Tobias, will SFFS put anything in the log for inaccessible folders/files? I guess that would be a good way for people to make sure that it's doing what they need with the service settings they are using.

- Neil.

Glad you got it working, J-Mac. It sounded like you were having a bit of a nightmare there.

I think the only thing that you'll be missing with the blank username/password is the ability for SFFS to access your user files when you are logged out (at least, I think that's the case). Not sure if this is an issue for you or not?

As to why it wasn't working with the user/pass filled in, that's a strange one - I'm pretty sure it's supposed to. In fact, I was under the impression that the user/pass aspect of services was a standardised thing, i.e. the user/pass is stored by Windows and you can access it via the Services tool. If you open up Services and get the properties on the ExtremeSync service, you can set the user/pass via its "Log On" tab. Maybe setting it here will work better for you? Apologies if you've already tried this. :)

- Neil.

I just got "bit" by the scheduling feature in SFFS. I thought it was scheduled for earlier this afternoon but a reboot of my PC naturally had shut down SFFS and it is not set to auto-start, so - nothing happened.

-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)

Do you have the Pro version, or just Standard? I was also a bit perturbed by the way the scheduling worked until I decided to try it with the ExtremeSync service installed (only available with Pro). With this, it behaves much more like you'd expect a backup program to work, i.e. you can fiddle with profiles and pretty much anything else without having to disable scheduling, not to mention allowing scheduling even if you are logged off.

It's a bit of a pity you have to buy Pro to get scheduling working this way though.

This is one of the poorest UI's I have seen in a while. It does sync fast and true, but I now know that I have to be exceedingly careful about every setting and test them all in every conceivable situation, as the developers have not put the customers' ease of use anywhere near the top of the feature list!

-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)

Before trying SFFS, I'd seen quite a few comments and reviews saying that the interface was great, so I was a bit confused when I found it to be messy and inconsistent - I began to wonder if I was missing "the point" somehow, but I'm now pretty convinced that the interface is a bit of a mess.

To be fair, it's probably hard to provide as many options as SFFS does without things getting a tad messy, but I do think it could be massively improved. For a start, since there's so many options, I'd like much more control over unifying options across multiple profiles, or some form of option inheritance (e.g. I've got 8 backup jobs, all using the same core settings, but scheduled at different frequencies).

That said, it's not like I'm changing options on a daily basis, and the speed and reliability of SFFS is as good as anything I've seen, so the dodgy interface isn't enough to make me want to change to anything else any time soon.

- Neil