Wrong way to install firmware?

[sss]

Is there a right or wrong way to install the firmware?

I've been moving my old .rockbox directories and extracting compiled versions from zip archives right to the player.  Is that the right way to do it?  Normally firmware installation is a little more tedious.  I'm asking because current build are acting funny on my 1st gen nano but no one else is reporting any issues.  Are there any other important steps or checks to make?

[karashata]

Removing the old .rockbox folder isn't exactly necessary, and if you want to keep your settings it's easier to just extract the new .zip over the old folder (or copy it in if you can't directly unzip over it).

That said, I'm not sure why the current builds would be acting funny...

[[Saint]]

sss,

Perhaps a further definition of "acting funny" could help one of us to come to a conclusion.
It is always useful for you to provide as much detail as you can regarding the issues you're experiencing.
I myself have a Nano 1st gen (well, I have several actually) which runs absolute bleeding edge SVN which I find to be very stable. And I also just use the "Right Click, Extract To "Destination" " method to install an updated version of Rockbox on my DAPs.
This is the preferred method of installation.
It is usually not necessary to delete/remove the previous Rockbox installation prior to updating unless you have been advised to do so (though, apart from losing the settings in your config file, it won't do any harm either).

Please post back with:

-Your version number (you can find that in "System/Rockbox Info/Version")
-The problem(s) you are experiencing
-A version number *before* the problem started happening can be useful if you know one
-Basically, any and all information you can provide can potentially be useful.

Thanks,
[St.]

[AlexP]

This is the preferred method of installation.

The "preferred" method of installation is Rockbox Utility, but if you wish to update manually then just unzip the new build over the existing one on the device in whatever way you prefer.

[sss]

It might be best if I just post photos of what the thing is doing.  I'll use the latest current build directly from the site; that's r25959.  I can't understand why an older version would work better on a certain player than a newer version while other players remain unaffected.

___

Okay, now I've loaded the latest version it is is working fine!     Weird.  I'm going to update my source code and see if that will work, maybe I'll post a build with the problem just so you guys know I'm not going crazy (anyone with a 1g nano who'd like to try it?).

One problem I did notice however was very long delays (sometimes more than ten seconds) when seeking in musepack in later versions.  When I copied code from the new musepack into 3.5.1 to see if I could play the sv8 musepack files, I also noticed the delays and thought I did something wrong.  The old musepack code in 3.5.1 does not delay at all, seeking is immediate.  The delay was noticed on a older musepack file that works in both versions so I can definitely see the difference.

___

Now I have figured out how I got the letter glitch before.  All I had to do was get rockdoom to crash between levels with a data abort and on the next boot the characters would either be screwed up or some words would use the wrong letters (one letter up).  This happened with r25647, I don't know why everything is so inconsistent but one thing is certain: it makes testing very difficult.