# L4.02 spooling?? (not yet)



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

*4/4/2007: 1000* *Software Version L4.02 for ViP 622 DVR *

Effective *Thursday, April 5th*, Engineering plans to spool the FULL PHASE of software version *L4.02* for the *ViP622DVR* receiver. This is primarily a non-forced maintenance release available at *ALL* satellite locations. 
At this time *L4.01 and L4.02* will be the valid software version for the *ViP 622 DVR*.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I sure hope it fixes the lost locks , lnb drift, and the hd mirror channel issues with the locks menu problems in L4.02 since they were broken in L4.01. I would hate to think that they are spooling the same software to the public that has all those issues.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

LNBF drifts cannot be fixed by new SW .


----------



## erh1117 (Feb 1, 2005)

tsduke said:


> *4/4/2007: 1000* *Software Version L4.02 for ViP 622 DVR *
> 
> Effective *Thursday, April 5th*, Engineering plans to spool the FULL PHASE of software version *L4.02* for the *ViP622DVR* receiver. This is primarily a non-forced maintenance release available at *ALL* satellite locations.
> At this time *L4.01 and L4.02* will be the valid software version for the *ViP 622 DVR*.


OK, I hate to ask, but... The source for this news is?? I tried the link posted a while ago to http://rweb.echostar.com/departmental_content/TechPortal/content/tech/TechUpdates.shtml, but didn't see the above 4.02 info...


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

It is in the HTML page source as comments. They usually code them in the page as comments a few days early so all they have to do to activate the page update is to remove the start and end comment. Use the browser View Source option to see it.


----------



## erh1117 (Feb 1, 2005)

ChuckA said:


> It is in the HTML page source as comments. They usually code them in the page as comments a few days early so all they have to do to activate the page update is to remove the start and end comment. Use the browser View Source option to see it.


Thanks. Wow! How do you know this stuff?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> LNBF drifts cannot be fixed by new SW .


Ah, but the way one tells the customer about them can be fixed.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

erh1117 said:


> Wow! How do you know this stuff?


ESP?  That and someone else on this forum a while back indicated they did this. I don't know what would make someone go and look at the source for it in the first place.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

erh1117 said:


> Thanks. Wow! How do you know this stuff?


I'm a programmer myself. What I don't understand, is why they just comment out the html code instead of putting it in a table behind the scenes.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

You don't need that complexity for something low volume and static. It's basically static information and history, not dynamic at all. But, of course we are off topic with this so that's it for me.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

Complexity? 10 minutes of work would save tons of text editing. Plus it would not be open for all to see until absolutely ready for publication. Just my opinion though.


----------



## aloishus27 (Aug 8, 2006)

Does anyone have any idea if DishComm will be turned on with this update?

I have a 622 connected to a wireless phonejack and a 211 directly connected to the phone. The wireless is somewhat unreliable. DishComm would eliminate the need for the wireless. I think I'm the only one looking forward to this feature here.

Anywho, if someone knows the answer that would be great.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

DishComm is in L4.01 however I don't know how well it works since I don't have another receiver that supports it.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I predict now a flood of posts asking how to get the update, why don't I have it, and reporting their geographic location, with daily updates complete with emoticons to show their displeasure with still not having it day after day.

If this msg. goes live then it would appear that 3.66 will be end of support.

Here's hoping they fixed more than they broke.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tsduke said:


> I'm a programmer myself. What I don't understand, is why they just comment out the html code instead of putting it in a table behind the scenes.


For that matter, why not make the change but don't upload the file until they are ready. Putting it up in commented form doesn't save them much... since they have to go edit it to take out the comment coding... so why not do the work, but keep the file and don't upload it until the day they are ready to go.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> For that matter, why not make the change but don't upload the file until they are ready. Putting it up in commented form doesn't save them much... since they have to go edit it to take out the comment coding... so why not do the work, but keep the file and don't upload it until the day they are ready to go.


It would depend on their editing software. I used one in the past that edited live on the site. It made it easy to edit from multiple machines without worrying about which machine had the "master" copy of all changes.

When I was using simple FTP I'd constantly have to grab a file, edit it and send it back anyways to make sure I caught all of the edits done elsewhere. I've gone back to simple FTP, but now use one computer as my master and remote access to that machine when I need to make changes while away from the master computer. That will likely change again, since my new server has remote access and I can log in and edit pages directly on that server.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Mr.72 said:


> I predict now a flood of posts asking how to get the update, why don't I have it, and reporting their geographic location, with daily updates complete with emoticons to show their displeasure with still not having it day after day.


 Please, don't remind us ! Don't forget, someone needs to create a poll for "Do you have L4.02 yet?".


Mr.72 said:


> Here's hoping they fixed more than they broke.


 You have to guess that they've only touched the *serious* bugs they introduced with L4.01 since this replacement came out so quickly afterwards. Ironically, there's scattered reports of a problem here and a problem there, but no widespread agreement (affecting LOTS of people).

Maybe if Dish had spent more time working on the core functionality of the software vs something as petty as the HD mapdown and graphics, it wouldn't have been as bad as it turned out to be. Looking at the history for the 622's software at ekb, the "flubs" list is rather embarrassing, though that's an "unofficial" list and possibly unconfirmed bugs.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

If this is true, it would indicate that Dish actually used the information submitted from the group that received 4.01 early. Hopefully, they've seen this as a good thing and will offer it next time.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Actually, that concerns me. Many of us participated in the beta program, which I was more than happy to do as I submitted quite a few errors and feedback. But it became pretty clear just among the beta testers that at the very least something was wrong with the OTA tuners, yet 4.01 made its merry way out to the public anyway. What did we solve? Did we help?


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

Perhaps the request for the testers from this forum was not at all to find problems with the software, but for dish to confirm the errors that they already thought were present, and to see exactly how they manifested themselves.

Since 4.02 is coming out so quickly, I find it hard to believe that they were not aware of some of the new problems prior to release. But who knows.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

farleyville said:


> Perhaps the request for the testers from this forum was not at all to find problems with the software, but for dish to confirm the errors that they already thought were present, and to see exactly how they manifested themselves.
> 
> Since 4.02 is coming out so quickly, I find it hard to believe that they were not aware of some of the new problems prior to release. But who knows.


When a fix comes out this soon after a major release, it almost always not because they were aware of major problems before hand. But if a big problem is discovered it sometimes becomes obvious by examing your coding changes what the mistake is. Particularly if the problem is occuring in a section of code directly related to that feature. Sometimes you just look at the code and just think how did I make that mistake and only have to change a line or two of code. Where several different pieces of seemingly unrelated code cause a problem it takes a lot longer, and requires a lot more regression testing.

Actually the new features of 401 all appear to work well, and seem less likely to be involved the major bugs I've seen posted(although you never know). It probably is new bugs in the bug fixes that are too blame.


----------



## Todd H (Aug 18, 2006)

Mr.72 said:


> I predict now a flood of posts asking how to get the update, why don't I have it, and reporting their geographic location, with daily updates complete with emoticons to show their displeasure with still not having it day after day.


How do I get this update? I haven't even gotten 4.01 yet. Any idea why? I'm down in Georgia. Does that have anything to do with it? 

I'll give an update tomorrow. :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I checked with E*, anyone who complains about not getting the update will be put to the back of the spool and will get it last. Anyone who complains that they don't want the update will get it first. Please note that E* will not be using public comments to decide which group you are in ... they will be using the little camera and microphone built in to the front of the 622 to find out what you really want. The camera has a lie detector circuit built in, so there is no use sitting in front of your box saying "please don't download 4.02" to try to force a download.

This is just part of the interactive technology built in to the 622 to better serve you! 

---- OK, back to reality. ----


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Presence said:


> But it became pretty clear just among the beta testers that at the very least something was wrong with the OTA tuners, yet 4.01 made its merry way out to the public anyway.


 Clearly Dish released it because of public "pressure" or even internal pressure because of a fairly long gap between releases or from marketing, who wanted to see the features available.

It didn't make "its merry way" the all 622 receivers, by the way. Dish halted it's rollout pretty quickly !


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

tnsprin said:


> Actually the new features of 401 all appear to work well, and seem less likely to be involved the major bugs I've seen posted(although you never know). It probably is new bugs in the bug fixes that are too blame.


 That's the disappointing part... As much as I'd like to get new software updates, DO NOT release software just because it adds a few flashy features, yet introduces some potentially bad bugs. That's what happens when the marketing dept drives a release instead of engineering driving it.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Well, this all draws Dish Network's release strategy into further question. Having worked in the engineering dept. of a major networking equipment company for over a decade and observing how a very successful company does software releases first-hand, I always scratch my head with how Dish does things.

The random phased roll out makes little sense, considering that there is an active body of users who have requested fixes that are addressed with the update and who would be much better candidates for early, targeted phased release. So rather than just phasing it to some beta testers and a sequential range of serial numbers, it would be much more effective to roll it out to users who will #1 benefit from the update, and #2 will exercise the changed code.

The idea that marketing is pressuring engineering to release features over bug fixes or ahead of quality is nothing new. We experience that all the time here. It would be better for there to be a different set of qualifications for a "feature" release vs. a "maintenance" release. Certainly you want to work bug fixes into a feature release, but pushing a release that may have some regression risk onto customers who did not really request the feature is not such a great move IMHO.

Actually a lot of this problem would be sorted out if they would enable "power users" (that is, everyone who can figure out how to do it) to force a download. Then they could do a phased release with some sort of self-targeting. For example, in the tech portal they could just announce that the release is available for manual download. Then of course this forum would latch on to it and everyone would go get it, hammer on it, maybe feed back some info to Dish through the normal tech support process. Then after some time, say a month or two, you begin to release it to everyone who doesn't have it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just just rephrase what D* already doing for HR20 using the forum and Cutting Edge releases.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Hall said:


> Clearly Dish released it because of public "pressure" or even internal pressure because of a fairly long gap between releases or from marketing, who wanted to see the features available.
> 
> It didn't make "its merry way" the all 622 receivers, by the way. Dish halted it's rollout pretty quickly !


Is this your opinion Hall or do you have facts to back it up because it is not clearly the reason to me. It is one possible reason, but I don't think the facts support it. If you recall, At least on one occassion L4.01 was shown on the Tech portal as releasing but was never deployed. This to me clearly indicates that there were plans to push L4.01 but for some reason it was held back. There is a lot of conclusions as to the reason and there were a number of reasons given that may or may not have be accurate.

Dish asked for our community to volunteer of which over 350 names were submitted to Dish. This was obviously a time consuming task. My take on this effort was to have direct communication to power users with as the initial release rolled out. Something I would not expect if you are pushing a release out due to pressures(Both internal and external). From my experience in the past, if marketing was running the show on this one, this effore would not have taken place.

So if it was clearly pushed out due to public pressure or internal pressure in my opinion it would have been pushed out a few weeks back and the community involvement would not have occurred. I am sure Dish wanted to release L4.01 and I am sure the developers wanted to also. I have been there myself and have been anxious to see my hard work hit the streets.

Some have also indicated .... Why did they roll out further when they new some experienced OTA issues. Well we did a poll here, and from what I could tell that a very small percentage of people lost OTA based on the responses and was not able to return them. Yes the polls are but a small indicatation and we also have to remember our feedback was only part of the process. Does this mean they ignored our feedback. I doubt it and based on rumors of L4.02 my feeling is as they continued rolling out they got more and more info and a better feel for the release and eventually decided to stop, fix a few things and re-release.

Well that is my take on the release process for L4.01. Ofcourse i could be wrong and perhaps this release was marketing driving, but based on facts that I see surrounding the release, this is the conclusions I come it.

When it comes down to it.. All one has is a feeling about a release before it goes out and you don't actually know until it does. Once it does, you react and that appears to be what Dish is doing.

Good example is the OTA.. For me and others OTA has improved and is solid. Heck I rescanned no more than 10 times on Saturday and did not lose my OTAs. I played with Locks and Timer and in the end... My OTA was cool. Yep I am on sample. For the guys that are experiencing the OTA issue... Yes that sucks and I have been there. However, in my opinion the OTA experiences does not equate to pushing something out due to pressures.

Well that is my 2 cents....


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

This is fantastic news! You know what would be more fantastic? If I could even get 4.01!  

Still on 3.66.

Mike


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

Personally, I'm happy with 3.66.... I have no problems at all... the only thing I'm looking forward to is the side by side PIP. other than that, nothing really needed in this update for me.. 

btw... exactly where is the mike and camera i need to speak into? I always wondered what that last little light was for ... "I dont want 4.01, I dont want 4.01"


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

L4.01 did NOT go out to everyone, regardless of what the tech portal or anyone out on the net said. It's been pulled, largely due to the feedback provided by the 350+ volunteer testers.

L4.02 will be coming, but I can just about guarantee that it won't be here on the 5th, once again regardless on what the tech portal says in commented out HTML or whatever someone else online reports.

If you haven't yet received L4.01, you will not be getting it. You'll have to bear with L3.66 for another few days.



hall said:


> Clearly Dish released it because of public "pressure" or even internal pressure because of a fairly long gap between releases or from marketing, who wanted to see the features available.


That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. But it definitely was good for a laugh today, so I guess thanks for that...


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> ...
> 
> Well that is my 2 cents....


It was so long, it was at least 4 cents...:hurah:


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yeah.. I usually through a tip in. I apologize for being a bit long winded.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

All I see on the forums is Dish being bashed for not releasing things... then for releasing things... then for not asking for input from customers... then for asking for input from customers...

It seems like no matter what Dish does, there are people ready to jump up and scream... and there are a few folks that keep switching sides too!

I can't speak to Dish's internal test processes obviously... but I can say it is virtually impossible for them to anticipate every customer configuration/situation... so at some point they have to release code and let customers use it to see how it goes.

Lots of folks refuse to read the manuals... and do crazy things to get their stuff to work... and Dish can't anticipate all of that.

I thought it was smart and nice of them to open up the testing a little this time and let some of us volunteer specifically to test. I know they appreciate the input, as I've received several responses thanking me for the input. It would seem we have done well too, since they are trying to address things we have found.

Some things could be new bugs... others could be confirming bugs that they suspected but could not verify during test. I know I found a bug in my setup that I cannot duplicate at-will, but it is a bug that surfaces from time to time.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items. Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


----------



## SonicBee777 (Aug 2, 2006)

HDMe said:


> All I see on the forums is Dish being bashed for not releasing things... then for releasing things... then for not asking for input from customers... then for asking for input from customers...
> 
> It seems like no matter what Dish does, there are people ready to jump up and scream... and there are a few folks that keep switching sides too!


I think anyone who has worked a help desk or been a CSR recognizes this is "the nature of the beast." Perhaps surprisingly, and thank God, many people enjoy and thrive on this kind of work.



tomcrowne1 said:


> the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items. Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


I remember the first time I went to read the so-called "Release Notes" for a Dish 622 software update... disappointing to say the least. I like tomcrowne1's suggestion for a video "Release Notes," as it fits the product better than just text. Even just a paragraph or two on each bug fix or enhancement would be so much more useful and likely to produce more appreciation of all that hard work "behind the scenes."


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well the whole idea of forced updates, no way to back-rev, etc. runs counter to good tech-savvy customer service.

I still run Windows 98SE on a recording studio computer simply because it flat-out works and doesn't break down. If I'd been forced to upgrade I'd be out of business.

Of course these are growing pains of a company that is just on the cusp of discovering that they are really mostly a software company.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

tomcrown1 said:


> the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items. Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


Definitely and excellent suggestion.. Could do it through the TV entertainment mechanism.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Mark Lamutt said:


> L4.01 did NOT go out to everyone, regardless of what the tech portal or anyone out on the net said. It's been pulled, largely due to the feedback provided by the 350+ volunteer testers.
> 
> L4.02 will be coming, but I can just about guarantee that it won't be here on the 5th, once again regardless on what the tech portal says in commented out HTML or whatever someone else online reports. ...


OK, Mark. I did ask in PM, instead of get an answer I got a stone into my house .

Well, lets see what is spooling now and for whom:
Starting 3/21:

Upgrading FW:
'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'
'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'
New FW:'L401'
List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
* '1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'*
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
*[2] 1-4000000000*

Upgrading FW:
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
New FW:'L401'
List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[2] 73174765-75766628
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[267] 
{List removed}

Starting 3/22

Upgrading FW:
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
New FW:'L401'
List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[2] 73174765-75766628
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[573] 
{List removed}

Starting 3/26:

Upgrading FW:
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
'L401': 'ABA1'- 'BHQ1' 'L040'- 'L400'
New FW:'L401'
List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[2] 73174765-76962988
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[573] 
{List removed}

Spooling 03/30:

Upgrading FW:
'BLA1': 'ABA1'- 'BLA0' 'L040'- 'L401'
'BLA1': 'ABA1'- 'BLA0' 'L040'- 'L401'
'1811': '1[3-8]1[AB0]'
'ABA1'- 'BLA1' 'L040'- 'L401'
New FW:'BLA1'
List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHK][A-DJ]'
IRD Model: ViP622
List of Serial Numbers:
[266] 
{List removed}


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The L4.01 still spooling and has been not pulled off stream !
Regardless your source.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. But it definitely was good for a laugh today, so I guess thanks for that...


 Laugh if you want.... L4.01 was "announced" to be out "in December" and then multiple dates between then and last week came and went. They then release it to an unknown number of customers and within a week of that, another follow-up release is on it's way ?? If L4.02 or whatever it ends up being called isn't released IN FULL (to all customers) for another month or so, then I'll admit I was wrong.


----------



## marcuscthomas (May 4, 2006)

ChuckA said:


> You don't need that complexity for something low volume and static. It's basically static information and history, not dynamic at all. But, of course we are off topic with this so that's it for me.


I just keep a second "update" page either offline or online with a different filename and copy over the old one when I want to do an update.


----------



## UHF (Jan 11, 2005)

Mark Lamutt said:


> L4.02 will be coming, but I can just about guarantee that it won't be here on the 5th, once again regardless on what the tech portal says in commented out HTML or whatever someone else online reports.


I would agree with Mark. I got an email late yesterday from the Beta team asking for more information regarding several OTA issues I've had with L4.01. From that, I gather that they are still working on debugging L4.01 and working on a fix. If they already had a fix ready to roll in 2 days, they would not be asking me for more info.

I've never seen a group of people with less patience than the folks here and on that other satellite forum.

That said, I sure can't wait for L4.02, and I hope it fixes some of the issues I'm having. I asked for L4.01 so I have nobody to blame but myself.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> The L4.01 still spooling and has been not pulled off stream !
> Regardless your source.


Both sources can be correct.

Has anyone been added to the targeting for L4.01 or is it the exact same list as it was two weeks ago (when the second wave received L4.01)? Unless those receivers have been out of the stream they should already have it and it really doesn't matter if the software is up there or not. No new targets. The normal staged release process interrupted.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Well, I hope L4.02 or whatever fixes something. I've had L4.01 for exactly one week. My 622, which used to do pretty much whatever I told it to do, now has a mind of its own. While in standby it reboots every 25 to 40 minutes. And it changes random settings. Overnight Saturday it set HDTV to 720p and aspect ratio to 4:3. Sunday night it turned on closed captioning. Last night it enabled satellite HD mapdown, which I disabled on day 1. It's an adventure each day to power it up and try to find which settings changed.

Tech support told me yesterday they will have a new release out by Friday. But then she suggested I wait another week before considering replacing the 622. Sounds like they either aren't sure they'll actually get the new software out or they don't think it will fix everything.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> L4.01 did NOT go out to everyone, regardless of what the tech portal or anyone out on the net said. It's been pulled, largely due to the feedback provided by the 350+ volunteer testers.


Awesome. That makes me feel better about my efforts to beta test pretty extensively. :up:


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Mark Lamutt said:


> L4.01 did NOT go out to everyone, regardless of what the tech portal or anyone out on the net said. It's been pulled, largely due to the feedback provided by the 350+ volunteer testers.
> 
> L4.02 will be coming, but I can just about guarantee that it won't be here on the 5th,...


Mark, thanks for the work in getting some of us in as early release testers for L4.01.

Assuming L4.02 is not going to be released Thursday, and you are more likely to know as a beta tester, what is the chance that they will be willing to add some early Gamma testers for this release as well. I was very happy to feel that problems I reported were being taken seriously by Dish support.


----------



## gnm313-1 (Apr 24, 2005)

tomcrown1 said:


> the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items. Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


I agree. If I didn't follow this site I wouldn't have a clue what is going on with any of my receivers.

They did do this on the 522/625 to show how to use Video on Demand which is a new feature. 3 minute video from the Soon channel automatically recorded in the middle of the night.

Wave to come.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

tomcrown1 said:


> the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items.


 The receiver still functions like it did the day before the update and according to the owner's manual. 90% of their customers will continue on just like normal.... The other 10% are "tweakers" or geeks and will figure it out themselves.  


> Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


 Channel 100 or 101 (???) is another option. Of course, people raise a fuss when Dish downloads a video like this (I recall 508 users getting these a couple years ago) to "their" DVRs, taking away from valuable disk space. Worse, Dish didn't _ask_ them for permission (the user agreement says they can do this).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Who is in last list for L401+ (BLA1) ? - check if your R00 is here and verify your DVR version.

Any progress to report here ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Who is in last list for L401+ (BLA1) ? - check if your R00 is here and verify your DVR version.
> 
> Any progress to report here ?


Kind sir ...
You are asking beta testers (real beta testers not forum volunteers) to violate their agreement with Echostar. This is not a good idea. Please don't make that request.

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Not that straightened way JL. 
Those _volunteers_ (not real BETA testers) who gave their R00s to Mark, got ( actually some of them ) the L401+ [BLA1] version without NDA and other legal obligations.
So, my question has been addressed to them.


----------



## nneptune (Mar 30, 2006)

James Long said:


> I checked with E*, anyone who complains about not getting the update will be put to the back of the spool and will get it last. Anyone who complains that they don't want the update will get it first. Please note that E* will not be using public comments to decide which group you are in ... they will be using the little camera and microphone built in to the front of the 622 to find out what you really want. The camera has a lie detector circuit built in, so there is no use sitting in front of your box saying "please don't download 4.02" to try to force a download.
> 
> This is just part of the interactive technology built in to the 622 to better serve you!
> 
> ---- OK, back to reality. ----


Will this version serve cookies to those who get it first? 
I never got my last one.:grin:


----------



## brettbolt (Feb 22, 2006)

tomcrown1 said:


> the problem is Dish release new items like side by side PIP and HD map downs etc with no insturctions on how to use these items. Why not also download a video that shows how to use the new features along with any walk arounds that may prevent some of the problems??


I agree. towncrown1's post is definitely the gem of insight in this thread. With all those channels there has got to be space for 10 minute's of info about what's new.

Dish spent months working on side by side picture plus other features and so why should it be only those who read this forum (or discover them by accident) realize that they're there?

How many other features are unknown to most of us?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Not that straightened way JL.
> Those _volunteers_ (not real BETA testers) who gave their R00s to Mark, got ( actually some of them ) the L401+ [BLA1] version without NDA and other legal obligations.
> So, my question has been addressed to them.


You may note that only 266 receivers were targeted with BLA1 ... which is more of an indication that beta testers are looking at it than the ~350 forum volunteers (who were represented in the 573 receiver count on 3/22 but not the 267 receiver count when L4.01 was first released on 3/21).

(267 / 573 plus a large range of sequential serial numbers that was increased on 3/30.)


----------



## INHUMANITY (Aug 8, 2005)

So what exactly am I posting here to see if I'm queue? I'm confusded.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I did expect by posting those serial numbers, each one of you who was a participant of L401/BLA1 tests will have opportunity recheck if Dish really accepted your help. But James have different opinion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We are nearly two weeks past L401 ... if E* targeted you (via the volunteer list or the big range of receiver numbers that got bigger on 3/30) you will have already received it. (Unless of course your receiver has been unplugged or in use for 12 days solid.)

BLA1 was aimed at the short list --- 266 usual receivers --- not the forum volunteers. And it was targeted five days ago. See the above paragraph. If one was going to get BLA1 they would also have it now.

If they aimed BLA1 at the 573 that would have been news ... if a new beta would have started last night that also would have been news. But posting a list of 266 true beta receivers that were targeted last week? Not news.

Sorry if you disagree.


----------



## tsduke (Mar 20, 2007)

Here we go again... L4.02 is openly posted on the tech portal for a 4/5 spool. Full phase.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

tsduke said:


> Here we go again... L4.02 is openly posted on the tech portal for a 4/5 spool. Full phase.


 Which time again has shown, means *nothing*.


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

Well, I hope an update goes out. My previously-stable 622 just crashed again...

Dish, I love the new features, but if you can't distribute them without creating this many bugs, you shouldn't do it at all.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

I'm in the software business and as I've said before, you have to realize that a good 75% of trouble reports saying "4.01 did this" or "4.01 did that" probably have nothing whatsoever to do with 4.01 and are cause instead by either upgradeaphobia or bandwagon effect:

- Upgradeaphobia: heightening of ones senses after an upgrade which causes one to notice things that, while they have been there all along, seem "new" or somehow related to the upgrade. In many cases, there may be nothing wrong at all and the user may simply be misinterpretting some function or was not given sufficient instructions to operate it as designed.

- Bandwagon effect: similar to upgradeaphobia except someone else starts the complaint and you just jump on the bandwagon. Again, in many cases, it may not even be a problem or may have been there all along but now that two others have reported it, you are now convinced you have a new issue.

The "art" of debugging involves taking all bug reports seriously and being able to categorize them with respect to whether or not they are really bugs, whether a recent update caused them, etc. and also determining whether a "fix" will make things better or worse and based on that knowledge, when to update people.

So... I sympathise with DISH on one hand, but 365/366 have had some known bugs for a long time and personally, I think they should have fixed the bugs first before moving on to a 4.xx version. That would have given us 367 or 368 months ago and would have fixed known issues like intermittent caller ID display, audio/video dropouts, OTA signal problems, etc. I'd rather see those fixes than the extra "fluff" in 4.xx even if it meant a delay of 4.xx.

Mike


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

mchaney said:


> So... I sympathise with DISH on one hand, but 365/366 have had some known bugs for a long time and personally, I think they should have fixed the bugs first before moving on to a 4.xx version. That would have given us 367 or 368 months ago and would have fixed known issues like intermittent caller ID display, audio/video dropouts, OTA signal problems, etc. I'd rather see those fixes than the extra "fluff" in 4.xx even if it meant a delay of 4.xx.
> 
> Mike


Mike, I feel the same way. I would rather they would just send out a 'bug fix' upgrade before sending out 'new stuff'. As a programmer by trade, I've learned that it is best to fix the bugs with an isolated upgrade and then, if, and only if, the bugs are fixed you put out another upgrade with more bells & whistles. Otherwise you never know whether you just compounded your bugs with code involving the bells & whistles!!!! I know everyone wants 'new stuff' but I'd much rather they fix the 'old stuff' first!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

fixing bugs = poor marketing

few of us notice the bugs anyway.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

P Smith said:


> OK, Mark. I did ask in PM, instead of get an answer I got a stone into my house .
> 
> Well, lets see what is spooling now and for whom:
> Starting 3/21:


My statement wasn't meant to be personal, it was meant to be general meaning what anyone else was reporting. My apologies if it came off that way. I meant nothing negative by it.

And yes, L401 is still in the stream because for those that do have it, there is no physical possible way of reverting back from it because of the underlying changes. But I stand by my statement that it has not gone to everyone, and will not be going to everyone.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

tnsprin said:


> Mark, thanks for the work in getting some of us in as early release testers for L4.01.
> 
> Assuming L4.02 is not going to be released Thursday, and you are more likely to know as a beta tester, what is the chance that they will be willing to add some early Gamma testers for this release as well. I was very happy to feel that problems I reported were being taken seriously by Dish support.


Not yet, but it's possible that'll it will happen before release.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

P Smith said:


> Who is in last list for L401+ (BLA1) ? - check if your R00 is here and verify your DVR version.
> 
> Any progress to report here ?


No one but the official beta testers do or will have BLA1, unless a mistake happened, and that would be very bad for everyone involved...


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> fixing bugs = poor marketing
> 
> few of us notice the bugs anyway.


fixing bugs = good customer service ('we stand behind our product')

If we didn't notice the bugs, this forum would probably not exist!!!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

dbconsultant, you are right on both counts. But good customer service is about keeping customers, and marketing is about getting new customers.

it's a matter of priority i'd think.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

Hall said:


> If L4.02 or whatever it ends up being called isn't released IN FULL (to all customers) for another month or so, then I'll admit I was wrong.


As Robin might say, "Holy Ugliness, Batman!"

As one of those now suffering with the L4.01 release (which BTW I never requested to partake of, but now have) on both of my two 622s, it would be an evil thought to consider having to contend with them as they now are for a month - so much so, that if a fix is not quickly forthcoming, I will call Dish and request replacement 622s just to get back to L3.66&#8230;


----------



## sulaco1997 (Mar 11, 2006)

Since L4.01 was installed I am getting sporatic blackouts. Everything goes black and I can't get the system to do anything until I unplug it and restart. Hopefully L4.02 will fix it. Very annoying. Glad to see the USB port working now.


----------



## INHUMANITY (Aug 8, 2005)

sulaco1997 said:


> Glad to see the USB port working now.


By working can you confirm that you can transfer data from your receiver to external media?


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

INHUMANITY said:


> By working can you confirm that you can transfer data from your receiver to external media?


Mine didn't change from 3.66. Pictures, PocketDISH, and power. No external drive recognition.


----------



## sulaco1997 (Mar 11, 2006)

INHUMANITY said:


> By working can you confirm that you can transfer data from your receiver to external media?


No, external to the reciver. I pluged in my jumpdrive and loaded some pictures onto the 622.

It just blacked out on me again...during Lost.


----------



## nneptune (Mar 30, 2006)

I almost feel bad that I haven't had any 4.01 problems...almost...


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

sulaco1997 said:


> No, external to the reciver. I pluged in my jumpdrive and loaded some pictures onto the 622.
> 
> It just blacked out on me again...during Lost.


I was loading pictures thru USB port with 3.65. I have 200+ pictures loaded on my 622. Nice feature but your camera needs to be a 7 pixel or above to avoid grainy pictures.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Looking what is spooling for ViP622 now I see this L4.01 and puzzled why so many ppl left with old versions, The filter should cover ALL DVRs:

```
PID=08B1h
 Upgrading FW:
 'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'
 'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'
 New FW:'L401'
 List of BootStraps and BuildConfigs:
 [B][COLOR="Red"]'1[3-8]1[AB01]' 'RB[BDEGHKL][A-DJ]'[/COLOR][/B]
 IRD Model: ViP622
 List of Serial Numbers:
 [2]  1-4000000000
```
Could you guys with old L3.xx SW tell me if your BootStraps and BuildConfigs doesn't fall into the criterias.

Aah, yeah ! I see now - all SW BEFORE L3.66.
Then you, smackman, should got it - can you check those letters on your DVR's System Information screen ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Upgrading FW:
> 'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'
> 'L401': 'L040'- 'L365'


There is your key ... 
Upgrading receivers that have production versions through L365.

Most receivers would have taken L366 before March 12th for time change. If someone has a new receiver or one that has been off the system for a month that never took L366 they would get L401.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Interesting, so Dish attempted to avoid apply 4.01 over 3.66, hmmm.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just giving the new receivers the latest and greatest while migrating current receivers at a manageable rate.


----------



## ronimous (Jan 31, 2007)

So are we looking at 4.02 spooling tonight? Just need to know whether to cancel one of my timers or not...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

No, Scott source told - not this night.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> Just giving the new receivers the latest and greatest while migrating current receivers at a manageable rate.


I wouldn't say so, if you will count 3.66 as one purpose _daylight_ fix.


----------



## plainsman (Nov 16, 2006)

Mark Lamutt said:


> Originally Posted by hall
> Clearly Dish released it because of public "pressure" or even internal pressure because of a fairly long gap between releases or from marketing, who wanted to see the features available.
> 
> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. But it definitely was good for a laugh today, so I guess thanks for that...


addressing that last comment on the line above -- actually that was my impression of this release. Some Boss said 'push it now!'. 20 years as a firmware engineer in embedded systems. I've seen releases done well and poorly.

This one falls in the poor category. The problems I and other saw are not goofy stand-on-a-chair-hold-your-nose-and-wave-one-leg-during-a-full-moon types --- difficult to reproduce -- some are basic and easy to reproduce. No reason they couldn't have been caught by echostar.

So Mark, your support of echostar is laudable, but what's it based on?

I've heard some comments from engineers @ echostar who produce DVR code -- according to them it's not a nice place to work. understaffed, underpaid ... the release of 4.01 also reflects a strategy of deliberately cutting corners. been there, done that. I'd go farther and suggest *maybe* this is SOP for echostar -- do another release, but only if the screams are loud enough. to a pencil-pusher it makes great sense. It's just lousy engineering.

Better, Cheaper Faster -- at any one time you only get 2 out of 3. And software releases are about more than new features for the customers -- they're about public perception about E*, its competitive edge against cable and D*, and the price of a share of stock. This may come as a surprise to some but those in the boardroom may not care much about the customers unless / until the stock price drops. And that's a pretty indirect path to customer satisfaction.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> according to them it's not a nice place to work. understaffed, underpaid ...


I have never had a job any other way.


----------



## sthor (Oct 1, 2006)

Whatever. L4.01 cured my Fox 35 WOFL Orlando FL OTA guide data problem and resolved some audio skipping. I like it.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

plainsman said:


> addressing that last comment on the line above -- actually that was my impression of this release. Some Boss said 'push it now!'.


 Thank you for publicly agreeing with me.



plainsman said:


> So Mark, your support of echostar is laudable, but what's it based on?


 Given his relationship with Echostar, whatever it is, any negativity certainly wouldn't help. It's a great thing to have, this "liason" between Dish and a website of 'power users', though. If he has to maintain a bias towards Dish publicly, so be it.


----------



## plainsman (Nov 16, 2006)

Hall said:


> Thank you for publicly agreeing with me.
> 
> Given his relationship with Echostar, whatever it is, any negativity certainly wouldn't help. It's a great thing to have, this "liason" between Dish and a website of 'power users', though. If he has to maintain a bias towards Dish publicly, so be it.


Fine - My comments were intended to be an informed perspective on this software release. It's easy for most users, 'power' or otherwise, to have an opinion about when/where/how/what makes a good or bad software release -- I was offering my views, having been there.

And some can drink the E* cool-aid if they want, but to publicly posture (in any direction!) will lower this board's credibility and maybe skew the bug reporting here; i.e. if the situation is downplayed then someone may decide not to report a very real bug.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

Geez, there's so much banter about beta programs, firmware development, and theoretical physics in this thread that I have no idea what's going on any more. Are we getting 4.02 tonight or not?  My prediction is I wake up tomorrow morning, press menu-menu like I do every morning, and there sits the crappy old 366 as usual. I gotta give DISH one thing: they're secretive enough that no one ever seems to really know what is going on when.

Mike


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

somebody call mulder & scully.

they'll get to the bottom of the mythology surrounding dish network software releases.

anyway, i'd say the odds are very near zero that anyone will get 4.02 by tomorrow morning. as always look at P. Smith's thread on software spooling to see whether you should bother with your menu-menu routine. there's no point in wishful thinking when you can know whether you are going to get it or not. once it spools and your receiver serial # is in the range, and THEN you don't get it, then you have cause to whine about it.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

No, nothing new for 622 last night.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It always seems that the negative is worse than the positive ...
I'm sure E* is scratching their heads over the problems some have reported, especially since this software did pass through the beta process. It isn't like someone said "it only freezes up twice a day ... go ahead and release it."

That is why clear concise and complete reports are needed of any problems. Emotions should be checked at the door. Perhaps a tweak they did to get OTA working in one market killed someone else's OTA market (with the variety of stations and encoders out there anything is possible). That is the biggest variable for E*.

Check out AVSForums and you will see that OTA digital is still practically experimental in some markets ... with engineers reseting their equipment when it freezes up someone's receiver (even non-Dish receiver) and constantly looking for a better way to set up their signals.

Making a receiver work with thousands of TV stations is a challenge. Especially when those stations are not all using the same equipment and settings.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> Making a receiver work with thousands of TV stations is a challenge. Especially when those stations are not all using the same equipment and settings.


Good point James. That analogy reminds me of the early days of Windows 3.0/3.1/95 when MS had to try and support tons of different hardware with thier OS. Back then hardware wasn't as standardized as it is today.

-Funk


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

plainsman said:


> Fine - My comments were intended to be an informed perspective on this software release. It's easy for most users, 'power' or otherwise, to have an opinion about when/where/how/what makes a good or bad software release -- I was offering my views, having been there.
> 
> And some can drink the E* cool-aid if they want, but to publicly posture (in any direction!) will lower this board's credibility and maybe skew the bug reporting here; i.e. if the situation is downplayed then someone may decide not to report a very real bug.


Everyone comes here with perspective. Some with software perspective they have obtained through years of doing software development others through experiencing with other content providers. I myself come with both and from my point of view I would not leap to the conclusion you have since I don't know what the decision process was taken.

Like I said in a earlier post in this thread, the evidence (involving this community & information from the tech portal) indicates to me that it was not pushed by someone at the top. But ofcourse that is my opinion.

As for the cool-aid comment. I suggest reading the support forum rules and what is the purpose of this forum. I have said this before.... If someone is not experiencing the same issues as some that are does not make them "cool-add" drinkers or clueless. Same goes with people having bad experiences with a particicular release does not make them Dish heaters or too critical.

What we are trying to acheive here is to provide a avenue to discuss bug experiences, To try and get a feel for exposure, provide as much details on this issues as possible... etc. We try and do this in open discussion with one rule.. We don't bash E*. If this does not make sense.. Search on Bash on this forum and there are enough posts on the subject.

As for bugs getting out that should have been squashed. Well I am not sure what ones you are talking about in particular, but without context around the bug I am not sure one can say that. From my perspective, if a bug is introduced an analysis follows to determine root cause, the effort require to fix the defect, and weigh that against the severity and customer pain. From that priorities are made and the top ones get fixed. Ofcourse the high severities are fixed first and if they fall into the critical area they must be fixed before release.

One thing I think this forum provides is good feedback for the "customer pain" and severity aspect of analysis. A Good example.. Perhaps they think a bug in a feature they think is little used is found out through here that a lot of users use the feature and therefore should be placed higher on the priroity list on the next release. Ofcourse this is speculation, but I do see this as a benefit of a forum like this.

As for L4.01.. These are the main issues I have seen reported. Lost OTA, Black Screens, audio screeching, slow channel changing, map down related search issues, and spontaneous rebooting. Of these issues, the only one that can be easily reproduced and can have wide impact is the mapping issue with searching. All the others are not being seen by everyone.

I did suggest that if you are running into any one of these issues, create a seperate thread and get some detail discussion on it. It is one thing to raise your hand and say... I am seeing it.. I am affected. It is another to try and help provide as much info as possible to help the interested parties track down the root cause. To me.. this is what this forum is all about.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

James Long said:


> Perhaps a tweak they did to get OTA working in one market killed someone else's OTA market (with the variety of stations and encoders out there anything is possible). That is the biggest variable for E*.
> 
> Check out AVSForums and you will see that OTA digital is still practically experimental in some markets ... with engineers reseting their equipment when it freezes up someone's receiver (even non-Dish receiver) and constantly looking for a better way to set up their signals.
> 
> Making a receiver work with thousands of TV stations is a challenge. Especially when those stations are not all using the same equipment and settings.


 This problem may be somewhat unique to Dish (or D*) because of the feature-set of their receivers. I think most OTA set-tops probably get updated once a year _if they're lucky_. Dish, and to what degree D*'s ( ?? don't have one), receivers, especially DVRs, are far more than just set-tops. So, back to my earlier comments, and I could care less if people agree or not, I believe Dish made a mistake releasing L4.01. They went too long between L3.65 (L3.66 doesn't really count) and L4.01 and worse, they threw too many new features in along with bug-fixes. They should have released an L3.7x or L3.8x or L3.9x for bug-fixes alone. L4.01 should have included new features only.

And what's with the ".01" anyway ?? Many people who deal with software intentionally avoid anything that's ".00" for good reason.  Did Dish think they could name it creatively and avoid that ??


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Hey Hall, don't take in account the .01s (cents ); 
Dish have different version convention - they just do +.01 to one ( from four lines- xxxP, Pxxx, Lxxx and Mxxx ) production version line for ALL models in the line.
Sometimes I see there was a reservation for one or few numbers, but often next version belong different model in the line.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

The lost locks bug that comes with L4.01 haven't helped either. This happens with my 1000.2 dish with 110/119/129/61.5 sats in the check switch. It also created multi switch error pop ups and the second tuner went black on both of my dvrs. I had to replace all cables , seperators, diplexors, clear the matrix and re run the check switch again to get them to work right.

I also did a change out of my 61.5 sat to an extra dish for 129 instead. Just to see if this would help stop the lost locks. I thought maybe having 61.5 and 129 was causing confusion for the receiver on which one to look at for the mirrored hd channels. IT hasn't worked though. It only saw the 129 on the triple lnb now and not the extra sat connection for 129. I reran it with the lnb for 129 on the triple lnb covered by tin foil. It recognized the following now: 119/110/ X/129. So it is getting its hd channels off of the side sat for 129 plugged into the main lnb. I want to see if this helps cut the lost locks down. But I doubt it will work to cut the lost locks. 

IT needs to be fixed in the new L402 software or it will cause problems for anyone that gets the new software.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hall said:


> I could care less if people agree or not, I believe Dish made a mistake releasing L4.01. They went too long between L3.65 (L3.66 doesn't really count) and L4.01 and worse, they threw too many new features in along with bug-fixes. They should have released an L3.7x or L3.8x or L3.9x for bug-fixes alone. L4.01 should have included new features only.


Since this isn't a rant forum perhaps it is fine for people to care less if you care less or not ... E* handles the design, customers handle the usage. If customers don't like it there are other vendors for TV programming. We don't get to dictate how they do their development.

That being said, E* intentionally avoided messing up a stable release over the holidays. Who is to say that the intermediate versions would not have brought forth the same problems as L4.01 has led to on SOME receivers? Also look at the "new features" in L4.01. I'll give you a minute to make a list ... what is new?

The new features are primarily graphics enhancements to better identify HD channels in the guide and menu system with the biggest known new feature being the map down. As far as we know L4.01 is a bug fix release, with one minor feature addition.

That feature addition led to one of the bugs (related to locking out the main channel and searches) but that's it. The rest either works fine or is unrelated to "new features".

So we can go to your way and hear people complain about getting "bug fix" releases all the time and no new features or we can see E* add a feature or two while they tweak out the bugs (and hear you complain). People are going to complain either way, so we might as well let E* be E* and let them run their own process ... without any nasty comments.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

James Long said:


> Also look at the "new features" in L4.01. I'll give you a minute to make a list ... what is new?
> 
> The new features are primarily graphics enhancements to better identify HD channels in the guide and menu system with the biggest known new feature being the map down.


 So what was all the hype about then ??



James Long said:


> So we can go to your way and hear people complain about getting "bug fix" releases all the time


 Who complains about that ??



James Long said:


> People are going to complain either way, so we might as well let E* be E* and let them run their own process...


 Heh, that says something....



James Long said:


> ...without any nasty comments.


 When I have made "nasty" comments, assuming that's directed at me ??


----------



## JSIsabella (Oct 20, 2006)

WOW - Is this thread off track....................

I am one of the fortunate ones that thinks that 4.01 improved the performance of my 622. My OTA lock problems are fixed, and other than having to do one front panel reset, my system has worked fine.

As far as the time to fix bugs: My OTA problems were there for almost 5 months. Was it inconvenient not to be able to watch NBC OTA in HD? Yes. Was I able to watch the sat version in SD? Yes. So I waited for a fix. Now, for the people that have real problems since 4.01, they should have a way to get expidited reports to the tech department and be able to have a two way voice or e-mail contact to get to the root problem and get it fixed ASAP. And I am not talking about the current front line CSR people that answer the phones now...

As a long time programmer (first commercial software was on a Tandy TRS-80!), I always find it curious that when a new software release is installed, and it does not work as expected, some people will immediately start to whack away at the hardware. Unless the hardware was already flakey, It is doubtful that changed hardware would fix it, and in reality, it makes software corrections that much harder, because now the original configuration that was not working can no longer be verified. 

Enough on that....

Here is my only real problem with Dish, and this is not a bash, just my opinion:

When we release new code, there is ALWAYS a published list of what is being fixed and what is new. To push out a new release, and have customers finding the new features by surprise is the wildest thing I have ever seen.......... Would it have been so hard to put this on a list on their web site, or put in on channel 100, as suggested by someone else here? I really do not get that policy.

And by the way, I really hope that 4.02 does not break my NBC HD OTA that is now working perfectly!!!!



Jim


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Yeah Jim, you have one one small chance with the 4.02 version  sorry.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Mr.72 said:


> somebody call mulder & scully.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Is Jack Bauer busy? Oh, there is that nuclear warhead on the drone thing. Never mind.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> The lost locks bug that comes with L4.01 haven't helped either. This happens with my 1000.2 dish with 110/119/129/61.5 sats in the check switch. It also created multi switch error pop ups and the second tuner went black on both of my dvrs. I had to replace all cables , seperators, diplexors, clear the matrix and re run the check switch again to get them to work right.


Sounds like you were having the same Check Switch problems I originally posted about. I have been working with the beta test team pretty extensively to get this one figured out. I have two 622s and it only affects one, which helps with testing.


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

James Long said:


> It always seems that the negative is worse than the positive ...


This may be the most "Captain Obvious" statement I've ever seen. :lol:


----------



## DAG (Feb 7, 2006)

JSIsabella said:


> WOW - Is this thread off track....................
> 
> I am one of the fortunate ones that thinks that 4.01 improved the performance of my 622. My OTA lock problems are fixed, and other than having to do one front panel reset, my system has worked fine.
> 
> ...


4.01 is fine on my 622 as well. I now see that there is NO mention of 4.02 in the tech portal/tech updates source code at all. That's good for you and me!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Presence said:


> Sounds like you were having the same Check Switch problems I originally posted about. I have been working with the beta test team pretty extensively to get this one figured out. I have two 622s and it only affects one, which helps with testing.


Are you saying you have two 622s both on L4.02 and only one is showing this issues... Hmmm very interesting post.


----------



## softwiz (May 12, 2005)

Woke up this morning, no L402


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

softwiz said:


> Woke up this morning, no L402


nuttin here either. I would sure like a confirmation other than "I saw the HTML source code".


----------



## DAG (Feb 7, 2006)

SMosher said:


> nuttin here either. I would sure like a confirmation other than "I saw the HTML source code".


Confirmation of what? That there WAS a 4.02 listed in the source code and now it is NOT mentioned? Obviously it is not ready for "prime time" yet and is not being spooled at this time. Patience is a virtue.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

I think some are oblivious to the point that not everything you read on the internet message boards will happen.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

SMosher said:


> nuttin here either. I would sure like a confirmation other than "I saw the HTML source code".


Yes L4.02 was there in commented source, but now is not. They have also have now uncommented L4.01 as full phase on 3/29, and that never happened.


----------



## Eagles (Dec 31, 2003)

Actually for a short time on Tuesday L4.02 was listed on the tech portal for a 4/5 release for all to see. You did not have to view the source code. On wednesday it was removed all togather.


----------



## softwiz (May 12, 2005)

DAG said:


> Confirmation of what? That there WAS a 4.02 listed in the source code and now it is NOT mentioned? Obviously it is not ready for "prime time" yet and is not being spooled at this time. Patience is a virtue.


I tend to NOT be patient when:

1. I have lost my second tuner completely
2. I was TOLD by a Dish Network tech support person this was a known problem with L401 and that it would be fixed when L402 streams down on Thursday April 5th.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

A known problem ?? Who else has heard of losing one of the tuners from L4.01 ?? That's a first for me.... Sounds like a hardware failure, not a software one.


----------



## softwiz (May 12, 2005)

Hall said:


> A known problem ?? Who else has heard of losing one of the tuners from L4.01 ?? That's a first for me.... Sounds like a hardware failure, not a software one.


Good question, I just called Dish Network and got a new tech this time. After going through a load of dianostics and looking at release notes, she concluded that this was NOT a known condition, was a hardware failure of some sort, and the other tech should of sent me a new receiver.

A new receiver is on its the way!

I'm happy again and wondered why no one else seemed to have this issue with L401.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

What's all the scuddlebutt about. L4.01 is working flawless for me.


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> Are you saying you have two 622s both on L4.02 and only one is showing this issues... Hmmm very interesting post.


No, they both have 4.0*1*, and only one has the issue.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Dish's tech support people are no different than any other company's... They make stuff up.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Presence said:


> No, they both have 4.0*1*, and only one has the issue.


 What is the hardware rev of each box, same or different ?? If they're different, let Dish know which one is affected and which one isn't.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

ssmith10pn said:


> What's all the scuddlebutt about. L4.01 is working flawless for me.


But not for every one. Based on Poll elsewhere about 10% have seen a serious new bug. Most new features are working fine, and many of the bug fixes are improvements. But we don't want them introducting NEW serious bugs.

Myself, I've seen 4 OTA failures (3 on 1 622 and 1 on the other) and 10 black screen of death (with screech) on my C receiver. I just responded a couple of hours ago to an email from dish asking for some more info. Actually has been behaving a bit better since I reset my NVM(RAM) on Wednesday(fingers crossed).


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Hall said:


> A known problem ?? Who else has heard of losing one of the tuners from L4.01 ?? That's a first for me.... Sounds like a hardware failure, not a software one.


 I had this happen on BOTH of my 622s and it was followed by the check switch and lost locks problems I talked about earlier . I fixed the tuner problems by replacing all sat cables, diplexors, seperators , clearing the check switch -letting the check switch run with no sat cables- and the reconnecting all new cables, etc and rerunning the check switch. This cleared up the check switch error messages, the lnb drift problem and the second tuner not working. IT did not help with the lost locks problems. THey are caused by the software itself and need to be fixed in L4.02.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Won't they run a beta test on it before they release it? If they do I have already asked to be 1 of the testers.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

DAG said:


> Confirmation of what? That there WAS a 4.02 listed in the source code and now it is NOT mentioned? Obviously it is not ready for "prime time" yet and is not being spooled at this time. Patience is a virtue.


Well no kidding captain obvious. Even I can close my eyes and say a new rev will be out. ;d


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I had this happen on BOTH of my 622s ... and the second tuner not working. THey are caused by the software itself and need to be fixed in L4.02.


 Huh ?? You "lost" your 2nd tuner because of L4.01, did all that, and solved the problem, yet L4.01 is to blame ?? Sorry, no....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Hall said:


> Huh ?? You "lost" your 2nd tuner because of L4.01, did all that, and solved the problem, yet L4.01 is to blame ?? Sorry, no....


You snipped the middle part of his post.

It sounded to me like he was saying he fixed most of his problems by doing some mechanical things and re-running checkswitch... but that the problem with lost locks was something to do with the software. I didn't think he was saying the software caused all of his problems.

Perhaps it exposed some other physical connection issues... or he needed to re-run the checkswitch to get things back in order... but it didn't sound to me like he was blaming everything on the software... just that last part about the lost locks.

Unless I misread?


----------



## charlesm (Nov 19, 2006)

April 7, still have 3.66. I 4.01 out in the general public or only for bet teters?


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Yes, I did snip it and did so intentionally. He said he had a tuner problem and implies it was related to L4.01 (following up on someone else who lost a tuner after receiving L4.01). Then he goes on to explain that he replaced cables, replacing diplexors, running check switches, etc, etc and he solved (part of) his problem. What caused his lost tuner to reappear, doing those or is there an intermittant software problem ?? There could be, mind you, but his is only the 2nd person to report this (that I've read).


----------



## msalvail (Sep 19, 2003)

James Long said:


> Just giving the new receivers the latest and greatest while migrating current receivers at a manageable rate.


We got one of our 622s about a month ago and the 2nd one two weeks later. The first one still has 3.66 on it and the 2nd one has 4.01. Both work just fine but the 4.01 has the side by side PIP, the HD channels listed in the Guide differently and a few other things that most here would consider cosmetic, I suppose.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

charlesm said:


> April 7, still have 3.66. I 4.01 out in the general public or only for bet teters?


Based on the Tech Portal and the user community here it appears that Dish stopped spooling 4.01 to additional customers. I can't remember the exact number of customers that got it before they stopped sending it but it was a lot more than just the beta testers. It would seem that Dish identified a couple bugs that warranted a stop of the release that they are fixing. As soon as those are fixed/tested I would imagine we'll see a 4.02 or something like that spool.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

HDMe said:


> You snipped the middle part of his post.
> 
> It sounded to me like he was saying he fixed most of his problems by doing some mechanical things and re-running checkswitch... but that the problem with lost locks was something to do with the software. I didn't think he was saying the software caused all of his problems.
> 
> ...


 You didn't read me wrong. The lost locks are caused by the software itself. I have explained that this causes the receiver to have problems deciding which satellite and transponder it will lock in on when you check on the dishpoint screen. This was not a problem with any other software I have had up to now and it is still working correctly on my parents 622 which doesNOT have L4.01 yet .

I did rectify the problems with the checkswitch error messages, the lnb drift issues and the second tuner not working on either receiver by changing out all cables clearing the checkswitch and rerunning the check switch with all new cables diplexors and seperators connected. I recommend this to anyone having second tuner problems. I had a dish tech recommend this to me once a while back ,when I was having a tuner issue and it worked so I recommend to all who have this problem to do what I said to fix it.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Hall said:


> Yes, I did snip it and did so intentionally. He said he had a tuner problem and implies it was related to L4.01 (following up on someone else who lost a tuner after receiving L4.01). Then he goes on to explain that he replaced cables, replacing diplexors, running check switches, etc, etc and he solved (part of) his problem. What caused his lost tuner to reappear, doing those or is there an intermittant software problem ?? There could be, mind you, but his is only the 2nd person to report this (that I've read).


 I reported it because I have never had any tuner issues on my bedroom 622 at all TILL L401 loaded. I had a tuner issue once a while back on my living room 622 and I called Dish tech department . They recommended that I change out the actual cables themselves since I had changed the seperator , diplexors and ran a check switch and it didn't bring the other tuner back.

When L4.01 loaded on both dvrs I got hit by the check switch error message on both receivers and then the lnb drift issues. Last but not least the lost tuner message that my dvr wouldn't operate correctly with only one sat tuner. I did what I was told to do before by the dish tech replacing all cables etc and it ENDED all check switch messages, lnb drift issues and the second tuner works fine on both dvrs.

I have had bad software updates that have actually broken my old 301 receiver and had to be replaced. So it is not a stretch to believe that the down loading of the sofware might have caused these issues or the way the software is causing the lost locks issues may have a connection with the other issues: lnb drift message, check your check switch matrix , and the second tuner is not connected and will cause you dvr not to function properly. Either way I have not had any of these messages before Until L4.01 downloaded to both receivers.

Whether two or 5000 customers report a problem does NOT negate the fact that it happened and what I did to fix it on both receivers after L4.01 down loaded on both of them.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

I guess I have a more extreme definition of "lost". I read that as "broke" and you can't un-break it.


----------



## Scotty (Aug 10, 2006)

Rob Glasser said:


> Based on the Tech Portal and the user community here it appears that Dish stopped spooling 4.01 to additional customers. I can't remember the exact number of customers that got it before they stopped sending it but it was a lot more than just the beta testers. It would seem that Dish identified a couple bugs that warranted a stop of the release that they are fixing. As soon as those are fixed/tested I would imagine we'll see a 4.02 or something like that spool.


Rob,

I haven't received 4.01 yet. Do you know of, or has anyone heard of, a new release date?

Scotty


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

Partial release of 4.02 scheduled again for Tuesday (tomorrow) per the tech site.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

How long before they pull that info ??


----------



## cosmo_kramer (Mar 20, 2007)

Hall said:


> How long before they pull that info ??


What time is it now??


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

still up


----------



## cosmo_kramer (Mar 20, 2007)

> At this time *L4.01 *and *L4.02 *will be the valid software versions for the ViP 622 DVR.


This can't be right. It says a partial phase only. What about those of us who haven't received L4.01 yet??


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

cosmo_kramer said:


> This can't be right. It says a partial phase only. What about those of us who haven't received L4.01 yet??


They never pulled the statement that L4.01 went full phase.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

tough luck, that's what. or maybe we're lucky not to have the list of bad-news-bugs in 4.01 that likely are not all fixed in 4.02.


----------



## DAG (Feb 7, 2006)

Mr.72 said:


> tough luck, that's what. or maybe we're lucky not to have the list of bad-news-bugs in 4.01 that likely are not all fixed in 4.02.


OTOH, those of us happy with 4.01 don't want the potential bugs of 4.02 :nono2:


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

they may have never pulled the statement, but it never spooled for everyone. many users (like me) still have 3.66. presumably, they will roll out 4.02 in the same order of serial number priority which means we'll not get 4.02 either, at least for a while.


----------



## cosmo_kramer (Mar 20, 2007)

tnsprin said:


> They never pulled the statement that L4.01 went full phase.


Ah, that's it. They just THINK it went full phase....:up:


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

charlesm said:


> April 7, still have 3.66. I 4.01 out in the general public or only for bet teters?


L4.01 always went out as a general realease. Those that had beta had it as a different identifier. It never went full phase (despite whtat the tech portal site says) and probably went to only 1/2 to 2/3 of all 622's.

The "beta" that many think they joined was actually an Early Release, but they were given a contact address to report "beta bugs". At the same time it also was rolled out to about 1/4 to 1/3 of all users.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Tech Portal says L3.66 and L4.01 are _current_ releases for the 622.

Until P Smith posts to report that L4.02 really is out there, it really doesn't matter....


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Hall said:


> Tech Portal says L3.66 and L4.01 are _current_ releases for the 622.
> 
> Until P Smith posts to report that L4.02 really is out there, it really doesn't matter....


Actually Tech portal says L4.01 is the current release. Of course its wrong.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Hall said:


> Tech Portal says L3.66 and L4.01 are _current_ releases for the 622.
> 
> Until P Smith posts to report that L4.02 really is out there, it really doesn't matter....


To quote one of the other members of this forum - "It's not a release until it's released"

And to add on to that quote - it's not a full release until it's fully released!:lol:


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

tnsprin said:


> Actually Tech portal says L4.01 is the current release. Of course its wrong.


 L3.66 and L4.01 is current and I think a lot of 622 owners will agree....


----------



## DGRez (Jan 6, 2007)

Hall said:


> How long before they pull that info ??


that info is pulled now, 4/10 10:10 cdt


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

DGRez said:


> that info is pulled now, 4/10 10:10 cdt


 Took a while..... _Maybe, just maybe_, people will put no weight into this page. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE for upcoming software announcements.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So goes most rumors. 

A release is a release when it is released ... and not one second before that moment!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

The inexplicable release management of E* strikes again!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

It has been said a number of times by myself and others that the Tech portal has been wrong in the past and one should not not put a lot of weight on it. No reason to get upset because what tech portal posts does not become reality especially if the information is contained in a HTML comment. 

Gotta remember we are talking about a big company and my guess is Tech portal is not run by the engineering group.. So I am sure there is a lag in information and last minute go or no go decisions take a while to bubble up to the guy doing the web work.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> It has been said a number of times by myself and others that the Tech portal has been wrong in the past and one should not not put a lot of weight on it.





hall said:


> Maybe, just maybe, people will put no weight into this page. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE for upcoming software announcements.


 Why not "ask" people to stop posting this information then ?? It does nothing but "upset" many people when it doesn't happen or when Dish changes the page by removing the info.


----------



## DGRez (Jan 6, 2007)

Naa don't do that. Then it'll be used as an "Official" posting. This at least gives us some insight into what they might be doing. I'm a software guy too and kinda understand what they're up against.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

People are going to choose to get upset by this type of information or not. I can't control that though in my opinion this information should be handled as a possible outcome and not a promise of a release. 

Sure I can ask, but posting this information does not violate any of the forum rules and I think over time people will forget and still post this information. Personally I do see value in it as a possible event occurring, but that is where I personally draw the line... I possible event, not a for sure reality. 

What I will ask is that we keep the discussion surrounding Dish's release process and methods constructive and avoid rat holing into the bash zone which makes my life and the life of other moderators more painful. 

Like I have said before. This information, just like rumors form other sources on releases, should be taken with a grain of salt. See my Signature for more details.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Don't stop posting it, I think the E* folks that control it are putting stuff up there and removing it just to mess with us, they probably do it and then check over here to see how many people are ticked off about it - they may even have an office pool for the number of posts it generates! Let's not ruin their fun! :grin:


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

bobukcat said:


> Don't stop posting it, I think the E* folks that control it are putting stuff up there and removing it just to mess with us...


 I've said that a few times before !


----------



## elbyj (Jan 9, 2003)

I am seeing a lot of threads on this site concerning the issues of the next software release for the 622. Is it going to be 4.01, 4.02, or maybe 4.03? A lot of posts concerning how bad 4.01 is and how it created more headaches for owners -- plus a lot of listings of what is wrong with 4.01 without any official reply (that I can see) as to whether 4.01 or 4.02 will be officially spooled for release to all 622s. I know I check every morning to see if, just maybe, 3.66 was replaced, but so far no such luck. 

My question still remains concerning the upgrades -- what is their issue in not being able to get the upgrade correct? Are they trying to upload too many modifications at the same time and thereby possibly creating software conflicts? Are all the 622's manufactured by the same company or are we talking multiple manufactures of the same device, which could result in slight differences between the boxes. Have they thought about just pushing a single update for a single problem to see if resolves the problem and doesn't create another!! I am seeing that issue a lot with the patches -- yes, my video is looking better, but the patch caused my OTA to disappear! Not even Microsoft combines multiple fixes into a single patch. They stick with correcting one problem in each release for a specific application. So why can't Dish do the same?

A curious mind wants to know!!!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

_NOBODY KNOWS_

well pretty much. the next update will come out when it comes out. and it will have whatever number it has. and it may fix some of the bugs and may make new ones and may also have new features and we just don't know. we're just the lowly customers paying E*'s bills. why should they concern themselves with us?

don't bother checking your receiver for the update. if P Smith doesn't post up that a new one has spooled for your serial number on the "...(just a mention)" thread, then you won't have it.


----------



## Guitar1969 (Oct 19, 2006)

elbyj said:


> I am seeing a lot of threads on this site concerning the issues of the next software release for the 622. Is it going to be 4.01, 4.02, or maybe 4.03? A lot of posts concerning how bad 4.01 is and how it created more headaches for owners -- plus a lot of listings of what is wrong with 4.01 without any official reply (that I can see) as to whether 4.01 or 4.02 will be officially spooled for release to all 622s. I know I check every morning to see if, just maybe, 3.66 was replaced, but so far no such luck.
> 
> My question still remains concerning the upgrades -- what is their issue in not being able to get the upgrade correct? Are they trying to upload too many modifications at the same time and thereby possibly creating software conflicts? Are all the 622's manufactured by the same company or are we talking multiple manufactures of the same device, which could result in slight differences between the boxes. Have they thought about just pushing a single update for a single problem to see if resolves the problem and doesn't create another!! I am seeing that issue a lot with the patches -- yes, my video is looking better, but the patch caused my OTA to disappear! Not even Microsoft combines multiple fixes into a single patch. They stick with correcting one problem in each release for a specific application. So why can't Dish do the same?
> 
> A curious mind wants to know!!!


I agree - Yea the HD symbols in the guide are fine and dandy, but I would have liked them to make sure they fixed the performance issues instead- Audio breakup , which I still have. I am going to be calling them for some type of credit on my bill, and I am not sure why I am paying $$$$ for something that doesn't work as advertised and I have been patient enogh to wait for this update that was supposed to address those issues(Per their techs and csrs)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Unfortunately, there are people who want to be mad... and they will find a way to be mad no matter what Dish does.


----------



## papayazz (Mar 26, 2007)

What happened to the L 402 update that was suppose to dowmload today according to the software update page I saw last night?????


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

elbyj .. I merged your thread into the current thread to avoid splintering the L4.02 conversation. 

As Mr 72 indicates.. Though some here may no more than others, there is no one here that really knows the exact details of the status of L4.02. Even if they did, they would most likely be under NDA and could not provide those details. 

All that is known here is and I am sure you are aware of it......

1) They rolled out L4.01 to a number of boxes included people that signed up to get the first phase.
2) Feedback was provided... 
3) They did another rollout round. 
4) They made the decision to stop.. 

That is where it is today... Mark may no more, but that is the current status of the release. Obviously as more information was feeding into the process they were learning more about L4.01 in the wild and decided for reason not disclosed to stop and fix something or somethings. 

As to Microsoft's analogy, I would consider this release more along the lines of a service pack and a service pack definitely contains more than one bug and more than one feature.


----------



## socceteer (Apr 22, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> L4.01 always went out as a general realease. Those that had beta had it as a different identifier. It never went full phase (despite whtat the tech portal site says) and probably went to only 1/2 to 2/3 of all 622's.
> 
> The "beta" that many think they joined was actually an Early Release, but they were given a contact address to report "beta bugs". At the same time it also was rolled out to about 1/4 to 1/3 of all users.


So I am guessing that no one else will see L4.01 since they are probably fixing the bugs found on L4.01 and shipping the fixes on L4.02...Do we know a target date when L4.02 will be available for general use..?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

No update that I am aware of socceteer. I moved your post and some others into this thread since this is where all the "What is the status of L4.01?" conversation is.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Those numbers, like 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 taken from sky .
We can't count the DVRs just using serial number range, particular lists have more meaning.


----------



## themadman (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, while everyone was waiting for 4.02, my 622 just updated to 4.03!

I was sitting here coding, and had the tv on, 3:00a reboot came around, and I wasn't paying attention, it went to sleep, and came back up downloading firmware.

When all was said and done 15 minutes later, two menu button hits, and it at 4.03.


----------



## lionsrule (Nov 25, 2003)

yup, 4.03 here too.....


----------



## lionsrule (Nov 25, 2003)

have not yet checked my other 622 upstairs....if that one has 4.03 also, then I will test the dishcomm feature. I may have a wireless phonejack for sale soon......


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

L3.66 excluded from the upgrade.


----------



## smackman (Sep 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> L3.66 excluded from the upgrade.


Why would consumers who still have 3.66 be excluded from the upgrade? Honestly I am not worried about it but just trying to understand the circumstances of events surrounding these choices.
Thank you
Happy with 3.66 but what goes here?


----------



## ronimous (Jan 31, 2007)

smackman said:


> Why would consumers who still have 3.66 be excluded from the upgrade? Honestly I am not worried about it but just trying to understand the circumstances of events surrounding these choices.
> Thank you
> Happy with 3.66 but what goes here?


I'm with you Smackman, I don't get it either. I'm still on 3.66 and really want the new features.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

smackman said:


> Why would consumers who still have 3.66 be excluded from the upgrade?


 Because they're still testing it. I've seen no request for information and it would appear that only a small group (related to the 350-count group to some extent ?) has rec'd it. Dish knows people will "test" it out and complain.... errrr, report their findings here. Safe to say, they're lurking.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yep... Makes perfect sense to me.. You have exposed people to L4.01 and so it makes more sense to place L4.03 onto those boxes first, see the feedback, and then make the move for everyone to L4.03. Simple Risk mitigation from what I can see... Same reason as why one does a phased roll out.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well you would think... but it's not just 350 people. everyone with 4.01 or 3.65 is getting 4.03.

the ONLY people who are not getting 4.03 are those who are still on 3.66 AFAIK.

so really, the majority of users are getting 4.03.

I suspect this is more like damage control. 4.01 broke a lot of things, so they shut it down before everyone got it. Now they have scrambled to try and fix some critical stuff in 4.01 and push out a fix for those affected (everyone with 4.01), while not exposing any of the people who DON'T have the new bugs to the potential of additional new bugs (those of us with 3.66).

Again all of this would be much better served with a TARGETED roll out so those of us who NEED a fix or feature in 4.0x would have it, and stop complaining, and those of us who could care less about the new features would not be exposed to the risk of the new bugs and would still be on 3.66. As it is, some people didn't want 4.0x or care about it and now are complaining about new bugs, and some people really need some fix in 4.0x and are stuck with 3.66.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

How many users do you actually think are still on 3.65? My guess is close to 0 unless some referbs got into the field and required an update. I would be willing to bet(though it can't be confirmed) that 99.99% of the users in the field are on L3.66 or L4.01. If the rollout is for approx 350 people then I would not be surprised if that is the list Mark provided since that was the number Mark indicated signed up. As for the ONLY people not getting L4.03, well if the number is 350 then all users with L4.01 will not be getting L4.03 at this point to. 

As for how things should be roll out.. Please take that discussion to general forums and lets focus here on our experiences with the release.


----------



## plainsman (Nov 16, 2006)

Hall said:


> Because they're still testing it. I've seen no request for information and it would appear that only a small group (related to the 350-count group to some extent ?) has rec'd it. Dish knows people will "test" it out and complain.... errrr, report their findings here. Safe to say, they're lurking.


my original comments on E*'s software testing seem to have been supported. If 4.01 was such a gem they wouldn't have pushed 4.03 out.

I never gave anyone my 622's info to be a tester -- I got 4.01 early and now 4.03.

Given the quality of feedback I've seen here, all we're providing is the most basic of scatter-shot testing - a crowd E* can notice when we yell loud enough. Nothing that couldn't have been automated and done more thoroughly in-house.

I object to being an unpaid guinea pig - if I may borrow an old Hollywood line and clean it up a bit, who do I have to screw to get off this picture? Really, I'd _love_ to be at the back of the list when they push software. I'd love to have 3.66 back.


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. But it definitely was good for a laugh today, so I guess thanks for that...





Hall said:


> Laugh if you want.... L4.01 was "announced" to be out "in December" and then multiple dates between then and last week came and went. They then release it to an unknown number of customers and within a week of that, another follow-up release is on it's way ?? If L4.02 or whatever it ends up being called isn't released IN FULL (to all customers) for another month or so, then I'll admit I was wrong.


 We'll see how L4.03 "or whatever it ends up being called" does and my comment that gave Mark his good laugh and whether I guessed well or not.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok... Since this thread seems to have degraded into a release process discussion, I have moved it out of the support forums so it can be more freely discussed.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

> Clearly Dish released it because of public "pressure" or even internal pressure because of a fairly long gap between releases or from marketing, who wanted to see the features available.


For the record.. Mark's statement was in regards to your comment above Hall. I also commented on my thoughts regarding your statement and why I felt it was not accurate here http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=896530&postcount=28. Sorry but I don't think that if L4.03 does not go full release that it validates your statement that it L4.01 was pushed out because of internal or external pressures. The two are mutually exclusive as I see it.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well according to this post:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=906846&postcount=393

roughly half of the serial numbers (low #'d half) have 4.03 spooled to them, presuming serial numbers are sequential and do not have unpredictable gaps. Not just test-code volunteers or 350 people, but thousands who did not really ask for it.

It should be noted that those people already were spooled for 4.01, so as Ron said, it's highly unlikely any of them have 3.65 unless they just had a power outage for the last month or something.

Who knows whether they will add 3.66 to the list of versions to be upgraded when the change the serial number range to cover a wider range.

Anyway, it is kind of irrelevant because in the range of serial numbers currently spooled, all of them should have already been upgraded from 3.66 to 4.01. So there are likely not any 3.66 users being "skipped" in this phase. However if they just left it the way it is and only changed the serial number range, then most of us who currently have 3.66 will not get the update.

We can only wait and see.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mr.72 said:


> roughly half of the serial numbers (low #'d half) have 4.03 spooled to them,


Serial numbers ... your guess is worse than mine as to if that number represents "half" of all 622s or not.

The important part of the targeting information is: L403 is targeted at pretty much everyone who does not have L366. That keeps it to a manageable number of people who have already experienced L401 (or new subscribers/new activations). Pretty standard for an update. Let a few thousand customers see it first and listen for the screams.

Scream nicely!


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Which is my point.. I don't think you want to move the people on L3.66 over until you fell confident with L4.03 in terms of customer pain. I do agree with Mr. 72 that a better model would be ability to target the update so people that want can opt to have it and people that don't, can say no. But I also see the need to phase the release to minimize impact. Maybe a happy medium would be to continue with the current model and add the ability to Say "No" for updates like other Dish receivers have. However.. even with that model Dish can say it is now mandatory and it overrides that option. I see the reason for this feature to have better control of what version are in the field. 

Yes it does suck for the folks that see fixes they want and for the folks that got it and are not happy with it. This happens with ever release. Some Lots of people are happy, some are not so happy, and some go from joy to pain in a day...


----------



## Hall (Mar 4, 2004)

I guess I'll never understand why anything I say is nothing more than opinion whereas your "thoughts" somehow hold more weight. 

See it how you want. Dish released L4.01 just over a week ago and within days stopped before it went to a full release. Last night they release L4.03 to a small group of customers. Why do you do two releases so close together ??


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Well, I think while dish network might be a good satellite provider, they are not the best software company. There is a long legacy of tech companies that start out in some kind of niche with very simple software operating on dedicated hardware but eventually find themselves struggling to transform into a company with commodity hardware and very complicated software.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Because there were things in L4.01 they felt needed fixing and could be fixed with minimal risk. Given the time table of L4.03, I am sure they were very careful in what fixes they introduced and only did the ones that have high payoff with minimal risk. Otherwise I would expect a longer time between releases. And when release software so close together it has been my experience that developers get very picky as to what to fix and not fix. Only the very low hanging fruit is picked. Well at least that is how things go down in the software projects I have worked on. 

I just don't see the information here equating to your conclusions as I pointed out in my previous post.. You have your opinion on this release and I have mine. Mind has no more weight than anyone elses and I have given my reasons for my opinion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hall said:


> I guess I'll never understand why anything I say is nothing more than opinion whereas your "thoughts" somehow hold more weight.


If you are adding more weight to our opinions than your own it is appreciated! We do try not to be rash in our opinions and state facts more than emotions. Perhaps that is where the gravitas comes from.



Hall said:


> See it how you want. Dish released L4.01 just over a week ago and within days stopped before it went to a full release. Last night they release L4.03 to a small group of customers. Why do you do two releases so close together ??


A "small group of customers"? How many? That is part of the problem with these "second guessing" threads where everyone thinks they know better than Dish. You say a "small number" but do you know how small? Hundreds? Thousands? Since they released L403 to everyone with L401 I would not characterize the number as small.

The release schedule is flexible. This isn't the first time that a partial release was followed by a new partial release because of customer feedback. The world has not ended! So now are we going to fight over whether or not all L401 customers should be getting L403? In the end it is E*'s decision --- like it or not. And we can't do much about it so why scream our heads off?

Complain nicely. Focus on real problems not a difference of opinion over how you would run the company. You don't run the company. Neither do I. Nobody should pretend that they do!


----------

