New Force GT 240 GB - 5.07 firmware ?

Hello, yesterday i picked up a new Force GT 240gb ssd, and when i came home i ran the "ssd firmware update tool" from corsair, figured i would check if my new drive had 5.05a, but to my surprise the 240gb disk had "5.07" on it.

As you can see on the pic, i got a total of 4 ssd in my computer, the first one is a kingston ssd, and then we got the 240gb with 5.07 on it, and then we got two 120gb gt´s with 5.05a.

So my question is, when do we get to download 5.07 to the 120gb disks, cause i still see the newst one you got on your forum is 5.05a.

http://s17.postimg.org/z9e3nmpv3/ssd.jpg

don't expect an honest answer over here :)

the guys from Corsair are afraid as hell to talk about firmware.

it's a complete secret and not "something to talk about" or "ask questions" about :(

cheers,

Jerome.

don't expect an honest answer over here :)

the guys from Corsair are afraid as hell to talk about firmware.

it's a complete secret and not "something to talk about" or "ask questions" about :(

 

cheers,

Jerome.

I did atleast expect an answer form Corsair not just total silence for days :(

Is this normal around here ? Then why do they even have a forum where you can ask questions ? :(

0/5

be glad you got a more actual SF-FW by the factory default ... actually update seems not to be "safe", so live with it and please stop complaining. we all want newer FW for this SF cr*p! you are not alone. this question has been asked at least 3 times - dont be afraid to click "search" and type "5.07" before you did your 1st post for this reason, none of these people got a special treatment or a download, actually there is simply no download. corsair test FW-update for every single version for every single disk-model and all need to pass, if one not passes, none get an update until they fixed that. BE GLAD! so there is nothing to expcect. whatever corsair does: you complain. when the update would fail, you would complain. if you have errors, report them. do you have one? why do you want the FW-update, is it for academic-reason, to make it look more "beautiful", or what? i can even understand that, same here in someway, but you have to be patient for your own safety, same than me and everyone else, or buy a new drive.

not to sound pathetic, but these are more or less the reasons. ;):

total bull**** ofcourse!

Corsair should stick to a consistent firmware-policy.

Especially with ssd's who appeared to be very sensitive in past regarding firmware (i only have to mention the word Vertex...)

cheers,

Jerome.

They are selling products with last firmeware (in this case 5.07) in over the world but if you ask them to put last firmware in site to customers can DL and use it they say that we are testing and it takes too too long to pass test :biggrin:

lol! So why new products in markets have last firmware if it has not passed test yet :biggrin:

a change in firmware is only suggested if you are having problems related to the SSD.

if you have a specific issue then start a new thread on it.

a different version coming out of the factory could just mean the IC chips are from a different BOM but the controller could be exactly the same and without opening the drive the X.07 could just be a way of telling what brand/model memory chips are inside.

who knows, the point remains if you have an issue post about it. the "newer" firmware may brick the older drives so thats a possible reason its not available to the public.

this whole thread sounds like children arguing about who got more sprinkles on their ice cream. who cares! if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[/rant]

They are selling products with last firmeware (in this case 5.07) in over the world but if you ask them to put last firmware in site to customers can DL and use it they say that we are testing and it takes too too long to pass test :biggrin:

lol! So why new products in markets have last firmware if it has not passed test yet :biggrin:

Again updating a firmware on a productive machine where greatest noobs are doing it is a completely different thing than manufacturing a drive with a actual FW-chip in a factory.

If a charge would not work, they can simply build a new one or replace the chip.

5.07 is actually not secure for the update-process in general, does not mean your drive/chip would not work, it only means the update-process is not safe.. or untested, so you wanna be the first one to beta-test the update... for no reason... i dont understand that.

The factory does not build SSDs with 1.2 and flashes latest update first, they build it with actual FW-chip and check functionality with a regular protocol. Because the 5.07-SSDs pass the tests does not mean the file 5.07 would work for update on ANY of the Sandforce-drived having older FW-chips.

To prevent masses of brick the safety of these FW-update files must be verified, no matter what the factory does on new hardware - that is simply of no concern.

Accept the facts! Be patient.

You are free to report your problems if 5.05 has any for you...

Again people like you here "lol"-ing about nothing but themselfes then would be the first ones that troll around when the FW-update process brick their drive, as if corsair does nothing to ensure safety of the updates, but even when they release it a brick can happen and you click to accept that risk on your very own :roll:

You even did not provide a suitable reason WHY you need 5.07... what does not work, what is broke, what is the problem? simply nothing, just seems like a kid begging for what appears a"candy" starting to get angry and start crying... "i wanna!", I totally agree :D:

Nobody knows what 5.07@corsair exactly is.

And whats even worse, nobody still knows what 5.05@corsair exactly is.

There is no corsair changelog, so we just "assume" it needs to have something to do with what other manfacturers fixed in there 5.05/6/7, but this in fact may not appear to corsairs-versions (no i cannot link you that in here, you have to search these on your own)

Tell us what is wrong with 5.05 please... we are waiting to troubleshoot if it is a FW or drive problem or OSI-8-problem ;):