JP1 Remotes

Could we disable the "clean upper memory" function for extenders?

The Robman wrote:Could we disable the "clean upper memory" function for extenders?

You have no idea how many people do clean upper memory regularly because they think it makes there remotes more efficient. I get PM's on this all the time.

I've tried to address this in IRHELP but yes disabling clean upper memory would be a great start, and perhaps a warning dialog box might be in order too


2) I'd like to request that IRHelp.PDF be used in place of IRHelp.hlp too, since this is a much better document.

vickyg2003 wrote:... and perhaps a warning dialog box might be in order too

I thought the current warning message that appears every time you select "Clean Upper Memory" in IR.exe was good enough. It reads:

Please be aware that Clean Upper Memory will destroy most extenders, as they place at least part of their code in the memory that will be cleared. Are you sure you want to proceed?

If you proceed past this, it surely is "at your own risk".

There is a similar warning in RMIR.

mathdon wrote:

vickyg2003 wrote:... and perhaps a warning dialog box might be in order too

I thought the current warning message that appears every time you select "Clean Upper Memory" in IR.exe was good enough. It reads:

Please be aware that Clean Upper Memory will destroy most extenders, as they place at least part of their code in the memory that will be cleared. Are you sure you want to proceed?

If you proceed past this, it surely is "at your own risk".

There is a similar warning in RMIR.

I stand corrected, That is a fair warning! I've never actually done a clean upper memory in my 10 years of JP1ing. But still I've had at least 60 extender user's PM me about there non-working remotes, after doing a clean upper memory since I wrote my first extender in 2006.

You would think that warning would be good enough, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Given that every extender has code hidden in the area that would get cleaned, I still think it's a good idea to completely prevent use of this function when the RDF indicates an extender is being used.

The Robman wrote:You would think that warning would be good enough, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Given that every extender has code hidden in the area that would get cleaned, I still think it's a good idea to completely prevent use of this function when the RDF indicates an extender is being used.

I'm not sure about the evidence. You have told me before, Rob, that a lot of people don't bother updating to the latest software versions. I added that warning in IR.exe v8.01, so anyone with a significantly out-of-date version won't see it, and if a complete bar is added in a new version now, it will again only help those who keep their software up-to-date.

mathdon wrote:

The Robman wrote:You would think that warning would be good enough, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Given that every extender has code hidden in the area that would get cleaned, I still think it's a good idea to completely prevent use of this function when the RDF indicates an extender is being used.

I'm not sure about the evidence. You have told me before, Rob, that a lot of people don't bother updating to the latest software versions. I added that warning in IR.exe v8.01, so anyone with a significantly out-of-date version won't see it, and if a complete bar is added in a new version now, it will again only help those who keep their software up-to-date.

Is there something we can change in RDFs to protect extender areas?

xnappo

mathdon wrote:

The Robman wrote:You would think that warning would be good enough, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Given that every extender has code hidden in the area that would get cleaned, I still think it's a good idea to completely prevent use of this function when the RDF indicates an extender is being used.

I'm not sure about the evidence. You have told me before, Rob, that a lot of people don't bother updating to the latest software versions. I added that warning in IR.exe v8.01, so anyone with a significantly out-of-date version won't see it, and if a complete bar is added in a new version now, it will again only help those who keep their software up-to-date.

Yes, I can say that although I have had LOTS of users do this, it has tapered off quite a bit over the past year or so.

vickyg2003 wrote:You have no idea how many people do clean upper memory regularly because they think it makes there remotes more efficient.

Then it appears to me that the naming is, at least, misleading. "Cleaning" is, a priori, a good thing (TM) to do; and on a regular basis. Who wants to live in unclean home, come unclean to work, write unclean code, or propose unclean solutions to problems? Not me!!

Renaming seems to be a natural step: Zero/nuke/iron (over)/squish/exterminate/eradicate/kill/wipe/terminate upper memory?

Barf wrote:Renaming seems to be a natural step: Zero/nuke/iron (over)/squish/exterminate/eradicate/kill/wipe/terminate upper memory?

Good point. I like that.
Perhaps in addition to renaming this menu item, it could also be moved down to join the other risky-looking (initialize to 0 or FF, etc.) items.