Will the DS106j receive the final DSM 2.2?

[Derf Elot]

The lack of DS106j FW makes me worried. Hope its not suddenly EOL now, too

[goetz]

Hi,

The lack of DS106j FW makes me worried. Hope its not suddenly EOL now, too

me too. Here DS-106j is listet as active for "Firmware Upgade"

Regards
Goetz

[Derf Elot]

I just seemed to vaguely remember a similar situation in the last beta program, where there was no beta for the DS106j, but a final release in the end . I didn't have my DS106j back then, so I wasnt too concerned with it. I found the post in the archived forums here:

http://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?f=128&t=12237&start=75#p55681

Here's to hoping that this is the case again now. I purchased the DS106j specifically not too long ago based on the facts that a) it is still supported b) I can throw in my old IDE drives and c) it will be the only NAS exposed to the intarwebz, so a firewall (and hence DSM 2.2) would be very helpful.

[Derf Elot]

Dear Synology,

I was wondering whether the lack of a beta for the DS106j means that it will not receive a final version of DSM 2.2, or whether it is handled similarly to the last beta program - no beta, but final release. Officially, it is still fully supported according to your website and I haven't seen any announcement about an upcoming EOL.

A quick yes/no answer will be sufficient.

Thanks a lot,
Derf

[neilmcg]

Hi,

The lack of DS106j FW makes me worried. Hope its not suddenly EOL now, too

me too. Here DS-106j is listet as active for "Firmware Upgade"

Regards
Goetz

The link is now showing the 106j as;

Firmware Upgrade* - No
** Active: firmware and software update will be continuously provided;
No: firmware and software update will not be provided in the future;
Suspended: future firmware and software update is yet to be decided.

I'd be really disappointed if this is the case. Apart from the SATA, the 109j and 106j are not enormously different, same RAM, bus at 133 instead of 100 and CPU at 266 not 200Mhz.

[Derf Elot]

Extremely disappointing (to say the least) to see a product quietly being dropped from support 2 months before a new firmware update.

[Derf Elot]

So I guess my question is answered. The support status has suddenly changed to EOL without any prior notice. Personally, I don't think this is the best way to handle such issues.

Derf

edit: I suppose this topic can now be locked, and /or moved to the legacy discussion

[archer3131]

The announcement was made during Winter, as seen here

[Derf Elot]

Thanks for the link, I missed the details of that post indeed. But I wonder whether posting such information on a user support forum is the best way to make such an announcement.

Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter anymore.

[rockit]

This is very Poor.
A very poor support for the 106j. No more updates means killing the product in a software environment.
They should at least maintain some features: as far as I know the actual UPNP server is very far from perfect and the itunes server... well, I purchased the 106j for this and never used it...

When I see my 106j I can't justify honestly why I purchased it... proper support for AFP did not work for a long time... and now I can only use it as a very basic AFP/SMB server... if at least they implemented time machine support, it would make some sense to still use it for me...

I will never recommend Synology anymore... why buying a product that gets not more updates after only 2 years?????

Really, this situation sucks!

edit:
I just noticed that the 106j is still sold by my german dealer (and on some other websites...)!!! An you call that an EOL product???

[Alfredo]

Rockit, though I understand your frustration (I own a CS406, which didn't even get v844), you bought the device knowing which features it had. Everything that was developed afterwards is extra and shouldn't be taken for granted IMO.
When you bought the device, you knew it didn't have support for Time Machine. It was fine back then to buy it, so not getting support for it now really doesn't change anything.

I do agree that Synology (and their resellers) should make it more clear that a product is EOL, the 106j is still being sold here as well. It's being advertised as having the ability to upgrade the firmware, which is clearly no longer the case. The CS-407e is even featured on the Synology website, though it will be EOL later this year if you follow the current trend. Having less than one year of software support is really, really poor.

So yes, I understand your point of view, but I don't think it makes Synology a bad company. And in the end, that's exactly what they are, a company wanting to make money. I bought my NAS second handed and after bricking it while playing with the firmware (my own fault), Synology made a new one for me that wasn't even supposed to be released for the CS406. I don't think support gets any better than that.

If you really want to upgrade the firmware, maybe Goetz's hard work will provide a solution. It's not supported by Synology and will void your software warranty, but at least they allow it. They even allow us posting it on their own forums, including methods to create your own firmware. By comparison, Apple (of which you own a product) wilfully disabled support for the Palm Pre in Itunes a few days ago. That says a lot about Synology and even more about Apple (I'm not trying to bash Apple here, they have their own reasons for doing what they do).

[doktor.notor]

Well said, Alfredo... Completely agree.

[hewimeddel]

The announcement was made during Winter, as seen here

Read your own link: EOL for DS 106j was not announced with this posting!

This is very disappointing.
Never mind the additional functions, but i'm still waiting for the "mac-os-printer-bug" introduced with DSM 2.0 to be fixed.

bye
hewi

[doktor.notor]

Read your own link: EOL for DS 106j was not announced with this posting!

Erm... perhaps a trouble understanding English?

DS-106j will be receiving its final firmware update after the production firmware of DSM2.1-8xx has been released.
That's exactly what has been done.

[fuUser]

Its a problem within the sentence:

DS-106j will be receiving its final firmware update after the production firmware of DSM2.1-8xx has been released.

Note the 'after'. This could be interpreted that the 2.1-8xx is the second to last firmware and whatever comes after it is the last firmware (ea 2.2).

It should have been:
DS-106j will be receiving its final firmware update with the production firmware of DSM2.1-8xx.

I have given up any hope about 2.2 for the 106j already. It is sad, as I only really need one new feature/fix which will be in the new firmware and its the only improvement I would really use. Almost all the other new features since I got my 106j are deactivated on my DS106j anyway.