DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Even Tivo is not infallible

3K views 46 replies 11 participants last post by  Clint Lamor 
#1 ·
Saw this NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/technology/20tivo.html

"One of the main selling features of digital video recorders is their ability to record programs without the viewer having to enter start and stop times. It was unclear why certain shows were cut short on the malfunctioning TiVo's. The company's engineers isolated the problem to Series 2 machines (TiVo units integrated into DirecTV receivers were not affected). "

As has been said before, while the R15 gets bashed on TCF, all DVR's have their problems.
 
#28 ·
Earl Bonovich said:
oh1F?

Do you mean the next software version? 10AF ?
yea i did, but with this screwball numbering they are using ox1044 108 109 then back to 103

why not a simple way like this

r15 ( for model number 1(1st version of software) a(1st update of it)

then so on

r151 .... then 1st update be r151a .... and then r151b and so on

if new version is out r152 then r152a r152b and son on ?
 
#29 ·
They are using a HEX number system (at least that is the path they took starting a version or two ago)

It is just the numbering method they chose. And it isn't that uncommon of a practice (using HEX numbers to denote builds)... Interger number are usually used as the base core version identifiers. But each company chooses their own method.

10A3 - 10AF (14 builds later)...
 
#30 ·
Earl Bonovich said:
They are using a HEX number system (at least that is the path they took starting a version or two ago)

It is just the numbering method they chose. And it isn't that uncommon of a practice (using HEX numbers to denote builds)... Interger number are usually used as the base core version identifiers. But each company chooses their own method.

10A3 - 10AF (14 builds later)...
i understand software is complicated/etc but why not make the numbering system simple ?
 
#31 ·
Wow, so many members lately that don't have a SHIFT key on their PC. :rolleyes:

EDIT: How isn't 10A3 to 10AF simple? Hex 10A3 = decimal 4259. Hex 10AF = decimal 4271. Thus you have 12 builds not released to the customers. If you program or have to do with releasing software, it makes total sense.
 
#32 ·
The number is of importance to the development team...
All the user needs to do is be able to read it on the screen and report it back to the person asking for it.

x10A3 ; x10AF is a simple number system... just isn't decimal based.

Just like the TiVo Version number:
3.1.5f-01-2-357 (My HR10-250 software version)

There is sometimes more in a number, then just a version indicator.
 
#34 ·
I don't see the issue with their numbering scheme. It's fairly easy to understand and actually far easier to read back to someone then a much larger string. I have always dislike the convoluted systems where they start putting . and letters then another . and so forth.
 
#35 ·
As far as an earlier post on why no 'official' answers from D* there are some very valid reasons.

- Reg FD, As Regulation Full Disclosure. http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm This regulation requires public companies to disclose all material information evenly, so that all investors have the information at the same time. Some could argue product improvement and product releases are material information and require a press release from the company. so posting it to a forum would not be full disclosure. This is a matter a company must decide, and would do so with their counsel.
 
#36 ·
Clint Lamor said:
I don't see the issue with their numbering scheme. It's fairly easy to understand and actually far easier to read back to someone then a much larger string. I have always dislike the convoluted systems where they start putting . and letters then another . and so forth.
O YEAH r151a (which means r15=model of unit 1= 1st version a=1st update)

and so on for each update

is sooo much harder to read than 10hf6 for the mass majority of the us population :rolleyes:
 
#40 ·
carl6 said:
I like binary myself...

0001000010101111 = 10AF

or perhaps octal: 10257

But then binary, octal, decimal and hexadecimal are all too common. Why not express it in something like base 27? Or base 6? Oh, hey, it's an R15 so we'll use base 15:D = 13EB

Carl
Octal? Guessing you've worked on an HP somewhere back in time. :grin:
 
#41 ·
joegrjoe said:
O YEAH r151a (which means r15=model of unit 1= 1st version a=1st update)

and so on for each update

is sooo much harder to read than 10hf6 for the mass majority of the us population :rolleyes:
As another member (previous member :D ) always dwelled on completely changing the unit, even down to the remote............why not they get the bugs fixed before we attempt to change the simplest version numbering system. ;)
 
#42 ·
Donnie Byrd said:
As another member (previous member :D ) always dwelled on completely changing the unit, even down to the remote............why not they get the bugs fixed before we attempt to change the simplest version numbering system. ;)
why the":D" ?

i was talking let us have a numbering sysytem that is readable for allwho do not has a engineer knowledge

so the masses can read it .. so 75 year olds can look, and see , o this is the 3rd software we have had on this unit, without having rember the past ones, just by lookin can see it
 
#43 ·
The :D is because that memeber was such a "pleasure" to deal with on the forums here... most of the members that have been around for the last couple weeks know the person we are speaking of.


The numbering system isn't for you or me or for the 75 or 3 year old.
It is a reference number (no different then say a BAR CODE for the software) for the support and technical staf. So long as it isn't done in shapes and symbols, and done in a way that it can be provided back via text or spoken word.......
 
#44 ·
joegrjoe said:
why the":D" ?

i was talking let us have a numbering sysytem that is readable for allwho do not has a engineer knowledge

so the masses can read it .. so 75 year olds can look, and see , o this is the 3rd software we have had on this unit, without having rember the past ones, just by lookin can see it
Get real will you please? In one breath you're complaining about the unit not recording all (and duplicate) episodes of The Dukes of Hazard correctly and then with another you think all available DTV resources should be dedicated to changing the software version numbering scheme so you can understand it.

Sometimes you make some very good points and other times, like this, I have to shake my head. :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:

Take a break dude! Focus on what's important and what's not. :sure: How DTV structures the software version numbering for the R15 is NOT important.

And now did the version numbering for the R15 get into a thread discussing the infallibility of Tivos? Oh, I remember how. ;)
 
#45 ·
Earl Bonovich said:
The :D is because that memeber was such a "pleasure" to deal with on the forums here... most of the members that have been around for the last couple weeks know the person we are speaking of.
I think "to" would have worked as well as "of".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top