Thanks to services likeDropbox , many of us take it for yield that we can keep our Indian file in sync across many machines , and that backup copy of those files will be carry through up there in the swarm . But what if you want to use online file - depot with a group — to share files among your carbon monoxide gas - worker , say ? Most of these same service provide straightforward data file sharing in addition to storage and synchronizing . Some go beyond those basics to offer the kind of tools — such as file permission controls — that you might observe on a file server .
Sharing files among multiple users can be complicated . A mathematical group might be temporary , existing only for the length of a undertaking , or long - term . Its members might all be in the same office staff or spread across the globe . Whatever the configuration of the grouping , online data file - storage / syncing / share-out services must be able to make trusted that everyone has the same version of the file , and that the change one person makes do n’t overwrite those made by someone else .
To find out which online storage services might be unspoilt for group use , we choose to focus on a few services that we felt represented the across-the-board area . Our criteria : We looked for service that synchronize file on multiple users ’ machines to the cloud . They had to have Mac- and Windows - compatible client software that automatically uploads and downloads change file cabinet ( or pieces of files ) to all link computing machine . They had to provide some kind of controls over which folders and / files were shared with which users . They want to keep backups of sometime versions of documents and be able to fix deleted filing cabinet .
Sugarsync’s Mac client is broken into multiple individual applets (this one for managing files), which can be confusing.
We happen tons of service that qualified under most , if not all , of those criteria . We choose to focalise on five that represent the gamut of what ’s uncommitted , that met the criteria most close , and that have been in operation long enough to have a reliable track record : Box.net;Dropbox ( ) itself ; the Mac version of Microsoft’sLive Mesh 2011 ( ) ; Sugarsync ( ) ; Syncplicity ( ) . For the saki of comparison , we look at Google Docs as well , even though it is n’t directly comparable to the others .
In our run , all five performed as they should : They synchronized , updated , tracked , and retrieve file cabinet just as one would go for . Even more signally , I was able to run all five services at the same time , without any obtrusive glitches . ( Do n’t try this at the office , though : If you are n’t measured about which folders you ’re syncing with which service , you’re able to wind up in a recursive theater of mirrors . ) The differences came down to thing like version archiving and the special features they offer in their line accounts . Pricing vary , but not enough to make that a paramount concern when you ’re evaluating .
The theme here is n’t so much to urge a specific service ( though we ’ll do that ) as much as to give you an musical theme of what to look for when you ’re look into them yourself .
Box.net allows you to assign seven different kinds of permission to a folder.
It’s the apps
All but one of the services we looked at offer screen background client for both Mac OS X and Windows ; Box.net is presently beta quiz its Mac node . In some cases , those node apps give you memory access to almost every feature the Robert William Service offers ; others let you do little more than operate local preferences ( such as bandwidth throttling for single file transfer ) . SugarSync ’s software provides the most functionality , despite its unconnected attack ; Dropbox provide comparatively small .
One affair to remember about a service ’s reliance on a desktop client : Unless your collaborator ( co - workers , client , contractor , and so on ) already utilize the service , you ’ll have to win over them to download and set up the necessary software system . If they do n’t , and they use the service ’s Web port alone , they may be 2d - course collaborators .
Sugarsync ’s Mac client is broken into multiple single applets ( this one for managing single file ) , which can be confusing .
The Live Mesh desktop client shows which other machines have access to a selected folder.
The services vary wide in the character and handiness of mobile client for the iPhone and such . Syncplicity and Live Mesh 2011 , for model , offer no aboriginal smartphone clients ; you have to apply their nomadic Web apps rather . Box.net , Dropbox , and SugarSync , by contrast , furnish software for the most wide used smartphone platforms in the U.S.
All of the services except for Microsoft ’s Live Mesh allow you to make out file via World Wide Web apps as well as from desktop or mobile clients ; some of themrequireyou to use the Web for some operations ( such as restoring old version of files ) . Dropbox ’s Website is very Web 1.0 ; for example , most action mechanism require a new page to adulterate . Other services offer on-key vane apps or rely on Flash for quicker , more desktop - like access .
Syncing and sharing
These service vary in what they allow you to divvy up , and how they allow you share it . All except Dropbox allow you to partake in any folder you choose ; some also provide you to share individual files . Dropbox opt for easiness , allowing you to divvy up just a single leaflet name Dropbox ( admit that booklet ’s nested contents ) ; there are workarounds to that , including manually produce symbolic link or using a third - party service program such as MacDropAny ( ) .
Of the five services we looked at , only Syncplicity limits the figure of computers that can synchronise to a yield set of files or folders : if you have a free or personal account , you’re able to synchronise two computing machine at a time . Box.net restricts desktop synchronise to its pay business accounts . Windows Live Mesh 2011 is unique in that it will let you specify which computers a folder will synchronise with . Dropbox and Windows Live Mesh 2011 are the only services that synchronize right away between two political machine on the same local mesh , without a round - trip out to the cyberspace . That ’s a distinct advantage when you ’re sharing large filing cabinet with people in the same office .
When multiple exploiter apportion files , they may make changes at the same time , create conflict . All of these services except for Windows Live Mesh 2011 will notice if a file is synchronize at the same time from two different parties and then create conflict copies ( typically labeled by user or motorcar name ) . But none of them achieve the level of version - control that ’s offered by Google Docs , which cut across all changes behind the scenes and applies them live to all substance abuser at the same time . Even when glitches occur , putting file out of sync , Google warn you and asks you to close and re - afford the file .
The one matter these service wo n’t let you do is lock individual files — preventing anyone from edit a file that someone else is already act upon on or give it insufferable for specified users to ever alter a given file . Those features are ordinarily found in content - management systems ( CMSes ) that are specifically designed to manage such documents . Shared storage and sync services are n’t focalize on the contents of documents as much as on saving a current copy of a single file each metre it ’s modify . ( Some service get you mark files or folders as read - only — for everyone or especial users — but that ’s not the same thing as locking a file . )
Permissions and security
These services vary wide in the granularity of their file permissions . For example , Dropbox lets you prepare permit on an entirefolder , not for individual file . moreover , Dropbox ’s permissions give all users edit out right ; other services let you grant scene - only access to specific items or leaflet ; some propose even fine control than that .
Many of these service let you partake in a file cabinet or folder with anyone for whom you provide an e - mail speech , even if he or she does n’t have an account with the service ; in some cases , that foreigner can also share the file or folder with others . Some of them also allow you send out public links ( which enableanyoneto download a file from the service ’s Website ) or links that only the receiver may utilise or that puzzle out one clip only .
Box.net allows you to set apart seven dissimilar kind of permit to a folder .
Except for Windows Live Mesh , all of these services save older versions of files . However , they vary in how many versions they store and in how they count those older files against your computer memory quota . Most will track who has made change to a file cabinet . Being able to retrieve older versions is particularly authoritative when you ’re sharing file with a chemical group ; while you may have local stand-in of the files you ’ve used , swarm - based shaft economise change more frequently , making retrieval of former edition easier .
In an age of server break - ins , encryption protocol exploits , and man - in - the - middle attack , any online warehousing service aimed at business user should secure information in transportation system as well as in computer storage . Microsoft offer less information about its security system measure than some other service .
What bump if the company miss your data ? It ’s a valid concern : Not too long ago , Google temporarily deleted hundreds of thou of Gmail accounts , and it was days before it mend all of them . Some services , including Syncplicity and Dropbox , supply more item about the care they take of your files than others .
Business plans
All of these services extend personal plans , which may be in effect enough for business role . All except Live Mesh also provide extra features that are specially utile for groups . business concern accounts typically offer puppet for managing multiple users , imply you’re able to create accounts and put permit , assign new users to multiple files at once , revoke approach , allow substance abuser to ask in people outside the chronicle , and more . Business plans may also provide a pool of store that ’s available to all members of the plan , instead of allotting separate quota for each user . ( Google , for one , does not . )
The Live Mesh background client display which other machines have access to a selected folder .
If you ferment with many different client , customers , or vendors , an individual accounting will probably make more sense , partly because you retain control of it independent of which project are using the shared storage . Fortunately , most armed service rent you put your toes in the water system by offering free personal story with limited storage , and 14 - day or 30 - day trials of business offerings .
Box.net is the cleared winner among business offer : It render IT - style dominance and governing body for group of account . For most other inspection and repair , business concern accounts are stapled on .
Pricing
For four of the services we looked at—Box.net , Dropbox , SugarSync , and Syncplicity — per - user costs are outstandingly close . SugarSync is the cheapest at $ 10 per calendar month per user ; Dropbox in the heart at $ 13.25 for the first five users , and about $ 10 for additional users ; and Box.net and Syncplicity at the top of this curt range at $ 15 . Dropbox only allows yearly subscriptions , which dramatically reduces flexibleness ; SugarSync kick in a 16 percent deduction for yearly defrayment .
The service change more in the amount of depot they provide . Box.net ’s three - user starter program include 500 GB of pooled memory board ( 167 GB each ) , but it does n’t permit you to buy more . Syncplicity offer the least amount of storage and the highest prices for additional memory : 50 GB shared among the first three users , and $ 10 per month for each extra 10GB — way out of scale with Box.net and Dropbox .
SugarSync is also expensive compared to Box.net and Dropbox , offering just 100 GB ( 33 GB per substance abuser ) for its three - exploiter starter programme , and charging $ 30 per month for each additional 100 GB unit — near twice that of Dropbox .
Dropbox includes just 70 GB for the starter five - substance abuser plan , and burden $ 17 per month ( payable as $ 200 per year ) per additional 100 GB unit . However , Dropbox does n’t bet deleted file or sometime adaptation of files against these store quantities . Depending on how much you retool , this could imply a Brobdingnagian difference in required storage for Dropbox versus other services , which mostly let in version and removed files in the quota .
Windows Live Mesh stands apart from those other four , because it ’s free . But it also miss the variety of storage and user upgrades you get from those others .
mark that , if you ’re using these services with people outside your fellowship , you ’ll need to convince them to pay up — or you ’ll have to pick up the tab .
The bottom line
For serious - minded business drug user who want central control and granular access to files , Box.net ’s business accounts are the clear winner among the service we see at . Too bad we have to await for its Mac client to be released .
From the standpoint of simplicity and accounting , I ’d have to go with Dropbox . Having a single folder to synchronize and straightforward options makes it an well-heeled way to collaborate — as long as you do n’t need mulct - toothed file- or folder - permissions . Its LAN Sync makes it enceinte if you ’re collaborators are all on the same electronic web . Because it does n’t count sure-enough reading or deleted files against your reposition quota , it ’s particularly in effect for storing large , oftentimes revised undertaking Indian file . The divine service has a ways to go if it ’s going to vie in the business market ; it require to get more flexible account terms and some kind of trial rank for occupation users .
Google Docs ’s coinciding redaction and superb Web app port are nifty — as long as you do n’t need to sync files on your Mac or other twist . For some company , using a freestanding avail ( such as Syncplicity ) to enable Google Docs desktop syncing , while using the Web port as the primary way to edit and collaborate , may be the right compounding of cost , feature , and reach .
Whichever service you prefer , the point is to reduce the amount of time all task members spend managing files , and redirect that effort toward productive work . Collaborative cloud reposition should keep project fellow member down to earth , while all the deception occur way above them .
Glenn Fleishman is a senior contributor to Macworld , writes regularly for the Economist’sBabbageblog , and is the source of many einsteinium - Quran in theTake Controlseries .
