Skip to content

Anonymous

My feedback

3 results found

  1. 329 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    I'll add my voice to this request. When I reboot my system, it becomes virtually unusable for about 5-10 minutes whilst the C: drive is at 100% use as Box resyncs itself. Having the files on the D: drive would allow the resyncing, yet the C: drive would be free to launch and run other applications without the delay..

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    Really? Not on the roadmap? It should be. as more and more users move away from hard disks to SSD's for O/S boot drive, having the Box Drive cache is really going to consume write cycles and lower the lifespan of said SSDs considerably. I only have hard drives in my system at the moment but after reboot the "C" drive is at 100% use for several minutes as Box re-syncs between me and the cloud. I can only imagine the effect on SSD drives. Not to mention the gross inconvenience of having to log out of Box each time I need to search for something on my "C" drive, having the search utility having to pour through every folder mapped to Box is a great waste of time if I don't The only workaround to this is to log out of Box, do my search, then log back in. Again wasting a lot of time. I grant Microsoft has a hand in this by largely forcing everything to default to being put on the "C" drive, but more options should be available, as we're long past the 1990's and much smaller hardware. Thanks for your consideration.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 869 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 374 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    I respect that you've developed Box as it is, but we're drowning in the waterfall. Perhaps rather than undoing all you've done, for in some cases it may well be useful this way, perhaps adding a "compatibility mode" option that would allow more restrictive (server-like) permissions to be used where needed would be the best. Folders running in this new mode could be indicated by another color, so that people could easily distinguish between native Box and compatible-mode folders. This way your system could go to the Box rule set for permissions if in Box mode, a separate set of rules for the compatibility mode. This may be easier than trying to jury rig additional features into your existing structure. We WILL appreciate this functionality, believe me and a whole lot of other admins! Thanks for your consideration.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base