FP A Must Before Update?

[u2robert]

Today I have been messing around with the Update going from the Old software to the new 1.7.5 what I discovered is you should do a Factory Preset before the update and check to see if it did in fact Preset all the settings. The first time I updated today I did the FP and then updated after the update I took the detector to the test garden and it was running erratic VDI numbers jumping and not locking on targets. after close examination I seen the setting did not revert back to FP even after the update. So I started all over again and did a FP this time I made sure it Preset all settings before the update. After the update into the test garden I went again and to my amazement the detector ran smooth and locked on all targets. Did this have anything to do with the update? I think so.

 

[5900_XL-1]

I found the same thing back when I did my update. It took several attempts because I wasn't seeing the FP not resetting all the old settings.

Good find!

 

[BigTony]

Interesting for sure because others have said similar.

 

[5900_XL-1]

Actually, this might be telling us that verifying a factory preset was thorough, is a good procedure, even when doing a FP for any reason.

 

[sgoss66]

Factory preset?

I am not familiar with that; I did my update without a "preset" or "reset" or anything else, on both my Equinoxes, and had no issues. Can someone elaborate here, because I'm not sure what's being referred to?

Steve

 

[sniffitout]

No problem here. The update went smoooth the first try.
Matt

 

[UtahRich]

To Reset or Not to Reset ?

I've bounced back and forth between v1.5 and v1.75 a couple times without issue. No Factory Resets. No problems. I'm currently using v1.75 successfully and may leave it there.

Just my experience.

Rich (Utah)

 

[sgoss66]

Thanks, Rich.

I updated both of mine, from 1.5 to 1.75, with no apparent issues; I'm also using 1.75 successfully as well. So not sure about the reset/preset thing that everyone is describing.

Steve

 

[5900_XL-1]

The way I look at it, doing a FP to get to true factory settings, is harmless, so "Why not?" I personally experienced unacceptable performance in my coin garden, immediately after an update, and even a revert back on occasion. That's all it took for me to redo the FP and verify it was all totally reset, every user setting. I did have some good uploads and reverts back during testing. Might be that a single update without a FP is clean, and a glitch happens with 2nd and 3rd uploads.

I never had another unacceptable performance event one time after that procedure. If it can't hurt doing a FP...it can only help folks who "hit bumps" after firmware loads. Might save some grief and bandwidth to simply make a FP standard MOA. jm2c

 

[UtahRich]

The way I look at it, doing a FP to get to true factory settings, is harmless, so "Why not?" I personally experienced unacceptable performance in my coin garden, immediately after an update, and even a revert back on occasion. That's all it took for me to redo the FP and verify it was all totally reset, every user setting. I did have some good uploads and reverts back during testing. Might be that a single update without a FP is clean, and a glitch happens with 2nd and 3rd uploads.

I never had another unacceptable performance event one time after that procedure. If it can't hurt doing a FP...it can only help folks who "hit bumps" after firmware loads. Might save some grief and bandwidth to simply make a FP standard MOA. jm2c

Why Not? Good question. One answer would be, If I do a factory reset, than I have to go back in and re-program all of my settings on each of the Modes. Time consuming, but not a disaster if I've recorded my settings, both local and universal.

If there is unusual behavior after an update like mentioned above, by all means, then I would have cause to do some troubleshooting and perhaps do a factory reset as part of that. But if I don't have unusual behavior, why create extra work for myself ?


Rich (Utah)

 

[5900_XL-1]

The way I look at it, doing a FP to get to true factory settings, is harmless, so "Why not?" I personally experienced unacceptable performance in my coin garden, immediately after an update, and even a revert back on occasion. That's all it took for me to redo the FP and verify it was all totally reset, every user setting. I did have some good uploads and reverts back during testing. Might be that a single update without a FP is clean, and a glitch happens with 2nd and 3rd uploads.

I never had another unacceptable performance event one time after that procedure. If it can't hurt doing a FP...it can only help folks who "hit bumps" after firmware loads. Might save some grief and bandwidth to simply make a FP standard MOA. jm2c

Why Not? Good question. One answer would be, If I do a factory reset, than I have to go back in and re-program all of my settings on each of the Modes. Time consuming, but not a disaster if I've recorded my settings, both local and universal.

If there is unusual behavior after an update like mentioned above, by all means, then I would have cause to do some troubleshooting and perhaps do a factory reset as part of that. But if I don't have unusual behavior, why create extra work for myself ?


Rich (Utah)

Excellent reply, I agree. Thing is, I run a 600 and can reset my settings from memory in a minute, literally. Also, I'm the stubborn type by nature. I trust manufacturers to have ironed out simple details with things, so I would naturally try it first without any added step.

A full reset seems to be commonplace nowadays though. Take the Iphone. I've done a few, but avoid a full reset with a passion.

 

[Ted S]

I did the update yesterday. It seemed to install just fine and I did not do a reset. How many of you are going to keep 1.75 or go back to 1.5? It will be getting cold soon so I may not have much of a chance to test the new version.

 

[WaterWalker]

Can't really say why, but the update 1.75 is hitting on more silver rings in salt water then the 1.5 did.
The new version seems a bit more stable (Beach2) in salt water.
As I can not do a real time side by side comparison, this is just my gut feeling.
Or it may just be I am walking over more silver than in any block of the same time since the update and before the update.
For whatever reason, I am sticking with the 1.75 until something better comes along.
I have heard from some dirt-diggers that the silver count is also up. Again too many variables if you can not do a side by side comparison.

 

[Ted S]

Can't really say why, but the update 1.75 is hitting on more silver rings in salt water then the 1.5 did.
The new version seems a bit more stable (Beach2) in salt water.
As I can not do a real time side by side comparison, this is just my gut feeling.
Or it may just be I am walking over more silver than in any block of the same time since the update and before the update.
For whatever reason, I am sticking with the 1.75 until something better comes along.
I have heard from some dirt-diggers that the silver count is also up. Again too many variables if you can not do a side by side comparison.

Interesting! Can you provide more on this? I am not a water hunter. Thanks! Ted

 

[5900_XL-1]

I personally couldn't continue with 1.75 for the pinpoint being so far off most times. I was digging a second hole for the most part. Ver 1.5 had me way better off on my first digs. I can actually find my target in the plug. That was rare with 1.75. Then, there were the elevated VID numbers for conductive coins usually reading in the upper 20s. I did like the lock-on in VID though with 1.75.

The pinpoint will keep be using 1.5. Sure,,,it pinpoints to center on surface and really shallow coins. Four inches and deeper is rarely found in the core of the plug, mostly skewed outside of the circumference. jm2c

 

[BigTony]

I am finding many coins on the side of the hole or as you say in a second hole. But many of those were standing straight up. Even in the sand, same way, side of the hole and standing straight up.

Are you finding coins straight up when you were digging the second hole?

Tony

 

[5900_XL-1]

I am finding many coins on the side of the hole or as you say in a second hole. But many of those were standing straight up. Even in the sand, same way, side of the hole and standing straight up.

Are you finding coins straight up when you were digging the second hole?

Tony

Not sure, I use a Sampson shovel so actually seeing an edge coin is tough in real time. The second hole is needed so often, I somehow doubt that edge coins are what's happening. It could be, since I am working old worked out sites where finds have nearly disappeared.

Seems like version1.75 is much worse for needing bigger digs though.

 

[nam70]

Before the update I was getting erratic numbers.. Say ,29 on clad quarter or silver. After the update I'm getting 29-30-29 lock with clad quarter and 30-31-30 lock on silver. To me that's a much nicer spread. Also,remember,the vdi numbers vary with soil and depth. If I kick over dirt around target area, the numbers will change and be much more responsive on tone..Does this make sense,or am I imagining things?

 

[chuckciao]

Before the update I was getting erratic numbers.. Say ,29 on clad quarter or silver. After the update I'm getting 29-30-29 lock with clad quarter and 30-31-30 lock on silver. To me that's a much nicer spread. Also,remember,the vdi numbers vary with soil and depth. If I kick over dirt around target area, the numbers will change and be much more responsive on tone..Does this make sense,or am I imagining things?

Makes sense. I once read a post from a long time detectorist who would stomp on the target area with his boot if he couldn’t get a clear signal. He swore that this stomping resulted in a clearer signal every time!

 

[ohiochris]

I updated my 600 without the FP , everything went fine. I wonder if just occasionally the update install has a glitch that affects some people , not necessarily having to do with a FP.....but the second attempt happens to go glitch free and the success just gets attributed to the FP. A factory preset shouldn't have anything to do with replacing a few lines of code to the base software.