Should we adopt JP1.0 notation for old JP1 remotes/cables?

Post by **The Robman** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:55 pm

The fact that the group as a whole is called JP1 and the old style cables and remotes are also called JP1 can be confusing for newbies now that we also have JP1.x cables and remotes to deal with.

So the question is, would it make it more or less confusing if we started referring to the old remotes and cables as JP1.0? The "pro" is that it allows us to be more specific when referring to one of the older remotes or cables, the "con" is that it might make the old remotes appear to fit the JP1.x (where x=0) notation.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

johnsfine · Post by **johnsfine** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:41 am

Are there still "jp1.x" cables, where jp1.x means one cable works on both jp1.1 and jp1.2 (but not jp1)?

That was confusing already, and the "jp1.0" terminology certainly doesn't make that less confusing.

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:03 am

Tommy's latest cables are good for both JP1.2 and JP1.3, but not good for JP1.1, which he regards as an obsolete platform.

The problem that still needs addressing is how do you make clear to a newbie that "JP1" in the statement "you need a JP1 cable" refers to the JP1 platform rather than the JP1 group.

For example, the following statement is already clear...

"You need a JP1 cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.2/3 cable"

whereas the following statement is less clear...

"You need a JP1 cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a JP1 cable"

irs009 · Post by **irs009** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:16 pm

If JP1.1 is obsolete, it would be easier to name as follows:

JP1
JP2
JP3

There's probably a lot of reasons that you experts say this isn't good, but boy is it simple.

Jack

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:23 pm

The JP1.1, JP1.2 and JP1.3 labels come from the remote's themselves (ie, those labels are actually printed by the 6-pin on the remotes.

unclemiltie · Post by **unclemiltie** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:47 pm

my 2 cents

leave it alone, certainly not jp1.0
your statements would then be:

The Robman wrote: For example, the following statement is already clear...

"You need a JP1 cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.2/3 cable"

"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.x cable"

(assuming that JP1.1 is obsolete and anyone doing those would understand what they have)

The Robman wrote:
whereas the following statement is less clear...

"You need a JP1 cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a JP1 cable"

"you need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a legacy JP1 cable"

(this based on the assumption that anything new coming out of UEI is either going to be JP1.2 or JP1.3 (or something new) so that we can call the older cable the legacy cable.

Tommy Tyler · Post by **Tommy Tyler** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:08 pm

I voted for JP1.0 because I think if properly used it might make it easier for newbies to understand. Here's an excerpt from my recently posted article on a Serial Interface for JP1.2 and JP1.3, where I was trying to ease the transition from a ton of previously published stuff that referred to JP1.x.

When the term "JP1.x" was first coined for flash remotes there were three values for "x": 1, 2, and 3. However, JP1.1 remotes never became popular, and are now considered obsolete. These days there are only two types of remotes with flash processors being used, and I prefer to refer to any interface that works with either of them as JP1.2/JP1.3 or simply JP1.2/3. Technically speaking, a JP1.x interface is an extinct type of interface that worked with a JP1.1 remote as well as JP1.2 and possibly JP1.3. It is a collector's item, and the terminology should no longer be used.

Bill, wouldn't many people think a "legacy" interface was one that plugged into a serial or parallel port? We do have a USB JP1 interface.

Tommy

nuke12 · Post by **nuke12** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:41 pm

As a noob, that has played with this stuff, I like JP1.0.

As the same noob, I have to ask how much explaining will be required for old posts and IR? What I'm wondering, is if you do have people that want to learn and do reading, will JP1.0 confuse the issue?

The better user, is the one that reads. Correct? A lot of new people won't read and the term JP1 or JP1.0 means nothing to them.

I understand the reason behind the suggested change but I question if it will help or cause more problems. If today was the start day for all JP1 related things, JP1.0 would be the way to go.

P.S. - I never voted because, I have no idea how to vote.

mdavej · Post by **mdavej** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:49 pm

I voted to leave it as is for a couple of reasons.

- As John said, JP1.x terminology is already out there and would imply compatibility with JP1.0
- Other vendors besides Tommy likely won't change terminology even if the group did. Seems like most newbies google JP1 and buy the first thing they see from DIYGadget, then figure out later they bought the wrong thing.
- There are tons of old posts/pages/files/docs using the old terms
- The old terms pretty much match what's printed on the circuit boards of remotes

The vendors really need to make it as clear as possible what the cable options are. Tommy's post is pretty clear. But DIY isn't clear at all, plus they link to an old remote list.

Maybe it would help if a sticky were added to nearly every forum (not just hardware) that linked to the "Choose the right ..." sticky. Maybe call it something like "Which cable do I need? JP1, JP1.1, JP1.2, JP1.3 or JP1.x" to cover all the bases. The master chart of JP1 remotes needs to be clearer too. It would be nice to see JP1, JP1.3, etc. in one of the columns.

EDIT: Just saw Tommy's post. I also vote to retire JP1.x and JP1.1.

mr_d_p_gumby · Post by **mr_d_p_gumby** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:55 pm

I also dislike the JP1.0 idea because it seems to imply some sort of compatibility with the JP1.x interfaces. I've always liked the idea that our terminology matched what was actually printed on the remotes.

How about something like:

"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.x FLASH cable"

"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a JP1 EEPROM cable"

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:23 pm

mr_d_p_gumby wrote:"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.x FLASH cable"

"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a JP1 EEPROM cable"

I like it. If others like this idea, I'll try and get all the vendors to start calling their cables "flash" and "eeprom".

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:34 am

The Robman wrote:
mr_d_p_gumby wrote:"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8820 specifically you would need a JP1.x FLASH cable"

"You need a cable to program JP1 remotes and for the URC-8910 specifically you would need a JP1 EEPROM cable"
I like it. If others like this idea, I'll try and get all the vendors to start calling their cables "flash" and "eeprom".

Seconded. This is nice and technically correct

I think referring to the remotes as EEPROM-based or FLASH-based is a good distinction that covers the important differences well.

xnappo

jetskier · Post by **jetskier** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:48 pm

I think Tommy needs to work to develop a cable that can automatically detect old JP1 Eproms and J1.x Flash for a all-in-one solution.

That would put this baby to bed fast.

Oh, and it would have the IRwidget built-in too.

tennessee titan · Post by **tennessee titan** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:26 pm

"I think referring to the remotes as EEPROM-based or FLASH-based is a good distinction that covers the important differences well."

For the knowlegeable MAYBE, for the others definitely not!
Stick with the labels in the remotes...(even though they are not 100%!)

Post by **The Robman** » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:23 pm

jetskier wrote:I think Tommy needs to work to develop a cable that can automatically detect old JP1 Eproms and J1.x Flash for a all-in-one solution.

That would put this baby to bed fast.

Oh, and it would have the IRwidget built-in too.

That would be nice, but it's just not technically possible, at least not on a practical basis. This was one of the first things I asked Tommy way back when.