# BUG REPORT L184: OTA Weekly Timer Bug



## Jason (Aug 8, 2002)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet but I want to make sure that Eldon is aware of this bug and is working on a fix for it. When I set up a weekly timer ahead of schedule, it always fires on the current week as well when I don't want it to. For example, on all the E* DVRs, you are able to look ahead in the guide a week and set a weekly timer for a new show that is coming on. In this example I can give, I was trying to set up a weekly timer for North Shore on my local OTA station which starts next Tuesday. I tried setting this up yesterday and the timer actually fired yesterday during the time that North Shore will premiere at next week. Are people aware of this bug?


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

As far as I know, the "weekly timers" are just simple weekly timers, without any sort of exception handling (e.g. skip this week, skip next week, skip re-runs, etc.). Once one is defined, it simply fires any time that the scheduled day and time occurs.

Thus, I don't know if this is really a bug, or if it's just extra functionality (i.e. being able to define a weekly timer with a given start or end date) you are requesting which is not currently supported.


----------



## Jason (Aug 8, 2002)

Slordak said:


> As far as I know, the "weekly timers" are just simple weekly timers, without any sort of exception handling (e.g. skip this week, skip next week, skip re-runs, etc.). Once one is defined, it simply fires any time that the scheduled day and time occurs.
> 
> Thus, I don't know if this is really a bug, or if it's just extra functionality (i.e. being able to define a weekly timer with a given start or end date) you are requesting which is not currently supported.


You can set weekly timers up ahead of time on all other Dish DVRs with the exception of the 921. I do it all the time on my 501 & 721. I think this is just a bug related to only OTA weekly timers.

Mark,

Is this a bug or a missing feature? Are they going to fix this?


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I suppose this is an issue, although I seriously doubt that any other of the current Dish DVRs would function any differently. A weekly timer is currently record from X time to Y time on Day Z. That's it. There is no functionality to tell the timer to start the timer on week XX, or to skip week YY, or anything like that. That will change with the introduction of name based recording later this year.

If this is a big problem for you, I would suggest either defining your timers less than a week before you want them to start firing, or just delete the first recording that you get. 

And, I doubt that it will be addressed anytime soon because it's a fundamental change in weekly timer concept. That's my opinion.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

I just ran a test:

Open the guide.
Create 2 one-time timers for time period "X".
Scroll forward one week.
Create a weekly timer for time period "X" on a different channel.
If the weekly scheduler wasn't "smart", the conflict menu would appear. It does not.

The weekly timer appears to have a start date available/possible/whatever. I do not believe a fix for this issue would require a "fundamental change in weekly timer concept".


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

It would, though, if you are defining the timer manually. We're not talking about defining it from the guide here.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> It would, though, if you are defining the timer manually. We're not talking about defining it from the guide here.


That implies that a manually created timer uses a totally different data definition than one created from the guide. I find that unbelievable.

If true, it explains a lot about things - in a bad way.


----------



## Jason (Aug 8, 2002)

Mark Lamutt said:


> It would, though, if you are defining the timer manually. We're not talking about defining it from the guide here.


On the contrary, I am talking about defining a timer from the guide. The process I use is to first set up the timer from my local satellite channel list in the 9000 range. Then once the timer is set, I edit it and change the channel to my local OTA instead. This is what doesn't make any sense to me. When I set up a weekly timer ahead using just satellite channels, it is smart enough to know not to record that weekly timer until the date that I scrolled ahead in the guide and set it to start on. However, the OTA timer is flawed. It is not smart enough to do this and it simply records that weekly timer every single time which results in one premature timer recording. This doesn't happen on any Dish DVR using weekly satellite timers. It only happens on the 921 using OTA weekly timers.


----------



## bobl (Jan 17, 2004)

This simply sounds like the known issue where if you edit a timer it changes the day of the week to the day that the edit is done. When you create a timer on Tuesday for say Thursday by first selecting a program from the guide on a satellite channel and then edit the timer to an OTA channel the day of the week is mistakenely changed to Tuesday. When you are creating this weekly timer is it possible that you're creating it for exactly one week in the future (i.e. the same day of the week)? In this case you may be creating a timer for say next Wednesday but when you edit the timer it's changed to this Wednesday. If this is what you're doing then this isn't a new bug but just the same old one that exists on the 721 as well as the 921.

Bob


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

I think that I'm not explaining my point clearly enough here, and that's causing the confusion. What I'm saying is that when you create a weekly timer event from the guide, the timer knows what the starting date of the event should be, even if it doesn't display that information in the edit timer screens because it is pulling that date from the guide data. When you set up an event manually, that information isn't available because the timer wasn't defined from the guide. And when you use the guide to define the timer, and then edit the channel, you lose the link between the timer and the guide. That pointer goes away, so the timer no longer knows what day it's supposed to start on. Does that make better sense? There is a very definite link between the timer and the guide when the timer is defined from the guide. That link is broken by you when you edit the timer to change the channel.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> There is a very definite link between the timer and the guide when the timer is defined from the guide. That link is broken by you when you edit the timer to change the channel.


Arrgghh. Well, that would certainly explain the problem, but I certainly see that as a design flaw. Yeah, yeah, someone's gonna say it's related to NBR or something, but I don't buy it.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

That's the way it has always been with Dish DVR receivers. This isn't new to the 921.


----------



## Mark S. (May 14, 2004)

OK Mark...

I know this is off topic but I noticed you were browsing the forums live so I thought I would try to ask.

Any idea when we might expect to see the next software download for the 921 and are you able to give us any hints as to what it might include or what problems it may be addressing?

Please let us know anything you can that won't infringe on your NDA.

Thanks,


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Mark, right now, I know just slightly more than you do about the timing of the next release. Which is next to nothing. As soon as I know something and can say anything at all about it, you guys will know. Right now it's not the NDA holding me back, it's that I don't have any information to give. 

The beta that I'm on right now seems to be better, but that's been the case for the last several versions. I don't understand at all why this rash of timer failures has cropped up this week, and why they haven't been happening over the last 3 weeks since L184 came out, or for that matter for the 2 weeks before that with L182. I'm pushing my 921 to the limits trying to get it to fail, and it just isn't. Probably it's because the software is better, but there could very well be other factors involved as well. 

You guys are getting incredibly frustrated with your 921s not working. I'm getting frustrated because I can't get mine NOT to work. That's what I'm supposed to be doing, and mine just isn't breaking regardless of the really wacked out stuff that I throw at it.


----------



## Mark S. (May 14, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> You guys are getting incredibly frustrated with your 921s not working. I'm getting frustrated because I can't get mine NOT to work. That's what I'm supposed to be doing, and mine just isn't breaking regardless of the really wacked out stuff that I throw at it.


Thanks for the reply Mark....

I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I really have been very lucky with my 921 so far and have not experienced near the problems as other users have posted. I have had I believe one "0" second recording and a minor hiccup here or there but nothing that a very rarely needed re-boot hasn't corrected. I did have a brief problem where my caller ID stopped working for about 4 or 5 days but even that corrected itself. I also don't remember having had to re-scan my OTA channels in several weeks. Maybe I just got lucky in the 921 draw or maybe the unit just isn't as unstable as everyone is making it out to be.

Only time will tell what the next software update will have in store for us. I just hope the OTA guide data is in the near future. It sure would make it much easier when wanting to set up recordings on those channels.

Lastly, I hope the name based recording ability is not too far off in the distant future as well. Not really a big deal for me as I've never owned a Tivo, but hopefully once it arrives it will go miles towards silencing the anti DISH nay-sayers who rave about that ability on their Tivos and continually knock DISH for not having it. Who knows, maybe once I get it, I too may wonder how I ever survived without it. I know that was how it was for me once I made the switch to DISH from cable and got my first DVR. Now I could never go back to watching television without one.


----------



## deweybrunner (Feb 8, 2004)

I'm with you, Mark, I am having no trouble with timers. It could be that I've had to do a pull plug re-boot a couple of times, has diverted any problems i might have had. Just hope we get OTA guide data and name base recordings soon. Had TIVO for five years and believe me this part is great. Love my 921. Looking forward to next update to correct remaining problems. Thanks for a great job, Mark.


----------



## the_tx_dude (Jan 26, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> You guys are getting incredibly frustrated with your 921s not working. I'm getting frustrated because I can't get mine NOT to work. That's what I'm supposed to be doing, and mine just isn't breaking regardless of the really wacked out stuff that I throw at it.


Mark maybe you are doing this already I don't know but it seems that a good way of testing would be for you to have one 921 with beta software and one 921 with the current software so you can do apples to apples comparisons on timers etc.


----------



## Clarkjwc (Mar 8, 2004)

Mark, we need a DUMP command. We can all send a core dump out the modem port. Then you could load up our failing image.

JC


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Clarkjwc said:


> Mark, we need a DUMP command. We can all send a core dump out the modem port. Then you could load up our failing image.
> 
> JC


Never happen. Eldon is too paranoid that if we had such easy access to the code, one of us would actually figure out how bad it is.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Actually, The 921 code needs a way to refresh the system as is done on a power plug (for 2'20" recommendation by adv tech) at an appropriate time. The need to do this manually is not what is considered for any consumer device. I only post this so that Eldon won't fall into the excuse that power plug reboot is a normal part of operation to get results. This is a work around to many problems, not a way to make the 921 work normally.


----------



## Clarkjwc (Mar 8, 2004)

There is a good reason OS works!
How do we get our problems FIXED!!??

JC


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Clarkjwc said:


> There is a good reason OS works!
> How do we get our problems FIXED!!??
> 
> JC


Actually, in all seriousness, open source can be a significant problem with operating systems. We went through this with the IBM mainframes 30 years ago. Everybody had their own little mods and it was expensive and time-consuming to keep everything compatible with each other and the vendor's fixes.


----------



## Clarkjwc (Mar 8, 2004)

Since the 360-45 to past the 90s I remember that the IBM OS was never open source. Only updates via the PTF process was ever supported by IBM.And true to form, the mainframes we ran for all of the Bell system never had the production failure rate of the PC environment we live with today. We paid real money and got real support. I remember getting work-around patches is less that 24 hrs.Your monthly bill was proof of that.We spent as much on regression testing our applications as we spent on disaster recovery projects. No cost was too much to send out the bill.

JC


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Unh. I beg to differ on the details.

First, there was never a 360-45. 360's never ran MVS - or any other VS system (exception: 360/195 - a weird hybrid). 370's all had 100-series numbers. So, you probably meant a 370/145, circa 1972.

And yes, the 360 operating systems WERE open source - you could actually order it on tape. It was harder to get source for the 370 OS's, but you DID have microfiche of the compiled code, making it quite easy to hack.

And the program (SMP) that processed PTFs DID support ++USERMOD. 

Finally, I personally hacked SMP to process PTFs for the 370x communication controllers. IBM distributed those fixes in SMP format, but the program didn't support it - until I did it, and then IBM picked up the mod from me.


----------



## Clarkjwc (Mar 8, 2004)

There was a IBM 360-45.See http://www.airweaassn.org/Library/afwa/history.html

And Yes, you could at the time read the source on the microfiche but there was no other machine to run it on. So you had a license from IBM or you had nothing. While we did write our own channel control programs, no business shop I knew would consider running other than IBM supported patch.The point I was trying to make is that "The Best Hack Wins!" I believe that 300 or 500 people working on the code can come up with a better solution than the 5 working on it now. Looks like the OS for this machine is Linux, under GNU GPL. I would hope that the application would benefit the same.

JC


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Clarkjwc said:


> There was a IBM 360-45.See http://www.airweaassn.org/Library/afwa/history.html
> 
> And Yes, you could at the time read the source on the microfiche but there was no other machine to run it on. So you had a license from IBM or you had nothing. While we did write our own channel control programs, no business shop I knew would consider running other than IBM supported patch.The point I was trying to make is that "The Best Hack Wins!" I believe that 300 or 500 people working on the code can come up with a better solution than the 5 working on it now. Looks like the OS for this machine is Linux, under GNU GPL. I would hope that the application would benefit the same.
> 
> JC


Well, dadgum! I stand corrected. :sure: Thought I'd seen every 360 there ever was. Missed one. However, I get to get ya back. There were IBM-compatibles out there - I worked on them for Amdahl/Fujitsu.  There was also NAS, Hitachi, Magnuson, and maybe a couple of others.

Yes, smart shops would avoid usermods when possible, and preferred at least 3rd-party supported mods - like for tape control systems. You're certainly right that the "Best Hack Wins" concept is very powerful - as long as there's a decision-making group that decides what goes in the next release.

Yes, 921 is Linux. And, any of us programmers here, <snide remark deleted by author before publication> could get a lot of these problems fixed a lot faster than what we're seeing. And I don't want to hear anything like "you have no idea how complicated this is". I DO know. Been there, done that, have a whole drawer of T-shirts to prove it, and saved a lot of people's bacon in the process.


----------



## Clarkjwc (Mar 8, 2004)

Simon, Amdahl and the others came in much later than the 360. I think that it was about 74, that would have been about the 370-168AP time. The OS on the 360-45 was 'DOS'. not much more than the 1401. Forground/background printing. Remember we were still cards until 75.



We need to get Mark to help us make a meanfull difference. Sitting here just listing our problems is not doing any of us any good.


Mark, how do we ---help you-- help us?


Mark?

JC


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Clarkjwc said:


> Simon, Amdahl and the others came in much later than the 360. I think that it was about 74, that would have been about the 370-168AP time. The OS on the 360-45 was 'DOS'. not much more than the 1401. Forground/background printing. Remember we were still cards until 75.
> JC


True that PCMs were 370 era, but it was the 360 era OS's that you could actually get the source code on tape and assemble yourself.

I remember DOS.  I ported the OS/360 BPAM to it, and also wrote an application-specific high-speed CCW-chaining spooler for it that lived with POWER. I remember the 3-card loader, too. Ah, those were the days. 

It's too damn easy now. Interactive debuggers, GUIs instead of console lights, etc., etc. It's no wonder that no one really understands the dang things any more.


----------



## Redster (Jan 14, 2004)

When I first started in the Navy in 78, we were trained on the old Univac 1218 system. Had teletype for console,, magnetic core memory, toggle switch bootstrap routine. The card reader unit was enormous,, bout 5 feet high by 8 long with about 400 cards in it. Everytime the thing would miss read, the techs would come in with rubber hammer and reseat the cards. Our big thrill was programming it to beeb jingle bells and flash register lights in time. Am I aging myself ?


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Clarkjwc said:


> We need to get Mark to help us make a meanfull difference. Sitting here just listing our problems is not doing any of us any good.
> 
> Mark, how do we ---help you-- help us?


Well, honestly it would help if you guys took the walk down memory lane here to the Potpourri or Computer forums... 

You're all doing a good job for the most part providing the bug reporting. You may not see the benefit, but believe me - I see a huge benefit of it for a number of reasons, and Eldon sees the benefit as well. So, please keep it up and remember to be as detailed as you can.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> ...You may not see the benefit, but believe me - I see a huge benefit of it for a number of reasons, and Eldon sees the benefit as well.


Well, Mark, that's the problem. No feedback. Lack of communication is almost always the #1 reason for customer dissatisfaction. Especially given the audience here - experienced with technology - all it would take is a little recognition - from Eldon - that something's happening.

You know - a posted bug list with priorities listed.

We know you do your best, but the secrecy from across the pond sucks.


----------



## sgt940 (Jan 9, 2004)

SimpleSimon said:


> Well, Mark, that's the problem. No feedback. Lack of communication is almost always the #1 reason for customer dissatisfaction. Especially given the audience here - experienced with technology - all it would take is a little recognition - from Eldon - that something's happening.
> 
> You know - a posted bug list with priorities listed.
> 
> We know you do your best, but the secrecy from across the pond sucks.


This time I have to agree tell us aproximate dates, give us updates and yes it is ok to change them based on testing. KEEP THE CUSTOMER INFORMED!! WE CAN HANDLE IT!


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Unfortunately, you're going to have to look a little closer to home than Eldon to get that information. The secrecy doesn't begin with them...it starts right here in Denver. Eldon can't provide that level of information any more than I can. I'd suggest sending a respectful email to someone high up in the management structure at Dish, oh say someone that is one of the hosts of the tech forums done each quarter...that'd be a good place to start.


----------

