PDA

View Full Version : Firmware upgrade problems



puzzler
2008-03-03, 00:17
So all weekend, every time I try to play something on Pandora, it tells me I need to do a firmware upgrade. Then it works for a while. Then, I switch back to SlimServer, and again, it tells me I need a firmware upgrade. And so on...

Meanhile, I'm experiencing all sorts of problems. My Squeezebox can no longer play ogg files. My Squeezebox won't play long playlists.

The irony is that I just had a friend over today. I was telling him about how Squeezebox is one of the few devices I've ever been able to plug in and it "just works". Imagine his laughter as he watches me struggle with endless upgrades and buggy behavior all afternoon. Arggg!

y360
2008-03-03, 02:28
You need to upgrade to latest SC7 which is needed now otherwise you end up toggling firmwares when using SN and SlimServer 6.x.x

I guess we're going to see this issue popping up quite frequently in the forum. I've counted several bewildered users so far.

Andy, if you're reading this - perhaps the firmware downgrade error message on the SB should suggest installing SC7

To summarize (for SB users):

81 is the firmware that was in effect with SlimServer 6.5.4 and the old SN

86 is the firmware in latest SC 7.0 and the new SN

86 is required for Pandora & Rhapsody in the new SN

mark-e-mark
2008-03-03, 06:24
My confusion there is that Slim 7, aka SC, is listed as a beta while 6.5 is production. I prefer a GA version, so I haven't upgraded. Is there an eta on the GA release of Slim 7 so I can decide if want to keep upgrading my firmware or take the plunge?

MrJB
2008-03-03, 07:23
Similiar problem - Squeezebox automatically upgraded the firmware after prompting. Now Rhapsody does not work via Squeezenetwork.

Error messages read: Internal Rhapsody Error. org.xml.sax.parseexception...SAXParse.exception... character ref. invalid..invalid xml character.

When I connected to SqueezeCenter, was prompted again to do a firmware upgrade, which i did. Connected to SqueezeNetwork again, tried Rhapsody..message read "Software update required to access Rhapsody." Which I did, a firmware update appeared to occur again. Tried Rhapsody, same error message as above.

Houston I think we have a problem.... Can someone advise what is the best thread to follow for info on this item? Thank you.

Phil Leigh
2008-03-03, 10:27
My confusion there is that Slim 7, aka SC, is listed as a beta while 6.5 is production. I prefer a GA version, so I haven't upgraded. Is there an eta on the GA release of Slim 7 so I can decide if want to keep upgrading my firmware or take the plunge?

I understand in general terms why some people feel uncomfortable with non-GA software, but in this case you really need to make an exception. This code is rock solid... IMHO it has LESS bugs than the current GA code.

puzzler
2008-03-03, 10:54
If the new code is rock-solid, then take it out of beta!

msherman
2008-03-03, 11:32
Phil Leigh wrote:
>
> I understand in general terms why some people feel uncomfortable with
> non-GA software, but in this case you really need to make an exception.
> This code is rock solid... IMHO it has LESS bugs than the current GA
> code.

Sure, but one new bug that you don't know about yet is worse than a
bunch of non-critical bugs that you've been living with for a while. I'm
currently quite comfortable with the workarounds and "don't click
that!"s I know about in 6.5.5. I plan to wait until at least 7.0.1
before I upgrade, personally.

- Marc

Phil Leigh
2008-03-04, 15:03
Phil Leigh wrote:
>
> I understand in general terms why some people feel uncomfortable with
> non-GA software, but in this case you really need to make an exception.
> This code is rock solid... IMHO it has LESS bugs than the current GA
> code.

Sure, but one new bug that you don't know about yet is worse than a
bunch of non-critical bugs that you've been living with for a while. I'm
currently quite comfortable with the workarounds and "don't click
that!"s I know about in 6.5.5. I plan to wait until at least 7.0.1
before I upgrade, personally.

- Marc

Oh for goodness sake! - this is driving your sound system - it's not flying a 747!

Why exactly do you think that 7.0.1 will be more stable? ( Windows ME or 2000 anyone?).

I've been in the software biz for 30 years. I've worked on critical systems. Just install it and enjoy. It's so much better than 6.x.

snarlydwarf
2008-03-04, 15:05
Oh for goodness sake! - this is driving your sound system - it's not flying a 747!


But my sound system is in my 747!

Phil Leigh
2008-03-04, 15:07
But my sound system is in my 747!

Ah - good. Then you will enjoy my alpha plugin "Oceanic 8.1.5".

pfarrell
2008-03-04, 15:23
Phil Leigh wrote:
> Marc Sherman;274819 Wrote:
>> I plan to wait until at least 7.0.1 before I upgrade, personally.

> Oh for goodness sake! - this is driving your sound system - it's not
> flying a 747!

Actually, I think you meant Airbus 380. I think the old 747 still has
hydraulics.

But Phil's point is correct. This is a music system.


> Why exactly do you think that 7.0.1 will be more stable? ( Windows ME
> or 2000 anyone?).
> I've been in the software biz for 30 years. I've worked on critical
> systems. Just install it and enjoy. It's so much better than 6.x.

In general, a X.0.0 is likely to have more bugs than a X.0.1,
depending a lot on the vendor's reputation. Assuming the normal cycle of
beta tests, release, and a 0.1 as a bug patch.

But, I've been using SV7 for months and months. Its really very solid
and much more solid than any X.0.0 from a vendor such as Microsoft.
There are likely to be a bug or two in it, as in any and all software.
But there is no reason to wait if you want a feature that is in SC7.

Bill Gates famously said that no one ever buys new software for
bugfixes, they buy it for features.




--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/