TimeCapsule supports Mac OS X 10.5's TimeMachine auto-backup feature. The ShareSpace doesn't but that's arguably because of TimeMachine's picky requirements rather than any specific failing on WD's part. That said, while lots of other NAS boxes don't support TimeMachine out of the box, they can be made to with a little trickery because they support the AppleShare protocol, AFP. ShareSpace doesn't support AFP access.
The ShareSpace uses Apple's Bonjour technology to make accessing the management console easy from a Mac - but then fails to follow this through by using the same system to connect to the storage without having to sniff out the IP address first.
Full user and groups controls
We'd have liked to have seen support for DNLA too, to make the ShareSpace more appealing to folk who want to store media files and stream them, but don't want to use Apple's software.
Fortunately, WD makes amends by bundling a single-machine copy of its WD Anywhere Backup app, which does largely what TimeMachine does albeit without the fancy graphical front-end.
Plug in an external HDD for back-up
In addition to the set-up console, the ShareSpace has a built-in download manager that can schedule http and ftp transfers according to a seven-day timetable, with each day segmented in three-hour blocks. Three is also the maximum number of simultaneous downloads you can do.
To quote performance speeds in Mb/s (Megabits/second) instead of the industry standard MiB/s in order to mislead is so underhanded. You do not expect TheRegister to sell out like that!
"Copying a 10.59GB folder containing 180-odd sub-folders and more than 3300 files from the notebook to a shared folder on the ShareSpace yielded an average throughput of 70.73Mb/s."
The reason I ask is because: a couple of years back the people I worked for bought (on my recommendation) a NAS box based on the universal "this product is great" reviews seen on the interweb. It was fast, quiet and supported CIFS, NFS, FTP, RAID5 all the usual stuff. Turns out all the copy speed reviews used CIFS because the reviewers only tested it with Windows and the box was crap at FTP and NFS. It would freeze for an indeterminate time on the middle of a transfer which meant it was useless for automated copies as you could never be sure when it would finish.
So, CIFS, NFS or FTP?
is the death of this product... perhaps if they did a 'normal' version as well they might sell...
Qnap all the way! does all this and more for less... (and its quiet too)
A supper SLOW box, isn't it?
70Mb/s. that's < 9MB/s.
@Tony Smith re: speed
Tony, is that 70 MBytes/second or 70 Mbits/second ?