http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/ Engadget Comments for QNAP's NAS lineup sacrifices another bay, creates TS-110 http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 8:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 8:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 9:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.digitalera.co.uk/news/?p=345 but i soon thought knowing my luck i would lose everything when the drive fails.
went for 210 instead ]]>Oct 19th 2009 10:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 10:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30060/230/).

It makes some valid points against RAID - for small/home businesses of course, which are the target of this device.]]>Oct 19th 2009 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 3:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/
Great, but you killed my well-deserved dig at Gizmodo. There's no shame in leaving the comment up (at least, not for something so common & minor :-). Giz has many problems, but they don't censor stuff that might embarrass the poster. I regularly call out their bloggers for their ignorance of basic science, but it's all still there for the world to see.]]>Oct 19th 2009 10:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/
It was deleted because the typo you mentioned in the post (it's -> its) was fixed, and in the past when such inconsequential typos were fixed but the comment pointing them out is left other commenters came along and called the original commenter an idiot/blind/etc. for pointing out a now non-existent typo. Things tend to go downhill from there. So, there you go, that's why it was deleted, but that's why I e-mailed you to let you know the typo was fixed so you wouldn't think anything shady was going on.

Still, though, you apparently do, and regardless, the censorship accusation is a wee bit extreme...]]>Oct 19th 2009 10:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/
In any case, I was hoping the comment would be left in place as a reminder to others to avoid this increasingly-common error. You could have simply made a public reply of "Fixed" to avoid any confusion.

Speaking of confusion, why is there no "Reply" button in replies to comments? I'm forced to "reply" to myself rather than to you.]]>Oct 19th 2009 10:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Cloud storage for people without any data. Subscribe now.]]>Oct 19th 2009 10:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/Oct 19th 2009 11:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/
QNAP, ReadyNAS, or Synology DiskStation? I want to get one but I want to know what you guys think is the best. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Right now I'm leaning towards the diskless ReadyNas, but does netgear suck? Why is the Synology one so expensive? Is QNAP the decided leader in this space? Please let me know. Thanks in advance.]]>Oct 19th 2009 11:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/19/qnaps-nas-lineup-sacrifices-another-bay-creates-ts-110/DNS-323]]>Oct 19th 2009 4:17PM