Although I have not purchased the TS-112 on Amazon, I want to write something about it here. Especially because this unit is also often compared with the CL-35b1 of Fantec, anyone who wants to establish a NAS system should know quite precisely what it needs in the future could possibly need and what he absolutely needed. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Since I run both systems, I would like to give my opinion. Both devices are suitable for small office and home applications and should not be compared with more expensive devices. The data transfer in Windows networks is similar with me to both devices and is all the lower, the smaller the files to transfer. The access rights are similarly adjusted on both devices at the user level. Subfolders inherit Zurgriffsrechte the main folder. Switching off the hard disk after prolonged non-use of works when Fantec device more reliable than the QNAP, which is why the QNAP NAS to the incorporation of 'green' HDDs should be avoided. It should HDDs are used for continuous operation (costs up to 100% more). If all applications and servers are disabled (except for Twonky) in QNAP, it works with the shutdown but also here. The Twonky Media Server on QNAP is superior to the Fantec Media Server because Twonky also allows you to navigate to the folder level. In Fantec you see unfortunately only the last folder created folder structure. The Fantec NAS was immediately visible on the network. QNAP I had yet the correct workgroup name to assign. The Config menu in QNAP is very extensive. When Fantec only contain the bare essentials.
My conclusion, if you really just looking for a NAS functionality and do not want to be faced with extensive settings, can be happy with the cheaper Fantec CL-35b1. Who needs a good media server and / or web server, should strike at QNAP.
