I have a E260. It is a refurbished player that I’ve had for a few years now. When I first purchased the player, I installed a 4GB micro SD card and several movies. Most of the movies were held on the 4GB card and all of them worked. About a year ago, we noticed that the card was no longer working. I had used the Sansa updater at one point when I added a few songs. The software on it is v1. I understand that the v1 players do not support 4GB cards. The player seems to work and it does work with 1GB micro SD cards. It no longer supports my 4GB card though. I don’t want to turn it into a brick trying to update it with v2 software, but I swear the 4GB card worked perfectly when we first bought the thing. Is it possible that they installed v2 software when they refurbished it, yet the updater chenged it to v1? I tried a search but didn’t return any similar questions/problems. Thanks.
The only way to verify whether your player is a v1 or v2 is by looking at the firmware version installed. You can check this by looking at the top line after going into Settings > Info. If it starts with an 01 your player is a v1 model. If it starts with an 03, you have a v2.
V1 models do not natively support the SDHC memory card format (4GB and up). You would need to install the alternative open source firmware Rockbox in order to use these cards. V2 models on the other hand, will support both SD & SDHC cards.
It is not possible to install v2 firmware on a v1 player. While the players operate virtually the same, they have completely different hardware inside. Not even the refurbers can get around this. And the Sansa Updater would not (and could not) install firmware other than what the player is designed for either.
Thanks. I appreciate the response. Actually, my question is whether a v2 player can run v1 software. I know that v1 players/software cannot support the 4GB SD card. My software is now v1 and doesn’t support the card, yet the card did work originally. My kids watched movies off of it. I could see the card via the USB cord, etc.
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
Actually, my question is whether a v2 player can run v1 software.
As said previously, no.
If you think you have a V1 player, and you think you were using a card that would only work on a V2 player, then you are mistaken about something. Double check the firmware version, then double check that you actually had an SDHC card.
Tapeworm, I know they have different hardware. It is not totally different and the differences do not necessarily mean that v2 cannot run v1 software. If the new hardware supports the old codecs, drivers, etc., it could function exactly like the old one. I’m sorry if you think I’m being hardheaded or if you think I’m blowing off what you wrote, but this SDHC card did work. It did so for over 2 years. Are you saying that v2 players can’t run v1 software due to knowledge or belief? If it is belief I still appreciate your thoughts. You’ve obviously know a lot about these players and I really do appreciate your reply. But I’m asking for knowledge that the new video processor doesn’t support the old moving jpeg codec or something like that. Do you know specifics that make it impossible?
Unfortunately saratoga, I tend to think this is a v2 player now sporting v1 firmware. Checking the firmware version only says which firmware is currently installed. If the newer hardware can support the old firmware, checking it wouldn’t help. It is possible that the old owner installed third party software that was not removed when the device was “refurbished”. I don’t know how the thing supported that card. I just know that it did.
I’m wondering if there are any photos showing the v1 and v2 players’ internals on this forum? I see a fellow jweaver28 on the v1 firmware sticky thread who thinks he has a v2 running v1. Third one down on page 9: http://forums.sandisk.com/sansa/board/message?board.id=e200&thread.id=15209&page=9
Message Edited by ToughRowToHoe on 04-18-2010 06:19 AM
@toughrowtohoe wrote:
Tapeworm, I know they have different hardware. It is not totally different and the differences do not necessarily mean that v2 cannot run v1 software.
It is totally different, and being totally different does mean you can’t run the same software.
The v1 has more in common with the Ipod Nano 1G and it does the v2. Try running the iPod firmware on your V1 and see how well it works 
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
But I’m asking for knowledge that the new video processor doesn’t support the old moving jpeg codec or something like that. Do you know specifics that make it impossible?
The hardware in both players has been documented extensively. The v1 uses a PP5024 SOC, while the v2 uses an AS3525. Neither has a video processor. Google if you’d like to know more.
You are mistaken about something. Figure out what it was and then someone can help you. Or don’t and choose to be unhelped.
If you browse the forums, you’ll see some confusion between the terms v1 and v2 , especially since they have been used to describe two different situations.
The first v1 / v2 issue involved a redesign of the e200 series players. This change was major, going from the PortalPlayer (now known as NVIDIA) processor, to the new AustriaMicrosystems processors. We are dealing with a completely different processor, and thus, the firmware is completely different.
The v1 e200 firmware is actually several files, as saratoga will attest, working with the Rockbox project. The firmware is in the mi4 format, with a separate bootloader / SD support file and version data in the reserved partition of memory. With the PP processor, the reserved partition can be accessed in Recovery Mode. Having this option is both a blessing and a curse, as the most common error I see is formatting the reserved partition via Windows, which erases critical data, “bricking” the player.
The v2 e200 firmware is a single binary bin format file. The AustriaMicrosystems (also referred to in various forums as “AMS” ) processor uses a hidden reserved partition for the firmware, with a unique recovery method. The firmware binary file is “dropped” into the root directory and is only accepted if it passes a redundancy check (checksum).
The Sansa Fuze and Sansa Clip now have a v1/v2 issue of their own. I supported the nomenclature of rev1/rev2 for these, in hope of reducing confusion between the differences, but forums have a life of their own, so to speak, and the v1/v2 moniker refers to a different processor version, not a different manufacturer in these devices. The “v2” version of the new machines has integrated SDRAM in the processor, and addressing it is different, hence the firmware build difference.
Here is the answer to your burning question: why might my player say e200 v2 on the back, yet everything I see points to a v1 player? Simple, the back is removable, and the refurbisher found a shinier v2 badged cover. The v2 cover has a darker anodized-looking finish as well.
There is only one instance of swapping firmware families, and this is possible between the Rhapsody v1 and the “vanilla” version. Swapping between the PortalPlayer and AustriaMicrosystems firmwares, in hope of converting the player, is exactly the same as fueling a gasoline car with Diesel fuel, or vice versa. It simply cannot work, as the firmware is engineered for a different processor.
There are several features unique to the Sansa in either version. The v1 has two types, the base model, and the Rhapsody version, capable of integration with the Rhapsody service and RAX format audio (a cool unique DRM method). The v2 is unique, and has the same processor family as the new Fuze and Clip. The v2, under the cover, has a radically different circuit board with far fewer components than needed for the v1.
To verify your Sansa e200 version, a v2 device has a unique splash screen on power-up. You will see a SanDisk logo with a reflection below, and a blue sansa logo below that. The v1 has a single SanDisk logo, with the Rhapsody version having its unique Rhapsody splash screen following the SanDisk.
On all devices, if you go to Settings > Info, the firmware version is visible. The first two digits are important, as 01 is version 1, and 03 is version 2. The Rhapsody Sansa has a unique firmware build number, with grouped numbers in threes, as in 1.0.2.165, the current version.
Bob :smileyvery-happy:
Message Edited by neutron_bob on 04-18-2010 10:58 AM
@saratoga wrote:
@toughrowtohoe wrote:
Tapeworm, I know they have different hardware. It is not totally different and the differences do not necessarily mean that v2 cannot run v1 software.
It is totally different, and being totally different does mean you can’t run the same software.
The v1 has more in common with the Ipod Nano 1G and it does the v2. Try running the iPod firmware on your V1 and see how well it works
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
But I’m asking for knowledge that the new video processor doesn’t support the old moving jpeg codec or something like that. Do you know specifics that make it impossible?
The hardware in both players has been documented extensively. The v1 uses a PP5024 SOC, while the v2 uses an AS3525. Neither has a video processor. Google if you’d like to know more.
You are mistaken about something. Figure out what it was and then someone can help you. Or don’t and choose to be unhelped.
What am I supposed to be mistaken about? I’ve primarily asked questions. The one statement I made dealt with the supposed gulf in differences dictating seperate firmware. Nothing about those hardware differences dictates seperate firmware. They aren’t “totally different” despite their differences nor how close they might be to competitors. Firmware can support more than one hardware set.
I do appreciate that people took time to answer me, but all of the responses I received on this thread wrote something into what I provided. Here you took my hypothetical statement about a video processor and turned it into a suggestion that this player had a seperate video processor. Likewise, nowhere did I suggest that I had a v2 player because of what it said on the cover. My only inkling that it might be a v2 was disclosed up front as its previous support for an SDHC card. And, I was specifically not trying to install v2 software on a v1 player. I wouldn’t have been here asking whether a v2 player can support v1 firmware if I was.
Message Edited by ToughRowToHoe on 04-18-2010 11:20 PM
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
What am I supposed to be mistaken about? I’ve primarily asked questions.
And, I was specifically not trying to install v2 software on a v1 player. I wouldn’t have been here asking whether a v2 player can support v1 firmware if I was.
Then what specifically was/is your point? You asked whether it was possible that your refurbed unit somehow had the v1 firmware installed on it when it originally was a v2 machine (or vice-versa). You justified this by insisting that it originally recoginized an SDHC card.
You were told that this is not possible, both by me and saratoga and it was suggested that possibly you were mistaken about the 4GB card working in your player, as it was some time ago.
The rest of the time has been spent arguing about why the answers that you didn’t want to hear aren’t relevant to the topic or the conversation. Whether you choose to believe the answers given to you is up to you, but frankly you asked; we answered. Let’s move on.
@toughrowtohoe wrote:
What am I supposed to be mistaken about?
saratoga wrote:
If you think you have a V1 player, and you think you were using a card that would only work on a V2 player, then you are mistaken about something. Double check the firmware version, then double check that you actually had an SDHC card.
I don’t mind giving you a hand here, but it helps if you read a little more carefully. As I said above, we can’t help you if we don’t know whats going on, and right now we don’t because you haven’t told us. Figure out if you either a) really have a V2 player or b) didn’t really use a card that only works in a V2 player. Come back and post that information. Then I can tell you what to do.
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
Nothing about those hardware differences dictates seperate firmware. They aren’t “totally different” despite their differences nor how close they might be to competitors. Firmware can support more than one hardware set
Just to be clear, having mutually incompatible CPUs does mean you cannot run the same firmware on them. I’ve spent quite a lot of time programming for both systems, so I think you should believe me when I tell you that different types of CPUs require different types of code to run on them. :)
Of course, as I said above, if you do not believe me, I’ve given you the part numbers for the SOCs, so you can google for yourself and confirm that the memory maps for the two devices are mutually incompatible.
ToughRowToHoe wrote:
Here you took my hypothetical statement about a video processor and turned it into a suggestion that this player had a seperate video processor.
You asked me if “the new video processor doesn’t support the old moving jpeg codec”. I read this as you asking me if the video processor supports a MJPEG, which I think is a very reasonable reading of it (and really the only one that makes any sense at all). I told you that simple devices like these do not have video processors. I’m sorry if you find this answer unpleasant, but it is correct. If you didn’t want an answer, you probably should not have asked me.
The possibility that “the 4GB card worked on the v1” is suspect: the v1 does not natively support microSDHC with the original firmware. What is most likely is that, if the card was formatted as FAT (not FAT32), you could address the first 2GB of available memory.
Look at my previous post in this thread. The firmware image of the v1 device is of a completely different format, and is a much smaller package than the 15MB of code necessary for the v2 devices.
The PortalPlayer processor supports a different instruction set than the AMS device, and cannot speak the same language as the latter processor. The original programming code, the graphical interface, and the “way things are done” may be similar, but once the code is compiled into a format the processor understands, we are indeed speaking of apples versus oranges, or Swedish versus English.
If your goal is to make use of the microSDHC standard, and the larger capacities available, with a v1 e200, you can only do so with the assistance of Rockbox firmware.
Bob :smileyvery-happy:
@neutron_bob wrote:
The possibility that “the 4GB card worked on the v1” is suspect: the v1 does not natively support microSDHC with the original firmware. What is most likely is that, if the card was formatted as FAT (not FAT32), you could address the first 2GB of available memory.
The problem isn’t the size, its that the two use different addressing formats, so even reformatting it to a different size won’t help. The underlying chip in an SDHC card can’t talk to a controller that doesn’t understand SDHC, even if its a 16MB card.
The only thing I can think of is that he somehow managed to get a 4GB plain SD (not SDHC) card. In theory these shouldn’t exist since the spec says only 2GB, but I think it might be possible to create one. Maybe a v1 player will talk to one, even if its non-standard. Thats why I suggested he double check that its actually an SDHC card in my first post If its not an SDHC card, then that would explain it.
neutron_bob wrote:
The PortalPlayer processor supports a different instruction set than the AMS device, and cannot speak the same language as the latter processor. The original programming code, the graphical interface, and the “way things are done” may be similar, but once the code is compiled into a format the processor understands, we are indeed speaking of apples versus oranges, or Swedish versus English.
Technically they’re both ARMv4 devices, so the machine code is largely (but not exactly) the same. The problem is that the memory map for the two devices is completely different, so you’re right, if you load a binary for one onto the other it will look like complete gibberish since there won’t be any memory where the machine tries to read. And as you can guess a computer that can’t contain information because it can’t use memory isn’t very useful (except as a paperweight)!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208086
Looks like someone did make a 4GB non-standard SD card. And judging by the reviews half of the devices out there can’t even access it, which makes sense given that its technically not a valid SD device
If it worked on the e200v1 that might explain the OP’s confusion.
