MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

demeulenaere · 02-09-2010, 05:58 PM

I have the Nook, and updated it to 1.2 last night...huge improvements. Still trying to understand the wi-fi, but it looks like I can now keep it on without draining the battery really fast...

That being said, I think I may have found a defect, and wanted to know if others have experienced this too.

I plug my nook into my computer, and get that cable stating it I want to keep charging but still want to read, to unmount, or eject.

I have a windows 7 64bit laptop, and have used it multiple times before with the unmount/eject working just fine.

Since my update, I can't eject the drive...and get the nook back to be able to read. What happens is I plug it in, and see it on my windows system. I eject the drive, and it shows on windows that it has been removed. Nothing changes on the nook, and the book doesn't come back. I have to pull the plug to get the book back...not a major issue, but a surprise that this was missed by B&N QA. Seems like a standard test case.

02-09-2010, 05:58 PM	#1
demeulenaere Junior Member Posts: 3 Karma: 10 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: Nook	1.2 unmount/eject issue I have the Nook, and updated it to 1.2 last night...huge improvements. Still trying to understand the wi-fi, but it looks like I can now keep it on without draining the battery really fast... That being said, I think I may have found a defect, and wanted to know if others have experienced this too. I plug my nook into my computer, and get that cable stating it I want to keep charging but still want to read, to unmount, or eject. I have a windows 7 64bit laptop, and have used it multiple times before with the unmount/eject working just fine. Since my update, I can't eject the drive...and get the nook back to be able to read. What happens is I plug it in, and see it on my windows system. I eject the drive, and it shows on windows that it has been removed. Nothing changes on the nook, and the book doesn't come back. I have to pull the plug to get the book back...not a major issue, but a surprise that this was missed by B&N QA. Seems like a standard test case.