I have a Dish Network 211K receiver and have paid dish network for the conversion to a DVR. I am using a Seagate Showcase 500 drive that was designed for the Dish Network receivers in terms of compatibility. I purchased the drive directly from Seagate in September 2009. Initial installation was simple. Plug in, agree to the upgrade for software for the DVR (1 time charge), and format the drive. I had no problems.
Then in early December I noticed that some programming I had scheduled to be recorded was not on the drive. I thought maybe I had made an error in scheduled, but a couple of weeks later I noticed that when I turned on the receiver and tried to schedule a recording, the receiver showed I did not have a DVR.
I found that if I reset the 211K receiver, the Seagate drive would be recognized.
This concept worked for a while, but after another week, the receiver would not recognize the drive. After some google searching of various forums, I understand there are issues, but most persons with this drive had ended up with getting a replacement under warranty after some painful customer service time. I saw information from the seagate forums about downloading some of their software to a PC and checking the drive. I find that I can run some of the tests, and that the drive is certainly not dead. What is even more interesting is that after doing those tests with the PC, if I return the drive to the receiver and plug it in, it generally is then recognized for a day.
I have noticed the issue where when I unplug the "no longer recognized" drive from the DVR and plug it into my PC, that I get an error from Windows that the drive would have better performance if it was plugged into a USB 2.0 hub. Yet my computer does have USB 2.0 on it and I verified that I get that same error on another computer with USB 2.0. After I run some of the seagate tests on the drive and then disconnect it from the computer, I can reconnect the drive and sometimes I get the error and sometimes I do not. I believe that it is during the times I do not get the USB 2.0 error that is when the drive will now be recognized by the 211K receiver. I will continue to investigate this. I again continue to believe that the drive is not the issue and that it is instead something with the interface.
Then in early December I noticed that some programming I had scheduled to be recorded was not on the drive. I thought maybe I had made an error in scheduled, but a couple of weeks later I noticed that when I turned on the receiver and tried to schedule a recording, the receiver showed I did not have a DVR.
I found that if I reset the 211K receiver, the Seagate drive would be recognized.
This concept worked for a while, but after another week, the receiver would not recognize the drive. After some google searching of various forums, I understand there are issues, but most persons with this drive had ended up with getting a replacement under warranty after some painful customer service time. I saw information from the seagate forums about downloading some of their software to a PC and checking the drive. I find that I can run some of the tests, and that the drive is certainly not dead. What is even more interesting is that after doing those tests with the PC, if I return the drive to the receiver and plug it in, it generally is then recognized for a day.
I have noticed the issue where when I unplug the "no longer recognized" drive from the DVR and plug it into my PC, that I get an error from Windows that the drive would have better performance if it was plugged into a USB 2.0 hub. Yet my computer does have USB 2.0 on it and I verified that I get that same error on another computer with USB 2.0. After I run some of the seagate tests on the drive and then disconnect it from the computer, I can reconnect the drive and sometimes I get the error and sometimes I do not. I believe that it is during the times I do not get the USB 2.0 error that is when the drive will now be recognized by the 211K receiver. I will continue to investigate this. I again continue to believe that the drive is not the issue and that it is instead something with the interface.