Recommended Posts

Specifically, it is the lack of info when a folder is selected....

see this post for good example.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=590752514

Yeah. I get it. But what more should there be. It's a folder. You can see what's in it by looking.

Not trying to be confrontational, just not sure what else could be put in that space.

Yeah. I get it. But what more should there be. It's a folder. You can see what's in it by looking.

Not trying to be confrontational, just not sure what else could be put in that space.

Again...as illustrated, current size of folder, as before, and space left on hd.

Very handy when adding file to a folder, for burning etc.

Taking all the info away, is a step backward. At the very least, we should be able to choose to see it or not.

  • 3 months later...
Moreover, when selecting 16 files or more, one should not have to click on "Show more details" just to check the total size of all the files selected. It becomes an absolute irritant when trying to decide on the number of media files to select to burn into a disk - clicking a few extra files and overshooting the limit, whoops, unselect one and click "Show more details" again, whoops, still not enough, gotta unselect another and click again... aargh carpal tunnel syndrome. It would be so much better if I could just select the first file, press Shift and Down Arrow, and slowly watch as the total file size increase (>15 items).

Bingo!

The status bar is off by default because its functionality has been moved elsewhere. It is still available for compatibility / accessibility reasons, though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears eventually.

Moreover, when selecting 16 files or more, one should not have to click on "Show more details" just to check the total size of all the files selected. It becomes an absolute irritant when trying to decide on the number of media files to select to burn into a disk - clicking a few extra files and overshooting the limit, whoops, unselect one and click "Show more details" again, whoops, still not enough, gotta unselect another and click again... aargh carpal tunnel syndrome. It would be so much better if I could just select the first file, press Shift and Down Arrow, and slowly watch as the total file size increase (>15 items).

Computing those details is expensive. Most of the time if you select that many files (often by pressing Ctrl+A) you're just going to copy them. So why waste CPU + I/O (which could be network I/O) just because the user selected stuff?

The status bar is off by default because its functionality has been moved elsewhere.

So how does one turn it back on? And where else is that functionality?

Computing those details is expensive. Most of the time if you select that many files (often by pressing Ctrl+A) you're just going to copy them. So why waste CPU + I/O (which could be network I/O) just because the user selected stuff?

Well, in some/many (?) cases, those details are already computed -- all I'd like is to know the total size of the files in a given directory.

The existing "feature" (show more details) does show the total size of the files selected, along with the range of the "date modified/created" of the files in question. Frankly I doubt the latter is of much use to anyone -- if one wants to save CPU + I/O.

Size is a difficult one to compute quickly when folders are involved. Just open the Properties dialog on a set of large folders. You'll hear your disk grinding away and the number will climb for 10, 20, or even 30+ seconds depending on how many files and folders there are. Doing that on selection would be pretty rude.

There are other consideration too. Unnecessary work costs battery life. Walking the folder hierarchy may jump to other drives or network locations, may cause a disk to spin up, etc.

I'm sure some of you know but I still feel compelled to point out: hovering the mouse over a folder for a second brings up a tooltip that shows its size. It doesn't work for multiple folders or for the folder you are currently exploring, but for all sub-folders it's a lot easier than right click -> properties.

post-53009-1246542530.png

Size is a difficult one to compute quickly when folders are involved. Just open the Properties dialog on a set of large folders. You'll hear your disk grinding away and the number will climb for 10, 20, or even 30+ seconds depending on how many files and folders there are. Doing that on selection would be pretty rude.

Well, this might be relevant if I wanted size information for all folders in a list, rather than only the total size of files in a given folder.

Walking the folder hierarchy may jump to other drives or network locations, may cause a disk to spin up, etc.

I may well be a bit slow, but how is this relevant? The list of files (and possibly details e.g. date modified, size of a given file, etc) already needs to be displayed, what's the trouble in having the OS add up the size of the files? It's not like this hasn't been the case for a long time now, from a point where there was much less CPU power and slower hard drives.

I'd still love to know how to turn the status bar back on and where the functionality has been moved.

The status bar is off by default because its functionality has been moved elsewhere. It is still available for compatibility / accessibility reasons, though honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it disappears eventually.

Moved elsewhere...???

Quite right...moved to a third party app that does what explorer ought to do.

Computing those details is expensive.

Ok this one is a shocker....

Do you seriously expect anyone to buy such a lame statement..??

When entering any folder, the detail pane should show how many files and folders (or items) exist in this current folder (which is present now), and the total size of all the objects in this folder.

Exactly. Something you already have now with XP but some how it made sense to Microsoft to remove such simple functionality. I thought Windows 7 was designed with less clicking in mind. If you make me go to the context menu how was this achieved?

Moreover, when selecting 16 files or more, one should not have to click on "Show more details" just to check the total size of all the files selected.

Again, even more functionality lost with more clicking.

As much as I like Windows 7 (skipped Vista), explorer has been a complete disappointment and has done nothing but slow me down. It's gone backwards in functionality. Even the static toolbar is completely useless but that's another thread. Since Microsoft now forces me to go to the context menu, in order to speed up many simple operations I'm now using an app called Strokeit which lets me use mouse gestures within explorer.

Size is a difficult one to compute quickly when folders are involved. Just open the Properties dialog on a set of large folders. You'll hear your disk grinding away and the number will climb for 10, 20, or even 30+ seconds depending on how many files and folders there are. Doing that on selection would be pretty rude.

There are other consideration too. Unnecessary work costs battery life. Walking the folder hierarchy may jump to other drives or network locations, may cause a disk to spin up, etc.

Ok that is understandable, but then, not everyone is on laptops. Perhaps having an option in the advanced menu of folder options could bring this functionality back for desktop users, or maybe, info about size of files and folders could be integrated into the indexing service such that highlighting the folders would allow Windows to retrieve information about the total size directly by adding up numerical values saved in the index? I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Windows, so I'm just throwing out ideas. Feel free to point out if it is unfeasible.

Ok that is understandable, but then, not everyone is on laptops. Perhaps having an option in the advanced menu of folder options could bring this functionality back for desktop users, or maybe, info about size of files and folders could be integrated into the indexing service such that highlighting the folders would allow Windows to retrieve information about the total size directly by adding up numerical values saved in the index? I'm not familiar with the inner workings of Windows, so I'm just throwing out ideas. Feel free to point out if it is unfeasible.

Oh...ok I see it now, Brandon was talking about laptops....

Is windows 7 primarily meant for laptops...??

Because that is the only circumstance that that excuse could even be remotely plausible.

Size is a difficult one to compute quickly when folders are involved. Just open the Properties dialog on a set of large folders. You'll hear your disk grinding away and the number will climb for 10, 20, or even 30+ seconds depending on how many files and folders there are. Doing that on selection would be pretty rude.

There are other consideration too. Unnecessary work costs battery life. Walking the folder hierarchy may jump to other drives or network locations, may cause a disk to spin up, etc.

If we're talking about traversing the directory structure, then yes, I can understand that it's expensive.

But the statusbar in previous versions normally show only the size of *files* in the current directory (excluding subdirs). Windows already has to read their names when we open up the folder; Surely it can't be that much more expensive to also read their sizes, and sum them up?

I recommend people check out xplorer?, available in 32 or 64 bit flavors...

This puppy rocks, and is everything that windows explorer ought to be, but for some inexplicable reason, isn't.

Super fast.(waayyy faster the winexplorer)

Way more customizable....

But best of all, easily does that which the geniuses at ms could not manage....shows my folder size....YAY !!!

I've been trying a few...but this is the one that will get my money....

If we're talking about traversing the directory structure, then yes, I can understand that it's expensive.

But the statusbar in previous versions normally show only the size of *files* in the current directory (excluding subdirs). Windows already has to read their names when we open up the folder; Surely it can't be that much more expensive to also read their sizes, and sum them up?

It does... when you select them. However, if your selection includes a folder it doesn't show you the selection size because that folder might have 50,000 files in it and Windows would crawl every time you selected a folder.

EDIT: Weird... at least under Vista the limit appears to be 8 files. If I select 9 or more it stops showing the size of the selected files.

It does... when you select them. However, if your selection includes a folder it doesn't show you the selection size because that folder might have 50,000 files in it and Windows would crawl every time you selected a folder.

EDIT: Weird... at least under Vista the limit appears to be 8 files. If I select 9 or more it stops showing the size of the selected files.

But it never did crawl the folders back in the XP days. You go in a folder, it shows down the bottom the total size of the files in there. Not in the subfolders. We don't care about the subfolders. That's when we do the extra steps of right-clicking and selecting properties.

I recommend people check out xplorer?, available in 32 or 64 bit flavors...

Funny you had to mention it. I've used it since it was still called 2xExplorer. Even its current lite (free) version is quite awesome. But then we're getting slightly off-topic here:pp

Some of the things I love from x? has been implemented in explorer, and I'm glad for it. One of my favourite was highlighting the folder we were in before when we go up one level (or keeping the selection when doing a refresh). I hated how XP always takes you back to the first item.

Then they (microsoft) take away some of the useful functions... Namely the useful info in status bar, and the ability to customise toolbars.

But it never did crawl the folders back in the XP days.

[...]

Then they (microsoft) take away some of the useful functions... Namely the useful info in status bar [...]

You do know that there were some major backend and architectural changes in Windows Vista, from Windows XP, don't you? Now, I don't know if this would have definately affected the ability to do what you desire efficiently (i.e. not making Windows ridiculously slow when trying to calculate very large folders), but my guess is that it did (please correct me if I'm wrong, Brandon :D). Why else would it work in Windows XP, but not Windows Vista? The fact that this is not available in Windows Vista is perfectly fine in my opinion because the backend changes made in Windows Vista were for the better and to make the operating system more efficient and more secure (as far as I am aware).

I don't understand why you guys are complaining so much, when you can just select the files, right-click, click 'Properties' and then see the total file size. Yes, it's a few extra clicks, but how often do you need to do this? Surely not often? Surely the benefits of the architectural changes in Windows Vista are more important than having the total file size displayed in the status bar, when you can find the total file size this way?

I don't understand why you guys are complaining so much, when you can just select the files, right-click, click 'Properties' and then see the total file size. Yes, it's a few extra clicks, but how often do you need to do this? Surely not often? Surely the benefits of the architectural changes in Windows Vista are more important than having the total file size displayed in the status bar, when you can find the total file size this way?

Yer kidding me, right...???

Loss of functionality ought to have everyone's attention. It truly baffles me that we can see people making excuses for msft over this. That a third party app can not only do it...plus do everything faster & better before 7 is even released ought to tell most people everything they need to know........

"benefits of the architectural changes"...puh-lease...

I don't understand why you guys are complaining so much, when you can just select the files, right-click, click properties and then see the total file size. Yes, it's a few extra clicks, but how often do you need to do this? Surely not often? Surely, the benefits of the architectural changes in Windows Vista are more important than having the total file size displayed in the status bar, when you can find the total file size this way?

Nonono. I think you don't really get what we mean. It's not simply "a few extra clicks"

Let's say I have a folder, with 100 subfolders and 25 files in it. The subfolders may have 1 million files in them, I don't care. I just want to know the size of those 25 files.

In XP all I had to do is:

  1. Glance at the status bar, without the need of touching a single button.

In Vista/7, I have to:

  1. Scroll through the 100 folders to get to the first of my 25 files (either by mouse or keyboard, probably easier with mouse).
  2. Then do a Shift-End, or scroll through to the end and press shift-click to select the files. Again, only the files. Not subfolders.
  3. Then either click on "show more details" on the task pane, or Right-click > properties, or Alt-Enter.

Those are not an extra couple of clicks. Those are several combinations of keyboard and mouse clicks.

That being said, I should probably just move on with the times, and accept that maybe the benefits of the architectural changes do outweigh the convenience of having this feature I so love.

Computing those details is expensive. Most of the time if you select that many files (often by pressing Ctrl+A) you're just going to copy them. So why waste CPU + I/O (which could be network I/O) just because the user selected stuff?

Yet, Win9x and 2000 and XP did not had those problems and even then computers then was much weaker than what we have today. When computing folder sizes, the system was still responsive and fast. Something in Vista and 7 MS have messed up.

Idea not taken at MS yet? What if I want to burn a CD or DVD, do i just add all files in a folder to the DVD drive folder? and then gets a message saying it's too big. Telling me in the source folder would have solved this problem.

How many people burn data and dvd's or copy stuff to usb sticks? And remember how big current hard drives are in comparative to CDs and DVDs and usb sticks. Excatly the modern of comparing a hard drive to a 1.44MB floppy disk.

Edited by ozgeek
If we're talking about traversing the directory structure, then yes, I can understand that it's expensive.

But the statusbar in previous versions normally show only the size of *files* in the current directory (excluding subdirs). Windows already has to read their names when we open up the folder; Surely it can't be that much more expensive to also read their sizes, and sum them up?

Lots of users are confused if you show them a "shallow" computation (i.e. showing the sizes of just the files in the current directory and not those contained in subfolders).

Second, no Windows didn't already have to read their names. The only files that Explorer has to know anything about are the ones actually visible (at least until you start scrolling, or do a multi-select operation). Before that, Vista (and moreso in Windows 7), the view is virtualized. Again this is done to offer a more responsive, less I/O-intensive experience. Why load the names and other details of files that aren't visible when 90% of the time the user isn't even going to scroll?

Virtaulized views make the Explorer scale far better than before, so you can open a directory containing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of items (or do a search that returns that many results) and it will be just as responsive as if you opened a folder with 10 files. If we actually had to load file data for that many items it would make browsing less responsive and cause a bunch of unnecessary I/O.

Nonono. I think you don't really get what we mean. It's not simply "a few extra clicks"

Let's say I have a folder, with 100 subfolders and 25 files in it. The subfolders may have 1 million files in them, I don't care. I just want to know the size of those 25 files.

Who does this? What use is this operation?

I'm not aware of any scenarios where this would be a useful thing to do. If you have an example of one that is common I would love to hear it.

Who does this? What use is this operation?

I'm not aware of any scenarios where this would be a useful thing to do. If you have an example of one that is common I would love to hear it.

Do you ever do any disc burning of data or ever used a USB stick?

Those who do disc burning or copying to USB sticks. Almost 99% computers have a form of disc burning equipment. There is no CD/DVD or Blu-ray discs to match the sizes of current hard drive. So MS think all we need to do is just drag those files into the disc window when it might NOT FIT. What do you think a novice user going to do when this don't work? "drive broken", "maybe wrong CD or DVD". Many things can confuse users.

So disabling the EASY ability to see the sizes of the files you are draging is actually making Windows harder and more frustrating to use. Maybe I should switch to ubuntu which, like every OS should, have this feature.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google Pixel 11 series: Here's what to expect by Hamid Ganji Google Pixel 10 series In recent years, Google has successfully turned its Pixel devices into worthy contenders in the smartphone market. The search giant is now preparing to launch the Pixel 11 series in just a few months, and many Pixel fans are likely wondering what Google has in store for them this year. The next lineup of Google smartphones includes four devices: the Pixel 11, Pixel 11 Pro, Pixel 11 Pro XL, and Pixel 11 Pro Fold. This year, we don’t expect Google to bring revolutionary upgrades to its handsets, and the Pixel 11 series is likely to receive modest hardware improvements alongside a slew of AI-powered features. Here are the rumored specifications of the Google Pixel 11 series ahead of its official debut: When will the new Pixel phones be unveiled? The last two generations of Google Pixel phones (Pixel 9 series and Pixel 10 series) were launched in August, unlike the previous three generations that debuted in October. With that in mind, we expect Google to unveil the Pixel 11 series sometime in August 2026. The exact launch date has yet to be confirmed. Google Pixel 11 CAD renders - Image via AndroidHeadlines How much will the Pixel 11 series cost? Predicting the final price of upcoming smartphones has become increasingly difficult. As you may know, RAM and memory prices are rising sharply, leading to significant increases in the cost of consumer electronics. Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that price increases for some future Apple products are unavoidable, suggesting that the iPhone 18 series could become more expensive. Google has remained tight-lipped about any potential price increases for the Pixel 11 series. If the company manages to maintain last year’s pricing structure, here’s what the lineup could cost: Pixel 11: $799 Pixel 11 Pro: $999 Pixel 11 Pro XL: $1,199 Pixel 11 Pro Fold: $1,799 Given current market conditions, it may be difficult for Google to avoid raising prices unless it adopts cost-saving measures, such as equipping the base model with 8GB of RAM. Google Pixel 11 series anticipated specs: We expect the Google Pixel 11 series to debut with a new Tensor G6 processor as well as an upgraded camera system. The overall design, however, is expected to remain largely unchanged across the lineup. Specifications Pixel 11 Pixel 11 Pro Pixel 11 Pro XL Pixel 11 Pro Fold Display 6.3-inch LTPO AMOLED / 120Hz refresh rate / up to 3100 nits of brightness 6.3-inch Super Actua LTPO OLED, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness 6.8-inch Super Actua LTPO OLED, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness 8-inch inner screen and 6.4-inch outer display, 120Hz refresh rate, up to 3600 nits of brightness RAM & Processor Tensor G6 / 8-12GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 12-16GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 12-16GB of RAM Tensor G6 / 16GB of RAM Storage options 128GB or 256GB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB 256GB, 512GB, 1TB Camera 50MP main sensor, 13MP ultra-wide, 10.8MP 5x telephoto, 10.5MP front camera 50MP main camera, 48MP ultra-wide, 48MP telephoto with 5x optical zoom, 42MP selfie camera 50MP main camera, 48MP ultra-wide, 48MP telephoto with 5x optical zoom, 42MP selfie camera 50MP main camera, 10.5MP ultra-wide camera, 10.8MP telephoto camera, 10MP front camera, 10MP inner camera Battery 4,840 mAh 4,707 mAh 5,000 mAh 4,658 mAh Software Android 17 Android 17 Android 17 Android 17 The Pixel 11 series won’t be a major departure from its predecessor, with Google instead focusing on subtle improvements and AI additions such as Gemini Intelligence. However, a patent filed by Google suggests the company is working on a removable battery for its smartphones, and we could see this feature make its way to the Pixel 11 Pro Fold. Given that nearly all smartphones today lack removable batteries, such a feature would be a welcome addition to future Pixel devices. That said, it may not arrive with this year’s lineup after all, and the final decision is yet to be made by Google. The Pixel 11 series could also face an uphill battle in the market. In the Android segment, Samsung is performing well with the Galaxy S26 series, while the Galaxy Z Fold 8 lineup is also expected to launch next month. On the other hand, Apple is preparing to unveil the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max in September alongside its first foldable iPhone.
    • At least AMD is still taking Windows 10 seriously (after the oops) before it consumer extended support ends.
    • So size is the ONLY selling point????? People have been plugging in PC's to TV's in living rooms for 20+ years. I would take a bigger box for more peformance. Also lot and lots of SFF/Mini ITX build guides out there.
    • My point is, if you buying this instead of a console for TV purposes, that you need to understand that you will not be able to play the most popular MP games with Steam OS. Now if you are not into those games, and into some of the perputual alpha/beta games on Steam then this is an option. I would argue a gaming PC would be the better route, more expensive but take the 1k -1.4k you are about to spend on this thing and build a better one. Because it is running Linux you can overide its 1080p settings. However The Verge complained about its 1080p cap and how you would have to get around it at the CLI, so someone buying this instead of a PS5 or Xbox might have a challege on their hands.
    • A review of Synology's BeeCamera software for the BeeStation Plus by Christopher White Synology is leaning into the BeeStation and the BeeStation Plus, and it's easy to understand why. While power users will want something more customizable, the BeeStation and its more powerful sibling, the BeeStation Plus, are great for those who want a device they can simply plug in, click a few buttons, and have it work as their own personal cloud. Until recently, the device was mostly used for the storage of files, photos, and videos, and with the Plus model, you could install and stream media through Plex. Synology recently released a new free application for the BeeStation Plus called BeeCamera, which is basically a stripped-down version of Surveillance Station. First, let's get the confusing naming out of the way. While you might initially think that BeeCamera is a physical device, perhaps a camera that Synology created specifically for the BeeStation Plus, that would be incorrect. BeeCamera is simply the name for the application that runs on the NAS and on your mobile device. I think the marketing team missed the mark here, but it does fit the other naming on the device, like BeePhotos and BeeFiles, I guess. Camera Support As of right now, only Synology-branded cameras are supported, which many will see as a callback to the drive locking the company implemented and then backtracked on. That said, while I 100% disagree on drive locking, I agree that camera locking for a device made to simply plug and play is the right decision. The whole point of the BeeStation line is simplicity. There are currently three camera model lines available, a wireless device for indoor use, and two PoE models for external use. CC400W (Wi-Fi): Plug it into power using the included power adapter, and connect it to your wireless network. This camera is rated only for indoor use and is the one I was provided to review the BeeCamera. $198.36, in line with the Unifi G6 Compact. BC510 (PoE): A bullet-style camera. Connect it to an Ethernet cable that is providing Power over Ethernet (PoE). This camera is rated for both indoor and outdoor use. $240. TC510 (PoE): A dome-style camera. Connect it to an Ethernet cable that is providing Power over Ethernet (PoE). This camera is rated for both indoor and outdoor use. $240. Although this isn't a review of the actual Synology camera, I did want to note that a positive for the Synology CC400W is that it uses a magnetic base. This means you can mount it on any magnetic surface, which is pretty handy. However, a downside to the camera is that it's powered by a built-in USB cable that's about six and a half feet (two meters) long. This means that the cable will probably be either too long or too short, but more importantly, if the cable is damaged at all, you'll likely need to buy an entirely new camera because there doesn't appear to be a way to replace it, unlike many competitors, like the Unifi G6 Instant. Hopefully, this is something Synology addresses in a future revision of the hardware. The BeeStation Plus supports up to four cameras. Setup The setup of BeeCamera is, like everything in the BeeStation family, very straightforward. Simply make sure you're on at least version 1.5 of the BeeStation OS, and BeeCamera is automatically installed on the device. BeeCamera Setup Screenshots Setting up the CC400W was just as easy. Plug it in, open up the BeeCamera app, and follow the on-screen steps to add the camera. During this process, you'll configure the camera name and how many days of retention you want to keep. The system will also automatically update the firmware for you. The whole thing took only a couple of minutes, excluding the time it took for the camera to update the firmware. Once the camera is connected to the BeeStation Plus, you can manage the various camera settings within the app, although there aren't many to choose from. You're able to configure whether the microphone will record audio (some privacy laws may preclude you from recording it), select what codec to use (H.264 or H.265), configure the color and exposure of the camera, and determine what data you want to overlay onto the video. Finally, you can set up AI detections so that BeeCamera will alert you if it sees certain things. These are all of the common detections you would expect in a camera system, such as people, pets, and vehicles. Under people and vehicles, you can also add extra monitoring for lingering and congestion detection, although pets are currently in "Lab" and therefore have no extra features yet. Recording in 4K using H.265 for 30 days will take roughly 300 GB of storage, which is very reasonable for most regular households, as the BeeStation Plus has 8TB of native storage. If you want to set up detection zones, you can. These are areas that BeeCamera will look at for the various detections, and are helpful if, for example, there's a tree in your frame and you don't want to be notified each time the wind makes the branches move around in the frame. Finally, you can also schedule when the camera should and should not be recording, which is a very useful feature. For example, you may want to record only at night when you're sleeping, but not during the day when you're up and about the house, so you can easily shut the camera off between 8 am and 10 pm. Each hour of each day can be configured to record continuously, only upon a detection event, or disabled completely. You can't fine-tune to record at a specific time, though, only hourly blocks on the hour. Daily Use The best part of BeeCamera is that it's easy and just works. If you only care about being notified when things happen, the mobile app sends those notifications and lets you click the button to bring up the video and see what's going on. For example, when I went out of town and had the camera pointed at the cat tower in our hallway, it was nice to be able to drop in and check that my furry friends were doing okay without me. Initiating the remote connection to the BeeStation Plus through the app is very responsive, but this will heavily depend on your ISP. In my case, using Xfinity, I'm able to go from starting the app to seeing live video in roughly three seconds, which is about the same amount of time it takes to connect to my Unifi UNVR system that costs much more. If you want to see footage from a specific day and time, you can do so using the calendar icon. You can also scroll through the timeline, looking for detections that are labeled in blue (vs. the normal gray when there's nothing of interest). There are buttons that let you go to the last/next detection on the timeline, which is helpful if you missed the notification on your mobile device. That's where the ease of use stops, though. While you can download clips that are flagged by detection, there's apparently no way to select generic time frames you're interested in, and the only place to download is to your phone. In addition, sharing a video shares the actual video, not just a link back to your BeeStation Plus. While that's good from a security and privacy perspective, it's a little awkward for sharing large videos. Limitations While the ease of implementation is great, there are some things that are lacking from BeeCamera. The most obvious is that there is no way to view the footage on the desktop. You can log in to the BeeStation Plus to see how much storage BeeCamera is using, but unlike BeePhotos and BeeFiles, there is no BeeCamera on the web console to manage or view footage. This means you'll be viewing all of your security footage on your mobile device, which is pretty limiting. In addition, there's no way to download the video to your PC without first using your phone as the intermediary. The one exception to this is that you can use BeeFiles to see the raw MP4 files. They're saved in 5-minute increments, and it's just raw data with no detection information or any other way to identify what any of them are. The lack of a way to interact with BeeCamera on the desktop also makes configuration of the cameras more difficult. For example, trying to set up detection zones using a tiny screen and your finger to draw boxes is more cumbersome than it needs to be. This reinforces the idea that BeeCamera is not made for power users. It's also missing some of the more advanced functionality of Surveillance Station. For example, I couldn't find a way to say, "Alert me if the thing in this zone is no longer there." Another major deficiency with BeeCamera, and a feature I suspect may come out in the future, is that while it can detect generic people, there is no specific facial recognition yet. This is an interesting omission, given the fact that other Synology tools can detect specific individuals, and competitors such as Unifi Protect also do it. This is probably a software limitation, so we will have to wait and see if this feature is added in the future. Conclusion If you need a security guard to monitor surveillance cameras to make sure your property is secure, then BeeCamera is not the solution for you. That said, you probably wouldn't be using a BeeStation Plus as the brains behind the system either. BeeCamera (and BeeStation in general) is clearly aimed at households that want to avoid sending personal data to Google and Amazon, and now want to add some cameras to keep an eye on their home and their pets while they're away. BeeCamera excels at doing this. The target market isn't interested in creating cases, tying multiple views together in a single pane of glass, or the like, and for the intended use case, the system works great. Where it starts to fall apart a bit is with more advanced features. Not being able to use a desktop app is a major compromise in my opinion, and having to do all of the configuration on a mobile device is annoying, but not impossible. If you don't want to have a full-fledged NAS device in your home, but still want control over your data (or maybe want an easy way to backup your data for World Backup Day), and want to add a couple of cameras to keep an eye on your house and your pets, this is a great, cheap, and easy way to go, and I suspect more functionality will come over time. If Synology releases a desktop app or at least a way to configure cameras and view footage on a desktop browser, this would be a near-perfect solution for a general home user. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      476
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      104
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      88
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!