MVP-8400 will not callibrate
Garyr
Posts: 5
in AMX Hardware
Hi,
We have a MVP-8400 that will not accept any touch comands except in a 2 inch area at the centre-bottom of the screen. This is also the case in the callibration page making impossible to callibrate. The customer says that after a firmware update the unit intermittently lost callibration and had to be reset but now it does not want to play ball. I'm inclined to disregard the firmware issue as the fault was intermittent or maybe a different but similar symptoms.
Any ideas?
Regards Gary
We have a MVP-8400 that will not accept any touch comands except in a 2 inch area at the centre-bottom of the screen. This is also the case in the callibration page making impossible to callibrate. The customer says that after a firmware update the unit intermittently lost callibration and had to be reset but now it does not want to play ball. I'm inclined to disregard the firmware issue as the fault was intermittent or maybe a different but similar symptoms.
Any ideas?
Regards Gary
0
Comments
Regards, Gary
Unfortunatly I don't have a spare 8400 to compair it with. Although I believe the overlay is of a resistive type and from mesurments I have made on the four terminal ribbon cable that comes from it, it seems OK. If the customer is correct in what they say I am curious as to why it was intermittent after a firmware update. I notice there is new firmware out as of yesterday for this model so I might try installing that, what do you think?
Regards, Gary
I must be blind!!!
Just found the firmware archive. The version on the TP has a note by it saying (NOTE: Prior to upgrading to this release from any versions prior to v2.55.43 please contact AMX Technical Support) although I don't know what the original firmware was, I wonder if this may be the problem.
Make real good and sure you emphasize to the customer that this is why they shouldn't try firmware updates themselves. I have a strong suspicion they upgraded past that intermediate firmware that you need to load on older panels before the most recent will work.
--John
I quite agree with you, the customer should leave things alone!!. But with websites like this one (url removed) that anyone can access what hope have we got?
Regards, Gary
--John
As clients are getting more and more tech-savy, this is eventually going to keep happening unless something is done. This is one of those things that is utterly unacceptable, and it's obviously being done under AMX's nose.
I know that if this happened to us, we'd be on the phone with every AMX person we know screaming & kicking, and would probably wind up calling over to Europe to give them an earful, since it's their fault. Who told them they could publicly show off the files?
Also, Gary, could you please remove the link to their website, this forum contains end users, so now even more AMX-wanna-be's have access to all sorts of stuff. I can just see the, "Hi. I just bought some AMX stuff from eBay and downloaded the software to control it, what do I do next?" questions being posted here and going over to tech support.
Ugh . . .
At our company, we provide source for all of our projects. They're buying programming time and the product from us, not paying to be locked in. Our work speaks for itself and they'll call us for any future changes or upgrades. If a customer works with a project, and it is determined this is the case, then the warranty for programming is void - it's in the contract they sign when we sell the job. We haven't had any residential customers since I started working with this company do this as far as I know, but if I was going to spend the kind of money it takes for this gear, I would want to know that I or anyone else could modify what was running.
Should we restrict shade tree mechanics from working on these new drive-by-wire vehicles? As they become more tech-savvy, do we need to put protections in place to restrict them? What about their own computers - should the ability be locked up, unless they call a specialist to fix it, because they're becoming more competent and / or interested?
If they break the gear and need to call you to fix it, charge. They broke it, not you or poor workmanship.
If a client is paying for a customised system and is contractually paying for a programmer's time - then in my view they should be owning a licence for the source.
If a client is paying for an "off the shelf" control system with a boiler plate gui and standard code, then no they are not paying for the source only a licence to use the compiled code.
A mechanic with a few spanners isn't going to stand a chance on a modern say BMW, you wouldn't even get the engine cover off. BMW dealer mechanics have to undergo regular training and assessment to be able to work on BMW vehicles and to access the tools / facilities they need.
I have no issue with client's having a copy of the source if that is the contract, but the only people who should have access to the tools to use that code should be dealers / programmers.
For an example of the importance of contractually getting this right (or wrong) have a look at
www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708512.pdf
and search for source code! As a british taxpayer I don't find it amusing - yet I can fully understand Boeing's stance...
So you provide them code, and you've made allusions to that they can modify it if they wish. Modifying it is absolutely fine, but they can't load it since they don't have NS2, unless of course you give them that as well, which you'll obviously be in violation of your dealer contract, and it should be revoked.
I understand your points, but let's look at these as well.
1) You represent AMX. We do not sell AMX because it is our right, in fact it's quite the opposite: it's a privilege.
2) When dealers do bad things (such as allowing end users to have tools to modify running code), it makes AMX looks bad. AMX has every right to yank dealers / programmers representing their product in a less-than-ideal way.
3) You have every right in the world to use a different product if you do not like a company's policy of their product (i.e. software, etc.) usage. No one twisted any of our arms to be an AMX dealers.
It amazes me people think they have a "right" to everything, especially when they buy a product. You do not have a right to do anything you want (how a product / software such as NS2, IREdit, etc works) because it doesn't do what you want it to. Use something else. Don't like the IRIS? Use that other thing out there that captures IR.
No one forces you to use Windows, you have options to use a Mac or load up your PC with Linux (which I guess you do because it's "open source & free.") No one forces you to eat at a smokey bar, you can go do a different one. No one forces you to drive a gasoline powered automobile, you can drive an electric car or ride your bike. No one forces you to use AMX and agree to their EULAs and other agreements, you can go sell Cre$stron, Control 4, Savant, Vantage, CQC or any other of the many control systems.
It's the rogue companies / dealers / programmers with their I'll-do-what-I-want agenda that give other companies / dealers and AMX a bad name because they went and screwed something up because they don't like or care for a company's EULA that they were not forced to sign to begin with.
Let's all read aloud together this excerpt:
When I say that, however, I distinguish between the main code and device modules. I feel as though I own my modules, and though I will happily share a compiled version, I'm not going to be handing out the source to the customer. What I said applies to the custom code running their particular setup, not device modules.
I agree with everything you said. I wouldn't mind giving them the code. But I'm certainly not going to give them the tools to upload the code to the processor as 1) that'd be REALLY stupid and 2) it's in violation of our dealer contracts.
Of course, they'll need to obtain NS2 by their own means. However, they can have any dealer program for them, or, if necessary, they can later learn / pay to be able to do it themselves. You bring up an important point that giving them this software is potentially a violation of the dealer contract. I never stated doing this. However, this is the point I wanted to make and exactly why I do not support our company dealing with vendors who impose such limitations. Personally, I wouldn't want to be sold programmable gear that for no technical reason, some "touched" individual or company can modify, but I cannot. Such is the market that we can't avoid this now, but hopefully things will change (this is something I am actively working toward pursuing on my own time).
The end user owns the gear; as such, they are free to do whatever they wish with the gear so long as it falls within applicable laws. While it may be a "privilege" to be licensed the software to make the machine work, they're free, within legal means, to run whatever code they wish on the hardware.
Perhaps with salesmen. I've had many customers complain that they weren't provided and couldn't get source code to systems they have due to the company who programmed it denying them this code. This has nothing to do with NS2 licensing, but is a dealer issue. This gives dealers, programmers, and potentially the product manufacturer a far worse name than someone who can actually use the product.
I try to do what the customer wants, within my ability and authority. That's what I am paid to do.
I disagree, and offer all code I write or reuse as that is what the customer pays for. But this is a matter of opinion on copyright rather than on some false notion of IP, EULA or a technical reason.
This is getting a bit OT... thread split?
If you spend 150 hours writing a module and creating a matching GUI are you going to charge them $18,750.00 for use of the code and access to the source, of course not. Even if you can sell this module 100 times at a lesser rate before it's obsolete do you want anyone the customer may bring in later to have access to your code specific to a particular device? If I contacted your employer and told him I already have a system (ebay) that contained the same devices that you guys have written major modules for you would sell them do me for say $400 each with the source code so I can if effect spin off a company based on your hard work. If so what's the companies name cuz I need some modules.
true wrote: That's a common misconception, you don't work for the customer, you work for your employer and your employer contracts with the customer to perform certain services for certain wages. You then give the customer what they are paying for and hopefully nothing less. If your employer wants to give more that's perfectly fine but not required. So you are actually paid to do what your employer wants not the customer.
These software packages were written with probably the same coding environment (Csharp or C++, Java, etc...)
Does Microsoft allow you to jack with the code in Word?
The whole argument falls apart to me. The client does not get my source code.
I have a few cleints who know how to get into the MVP-8400s and jack with the settings. It's no end of trouble.
I think this shows what kind of clients we have. I can guarantee none of our current clients want the source code. None of them would even care; they want it to work. We were hired for a reason: to make it work. I'm not sure what we would do if a client asked for code, but the millionaires / billionaires who own the worlds' largest companies could care less for the code.
To each their own, but my beef is with the companies / people out there give out the compilers, transfer programs, anything that's meant for a dealer.
I'm a big believer that stupidity should hurt, so if a client messes up code or a firmware transfer . . . he'd be charged triple (if I were in charge.) Haha!
I, and thankfully the company I work for, disagree. Our contracts state that this is exactly what they pay for, and what they will receive.
Exactly.
We sell complete solutions, not modules.
Look at AMX's biggest competition... open modules and macros are rampant. You don't see this issue over there. (Rather, you see even more stringent licensing requirements for SW and associated software, and even more vendor lock-in... sigh, at least S+ is based off of a GPL compiler.)
I am paid by my employer to do what the customer has requested and is in the contract - ultimately, I am being paid to do what the customer wants, and the customer is paying my employer. My employer is paying me. Just arguing semantics.
No, and therefore, I don't trust or use Microsoft software, except as required in my work environment. I trust code many neutral and critical eyes have looked at, not that of a vendor trying to sell me something.
It's no end of customer-paid service calls, in my opinion.
Most of ours don't care, until they go to have work performed by a previous company who didn't provide the source and the source isn't available on the unit, and they want changes or additions that will now require a complete rewrite. We've had this happen with a number of companies that we have had to rewrite systems for. This hasn't just happened once, and is really the major crux of my argument behind source code availability, even more so than the fact that I want the code that is running on my devices.
I was going to try and make an intelligent statement to support what Eric and others have been saying, but after reading that statement I completely understand where you're coming from and I realize that an intelligent agrument would be completely lost on you.
I hear that Robinson Crusoe is looking for a roommate - then you don't have to trust those vendors that try to sell you cars, or the supermarkets that try to sell you groceries off the shelf instead of letting you grow everything yourself, those electric companies that try to sell you electricity, or the cities that actually make you pay for using water that should be free because it is so readily available on the earth. Good luck.