# An observation regarding the latest round of DVR firmware releases



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

So, based on the ever expanding number of new posts, I assume that we will soon all have this latest round of new DVR (622, 722, and 722k) firmware.

Since its arrival on both of my “now poorly functioning” 622s, both of my DVRs now show up as new “otherwise functionally undefined” media devices on my private LAN, to which they are connected. Handily they are named “ViP622 DVR Rxxxxxxxxxx” with the “xxxxxxxxxx” being their respective serial numbers.

Well gosh golly gee!

Do you suppose that this “network awakening” may indicate that we are about to see the actual availability of those long awaited, specially designed, Sling® Adapter and Sling® Extender products that Dish has been promising for these series DVRs?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Sling devices haven't used NETBIOS naming previously, but I notice that the recent software updates for my Slingbox Solo added a name.

I would imagine that they're doing it simply to help users identify equipment on the LAN so they don't have to go running around the house to query the network connections of each receiver.


----------



## DustoMan (Jul 16, 2005)

This might have more do with the GoogleTV support as Logitech includes an app on the GTV to receive media via DLNA. God it would be awesome if they all of a sudden enabled DLNA streaming between PCs or other receivers, but I'm sure that's not at all in the pipeline.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I'm pretty sure you don't need a NETBIOS name to _receive_ content.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

It was shown quite a while ago Dish was working on having DVRs being able to access each other. Would be nice if it's almost here.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

HDlover said:


> It was shown quite a while ago Dish was working on having DVRs being able to access each other. Would be nice if it's almost here.


If this allowed *HD* access between DVRs this would be a *HUGE* feature.


----------



## finniganps (Jan 23, 2004)

SaltiDawg said:


> If this allowed *HD* access between DVRs this would be a *HUGE* feature.


I wonder what the fee will be.....monthly or one time?


----------



## festivus (Nov 10, 2008)

Wow. The ability to access content across a home network would be an incredible feature. I've always wondered about it.


----------



## etzeppy (Feb 16, 2007)

AVJohnnie said:


> Since its arrival on both of my "now poorly functioning" 622s, both of my DVRs now show up as new "otherwise functionally undefined" media devices on my private LAN, to which they are connected. Handily they are named "ViP622 DVR Rxxxxxxxxxx" with the "xxxxxxxxxx" being their respective serial numbers.


I noticed the same thing last week with my 722K


----------



## bnborg (Jun 3, 2005)

I see my 722 as *ViP 722 R00...*.

When I open the properties of it in Vista, it shows a web address under Description and Model, http://192.168.2.4:49200/Dishnetwork.com. The address, 192.168.2.4 is on my local network. The link, of course, does not work.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

Things have been pretty “grumpy” with both of my 622s since they got the L6.30 update. This new “uPNP appearance” of the receivers on my LAN got me to wondering if these “grumpy” idiosyncrasies might somehow be related to that appearance ~ So last weekend I decided to try disconnecting my 622s from my LAN (detached their Ethernet connections). Well, they’re both working much better now that they're not network connected, meaning: no sudden and unexpected lockups and reboots, faster guide operation (though still slower than before getting L6.30), and oddly enough, the CID popup banner is working correctly again on both of them.


----------

