D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: gdbr on February 05, 2009, 05:37:02 PM
-
I keep wondering why Shareport was implemented the way it was. Ok, that USB port is pretty useless just for WCN, but why the need of a Shareport Utility? Better, why not include an implementation of a standard file sharing protocol like SMB/CIF — a FTP server, ANYTHING for the sake of portability! —, so, at least, Mac and Linux users (and Windows users too) could take advantage of this feature without worrying about an extra software.
I wonder if there's a limitation of some sort. Why couldn't it be simplier? Just simplier.
-
Hi,
Just my opinion, but I think it comes down to market share. Mac and Linux are still fringe for the majority of people.
When trying to create opportunity to make money, you start with your biggest market potential (usually). At least I would. Once you are established, then you can expand into your fringe markets.
again, just my opinion.
SD1
-
Because the hardware in the 655 was not designed for that feature (don't reply with a remark that they should have...)
Whether the use of USB was designed/planned to be more than WCN (they might have thought of it later on...) or not, it requires a whole different hardware setup/chipset (more memory, other processor). So in your opinion that solution is more simple, it does change quite a lot on the design and function (and price!). This is a primarily router. Or do you also complain when driving a BMW 118 that they should have made it more like a BMW 5-series? ???
-
It wasn't included in the kernel for the IPOS. (Ubicom OS). We're toying with the idea of adding it in the next kernel update. No promises.
Shareport allowed us to work around that as a patch.
-
Because the hardware in the 655 was not designed for that feature (don't reply with a remark that they should have...)
Err... based on Lycan's response above, you appear to be quite wrong.
Just wondering, since you don't appear to be a D-Link employee, are you just making stuff up and posting on the forums? ???
No offense. :)
-
Hey whatever its doing it sure works just to get Wireless to USB2.0 printers over the net is great... I've added 4-port USB2.0 I was able to connect USB thumbdrive (not shown) and two HP color printers and one HP MFP all-in-one. Does work and I don't need to all full drivers.. I can still scan, resize and print and use less memory on the rigs then with the HP full bloat TSR *.DLLs..
(http://pic19.picturetrail.com/VOL1099/4465559/21344768/353940799.jpg)
-
Err... based on Lycan's response above, you appear to be quite wrong.
Just wondering, since you don't appear to be a D-Link employee, are you just making stuff up and posting on the forums? ???
No offense. :)
You got me there. You're completely right, I'm making stuff up. Even when solving people's issues I just make 'm believe they're solved.
-
I think Eddie is not so far away from the truth.
The DIR series is designed to be a router.
An additional print server needs additional memory to handle print jobs and causes processor load.
NAS functionality needs a lot of processor resources -> just see the performance of a 500MHz NAS as the DNS-323. DIR-655 has a 275MHz processor only. What performance do you expect ?
What will happen with your bit torrent when streaming a video from a device connected to the DIR or printing to a connected color laser ? Don't be disappointed if the performance will decrease.
Also the shareport is more versatile. Most printservers can't handle multi function devices or standalone scanners.
Shareport can...
And most of the work has to be done by the computers connected.
As the DIR-655 is a SOHO router, I think it is no real disadvantage that only one can use the connected device at a time.
My suggestion to D-Link would be to enhance compatibility of the shareport and optimize performance and the handling of the devices.
And please don't forget the MAC users on the long run ;D
(Though they should have known it before ... )
-
Err... based on Lycan's response above, you appear to be quite wrong.
Just wondering, since you don't appear to be a D-Link employee, are you just making stuff up and posting on the forums? ???
No offense. :)
You will have to excuse EddieZ, he suffers from Compulsive Posting Disorder ;D
-
Thanks lizzi555
Look at comparable machines that do offer more extended functionality (by design). They often have a faster processor and more RAM. Don't forget it's these two (esp. the RAM, Asus also uses 275 Mhz processors but don't know the difference between that one an the Dlink one) need to process all (extra) transactions. And I do not believe manufacturers mass produce machines with immense overhead on capacity/power. Even when the extended functionality in incorporated, you probably will not be too happy with the performance: it was designed to be router that excels at wireless N capability and Gigabit WAN.
-
Can't really say the CPU is to blame as DIR-615 A1 hardware had 500MHz Marvel WNPU 32MB of RAM. That would blow away the DIR-655. DIR-615 C1 400MHz 32MB of RAM again you think that would blow away the DIR-655. Again numbers don't add up the DIR-655 can handle wireless, video streaming, downloading with 200 connections connected for torrents. I've done all of that I had DIR-615 A1 it was quicker covered the house better, but had short comings the hardware wasn't fully supported, then came out DIR-615 B1 there goes downhill.
Sharepoint for what it's worth does work very well. I use SMB also with that you all networked wired or wireless systems can access that at the same time. Sharepoint the same except you have to share and wait then release the device on the USB. SMB device you don't have to do that.
Still the average home not going to have everyone printing at the same time like a business who prints more than 10,000 print jobs a month. So share point idea works very well. Sure there are limites, but hey you got MFP you can use it with share point, you got a WD Passport TB you can use it with share point at the same time!
-
You will have to excuse EddieZ, he suffers from Compulsive Posting Disorder ;D
I feel the desperate need to disagree here.... ;)
-
Actually Eddie was quite CORRECT. The reason it's not currently implemented is because the hardware wasn't designed with samba in mind. If we add it, it would be a software patch and probably not preform as well as a hardware solution that was designed with samba in mind.
That being said, I've been told that the samba idea was scrapped because of poor support and low throughput.
-
I should play the lottery according to some ;D
-
Despite all the bad comments on DIR-655...I brought it because it has the shareport feature. I am now able share my printer with scan function by all PCs in my house. My next plan is to have the USB external harddisk shared as a dedicated backup for all data in all PCs...Shareport really help, simpify a lot, and provide a great flexibility.
-
Wow, a lot of fun! :D
Just my opinion, but I think it comes down to market share. Mac and Linux are still fringe for the majority of people.
Well, I disagree because samba is a common standard among them. But it's proven not to be the point.
Because the hardware in the 655 was not designed for that feature (don't reply with a remark that they should have...)
Easy... I've never said they should, I'm just wondering about what they've done and why. Does it seem you've been too oftenly hit due to your comments, Eddie? ;)
Whether the use of USB was designed/planned to be more than WCN (they might have thought of it later on...) or not, it requires a whole different hardware setup/chipset (more memory, other processor). So in your opinion that solution is more simple, it does change quite a lot on the design and function (and price!). This is a primarily router. Or do you also complain when driving a BMW 118 that they should have made it more like a BMW 5-series? ???
It IS more simple (for the user) if you take it to the [compati|porta]bility and usage point of view because it's a standard and there would be no need of extra programs or drivers at the client side. But then I'm no hardware engineer — I have quite good computer skills and have played hard with computer science once, long ago, now I'm fine being just a musician — and that's why I'm just wondering, and that's why there're engineers and technicians aswering. Ok, so this is a primarily router. So there's some sort of limitation, as I supposed. I'm not complaining (nor buying BMWs, FYI), it's just what I paid for; very fair. Simple, isn't it? Easy... Easy... And thanks, anyway!
It wasn't included in the kernel for the IPOS. (Ubicom OS). We're toying with the idea of adding it in the next kernel update. No promises.
Shareport allowed us to work around that as a patch.
Thanks! That's an answer straight to the point. ;D
Also the shareport is more versatile. Most printservers can't handle multi function devices or standalone scanners.
Shareport can...
And most of the work has to be done by the computers connected.
Well, that's a good point. Thanks!
Actually Eddie was quite CORRECT. The reason it's not currently implemented is because the hardware wasn't designed with samba in mind. If we add it, it would be a software patch and probably not preform as well as a hardware solution that was designed with samba in mind.
That being said, I've been told that the samba idea was scrapped because of poor support and low throughput.
And thanks again! Another shot. Thus I finish my wonderings; quite satisfied, indeed.
And that said, let be known that I love my router. It is the best router I found in its class and I don't think it's bad if I want to get the best possible from (or to know the best possible about) what I got, isn't it?
Thank you all!
-
Wow, a lot of fun! :D
Easy... I've never said they should, I'm just wondering about what they've done and why. Does it seem you've been too oftenly hit due to your comments, Eddie? ;)
Although harsh and rude, I am right 99% of the time and only the remarks I mentioned to stay away from are used once too often to start a really nonsense discussion nonetheless. ;)
-
Although harsh and rude, I am right 99% of the time and only the remarks I mentioned to stay away from are used once too often to start a really nonsense discussion nonetheless. ;)
Well... There's an oddity about harshness and rudeness: they never start useful discussions too. ;D
You assumed I would present you with one of those (quite infantile) remarks in my very first post. I think we both got each other point already.
Thanks for sharing your 99% right tech knowledge, that's exactly what I was looking for — and far beyond from what I could be sure about, alone.
All the best!
-
All the best (and I noticed that my sense of humor has earned me another 'smite'...oh well... ;D )
-
Shareport is a convenient way for me to access files from different computers on my LAN. But I have one major concern. Are the files secure from outside access? I assume it is safe and secure behind the router's firewall, but is it? The documentation does not address this issue. Can D-Link, or anyone else out there, provide some solid information about this?
DonP
-
Think a bit about HOW outside access would take place theoretically.
A PC with shareport needs to get access to the LAN first to be enabled and be handed a internal IP, shareport looks for a router connected within the router subnet of the LAN. So if you have a concept on how this is going to be done by an intruder, I'd be very interested ;)
-
Think a bit about HOW outside access would take place theoretically.
A PC with shareport needs to get access to the LAN first to be enabled and be handed a internal IP, shareport looks for a router connected within the router subnet of the LAN. So if you have a concept on how this is going to be done by an intruder, I'd be very interested ;)
Well, this was my first posting here, and I am not well informed about the technical aspects of routers and firewalls. If I had any idea how this might be done, I wouldn't be asking the question. I guess I can rest easy that my files will be safe. Thanks much. :)
DonP (not quite a techie, just a user who wants to be safe and secure)
-
Rest assured, no harm can be done unless your network is already hacked.