Pro 96 V 1.4 and 1.5 CPU upgrades

[Skud]

I know the v1.5 was closed. I will post this for information only as v1.4 was not mention.

Date: Friday, February 9, 2007 1:16 PM
From: RS Store POS Mail user <support@radioshack.com>
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Pro-96-cc-cc-cc
Size: 6 KB

Thank you for your patience. A mod was made in the CPU ver 1.5 to
accommodate certain Talk- Group ID codes used in the Cincinnati trunked
radio system - and that system ONLY.

We want to emphasize that was the ONLY change made to CPU ver 1.4.
Claims of faster scan rates, improved battery life are probably meant to
trick some unwitting scanner hobbyist into destroying his scanner.

Customers with "version envy" that think they need to upgrade to the ver
1.5 CPU are
1) wasting their money,
2) wasting their time,
3) voiding their warranty,
4) will see absolutely NO improvement or change in the scanner operation
(and rumors to the contrary are false) and
5) this is not a user capable upgrade;
if a user attempts to upgrade the CPU on his own, it's quite likely he
will destroy the CPU board - and that would be an expensive repair! If a
hardware upgrade improves performance of one of our scanners, it is
RadioShack's practice to offer that upgrade for the minimum service fee.
No such upgrade is available for CPU ver 1.5.

If you have any further questions, please respond to this original
e-mail with the REPLY option so that the previous mail is included.

Thank you

Cindy
RadioShack Product Support Center
CC/am

 

[safetyobc]

Thanks for the info,

However I would be careful about posting email from companies such as this, as you might be breaking a law or two?

Thanks though!

 

[DaveNF2G]

I wish people would quit making up imaginary laws.

Exactly where is the anti-forwarding-emails-from-Radio-Shack statute located?

 

[safetyobc]

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't but emails I have received from corporations usually have a note at the bottom stating the email is confidential, etc. etc.

Maybe I mispoke and no such thing was on this email. If so, I appoligize.

 

[DaveIN]

I know the v1.5 was closed. I will post this for information only as v1.4 was not mention.

Thanks, Skud. It's refreshing to get an official responce rather than someone who "thinks" they have all the right answers, all the time.

 

[c_gutta]

I know the v1.5 was closed. I will post this for information only as v1.4 was not mention.

Date: Friday, February 9, 2007 1:16 PM
From: RS Store POS Mail user <support@radioshack.com>
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Pro-96-cc-cc-cc
Size: 6 KB

Thank you for your patience. A mod was made in the CPU ver 1.5 to
accommodate certain Talk- Group ID codes used in the Cincinnati trunked
radio system - and that system ONLY.

We want to emphasize that was the ONLY change made to CPU ver 1.4.
Claims of faster scan rates, improved battery life are probably meant to
trick some unwitting scanner hobbyist into destroying his scanner.

Customers with "version envy" that think they need to upgrade to the ver
1.5 CPU are
1) wasting their money,
2) wasting their time,
3) voiding their warranty,
4) will see absolutely NO improvement or change in the scanner operation
(and rumors to the contrary are false) and
5) this is not a user capable upgrade;
if a user attempts to upgrade the CPU on his own, it's quite likely he
will destroy the CPU board - and that would be an expensive repair! If a
hardware upgrade improves performance of one of our scanners, it is
RadioShack's practice to offer that upgrade for the minimum service fee.
No such upgrade is available for CPU ver 1.5.

If you have any further questions, please respond to this original
e-mail with the REPLY option so that the previous mail is included.

Thank you

Cindy
RadioShack Product Support Center
CC/am

I am a RS manager and got a more detailed reply from someone at my store last week, but the thread was closed. I am just confirming that I got the same response from within Radio Shack.

What if I travel to Cincy? I think I might pay for the upgrade.

 

[R200]

Question for the manager of RS about the Pro 96.

Please can you tell me why the frequencies between 174-216 are blocked ?

Also can you tell me if i am able to unlock this small frequency range, and if so, how?


Many thanks.

 

[DaveIN]

Using Win96, the frequency range can be extended, however the results are not as good as a receiver designed to tune for that frequency range. Details can be found here: http://www.starrsoft.com/software/win96/

 

[BBKing]

So what about ESK???? When is radioshack/ GRE going to come out with a upgrade for that??? GOOD QUESTION HUHHH!!!

 

[rdale]

They did - it's called the PSR500...

 

[SCPD]

Also Pro 106 due out a couple of months is the RS clone of the PSR500

 

[SCPD]

Please can you tell me why the frequencies between 174-216 are blocked ?

Also can you tell me if i am able to unlock this small frequency range, and if so, how?


Many thanks.

Only frequencies I know of that can be unlocked are 225-400Mhz on the the Pro 96 & most are "deaf" on that part of the band.. so will not do any good
... just tried 174-200Mhz.. it is NOT possible using win 96

 

[RoninJoliet]

Here in ILL on the 700/800mgz digital Starcom i used Win96 to unlock the 700mgz band on my PRO96/2096...Im using DSP1.2 and it works great on the 800mgz digital towers but trying to follow 700mgz freqy's on the trunk systems for the tollways is almost impossible....also, as mentioned the sensativity on 700 is not real great resulting in alot of motorboating....The PRO96/2096 does fine on 800 digital so to receive the 700mgz digitl towers i use the GRE500 and Uniden396.....

 

[SCPD]

Here in ILL on the 700/800mgz digital Starcom i used Win96 to unlock the 700mgz band on my PRO96/2096...Im using DSP1.2 and it works great on the 800mgz digital towers but trying to follow 700mgz freqy's on the trunk systems for the tollways is almost impossible....also, as mentioned the sensativity on 700 is not real great resulting in alot of motorboating....The PRO96/2096 does fine on 800 digital so to receive the 700mgz digitl towers i use the GRE500 and Uniden396.....

ooops My mistake!>. Thanks for the correction

Paul