# There is software for 622!!!



## sunfire01 (Feb 7, 2006)

This is from tech portal:

02/01/2006: 1110 Software Version L3.50 for ViP622 
Effective Thursday, February 2nd , Engineering plans to spool the FULL PHASE of software version L3.50 for the ViP622 receiver. This is primarily a non-forced maintenance release available at ALL satellite locations. 


At this time L3.50 will be the valid software version for the ViP622.

Jason


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around, does it make a sound?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

:welcome_s sunfire. Just because the techportal says that a software version is spooling or will spool does not mean it is spooling. The techportal has been known to be wrong before. 

I am sure one of the guys watching the heavens will chim in with the real answer. I think P. Smith already did.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep ... Tech Portal said that last last week as well (same version number).
Paging Dr. Smith!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We're waiting, STILL waiting.


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

P Smith said:


> We're waiting, STILL waiting.


Please don't post usless information on these forums. There is already way too much to read without having to go through useless postings like this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sory, lujan. It made sense to those who are still waaiting for an official non-beta software release for the ViP-622. "We're waiting" should be read as "nothing in the stream yet".


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yep.. P. Smith's posts made perfect sense in the if the whole thread is read. Basically means no official 622 software spooling.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> Yep.. P. Smith's posts made perfect sense in the if the whole thread is read. Basically means no official 622 software spooling.


Software is spooled that was being loaded to the beta users. So its out there. It certainly can be released to any machine that actually gets delivered.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With E*s specific permission (based on P Smith's reports they are targeting a few hundred specific units).
Released receivers have all receivers addressed with software. The 622 does not.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We have new software today - ACX1 (194), ACY1 (145) and old one ACP1 (159) in stream now. 

Look likes Dish hunting for three bugs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Pray for RAID? Kills bugs dead.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

tnsprin said:


> Software is spooled that was being loaded to the beta users. So its out there. It certainly can be released to any machine that actually gets delivered.


From my understanding customer receivers requires production level code. Right now only Beta verisons are spooling so their currently is not version available if a customer receives his 622. I would be really suprised if Dish allowed customers to get Beta version. This is definitely not how Dish operates from what I have seen posted here.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"loaded to the beta users" , well it's clearly explain your point


----------



## conner65 (Jan 26, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> From my understanding customer receivers requires production level code. Right now only Beta verisons are spooling so their currently is not version available if a customer receives his 622. I would be really suprised if Dish allowed customers to get Beta version. This is definitely not how Dish operates from what I have seen posted here.


The exception to that is the 921 owners. We have been beta testers for 2 years.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I am a 921 customer and though I understand you point I personally don't agree with it. I am definitely not going down the road of what Beta means..  That was covered in another thread a few days back.


----------



## conner65 (Jan 26, 2004)

It is a "tongue in cheek" comment. As 921 owners We have had to endure a lot of bugs and I feel are the ones who have received the least consideration from Dish.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

P Smith said:


> We're waiting, STILL waiting.


I now know who you are, geez I just put 2 and 2 together. Chips anyone.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

And glad you are a member here.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, same ACP1, ACX1 and ACY1. 
We'll check tomorrow, but I'm doubt if it will happen on Friday - who will respond to all calls on Weekend .

I would rename the thread to "There will be new software for 622 !!!"


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> I am a 921 customer and though I understand you point I personally don't agree with it. I am definitely not going down the road of what Beta means..  That was covered in another thread a few days back.


Ron Agreed but the reason why so many 921 users feel they are beta testers is because, IMO, the 921 beta program was completely inadequate. as in - major bugs were not found and many that were were ignored by the developer as they released the software to the masses. The entire beta program for the 2 years was just completely an open ended non-scientific social experiment in finding how much a developer can annoy its early adopter users to the point of breakdown.

From some of the insider reports I had about mid way through the history of the 921, official beta testers were also being ignored and left in surprise as releases they thought weren't ready were streamed and at other times a release was streamed that never even saw the beta team. It was a disaster and the problems we users had shows it. Most of the official bugs were discovered by the user base, not the official beta testers as it pertained to the OTA channels and that reason was simple- E* had a completel;y inadequate beta test team where most of the testers were all in two broadcast markets, the alpha team in England. That was the reason why it was a disaster! They should have had a beta test site in at minimum each of the top 20 Broadcast markets to see the range of issues we users all uncovered and, ... I said this all along but too many on this forum felt I was picking on Mark and quickly advised me he was a nice guy. Sheesh, I'm sure Mark is and was a nice guy but that has nothing to do with his not being in every major broadcast city to test. He could only physically be in Denver and that was true whether he was a nice guy or a complete bafoon. Many people just didn't get it. Every user out there is quite justified as thinking of themselves as on a lifelong beta team for E*. That can change when E* is able to release product that comes with a known and complete list of operational issues we can find no more. What they do, however, is release software that has no list of known issues and thereby is considered perfect. Then the users discover otherwise and that leads to a feeling the ones running the hardware development and testing are all bafoons!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From what I understand, E* has done a better job on the 622. There will always be hiccups as the first 'real users' try to do things that the beta testers had not dreamed of doing. There will also be non-critical things to fix and new features to add as they are developed. E* still does software releases on it's older receivers from time to time as needed. Receiver software is never 'finished' - it is only 'ready'.


----------



## conner65 (Jan 26, 2004)

James Long said:


> From what I understand, E* has done a better job on the 622. There will always be hiccups as the first 'real users' try to do things that the beta testers had not dreamed of doing. There will also be non-critical things to fix and new features to add as they are developed. E* still does software releases on it's older receivers from time to time as needed. Receiver software is never 'finished' - it is only 'ready'.


I hope they have done a better job with the 622. The 921 was not "ready" for at least a year. Talk to anyone that had to deal with video jitters for several months. It still has a stuck aspect ratio problem and still misses recordings. I was a loyal dish supporter until I was treated like a second class customer. I have spent hours on the phone with knuckled headed CSR's until I just was about ready to put a bullet in my head. Now I am asked to send in one of my 921's for a better receiver that I won't own and I have to pay a leasing fee and I am still stuck with my second 921. I definitely don't recommend dish to my friends anymore. Dish does not take care of their best customers.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

conner65 said:


> It is a "tongue in cheek" comment. As 921 owners We have had to endure a lot of bugs and I feel are the ones who have received the least consideration from Dish.


DISH did swap out our 921 twice, third unit was the charm but after two years, continuing issues, and we were one of the early adaptors who spent a grand on the darn thing.

And progress or not, I still don't understand why we have to turn it in if we want "HD-The Next Generation.":nono:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You don't have to turn it in to get a new HD box. You only have to turn it in if you want $200. If you have another use for it you can keep your 921.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

JL- has summed it up folks. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you find your archived recordings on your 921 to be worth $200 to keep, then don't send it in. If you find that your salvage value of electronic parts is worth more than $200, don't turn it in. If you think using it for an SD and existing HD only receiver (MP2) for then next several years is a better deal then don't turn it in. One thing is certain, if you decide to keep your owned 921, then it's use will be limited to existing HD channels only and sometime in the future, only SD as all HD channels will be off MP2. At some point the $200 deal will be over and your 921 will be worth scrap heap price. Look at it like this, you own an old car that has trade in value for a car that that will run on the new gasoline. Your present car only runs on special gasoline that soon won't be sold. You can either lease the new car or buy it but the lease is less money and your trade in value of your owned car is fairly good. I traded in an older car for a leased vehicle once. This is no different except for the fact that the 622 is the only model being sold / leased. Then again you can switch to DirecTV, Cable, or stay with OTA only as your options. 
Frankly, as critical as I've been on E* in the past year, I have to say, they seem to be doing this deal right for a change.


----------



## conner65 (Jan 26, 2004)

The problem I have with this whole deal is the lease fee. I think that is nickle and dime B.S. With the lease fee they will get their money back in 2 years and they require an 18 month committment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The lease fee is identical to the extra receiver fee and replaces that fee.

You can lease your box and pay the same as if you bought your box per month. The difference is the committment.


----------



## conner65 (Jan 26, 2004)

I was not aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Redster (Jan 14, 2004)

:new_puppy I want it,, I want it.:new_puppy 1 Apr is so far away but I want my rebate too. :icon_cry:


----------

