Web Browser in DSM?

[jetspeedz]

Yes agree your phone is not connected to a Gbit network so since the NAS is it will perform better and run faster and process requests faster so that argument does not make sense on your part. Most phones now a days run multiple tasks and if you don't keep up with technology they even run dual processors which combined is still not as powerful as the processor in these NAS !!! Lastly the services on this NAS are not resource hogs and I myself don't run any of the Media services anyway so for me and many others system resources are not an issue. If you happen to run all the popular processes on the NAS you can see Synology manages everything well to the point the cpu / mem load is minimal because of the well written apps and the fact it runs on a Linux kernel which is a stable OS.

PS: Clearly you are the only who thinks so with such a contrive statement

Now stop being a smart ass and move on to another post and troll there since you have not added any value to this discussion.

[synozomg]

your phone is not connected to a Gbit network so since the NAS is it will perform better

Clueless, I guess. No, it will not perform better, the above statement makes zero sense. Here is a hint - go have a look at the NAS CPU usage when you are transferring data at high rate to the NAS. Hmmm? Still nothing?

still not as powerful as the processor in these NAS !!!

Which powerful processor do the low-end (say two-bay models) feature? I guess you never looked at any specs of the low-end Syno models? They have a single-core CPU and (at best) half the RAM of an over one year old Samsung Galaxy S2, e.g. The 412+ gets on par with that 1+ year old phone in the RAM department at least. Wheee!

On another note, one would think that the neverending complaints about obnoxiously slow pics thumbnailing here on the forum would give people some hint that the HW is simply not up to the task - but again, no, people just refuse to understand it.

Clearly you are the only who thinks so with such a contrive statement

Many people probably do not even bother commenting on nonsensical feature requests, mostly because those who are requesting such features do not have a clue about the technical implementation. Technically-minded people can safely say that it will not implemented regardless of whether 10 or even overwhelming 20 folks loudly demand it in the forum.

[jetspeedz]

Clueless, I guess. No, it will not perform better, the above statement makes zero sense. Here is a hint - go have a look at the NAS CPU usage when you are transferring data at high rate to the NAS. Hmmm? Still nothing?

Your ignorance speaks for itself, you bring up a point which does not conform to you line of thought and you come back with an asinine comment above about cpu usage, Have you looked at the usage when doing a transfer?

Lets see, do I want to browse on a 3G/4G network or Cable modem/T1/OCX

still not as powerful as the processor in these NAS !!!

Which powerful processor do the low-end (say two-bay models) feature? I guess you never looked at any specs of the low-end Syno models? They have a single-core CPU and (at best) half the RAM of an over one year old Samsung Galaxy S2, e.g. The 412+ gets on par with that 1+ year old phone in the RAM department at least. Wheee!

Your comments get more ignorant with each quote and clearly you are not as smart as you think you are; ever heard of Scratch space? probably not judging by your reply Nas has the luxury of utilizing the internal HDD which has a far greater capacity then any phone with out there with the highest RAM value out there. And you want to talk about processors, lets look at the ARM in a 1 or 2 Bay, much faster than most phones out there which have browser capability.

Clearly you are the only who thinks so with such a contrive statement

Many people probably do not even bother commenting on nonsensical feature requests, mostly because those who are requesting such features do not have a clue about the technical implementation. Technically-minded people can safely say that it will not implemented regardless of whether 10 or even overwhelming 20 folks loudly demand it in the forum.

Technically-minded Ok you win you know everything

In order to save you from looking more like a bigger idiot than you already made your self to be based on your reply since you have no clue what you are talking about spare yourself any more embarrassment and get lost.

PS: That is not Sarcasm. Get Lost

[Flopper]

Can we keep this thread on topic please?

synozomg, if you don't want to use your whatever-phone for this, then don't.

This build-in web browser (as an optional package) is requested by people working in the field, keeping the customer in mind and not our OWN interests or preferences.

[jetspeedz]

Couldn't agree more, not sure who this guy is and what his problem is but I've requested on more than one occasion to move along and get lost.

The Web Browser in this NAS would set it apart from any other product out there, the possibilities of what it can be used for over the Internet away from home are endless. This is a great addition which can be installed as a package for those of us who are requesting it.

[synozomg]

The Web Browser in this NAS would set it apart from any other product out there

Yup, certainly. Hard to find similarly useless bloatware in any competing product.

the possibilities of what it can be used for over the Internet away from home are endless.

Yeah, possibilities of using a browser inside a browser are indeed endless. The technically-minded people there use a proxy and/or VPN - but nevermind. Critical missing feature indeed. Every NAS must have a GUI-based web browser.

[Flopper]

Yeah, possibilities of using a browser inside a browser are indeed endless. The technically-minded people there use a proxy and/or VPN - but nevermind. Critical missing feature indeed. Every NAS must have a GUI-based web browser.

This request is not specifically for technical users. Some ISPs do not allow access to SSH, VPN etc. ports, port 80 or anything else lower than port 1024, which means you are stuck in such a case.

[synozomg]

Sure thing! As said - absolutely. NAS is the proper place to implement full-featured browsers, incl. Flash, Quick/Real/Windows media, Java and all to remedy for a piss-poor ISP.

P.S. If your ISP does not allow you to access port 80, I am wondering how are you commenting here. But lets just assume you came to make more of uneducated noise, right?

[Flopper]

P.S. If your ISP does not allow you to access port 80, I am wondering how are you commenting here. But lets just assume you came to make more of uneducated noise, right?

Uh, using the web is port 80 on the server site, this one in this case, you do not use port 80 to surf the web and even if you would, it would be OUTGOING, not incoming!!!! I guess you really need to do some more reading before making such remarks.

[synozomg]

Considering that the DSM GUI runs on ports 5000/5001 by default and can be configured to whatever you want, you note is extremely relevant here. And considering that you can set up your router to forward any port you choose to port 80 on your NAS, there is even more pressing need to implement a browser on the NAS.



P.S. Yeah, do some more reading on how to configure things properly. Highly needed, it seems.

[Flopper]

Oh dear, again someone who has a nag to turn things around so the can win an argument by bringing up something TOTALLY unrelated to the previous post.
I would suggest, even plead you go elsewhere and stop flooding this thread with useless and unprofessional remarks.

[jetspeedz]

Ignore the troll he is, he is a noob with his responses above as I made him out to be. I won't even justify responding to his responses anymore b/c I don't want to make him look like a bigger jack ass than he already is about the port/isp/proxy/firewall issue you have.

You can't help stupid.