"Conflicting" capacity reports since 9.1 updates

Discussion in 'TiVo Upgrade Center' started by dwit, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. dwit

    dwit Active Member

    1,660
    0
    May 4, 2004
    Atlanta, GA
    I put "conflicting" in quotes because it may not be the correct word to use, but this is the story:

    I have a Tivo 540040, which about 8 months ago, I upgraded to 2 x 300gb drives.
    One drive was a WD and the other a Seagate. Both were brand new retail but both had been sitting on my shelf for around a year before using.

    Since using Instant Cake to upgrade the unit with the drives, the maximum capacity report in "Settings" and "System inf." had always shown as 755 hours.
    I never really gave it much thought but according to DvrUpgrade, that is the capacity for two 320gb drives. I know, for a time and maybe still now, that 320gb were being sold as a sort of bonus in 300gb drives. I had kind of figured, well maybe that's what's happening.

    After receiving the 9.1 upgrade on about 10/3, the reports began showing the the max recording time of 697 hours(or maybe it was 687). I figured, well maybe a bug in recognizing drives had been fixed so then everything's right again. I would check these reports almost daily and got these readings.

    I might add that, after the 9.1 update, the unit "crashed"(wouldn't get past the "service update, please wait" screen). I then used utilities to check the drives and they both checked out as good. I re-imaged with instant cake, reinstalled, re-updated, and all was as described above.

    Now today when I checked capacity, it's back to reporting 755 max capacity?

    I will add that I also have an S2 Toshiba sdh400, upgraded to a single 400gb seagate that has successsfully received all updates and has shown the correct max 497 hrs without any of the above variations.

    I read there has already been a new 9.2 update.

    The 540040 software version is showing as 9.1-01-2. It was last updated yesterday around 1pm. I don't know if this is the same first 9.1 update, or maybe this is the new "9.2" version? Or maybe it's just a bug in the 9.1 update that corrected. I'm asking?
     
  2. mick66

    mick66 Dirty Burger

    4,869
    0
    Oct 15, 2004
    The 'verse
    why would or how could your version 9.1 as you state be 9.2? If you had 9.2 it would say 9.2 not 9.1
     

Share This Page