Version 1.8 System Software Update for Receptor 1 users ?

[Throbert]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=

[SurfacePatterns]

We worked very hard to find an acceptable solution for our Rev C customers and it wasn't until recently that we came to the conclusion that there was no way to do a field installation of OS 1.8 on Rev C hardware. There are number of reasons for this some under our control and some not.

This is technically incorrect, and you know it. I'll elaborate when I get to your explanation.

1. We will do the software upgrade for you at the factory.
The Receptor will need to be sent to us. Upon return of the Receptor you will need to reinstall and reauthorize any software that did not come standard on the Receptor. The pricing for the drive upgrades, including installation of NI Komplete 5 software if you purchased it through us, is as follows:
160Gb drive: $199
500GB drive: $399
1TB drive: $499

Pricing is for materials and labor only. Shipping is not included. Limit one per customer.

This is completely unacceptable. This is *your* screw-up. Customers are not responsible for *your* mistakes. Any cost involved should be *your* responsibility.

This is our way of rewarding our customers who adopted Receptor early.

Does anyone else find this statement to be insulting?

Why did this happen?
The first issue was beyond our control. In 2008 MSI, our motherboard supplier discovered a problem with their SATA hard drive support that required an update to the BIOS for the drives to work correctly. The BIOS is the low level instruction set used by the motherboard to control the most basic functionality of the board, it is essentially the motherboard's built-in "smarts")

We had worked with MSI to develop a Receptor-specific version of their BIOS that enhances Receptor's reliability. Updating the BIOS to the current version that supports the SATA drives properly would 'erase' those enhancements, potentially reducing some of the advantages of Receptor over a standard computer, and we are very reluctant to do this for obvious reasons.

As I've stated several times, there is absolutely no reason why a Rev. C Receptor user should have to upgrade his/her hard drive to a SATA hard drive. The version of Fedora Linux that your new operating system is based on can easily be installed on a standard IDE drive. This is not even a talking point unless you're doing something really obscure and stupid in your OS development process.

In regards to the BIOS, what stops you from creating a new BIOS that contains the MSI updates AND your optimizations?

The second factor has to do with the process of upgrading the system software. We made a change from our previous Linux build in order to take advantage of 6 years of improvements, which meant that loads and loads of system components had to be replaced, to the point of where the whole OS had to be reinstalled. Delivering such a massive update could not be done without replacing the disk drive.

I've already mentioned why replacing the disk drive isn't necessary.

I've run various versions of Linux since the late 90s. Strangely enough, each version I've run has been installable via an ISO image. I've even run the version of Fedora Linux that serves as the backend for your new operating system, which was installed via a DVD created using ... you guessed it ... an ISO image.

The technical Receptor users that post to this forum have been proposing that you use ISO images for updates for a long time now.

You're out of excuses.

Finally it is important to note that the plug-in community has not remained still.

This is true, but it's not a valid reason to not release the new OS for Rev. C Receptor users.

Why can't I do this myself?
Receptor was intended for musicians not computer technicians. The process of upgrading the software is both time-consuming and risky if you are not highly proficient in working with computer components.

Oh, please. You sound like a tech support geek that's trying to justify his job to an efficiency expert.

In this particular case the system can't be patched with a simple download like people have come to expect.

Refer to my (above) point about ISO images.

Once again I apologize for the length of time it took to make this information available. We tried everything we could think of before we came to this conclusion and decided on the options to offer our customers.

Clearly, you didn't try everything users have posted in this forum. There are a lot of good ideas people have posted.

[richwhite9]

It's good to see this issue is resolved.

choices choices:

Do I want to spend $599 to play Ivory Uprights or $1299 to play Ivory Uprights?

$399 to upgrade a Pro Junior 1.7 OS to 1.8 and get another 100 GB on the HD and the ability to play Ivory uprights

$100 to have the EW Composer Collection on Kontakt (Gold, RA, Bosendorpher and Choirs), Spectrasonics( Trilogy, Stylus RMX, Atmosphere) and Synthogy (Ivory and IG) pre-installed on a Komplete 5 drive. Probably worth the $100 to save the time.

Another $100 for slow boat shipping and packaging.

or the $1099 upgrade to Receptor 2 Pro Plus $100 software Install plus $100 slowboat shipping option.

[Balda]

Maybe we can try ask MSI for new BIOS and if someone with OS 1.8 is able to share image of his disk via rapidshare or torrent we can try do it

[looneytunes]

Hi Chris, Bryan,

3. You can upgrade your Rev C Receptor at a special low price
Receptor 2 - $799
Receptor 2 Pro - $1,099
Receptor 2 Pro Max - $1,399

Hmm - either you didn't update this, or you aren't considering us Receptor 1 Pro (750) owners.

According to your upgrade configurator, it costs $1599.00 for us with a Pro 750 to upgrade to a 2 Pro Max. That's $200.00 more than a Rev a/b/c owner. Even if the upgrade were the same price for all Rev owners, that would still be unfair to those of us who have regularly invested in platform/OS upgrades over the years.

Will you scale these upgrade discounts according to Rev type appropriately?

Thanks, Regards,
Kevin L

Chris/Bryan,

Can you please comment. Is this an oversite? Will there be equity or discount for Receptor 1 Pro (750) owners?

I don't think any of us wish to be penalized with a higher upgrade cost!

Thanks, Regards,
Kevin L

[Kermit Jagger]

The real shame is that you have not enabled any of the European resellers or agents like Grizzly Media, Rod's Garage, Computer Warehouse, etc... to handle upgrades like it was possible for the Rev. A to Rev. C upgrade.

[c3boy]

Ah well, Im not prepared to throw any more money at my Rev C. It ends with 1.7 for me. There are a lot more options now than when I first purchased back in 2006, options I will explore. I'm with you guys though on the bad karma. A lot of you know what your talking about, and offered help with the non techie like myself. I hope you get a satisfactory outcome.

[SurfacePatterns]

This is technically incorrect, and you know it. I'll elaborate when I get to your explanation.

I'm getting really tired of Muse Research ignoring posts from technical users.

[UltraJv]

This is technically incorrect, and you know it. I'll elaborate when I get to your explanation.

I'm getting really tired of Muse Research ignoring posts from technical users.

This kind of interrogation will get you no where. Muse have made thier decision. Why not look into providing an un official solution if youre sure it can be done?

[SurfacePatterns]

This kind of interrogation will get you no where. Muse have made thier decision. Why not look into providing an un official solution if youre sure it can be done?

There are several barriers to creating my own solution:

1.) Muse Research, in violation of one or more open source licenses (GPL, possibly others), hasn't released the source code for the packages that make up their operating system.
2.) Muse Research's VST host is not open source. If I had access to the VST host so that I could package it, then there may still be installation scripts and what not. I would need access to these components.
3.) It's possible that there are other components that Muse Research provides with their operating system that are not open source.
4.) My time is limited; of course, given the proper tools, I could probably make time, and I'm pretty sure that there are several technical people in this forum that would be happy to assist, so this isn't as much of a barrier.
5.) I don't know whether or not Muse Research would be willing to provide all of the necessary components.

[UltraJv]

This kind of interrogation will get you no where. Muse have made thier decision. Why not look into providing an un official solution if youre sure it can be done?

There are several barriers to creating my own solution:

1.) Muse Research, in violation of one or more open source licenses (GPL, possibly others), hasn't released the source code for the packages that make up their operating system.
2.) Muse Research's VST host is not open source. If I had access to the VST host so that I could package it, then there may still be installation scripts and what not. I would need access to these components.
3.) It's possible that there are other components that Muse Research provides with their operating system that are not open source.
4.) My time is limited; of course, given the proper tools, I could probably make time, and I'm pretty sure that there are several technical people in this forum that would be happy to assist, so this isn't as much of a barrier.
5.) I don't know whether or not Muse Research would be willing to provide all of the necessary components.

Lots of equipment has been "hacked" to work in ways it wasnt supposed to. No inside information was needed for that. As you said, there are plenty of Linux/tech heads on KVR...

[johnrule]

Why not look into providing an un official solution if youre sure it can be done?

I believe this thread, and several others, are full of "un official solutions". That is part of the frustration...how many suggestions did the community make to appease both sides, and the "official" solution that Muse came up with was to upgrade. It was a bit of a slap-in-the-face, and things like that provide 'fodder for forums' ( sounds like a charitable organization in a way ).

The reason I keep posting is that I am still a customer, and I deserve answers to my inquiries. I also have some modicum of hope. I am hoping that they will soften a bit and provide a more palatable solution so that I don't have to go mucking around in Linux providing my own solutions to keep my Receptor current. If they don't, it's easy enough to take my money and technical contributions elsewhere, and Muse will have exactly what they wished for...a customer base of (what was it?) "Musicians that are not computer technicians".

JR

[UltraJv]

I think the problem is that Receptor is seen to be a PC. It isnt. Once you get over that, it all makes sense. There was one post on here where someone had borrowed a Receptor from a shop and upgraded the OS. It went badly wrong and he bricked it. Thats the point. Muse has done a damage limitation excercise to protect itself and customers from breaking stuff. No one went to Apple and asked if they could help port OSX to the PC, ditto for iphone jailbreaks and every other firmware/hardware/software tweak. If you tweak stuff, it often breaks and no one wants to be responsible. If enough people want to tweak the Receptor, Im sure it will happen but of course without any liability/responsibilty from Muse.

[chalaby]

Hello,

I buy Receptor1 because I expected that will be available update to newer version of OS. So where is option to update BIOS by my self and buy only new HDD from MUSE??? Sending Receptor over the ocean to US and then back only for "update BIOS and install new HDD" for $499 + shipping is funny!! I'm disappointed with your policy...

Hi Balda,

We will have a process for our international customers soon. Please stay tuned.

Thanks for just a little more patience.
Chris

[SurfacePatterns]

I think the problem is that Receptor is seen to be a PC. It isnt. Once you get over that, it all makes sense.

This explanation is totally inane. You try to make it sound like it means something, but it doesn't. There is no enlightenment to be gained from attempting to see the Receptor as a device that isn't a PC.

There was one post on here where someone had borrowed a Receptor from a shop and upgraded the OS. It went badly wrong and he bricked it. Thats the point. Muse has done a damage limitation excercise to protect itself and customers from breaking stuff.

You don't get it. The problem is not some objective idea that can't be overcome; the problem is Muse Research's flawed models for releasing and developing their operating system. Perhaps you're not a developer and can't understand the solutions that have been proposed by the technical users in this forum.

No one went to Apple and asked if they could help port OSX to the PC, ditto for iphone jailbreaks and every other firmware/hardware/software tweak. If you tweak stuff, it often breaks and no one wants to be responsible.

There are two problems with this statement:

1.) There are no *real* barriers to getting the new operating system to run on Rev. C hardware, only imagined barriers created in the heads of the people at Muse Research. Each time someone at Muse Research has proposed that there is a barrier, one or more of the technical users on this forum have proposed one or more solutions for overcoming the barrier, and Muse Research has ignored the technical users in question *every* time.

2.) You're projecting. I tweak stuff all the time. I write code for a living, and I help maintain several open source projects. When I mess something up while coding, I definitely want to take responsibility, and I solve the problem by patching the code that I messed up. So, don't assume that "no one wants to be responsible".