Manager. By forwarding port 5000 (or 5001 for encrypted access) to your DiskStation, you can access it using any home or business based internet. (as long as you know the external IP address)
3. Large File Transfer Capability
Transferring large files over the internet is a pain. Once it goes over 2GBs, there are very few options available. If you have a DiskStation, along with Google Chrome (64-bit browser), you can easily upload and download files larger than 2GBs regardless of your operating system.
4. Quiet and Power Efficient
Synology DiskStations are quiet. If you’ve used other file server products, external RAID drives or other multi-disk USB drives, you’ve probably found it too noisy to keep it on top of your desk next to your computer or to even keep it on all day long. Synology DiskStations use a much quieter fan and goes into sleep mode when not used and wakes back up when you need it.
5. Price
When purchased with the main unit and disk drives separately, Synology DiskStations cost less than comparable products from even brand name manufacturers. Instead of buying a RAID external drive, the DiskStation has the same and even more functions available and is easy to use.
With these 5 reasons, I think the Synology Diskstation is a convenient and highly competitive product that you should definitely consider for your next file server purchase.
[Purchased] Logitech HD Webcam C260
Today, I received a shipment from TigerDirect with the new webcam I ordered for my boys to video chat with their cousins. I wanted a low cost webcam with a good quality image, especially without the grainy video most cheap webcams tend to have.
I’ve always liked the “RightLight” feature from Logitech webcams that brightens up when the ambient lighting is dark. Along with this and the 1280 x 720 resolution, the Logitech C260 works quite well as a relatively low-cost webcam and seems to be a good purchase.
The colors aren’t as good as the higher-end C910 but it is just fine, especially considering the price, for Skype and other video chat uses. Feedback from family was quite good and were asking which one I got.
The one I purchased was at $16.99 through TigerDirect’s eBay page. Often prices are lower on eBay, but looking at it now, the price is back up to $19.99 (prices seem to change at times, a common practice). Still at $19.99 (and free shipping), this webcam is an excellent value and is money well spent. (oh, and this webcam normally sells at your favorite local electronics store for $24.99-$39.99 + tax)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Logitech-C260-Webcam-/320785562088 or
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Logitech-HD-Webcam-C260-Dark-Fleur-/320785221698
[update] TigerDirect’s eBay page keeps changing. As of today, this color model is the only one available at $19.99 but with free shipping. (buying another one for my mother-in-law)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Logitech-960-000695-C260-Webcam-/320789440269
Last week, I received a call from a friend who wanted to buy a laptop computer for his wife. Price range was between $500 and $1,000 and wanted something bigger than a netbook.
Usage for the laptop was web surfing, e-mail and documents. Not a power demanding request but still at a price range up to $1,000, I felt a Core i5 processor would be preferable.
For general use laptops, I tend to recommend light-weight laptops as much as possible as there is really no need to lug around a heavy one. (Who likes heavy laptops anyways?) Unfortunately, many retailers market the 5 to 7lbs laptop as standard or sometimes even light. (They really do!) My standard of a light 13.3″ laptop is around 4lbs or under and there aren’t that many that meet my expectations.
Fortunately, I was able to find the ASUS U36SD. A 13.3″ notebook computer without a DVD drive which makes it very thin and quite light-weight.
The main specs for this laptop are:
| Specs | Details |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel® Core™ i5 2410M (Dual-Core, 3MB Cache, 2.3GHz w/ 2.9GHz Turbo) |
| RAM | 4GB DDR3 1333 MHz SDRAM |
| HDD | 640GB 5400rpm |
| Graphics | NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 520M with 1GB DDR3 VRAM |
| Screen | 13.3″ 1366 x 768 LED |
| Battery | 8 Cell 5600 mAh |
| Weight | 3.7lbs/1.66kg |
| Others | 2 USB 2.0/1 USB 3.0, VGA/HDMI, Gigabit Ethernet, b/g/n Wi-Fi, Webcam, Bluetooth, No Optical Drive |
Lightweight and thin was the first impression I received from my friend and I explained the 8 cell battery was a plus for long battery life.
The initial street price found for this laptop was $849 but was a no-brainer when I found an excellent price at $699 with free shipping from Tiger Direct. (note: TigerDirect shows currently unavailable, most Core i5s are priced above $1,000)
The slight downside of this laptop was the protruded battery (just thicker at the battery) and the rather large power adapter. No big deal at all.
Overall, the laptop was very satisfactory. Swapping out the HDD and replacing it with a SSD would definitely be icing on the cake.
Have you wondered how fast your internet connection really is? Do you want to know how fast you can transfer data or files using your internet or network connection?
While there are many conversion tools on the internet that you can punch in your data, I’ve created a chart with most popular speeds that gives you a pretty clear idea what your connection is capable of and should be helpful when transferring large files within a deadline.
| Bandwidth Speed | Data Transfer Rate | Hourly Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 56 Kbps | 7 KB/s | 25.2 MB |
| 512 Kbps | 64 KB/s | 230.4 MB |
| 1 Mbps | 125 KB/s | 450 MB |
| 3 Mbps | 375 KB/s | 1.35 GB |
| 5 Mbps | 625 KB/s | 2.25 GB |
| 8 Mbps | 1 MB/s | 3.6 GB |
| 10 Mbps | 1.25 MB/s | 4.5 GB |
| 12 Mbps | 1.5 MB/s | 5.4 GB |
| 15 Mbps | 1.875 MB/s | 6.75 GB |
| 20 Mbps | 2.5 MB/s | 9 GB |
| 35 Mbps | 4.375 MB/s | 15.75 GB |
| 50 Mbps | 6.25 MB/s | 22.5 GB |
| 54 Mbps | 6.75 MB/s | 24.3 GB |
| 100 Mbps | 12.5 MB/s | 45 GB |
| 144 Mbps | 18 MB/s | 64.8 GB |
| 300 Mbps | 37.5 MB/s | 135 GB |
| 480 Mbps | 60 MB/s | 216 GB |
| 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps) | 125 MB/s | 450 GB | 5 Gbps | 625 MB/s | 2.25 TB | 10 Gbps | 1.25 GB/s | 4.5 TB |
Please note that this is the theoretical maximum speed and data transfer rate. Actual connection speeds vary depending on the quality of the connection and many other factors.
Transfers over Wi-Fi and uploads/downloads over the internet normally fall quite short from its maximum speed.
Transferring a large file from a Mac to PC or PC to Mac can be really frustrating. The Mac OS doesn’t support NTFS and Windows doesn’t support HFS+. Both support FAT32 but there is a 4GB file limit which is where the headache comes. Even with a sufficiently large 8GB, 16GB, 32GB USB memory stick or SD memory card or even with a huge multi-terabyte external hard drive, you just can’t copy the file over.
Searching through the internet to solve this problem gave me a lot of incorrect or complicated solutions. A few of these are:
- Using a large usb memory stick or external hard disk drive with NTFS, HFS or Ext2, Ext3 or Ext4 (Linux file formats) that supports large (4GB+) files.
- Transferring the file using FTP or SSH
- Installing a driver or software that enables you to read NTFS files on your Mac, or Mac OS Extended (HFS+) volumes on your PC
- Using a direct connection with a crossover LAN cable
All of these so-called solutions, most of which are methods to get around the NTFS/HFS+ file system incompatibility, are either time consuming or complicated and require some sort of paid software installed.
However, there are 2 relatively simple ways to solve this.
1. The first and easiest solution (thanks, Joe!) to transfer large files between Macs and PCs is to use a memory card or external drive formatted into exFAT, a file system created by Microsoft that is compatible on both Macs (Snow Leopard 10.6.5 and above) and PCs (Windows XP SP2 and above).
[ Note : You must install Windows update KB955704 to properly access exFAT drives in Windows XP ]
To create an exFAT drive, you need to select exFAT as the file system when formatting (or erasing on Mac) your drive. In Windows, you can easily do this by using “FORMAT x: /FS:exfat /q” in the command prompt (where x: is the external drive) or by selecting exFAT instead of NTFS using the new disk wizard.
[Additional Note : exFAT recognition between the Mac and PC isn't always consistent. If your Mac formatted exFAT drive is not recognized in Windows, you will probably have to assign a drive letter to it. (please ask if you need further instructions on this) Try #2 if you can't get the drive recognized properly]
2. When you don’t have an external drive ready, you can still transfer files by sharing a folder on your PC (make it writable) and copy the file using Finder on your Mac. Instructions are as follows:
To connect to your shared PC folder, select Go -> Connect to Server in your Finder menu and type in smb://[ipaddress of shared folder computer].
Connecting to Windows Shared Folder
Type in your Windows username and password to connect to your computer and start copying your file over. As you can see below, my Mac is happily copying a 7.25GB file over to my Windows shared folder.
This file transfer was performed using Wi-Fi but the fastest way would be to connect using a physical LAN line at 100Mbps or 1Gbps.
[Note: There is another way to share folders on your Mac to make it accessible on your PC (pretty much the other way around from the method above) but this one has less steps and is easier.]
Let me know how this works for you. If you have a better method, please do let me know!
Just recently, while installing Windows 7 on my desktop and also Windows 7 on a friend’s Netbook computer, I was forced to use a USB memory stick to do the job as a CD/DVD-ROM wasn’t available for these 2 computers.
Creating a bootable USB installation drive for Windows is really a pain, especially when it’s done manually, so I searched out for tools and passed by this one: Novicorp WinToFlash
If you can get pass the ads and uncomfortable design during the installation, this solution worked beautifully with both of these Windows 7 installations.
WinToFlash is built to create a bootable USB from a CD or DVD drive so if you have only an ISO file, use a ISO mounting utility to make the job quicker and easier!
If you have an .iso file that you need to burn into a CD or DVD but either don’t have a blank disc or CD/DVD drive ready, a virtual drive solution is needed.
While there are several freewares out there that do the job, I found Virtual Clone Drive from SlySoft to be very useful, compatible and easy to use.
Once installed, this program will connect (tie) your .iso extensions with the program and will mount it immediately when double-clicked (or you can right-click and open). Once mounted, it will be recognized either as a BD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive.
This is an excellent companion application for netbooks or slim notebooks that do not come with an optical drive. Just copy your ISO file onto a USB memory stick and you’ll have a drive ready for it. It’s also good to install .iso images straight from the file instead of burning it onto a CD or DVD.
The Corsair Force Series 3 SSD is one of the newer high-performance SATA 3 and price-wise affordable SSDs in the market. For this reason, I just picked one up for my desktop computer and ran a few tests on it and also on a Macbook Pro to see how this drive performs.
My Corsair Force Series 3 120GB SSD
Instead of a lengthy document showing all the specs and multiple pages of benchmarks, I’ve decided to keep things simple and note only the key points I consider worth mentioning. If you need a fully blown review with specs, please visit a professional benchmark/review site separately.
The drive itself is pretty lightweight and with the sound of a rather thin steel covering, it has a basic (instead of a premium) feel to it in hand. The drive also came with a very simple 3.5″ adapter tray.
On paper, the Force 3 drive shines with its 6Gbps SATA 3 interface and up to 500+ MBs of read and write speed. Unfortunately, real-world performance falls short of these numbers and a bit off my expectations but still, it is a good performer and excellent value considering the price.
To back up my words, I am including 2 basic benchmark screenshots in both Windows and on a Mac.
1. ATTO Benchmark in Windows 7, Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm HDD (SATA 2, 3Gbps) vs Corsair Force Series 3 120GB SSD (SATA 3, 6Gbps)
This comparison clearly shows the transfer rate advantages of a SATA 3 SSD drive (380MB/s read, 460MB/s write) compared to a regular SATA 2 7200rpm HDD (120MB/s read, 120MB/s write) most people have in their desktop computers.
2. Xbench on the Mac OS (both on SATA 2), Toshiba 256GB SSD vs Corsair Force Series 3 SSD
While the Apple branded Toshiba 256GB SSD is a strong performer, the Corsair Force 3 drive still outperforms it even on the slower SATA 2 interface of the 2010 Macbook Pro. Since most Macbook Pro users have the standard 2.5″ HDD installed, it’s best to compare it with your own Xbench results to see the performance difference.
Installed on my desktop, I immediately recognized the speed enhancements of the SSD drive. Windows 7 startup and shut down times are a lot faster and applications just open upon clicking.
With prices at around $179 after rebate, this drive is an excellent value for the performance and I’m happy running this as my desktop’s main drive.
SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) is used to measure the energy (W) absorbed by a human body (kg) when exposed to a RF (Radio Frequency) electromagnetic field such as your cell phone signal or radiation from a nearby microwave oven.
With the current heat of phone radiation issues and as a continuing concern with cell phones, I wanted to compare the human RF absorption rates of the top 2 hottest selling smart phones in the US and worldwide – the premium Apple iPhone 4 and multi-functional Samsung Galaxy-S. While I did find some data scattered around the web, none of them referred to direct sources which led me to do my own research and here, I have come up with the data and source links from the FCC.
Since there are various measurements during a SAR test, the most important seems to be the highest measurement detected for each service bandwidth. The following chart shows you the highest reported SAR value for each carrier’s service frequency range:
| Carrier | Frequency Band | Apple iPhone 4 | Samsung Galaxy-S |
| Verizon | CDMA 850Mhz | Head: 1.06W/kg Body: 1.08W/kg |
Head: 0.42W/kg Body: 0.48W/kg |
| CDMA 1900Mhz | Head: 1.18W/kg Body: 0.55W/kg |
Head: 0.57W/kg Body: 0.52W/kg |
|
| WLAN (Wi-Fi) | Head: 0.46W/kg Body: 0.15W/kg |
Head: 0.03W/kg Body: 0.01W/kg |
|
| AT&T | GSM 850 Mhz | Head: 1.00W/kg Body: 1.11W/kg |
Head: 0.38W/kg Body: 0.70W/kg |
| GSM 1900Mhz | Head: 1.17W/kg Body: 0.66W/kg |
Head: 0.42W/kg Body: 0.49W/kg |
|
| WLAN (Wi-Fi) | Head: 0.87W/kg Body: 0.14W/kg |
Head: 0.36W/kg Body: 0.08W/kg |
Highest SAR Value Comparison Chart for iPhone 4 and Galaxy-S
Quite obviously, the Samsung Galaxy-S is a clear winner in regards to RF absorption rates. The Galaxy-S also shows low absorption rates when compared to other Android phones as well. I hope future iPhones and other Android phones can be more competitive in this category.
One other thing I found amusing was that some iPhone users were highly noting that the SAR for the iPhone 4 was 50% lower than the 3G version when in fact the iPhone 4 measures roughly 200% higher than the Galaxy-S in most categories. With that said, I am not sure why some of the head SAR measurements can turn out lower than the body for certain tests.
But please note that both phones are well under the (IMO questionable) safety standards of the FCC (1.6W/kg).
Source:
FCC Database – Grant of Equipment Authorization
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
Verizon
FCC ID for Samsung Fascinate Galaxy-S : A3LSCHI500
FCC ID for Apple iPhone 4 : BCG-E2422A (note: include dash when performing search)
AT&T
FCC ID for Samsung Captivate Galaxy-S : A3LSGHI897
FCC ID for Apple iPhone 4 : BCG-E2380A (note: include dash when performing search)
A few days ago, one of my older desktop computers acted up on Windows. The symptoms were closely resembling a hard drive failure and upon reboot, the system ran a disk check supposedly fixing corrupt files but actually lead to a more severe system instability.
I started my past-due “backup before the hard drive dies” procedure and copied over my data files as necessary. Oddly, there were no hiccups during the copy process and the hard drive spinned up normally on both my other Macs and PCs.
A couple days later, I noticed an abnormal, slightly high pitched noise coming from the computer. It was hard to tell if the sound was coming from the power supply or the motherboard but upon detaching the power cables from the motherboard, I confirmed it was from the power supply I had, a Thermaltake TR2-430W.
Luckily, this power supply has a 5 year warranty but I wanted to confirm that this was truly the problem before RMAing the faulty part so I dug up one of my older power supplies and mounted it on to the case. While connecting the ATX power cable to the motherboard, I noticed 4 pins were short! Now, I knew a 24 pin power supply would fit on a 20 pin motherboard as the 4 pins would be extra, but the other way around was questionable.
This desktop was a rather old AMD Athlon 64 computer (nothing power hungry) so I just fired it up assuming it wouldn’t boot at the worst case. There was no problems at all during the boot up and my system was all back to normal. Upon further googling on the web, it seems the 20 pin connector works in a lot of cases except perhaps where the system is power demanding.
Of course, your overall system power consumption should never be higher than your power supply capacity so running a 20 pin power supply to a 24 pin should only be used when power levels are met and I believe my case was a perfect example of it.
Since it works well, I am planning to keep using my older power supply and will save the newer 24 pin as a backup or for a newer system.
