Yep, I had two different models that had been running for about seven years each and had an excellent experience overall until Synology tried to change their drive policy.

I get all the points about EOL software and ancient hardware, but the fact of the matter is I treat it like an appliance and it works that way. I agree that having better transcoding would be nice. But my needs are not too sophisticated. I mostly just need the storage. In a world with 100+ gig LLM models, my Synology has suddenly become pretty critical.

They have way underpowered cpus compared to what you can get for the same money elsewhere. They're just a bad deal.

Hi there, I was looking to get a NAS that I can just install and not have to worry about maintenance too much and senility was at the top of the list. If not synology what would you suggest?

In my case, Synology has worked fine. Reliability is a big deal for non-backup RAID (not the same as "backup," but does the trick, 90% of the time).

It's entirely possible that their newer units are crappier than the old workhorses I have.

I don't use any of the fancier features that might require a beefier CPU. One of the units runs a surveillance station, and your choices for generic surveillance DVRs is fairly limited. Synology isn't perfect, but it works quite well, and isn't expensive. I have half a dozen types of cameras (I used to write ONVIF stuff). The Surveillance Station runs them all.

Synology's fine - even ideal - for that use case. If you want to run Docker containers, run apps for video conversion like Plex, etc, then you'd likely want to consider something with a beefier CPU. For an appliance NAS, Synology's really pretty great.

I was just mentioning personal experience. It wasn't even an opinion.

I would love to know what a "good deal" is. Seriously. It's about time for me to consider replacing them. Suggestions for a generic surveillance DVR would also be appreciated.

Thanks!