# Who was responsible for testing 6.3/6.3a?



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Just wondering if anyone....hint, hint, Earl's contacts....knows who was responsible for testing the 6.3/6.3a upgrades?

Was this an instance of Tivo preparing the code and beta testing it, then handing it off to DTV? Or was this an instance of Tivo preparing the code and handing it to DTV for testing?

Given DTVs "top notch" record for testing software for the R15 and HR20 I'm guessing Tivo prepared the code and DTV did it's stellar job of giving it to 10-15 employees and telling them to play with it. After which it was labeld "Beta test completed".

I'm sure others than myself would be interested to know the answer to this question. Earl, can you run this by your contacts?


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I wonder the same as well. It was talked about for months, rumored to go out in July, then hits my box like a rock in October. I've just recieved a swap out from D* as I had so many issues with 6.3a. 

Last night's recordings were the last on the old (less than 1 yr) box. Shark was split into two recordings with 8 minutes missing and According to Jim gets a new record. 3 seperate recordings for one show with over 20 minutes missing. What is strange is the fact that we're watching DVRd programs while these recordings took place. The box didn't reboot during that time frame so what was it doing?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Given DTVs "top notch" record for testing software for the R15 and HR20 I'm guessing Tivo prepared the code and DTV did it's stellar job of giving it to 10-15 employees and telling them to play with it. After which it was labeld "Beat test completed".


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

From how I understand it, TiVo, Inc. is first responsible for testing the build.
After it is goes through their testing, it is handed to DirecTV for their approval.

Which includes their testing.

As for how many people, or what kind of testing (in either of the two tests) I don't know.


----------



## stim (Nov 16, 2005)

In any case, I think that it is obvious that DirecTV should not be in business of making hardware or developing software for receivers. *They only should sell programming and that is all.* They should have third party companies (Sony, Philips, TiVo, etc.) develop the hardware _and_ software on the boxes.

Also, DirecTV employees should not be allowed within 100 miles of the building where the development is taking place. Never mind&#8230;. Make that 500 miles.


----------



## bpayne (Oct 25, 2004)

stim said:


> In any case, I think that it is obvious that DirecTV should not be in business of making hardware or developing software for receivers. *They only should sell programming and that is all.* They should have third party companies (Sony, Philips, TiVo, etc.) develop the hardware _and_ software on the boxes.
> 
> Also, DirecTV employees should not be allowed within 100 miles of the building where the development is taking place. Never mind&#8230;. Make that 500 miles.


As far as I'm aware, the people who beta tested the 6.3 & *.3a patches were all in the L.A. DMA. This statement should say it all: _a large portion of the initial test group was from employee accounts originating in that market_.

Clearly- due to the initial bugs on the 6.3 [non "A"] bug, a couple of things can be generalized:

- A diverse array of system & hardware configurations were not tested. The lack of 95 and 72.5 programming compatibility is evidence of that. That is why the initial 6.3 rollout was immediately pulled and the "a" patch was re-worked.

- OTA and DD performance was probably not noteable factor- it _is_ the LA DMA of course- who would really be part of the beta test group and bother with an OTA?

With that said, I begged to be part of the 6.3 beta test group. "It's not open to anyone outside of LA". But hey, I got to beta test the HR20 as a consolation prize... not that they listened to any of my recommendations other than the boot-up messages that appeared after the D8 patch.

BTW, your above statement is moot as far as 6.3 _or_ 6.3a is concerned. The software was completely of Tivo's doing. DirecTV did not develop it at all. I will be the first to criticize DirecTV if they deserve it but if 6.3a was their mistake, I imagine we would have already seen an update for it by now.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> Was this an instance of Tivo preparing the code and beta testing it, then handing it off to DTV? Or was this an instance of Tivo preparing the code and handing it to DTV for testing?


Wow, nothing's ever TiVo's fault.

You might want to adjust your TiVo blinders.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

bidger said:


> Wow, nothing's ever TiVo's fault.
> 
> You might want to adjust your TiVo blinders.


If you will note, I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. I know Tivo does have a beta program that doesn't just involve employees. We all know DTV does not.


----------



## stim (Nov 16, 2005)

bpayne said:


> BTW, your above statement is moot as far as 6.3 _or_ 6.3a is concerned. The software was completely of Tivo's doing. DirecTV did not develop it at all. I will be the first to criticize DirecTV if they deserve it but if 6.3a was their mistake, I imagine we would have already seen an update for it by now.


You are right. I was mostly referring to DirecTV's attempt at a DVR. Why I posted it in this forum, I do not know...


----------



## RobertSeattle (Aug 27, 2006)

stim said:


> In any case, I think that it is obvious that DirecTV should not be in business of making hardware or developing software for receivers. *They only should sell programming and that is all.* They should have third party companies (Sony, Philips, TiVo, etc.) develop the hardware _and_ software on the boxes.


Let the hardware market decide.


----------

