# I really think that they think it's fixed



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Since Chase's famous "debugged" quote, I don't believe we have seen a new softwqare update.

I think they think it's fixed.

I think they think the only issue with repeats is in the guide data

They probably think all the bugs are guide data related.

SL and TODO Limits are not bugs...they are (to borrow a word) a "choice".

Recent announcements have focused on the HR-20 and the commercial 9 tuner DVR ($2,000). 

I think there is little hope that you will see any significant improvement from here on out.

Kinda like the Dtivos what you got is what you got, features may be activated, VOD may be available someday. But I think the software is mostly done being debugged.

I suspect (becasue I am a techo-nothing) that the HR20 will have more processing capability..maybe this addresses the stability issues?

Seems odd that are so sure the HR20 will be out in August, if they aren't done fixing the R15. I mean, why would they release a product that likely will not work? 

Serioulsy, the HD DVR crowd is part of that customer base that provides the most profit (extra receivers, DVR fees, HD package). They probably are more likely to have movie packages and sports subscriptions....Why would you risk pissing them off, if the software isn't done? Isn't 80% of the profit form the top 20% customers? 

If it isn't fixed, why no updates in almost 2 months?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

1) I can assure you, that the development teams DON'T think the product is done. There is a new software update on the Horizon... I just can't share the details or time frame, just yet.

2) Guide Data is one of the PRIMARY reasons for the First Run/Repeat issues we are seeing. They are attacking the problem on two fronts, scrubbing the guide data and introducing enhanced logic to the units

3) They where a choice, and they are still evaluating increasing them. It is a balancing game between performance and the list limits. They KNOW, that what they have in there right now is too low.

4) HR20 is being done by a different team... and the 9 Tuner unit (can you post a link), sounds like the Home Media Center, which is being done by another team.

5) You will see improvements in the unit, they are not "finished" with the R15 

6) Nope, there is more to come... Features still to be introduced are the VOD (both types), DirecTV2Go, and communication eventually with the Microsoft Media Center (Which should be part of DirecTV2Go)

7) The guts of the HR20, I can't share the details just yet

8) HR20 and R15 are not the same unit, different products... different teams

9) Probably

10) Instead of just doing an incremental update, they are trying to take a big chunk out of the list of issues... and that takes time to code, build, test, ect....

It is comming


----------



## TheTooleMan (Apr 9, 2006)

First of all, what do you mean by the statement


mikewolf13 said:


> If it isn't fixed, why no updates in almost 2 months?


103F was downloaded to my R15 on May 24 - a lot more recently than two months.

But if we don't push on DirecTV's support to fix the problems we identify, they'll never know they exist. This part of DBSTalk is great for us hackers and DIY's, but it keeps DirecTV out of the loop because we arrive at our own solutions.

Call the *******s every time your R15 acts up.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

The 10B8 for the -500 models was released early May, so it is about 6 weeks since that unit was updated.

 You would be surprised on how much DirecTV is *IN* the loop with what we talked about here.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Easy for me to say because I don't have an R15, but I suggest it's good news there hasn't been an update for awhile. It means they're being a bit more careful and serious about getting it right before sending it out. Software releases to the field (as opposed to a well-controlled beta with a good feedback mechanism) should never go out as fast as they had been. Particularly to an embedded device (where you have no ability to refuse or undo an update).


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 4) HR20 is being done by a different team... and the 9 Tuner unit (can you post a link), sounds like the Home Media Center, which is being done by another team.
> 
> 8) HR20 and R15 are not the same unit, different products... different teams


Is this a good thing? Isn't the software going to be pretty much the same thing (miss the HD bit's)? I would think they'd want some of the same people on both teams.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cabanaboy1977 said:


> Is this a good thing? Isn't the software going to be pretty much the same thing (miss the HD bit's)? I would think they'd want some of the same people on both teams.


I don't think they are "exclusive" teams... in a sense they they are oblivious of what each other are doing...

In the same sense that at my last job, I was on multiple "teams" at the same time.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 1)
> 
> I can assure you, that the development teams DON'T think the product is done.
> 
> 4) HR20 is being done by a different team... and the 9 Tuner unit (can you post a link), sounds like the Home Media Center, which is being done by another team.


Did they think it was done in Nov.? Seriously, did your source know there were issues in Nov. when they released it? He is anonymous and his actual existence could even be denied if necessary, so I would be curious....

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=55847 -Thread about the Really big expensive - likely commercial use DVR -THe "9 tuner" comment may have been confusion on my part - sorry...for that

I hope what you say is right. And I hope that a big fix is coming and not something silly like gettig closed captioning on all 6 mix channels at one time.

I have trepidation about the delay. But I do not mean to complain about the time, IF a significant fix is being developed.

I understand two development teams, but if much of the software is the same, and the R15 fix hasn't been built, tested, etc. how can the August release for HR20 date be very reliable...

I do not doubt that they hope that if all goes well, August will be the date, but how often does that happen?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

My relationship with my contact started after the release of the unit....
Actually developed because of my original review.... So, I really don't know what the mindset was like in Novemeber....

He really does exist... I would just have to run and hide if I told you all.. 

The 9-Tuner piece does corrolate to what is expected in the Home Media Center
The HR20P is the high end version of the HR20, I don't think it is expected in August...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> My relationship with my contact started after the release of the unit....
> Actually developed because of my original review.... So, I really don't know what the mindset was like in Novemeber....
> 
> He really does exist... I would just have to run and hide if I told you all..
> ...


A) I meant you could ask him now what he knew in Nov.
B) Didn't mean to insinuate he does not exist, just that his existence is deniable if he conveys too much...plausible deniability
c) I don't expect the BIG DVR to be ready in AUgust, The article even implied it may never be released...I just mentioned it as D*forward looking focus and R15 seems to be on back burner (as my original post suggested)


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I don't think they are "exclusive" teams... in a sense they they are oblivious of what each other are doing...
> 
> In the same sense that at my last job, I was on multiple "teams" at the same time.


I didn't think so I just wasn't sure by what you said. I hope they are working together to make them both better. I hope that the HR20 will be at or better then where R15 is now.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

mikewolf13 said:


> A) I meant you could ask him now what he knew in Nov.
> B) Didn't mean to insinuate he does not exist, just that his existence is deniable if he conveys too much...plausible deniability
> c) I don't expect the BIG DVR to be ready in AUgust, The article even implied it may never be released...I just mentioned it as D*forward looking focus and R15 seems to be on back burner (as my original post suggested)


That is a really interesting question (one that's not likely to be answered honestly): did they not know what they had due to lack of testing, or did they know what they had and release it anyway to catch Christmas? I'm not sure which I'd rather be the case. :eek2:


----------



## ISWIZ (Nov 18, 2005)

Earl,

Thanks for sharing that an update is on the horizon. I'm getting antsy about moving the R15 back to primary but afraid I'll get too frustrated if it fails to work right. So far the repeats have improved a lot but it can always get better.

thanks again


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

walters said:


> That is a really interesting question (one that's not likely to be answered honestly): did they not know what they had due to lack of testing, or did they know what they had and release it anyway to catch Christmas? I'm not sure which I'd rather be the case. :eek2:


Exactly. Which is why I bring up the plauisble deniability aspect of Earl's source. I would love an honest answer, just out of curiosity. With the shield of anonymity, maybe a honest response, if the source even knows....

Who knew what and when did they know it? in terms of the issues with the R15.

Clearly if 10% were returned (as per Chase's comments), and many, many more had issues without returning, it would seem that testing could not possibly have occurred without identifying serious issues.

So were the issues identified but the product was released regardless, or did they fail to identify the issues in testing?

I would consider the failing to identify a bigger issue. And would cause great concern with future product releases.

IMO, The release of a known defective product while working to fix would be the lesser of two evils as it can be rendered moot if development is done properly.


----------



## Vegas (Mar 2, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 2) Guide Data is one of the PRIMARY reasons for the First Run/Repeat issues we are seeing. They are attacking the problem on two fronts, scrubbing the guide data and introducing enhanced logic to the units


Curious, My DTivo does not have any issues with First run/repeat.
Don't the R15 and the DTivo use the same guide data?

Vegas


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Vegas said:


> Curious, My DTivo does not have any issues with First run/repeat.
> Don't the R15 and the DTivo use the same guide data?
> 
> Vegas


Both get guide data from Tribune Media Services (all of DirecTV's units get guide data from TMS).


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

They use the same guide data...

However TiVo uses (at least in a major part), the Field: First Air Date to determin first run / Repeate

The R15 uses (at least in part), the actually flags denoting First Run or Repeat

Why doesn't the R15 use the First Air Date.... that is a matter of debate.... and I don't have an answer for that question....


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> They use the same guide data...
> 
> However TiVo uses (at least in a major part), the Field: First Air Date to determin first run / Repeate
> 
> ...


Maybe because DirecTV had little choice because of the way the EPG was made? I don't know, just a thought.


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why doesn't the R15 use the First Air Date....


As any beginning programmer will attest, it's harder to compare date fields than flags. Generally, I wouldn't suggest that this fact explains why a programmer might choose to compare flags rather than dates. But, given the relatively large number of software defects associated with the R15, I suspect that, in this case, it does have explanatory value.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

especially if that date field is treated as a TEXT field....


----------



## ApK (Mar 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> especially if that date field is treated as a TEXT field....


I guess. Maybe. It might be an argument if the date is not in a consistant format, at least. 
Maybe on the witness stand (in the court of public opinion, of course) the coder could argue "but I didn't know if 3/2 was March 2nd or February 3rd!"

:nono:


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Well surely it's not being sent in a (completely) human-readable format--that would be stupid. Chances are it's either a long (representing seconds or milliseconds since some point, e.g. 1/1/1970) or it's in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). I sort of like the former since it's smaller and gives us (by then) old folks who made it through Y2K something to do in 2038. 

Either way, the non-DVR receivers seem perfectly capable of interpreting that correctly and rendering it in human-readable format (or, in the case of ISO 8601, a more human-friendly format).

Maybe since it was written in the UK, they're expecting DD-MM-YYYY and blowing up.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

walters said:


> Maybe since it was written in the UK, they're expecting DD-MM-YYYY and blowing up.


That wouldn't be a first.... Any one remember a certain MARS mission that was derailed because of different "formats"


----------



## ISWIZ (Nov 18, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> That wouldn't be a first.... Any one remember a certain MARS mission that was derailed because of different "formats"


Oh come on Earl, it's not like that was the first space ship ever made


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

walters said:


> Chances are it's either a long (representing seconds or milliseconds since some point, e.g. 1/1/1970) or it's in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD).


My own research, though preliminary, suggests that the date is represented as a text string specifying the number of elapsed seconds since July 1, 1941 (the date of the first commercial TV broadcast), represented as a lower-case Roman numeral. Hence, the difficulties with first-run/repeat.


----------



## ChrisWyso (Nov 16, 2005)

I'll tell you in my experience, dealing with dates using the elapsed seconds is a *MAJOR* headache. I used it ONCE. And even then I cheated! I used the seconds, modified my compare method by calculating the seconds # that represented 01/01 of the current year. That was easier on the machine to handle, compare, and calculate, but ever since I've used standard date field format, even if that meant converting a text string into a valid Date field. I'd rather add a couple lines of code comparing year, month, day seperately than deal with strictly seconds again!


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

The DTivo units have a numeric date that represents number of dates since 12/31/69. I have no idea if that's how the guide stores it but that's the format that's stored in the MFS database. Today, 06/14/06 is represented as 13,314.


----------

