I dont even get your assertion that “most people” would not grant r’/w acess by the WD to their fiilm folder shares. Why the heck not? It sure is safer than granting a laptop permissions! there is not delete key on the remote and you have go into a file adminsitration menu and about 5 steps to mistakeny delete a file with the WD
Well, between the fact that WD’s KB articles on sharing don’t require you give the device write access, and in my time here I read posts like this:
well it’s obvious that no one will let wd write to a network share. All my guest shares are readonly for a good reason.
it doesn’t seem to be a bad assertion.
The default when I try to share something in Windows, is to share it read-only. I can’t see anyone who isn’t more advanced in computer usage ever not just accepting the default Windows offers them. It would certainly seem far more likely (even without reading other users explicitly say so) as if a large number of WDTV users don’t go out of their way to give the WDTV write access, and just click the “Ok” button when Windoze offers read-only sharing.
Sure, anybody who wants to give their shares write access, is quite capable of doing so, but I’d be enormously surprised if they were not the minority.
It’s not that “most users” won’t give it write access because they’re afraid to do so… they just won’t do it because it’s not the default choice. Not everyone using their WDTV is an IT professional or a MCSE. They just want to watch movies and TV shows and listen to music… not mess about in Windows setting and checking permissions.
And lastly when you say most people “just go to the folder they want”, then why have thumbnails? This is thumbnail question on a NAS setup, why are you interjecting your personal views on why people don’t need thumbnails since they just go to the fodder they want, as well as making nas, which is actually very quickly increasing usage in the home, seem obscure? Is that informative or helpful?
I didn’t say people didn’t need thumbnails… I was questioning how “critical” it is for the WDTV to be able to store “hundreds and hundreds” of thumbnails internally in its memory. You were asking about a “proper cache” of hundreds and hundreds of thumbnails. I’m not seeing how that would affect Joe User – based on their posts here, they turn the device on, and navigate to what they want… there aren’t a myriad of complaints around here that if they browse through too many folders with too many media files in them that the WDTV starts forgetting some of the earlier thumbs. It seems to be a non-issue around here. It seems as if the memory size is sufficient for most users and most users’ browsing habits.
And, even if the memory was insufficient for Joe User’s thumbnail needs, that’s not something WD can change on existing units… they’d have to build a whole new device with a larger memory.
Granted, I can only comment on users who actually post here, as opposed to ones who never have, and it is also a sure sign of having too much free time on my hands… but after reading over 103,000 posts, I think I can fairly gauge what might be applicable to “most people” and what wouldn’t.