Loading Database

[WX9SPT]

In a nutshell, the following seems unnecessary. Most likely operator error on my end, but..... Why does this scanner have to load the full database every time it starts up? Maybe I'm impatient, but I'd prefer to turn on the scanner and have it scan immediately rather than needing to reload every time. Work around? Thank you.

 

[Saint]

PRESS Fun button, go to set scan selection, press the e key, on scan selection, select lists to monitor and shut off full data base.
Steve

 

[jonwienke]

It's not actually loading the entire database. It's only loading stuff in your area, based on your location and Range settings. You'll notice the load screen isn't referencing every state and province in the USA and Canada, only stuff near you.

The scanner has to load your favorite lists or nearby database items before it can scan them. So scanning is never going to be instant-on unless you only scan one very small favorite list, like just the CB channels or something.

 

[WX9SPT]

Thanks guys. In computer lingo, things are cached in memory for quicker access. I just thought maybe the scanner was capable of something like that. Not that big a deal. I guess I was used to my old conventional analog trunked scanner which was instantaneous. Thanks again.

 

[eaf1956]

Think of it like Windows...Your computer has to load Windows from the hard drive every time you turn the computer on. The scanner has to load the scan data every time from the SD card. Wouldn't it be great to have windows load instantly? LOL Yeah I know there are computers that have the OS on ROM, such as the ill fated Atari ST series.

 

[trido]

Or not use SD cards at all locally here had several peoples fail in just a few months.

Think of it like Windows...Your computer has to load Windows from the hard drive every time you turn the computer on. The scanner has to load the scan data every time from the SD card. Wouldn't it be great to have windows load instantly? LOL Yeah I know there are computers that have the OS on ROM, such as the ill fated Atari ST series.

 

[u2brent]

Or not use SD cards at all locally here had several peoples fail in just a few months.

At least with the current method used.. You can actually remove that memory and replace, The alternatives are not as pretty..

 

[jonwienke]

Since flash memory has a limited number of writes before failure, I'd rather have it on an easily replaceable card rather than soldered in place internally.

 

[trunker]

Or not use SD cards at all locally here had several peoples fail in just a few months.

I'll have to agree with that. I thought memory was cheap. I've had older scanners for for 20 years without a problem keeping data, batteries or no batteries. Haven't been able to keep an SD card scanner a year without something going wrong.
And just how easy has it been for people to figure out their card is the problem, especially newbies?

Sorry, just my 2 cents after a few beers.

 

[jonwienke]

Cost isn't the issue, lifespan is. Replay and recording put a lot more wear on the flash memory--writes happen every transmission, rather than just when updating programming. So you're going to wear out the flash a lot faster, and therefore you want it in an easily replaceable card. Better to change a $10 card than have to send a $700 scanner in for repair.

 

[captainmax1]

I don't use replay and recording and I've had the same memory card in my 436 and 536 for 5 years. The only time I record on the memory card is when I run a discovery or search and the weekly updates. I do keep a couple backup cards just in case.

 

[buddrousa]

I am still running the factory SD cards in my SDS100 and SDS200 both were bought the day they were released.

 

[trunker]

Cost isn't the issue, lifespan is. Replay and recording put a lot more wear on the flash memory--writes happen every transmission, rather than just when updating programming. So you're going to wear out the flash a lot faster, and therefore you want it in an easily replaceable card. Better to change a $10 card than have to send a $700 scanner in for repair.

Ok then why not use the cards just for recording and replay (or any other volatile issue)? I know, probably another practical issue like 'why not if we can save some money'.
Just bothers me that everytime there is a major revolution in scanners there's also a compromise that goes with it. Sure, it's not a real big deal to have to wait 10 seconds for your scanner to work when you turn it on, but the worst part is people have to accept the fact because they have no choice. (See what I mean?).

Is it too much to expect to maintain the quality of legacy features that people are used to and depend on before we get something new?

 

[u2brent]

Yeah an internal 1 TB flash drive should future proof efficiently..

 

[RF23]

Something that may help; you might consider turning OFF the “REPLAY” function, unless you need it and use High Endurance SD cards.

 

[jonwienke]

Ok then why not use the cards just for recording and replay (or any other volatile issue)? I know, probably another practical issue like 'why not if we can save some money'.

Because having a nationwide database means that you're going to be uptating it more often than you updated the programming in older model scanners. Or you render the database kind of useless. So the same issue applies--relying on soldered-in flash memory would cause more problems than it would solve.

Just bothers me that everytime there is a major revolution in scanners there's also a compromise that goes with it. Sure, it's not a real big deal to have to wait 10 seconds for your scanner to work when you turn it on, but the worst part is people have to accept the fact because they have no choice. (See what I mean?).

Is it too much to expect to maintain the quality of legacy features that people are used to and depend on before we get something new?

Actually, yes. The amount of data in the newer favorite lists and the nationwide database is way larger than what you need to program 500 analog channels. And the scanner needs to periodically look through that data to sort out what part of it should be scanned--something older scanners didn't have to bother with.