Jump to content

Detector Manufacturers Making Updatable Detectors Should Imo Allow Their Detector Models To Accommodate Multiple Software Versions Or At Least Multiple Subsets Of Version Updates

Recommended Posts

Don’t know any other better subforum to place this.

When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used.  


Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation.   Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s).  Case in point.  Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option.  

So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user.

Xp should have done this too.  They should have designed Deus imo where at least  2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit.

Notice the later released Ace Apex.  Garrett should have allowed on it too.  

Don’t know what added production cost this would cause.  Hopefully not much.


  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Tnsharpshooter changed the title to Detector Manufacturers Making Updatable Detectors Should Imo Allow Their Detector Models To Accommodate Multiple Software Versions Or At Least Multiple Subsets Of Version Updates

Great point, OP and I agree.

I'm always skeptical of any software updates, whether it's for a computer, video game console or a metal detector. So I haven't even considered updating my Vanquish 540 due to the assumption that the update will make it worse. But if there was a way to undo it, or easily swap b/w the two software versions, I'd definitely be implementing the updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar thing has happened on computer motherboards for some time with a backup bios chip in case of failure during flashing or corruption.  You can normally hold down a set combination of keys upon power up to invoke the backup bios or the boot block senses corruption (CRC errors) and boots automatically from the second firmware.  The same sort of thing could be implemented in a detector, it would be best to have two eeproms for the firmware and a button combination to switch between them on power on, even if it is just holding the power button for longer to enable the second firmware version.  The flash tool would just need to have an option to pick which flash slot to put the firmware onto so you can have multiple versions.  With old Xbox's we used to put on a 2mb flash rom divided into four 512k memory banks to run four different firmware versions, and this was as a modification as some game backups worked better on some firmware versions.  

All this stuff is possible, the manufacturer just has to see some value or reason in doing it.  Sometimes it's for their own protection for example if a flash fails or is interrupted by the user or power failure the product itself can be rendered useless without a backup firmware option to recover from.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

With my experience from DOS on wards, Simon you are on the ball. Security mite be a problem, but flexibility is more important for the customer.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By Tnsharpshooter
      See NASA-Tom’s comments
    • By Northeast
      This was mentioned by geof_junk in another thread and had a little Google.  
      Found this  https://www.phys.k-state.edu/reu2011/nnorvell/Metal_Detector_Research.html
      I don’t really understand the technical side of metal detectors.  Does this have any application to current day detectors?  Will it help cancel out ground noise more?  Will the current crossing/not crossing the ‘bridge’ tell you something about what is under one of the receive coils.  
      Although I don’t understand it, I am amazed and a little in awe of those that do  👍
    • By GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By AUgetter
      If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
  • Create New...