1640P Firmware madness

Hi folks,

I’m seriously confused about my Philips 1640P bulk version.
The drive got delivered with firmware B2.2, and I did some testing with other firmware. Here are my results:

  1. Firmware B2.2
    Drive identified as Philips PBDV1640P VB2.2, Explorer says DVD-RW-Drive
    Reading of CDs (different brands) burned 40x with a CD-Writer works fine.
    Reading of DVDs (different brands) works fine.
    Writing of DVDs works fine.
    Writing of CDs works fine at 40x.

  2. Firmware B2.5 (A big thanks to Brother Vlad from the DangerousBrothers!!)
    Drive identified as Philips PBDV1640P VB2.5, Explorer says DVD-RW-Drive
    Reading of CDs (different brands) burned 40x with a CD-Writer does not works properly, esp. after a CD change.
    Reading of DVDs (different brands) works fine.
    Writing of DVDs works fine.
    Writing of CDs works fine at 20x.

Firmware P2.2 behaves as B2.2, P2.5 doesn’t work at all properly (up to system hangs with self-burned CDs).

My questions are:
Is it normal and to be expected that CD-R read capability drops with firmware upgrades?
Should the P-series firmware work exactly the same way as the P-series, and would someone advice against the firmware fiddling?

I can return the drive next monday if I wish to do so and get a 1640 retail, but it’ll be more expensive. Right now I have the gut feeling that I should do so.
Your opinions are highly valued!

Burn a few cd-r more, it could be a bad one.

Same firmware number should have equal burn abilities.

I know Kenshin have fiddled with firmware on his Benq/Phillips drive, whitout any troubles.

Now you started fiddling with your drive, and have lost your warranty, try converting it to a Benq 1620.

Warranty not lost if compatible firmware is re-flashed on the drive before exchange/service.

Good suggestion to try BenQ firmware, because you can always flash it back to Philips. Try the P9 firmware which has no problems with chipset compatibility. So, that’s a good place to start.

It sounds as if the drive may be out-of-focus from rough shipping. If quirkyness persists, I would exchange the drive for another. Retail or Generic shouldn’t matter, but retail drives always get smoother shipping due to the expensive box (so slightly better odds). :wink:

The moment you flash the drive with a firmware ment for another type of the drive you have lost your warranty.

Especially according to this post from joergos. http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=121574

If you screw up your drive, because you “fiddle” with your drive, it’s not fair to the manufacturer, to RMA the drive. The end result will be more expensive drives for end user, because of the rising RMA cost.

I burned several cd-r and dvd+/- r with my NU DDW 163, to ensure the drive worked, before converting it to a Benq 1620. I only purchased the NU DDW 163, because it was a Benq OEM.

Hi jbv,

in principle I’d agree, but this case seems different:
Everyone I’ve been talking to says that it doesn’t matter what firmware version I run on my drive (P2.2,P2.4,P2.5, B2.2,B2.5): The read-capabilities for CD-R should never decrease, and stay the same. Therefore I think that danielwritesback is correct and the drive itself seems to be one way or other messed up. As the drive works fine with the original firmware (which is installed now) I’ll return it. Returning it is even more fair in this case: I explicitly asked wether the drive they sell as the bulk version is identical to the retail, just without software. If I’d have been told there will be firmware issues I would not have bought it.
Long story short: Thanks everyone for their support and help on this. I’ll get the retail version and think all will be well.
I don’t quite get why the BenQ firmware is superior to the Philips one, but that’s a completely different story. Thanks again :wink:

I hope you will be satisfied with the retail version.

We and you have all learn from a drive acting odd like yours.

Hi jbv,

I think I’ll be, I bought the drive based on the good reviews I read plus a friend of mine owns it and is very satisfied with it.
From your reply I read that something like I encountered has not been reported before, is that correct? Because then I just seemed to have had bad luck again :wink: