Talk:Netgear SC101

Tone
Someone flagged this article with WP:TONE pointing to discussion in the talk page, which didn't exist. Unfortunately, the tone of the article is appropriate and the information is accurate so I would leave it alone. Altaphon (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The tone is bad. It's a SAN, not a NAS. A lot of the article seems to be complaining about that fact, and seems to be written by someone who doesn't understand storage well. Of course, if you have a SAN with an NTFS volume, your Linux box will have trouble reading it!!! Of course, if you want your host to access a SAN, you need the right drivers on it. It's not a NAS. Stop expecting it to be one and you'll be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.25.193 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, still needs work. This is not a place to air complaints, but describe in a neutral tone. One idea might be to merge in the Nasan and Z-SAN articles, since those do not seem to be independently notable? W Nowicki (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Netgear SC101. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://kerneltrap.org/node/6800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330035759/http://www.computeractive.co.uk/pcw/review/1921177/netgear-sc101-storage-central to http://www.computeractive.co.uk/pcw/review/1921177/netgear-sc101-storage-central

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)