Windows XP SP2 and IR 5.15

[sergioe]

Thanks,

I reversed one of the batteries as you suggested and it worked like a champ!

Sergio

[Capn Trips]

Another satisfied customer

[bizzybody]

Reversing a battery isn't a good idea. Use a dummy battery made from a piece of metal rod or a wooden dowel covered with aluminum flue tape. Flue tape should be available in small rolls at most hardware stores, or ask around at heating and air conditioning shops. They'll usually have a mostly used roll with more on it for less $ than what the hardware store has.

On Windows 2000 and XP, programs aren't supposed to be able to directly access any of the hardware, but many programmers have found ways around that. Most companies that made things like image scanners to connect to the parallel port have "obsoleted" them for 2000 and XP, declaring it "impossible" to write drivers. Meanwhile, Mustek was keeping their crew busy writing 2000 and XP drivers for almost every LPT connected product they'd ever made. This has apparently goaded UMAX (one of the "It's impossible" outfits) to release 2000 and XP drivers for a select few of their older scanners.

[mr_d_p_gumby]

Reversing a battery isn't a good idea.

We've been down this road before. Your advice is based on general rules that don't fully apply in the limited circumstances mentioned by Capn Trips. Assuming we're talking about a remote with 4 batteries, reversing one cell would, in theory, result in the other 3 cells reverse charging the backwards cell. If enough current is flowing, eventually the backwards cell will become charged in reverse polarity. If this continues, the cell will heat up, leak or explode, depending on the amount of current and type of battery. However, these remotes draw virtually no current when idle (in the microamp range), and at this rate it would take years before the reversed cell began to show any ill effects, and even then there is not enough current flowing to cause any significant damage to the cell. Even when the remote is active, it draws so little current in relation to the cell capacity that it would probably take days or even weeks before problems would arise.

Bottom line: it's OK to do this for short periods for the limited purposes of uploading/downloading.

Use a dummy battery made from a piece of metal rod or a wooden dowel covered with aluminum flue tape.

We've also given this advice in the past. However, it will not produce the same results as revesing a cell. Again, talking about a remote with 4 batteries, the normal voltage to the remote is nominally 6 volts. Substituting one cell with a dummy produces 4.5 volts. Reversing a cell results in 3 volts.

On Windows 2000 and XP, programs aren't supposed to be able to directly access any of the hardware, but many programmers have found ways around that.

The "way around that" for Windows 2000 and Windows XP prior to SP2 is built into IR, and only requires that you have administrator priviledges. The problems being discussed in this thread are suggesting that SP2 for Windows XP might be responsible for some of the effects, but it has not yet been determined if this is the case or not.

[Mark Pierson]

Use a dummy battery made from a piece of metal rod or a wooden dowel covered with aluminum flue tape.

We've also given this advice in the past. However, it will not produce the same results as revesing a cell. Again, talking about a remote with 4 batteries, the normal voltage to the remote is nominally 6 volts. Substituting one cell with a dummy produces 4.5 volts. Reversing a cell results in 3 volts.

To take this a step further, you could create a "dummy" to replace 2 of the batteries, thus resulting in the 3-volt output. However, our recommendation to reverse a single battery (for the few seconds needed to upload or download) is the easiest solution and doesn't require any extra hardware.

The problems being discussed in this thread are suggesting that SP2 for Windows XP might be responsible for some of the effects, but it has not yet been determined if this is the case or not.

For the record, I have had no problems with XP SP2 and a USB interface on a variety of remotes (2103, 2104, 6131M, 8810w). I seem to have misplaced my Simple and serial interfaces, so I haven't been able to try them yet on SP2.

[dwpoet]

FYI, I have a new 2117 & XP SP2. I just tried download with all new batteries installed and it works every time.

[alokthakar]

Hi,
I built a simple interface, and I tried it on two different machines with Windows XP installed (a desktop with WinXP no service pack, and a laptop with WinXP SP2).
I had logged on both machines as an account with full administrative privileges.
I had also verified the IO port address matched from the XP config to the IR settings. I also set the Transmit delay in IR to 800 on both machines.

But on both, I got the same error of "No Response from interface".

The simple interface document at http://www.hifi-remote.com/jp1/simple/index.shtml said all I needed for detection was the diode connected to pins 2 and 11, so I went even simpler and connected just the diode and nothing else, but still no success.
I then took the same interface and tried it on a Win2K SP4 machine, and here I get a different error -
"No Response from the Remote"
(Which of-course would be expected because I did not yet connect the remote).
Does anyone know what more can I try on my WinXP machines for IR to start detecting the interface?

FYI, my remote is URC-8910.

Thanks

[blyde]

Hello all.
I'm having the same "no connection" problem via my laptop's parallel LPT1 port.

Additional info:
- I have two JP1 remotes (RCU810 & URC-8910)
- I have two PC's (whitebox desktop running XP SP2 & IBM laptop running XP SP2)
- Home-made (Simple?) JP1 cable (parallel port)

Desktop Results:
My JP1 cable works great with both remotes running IR5.15 on the desktop PC. I didn't have to rotate a battery or change the transmission delay - it's plug & play.

Laptop Results:
With the laptop however, I get nothing. I've verified all the port settings in the bios, XP, and IR. I tried all the prescribed tricks (no batteries, rotate a battery, transmission delay, etc) and get nothing. Its as if the parallel port just simply doesn't work on the IBM laptop.

I don't believe its an XP SP2 thing since the desktop is running XP SP2 and it works fine. I'm guessing its somehow related to my, some, or all laptop parallel ports. Possibly the combination of a laptop parallel port and XP SP2. I don't know. I think I'm reaching here.

Quick Solution: I know, I know ... use the desktop! But I really want to do this on my laptop while sitting in front of the TV.
Also, I'm very curious as to why it isn't working.

Anybody as curious as I am?

[The Robman]

As your cable is homemade, hopefully you can verify that you used 1k resistors (as opposed to 10k) and that you used a Shottkey diode. Both of these revisions to the design were done specifically for laptops.

[blyde]

Hi Rob,

Looks like I made the cable before the 1K resistor/Shottkey memo came out.
Here is the parts list I used:

ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION
1. 1 DB25 male connector with either solder pins
2. 1 DB25 connector hood
3. 1 Signal diode, 1N4148 or equiv. (Radio Shack 276-1122)
4. 2 Resistor, 10K 1/4W (Radio Shack 271-1335)

I did read in posts that the resistor was modified to 1K and the diode switched to a Shottkey diode for laptops. I was hoping this was just something to try and not necessarily a “must” revision.

If I make these changes, do you know if my JP1 cable will still work with the desktop PC, or do I need to make a separate cable specifically for laptop use?

Thanks for all you do.

[The Robman]

The upgraded design makes the cable more versatile, so it should work with BOTH your laptop and your desktop. I don't know for certain that the changes are a global "must" for laptops, but as your cable doesn't work, it sure sounds like a "must" for you.

Just FYI, all the Simple cables sold by Hovis and Filebug use the more recent design.

[blyde]

OK, here's where we stand.
I now have two JP1 interface cables, one with 10K resistors and one with 1K resistors. Both have the the original non-Schottky diode. I'll say I did this for experimental purposes, but really I just didn't want to drive somewhere to get the Schottky.

Both cables work great with my desktop PC, so I'm confident I've mastered the "make your own interface process".
Neither cable however, work with the pesky IBM Thinkpad T30 laptop (my goal). It appears the 1K resistors have less to do with the fix than does the Schottky diode. This seems to go against the Upgrade documentation unless I misinterpreted it - quite possible.

The laptop's parallel port was verified to work with a local printer.

I figure these are my options:
1.) Get of my ass and get a Schottky diode and add that into Cable 2 & re-test.
2.) Try a different interface cable approach.

Is it possible that a serial port (DB9) or a USB interface cable would most likely work? How about one of those USB to Parallel Port adapters?

I believe I read that USB drivers would be required. Are their also special drivers for serial port JP1 interfaces?

Laptop running XP & SP2.

Thanks in advance.

[The Robman]

The serial and USB cables are both considerably more expensive than the cheap and easy Simple cable, so if the main issue here is that you don't know of an easy way to get a Shottky diode, I would suggest that you drop a line to either Tom @ Filebug or Richard at Hovis Direct and see if either of them would be willing to sell you one. They both must have a good stock of them for the Simple cables that they make all the time.

[Filebug]

I would suggest you stay away from the USB cable with the IBM thinkpad's. I have heard from a few people who have had trouble with the usb and thinkpad combo.

From my experience, ultra cables work best on laptops but simple cables will work if you don't mind using some of the voltage workarounds.

If you can't find a schottky diode, email your address to me and I will mail you one.

jp1@filebug.com

[blyde]

After difficulty locating the correct schottky diode, Tom (Filebug) was so kind to mail me one. I received it today - Thanks Tom.

Since I had some down time waiting for the diode, I went back to review to simple interface documentation again. I realized that I missed what could be a very important step. So important that I feel I must apologize for wasting earlier bandwidth.

What I forgot was the grounding of pins 18 thru 25. I merely grounded pin 25, as in the original design. My bad – I apologize for not following directions.

Trying to turn a negative into a positive … I realized that going from the earlier revision of the simple interface to the current revision, I’ve only changed one variable at a time.
Learning opportunity?

Here’s the summary to date:
- 2 JP1 remotes (RCU810 & 8910)
- Original (early revision) simple interface cable worked for both remotes with desktop but not IBM ThinkPad T30 Laptop.

I built a second simple interface cable making the following modifications one at time and then re-testing:
- Switched 10K resistors for 1K resistors (This had no effect in getting it to work with the laptop. It acted the same as if it had 10K resistors. It continued to Fail the Interface Check & would not download or upload the remotes.)

- Grounded pins 18 thru 25 (Bingo, I think. This change allowed me to upload & download from the remotes however only after I un-checked the “Auto Interface Check”. The “Interface Check” continues to fail)

Next step: Install schottky diode and see if “Interface Check” passes.

Now that I can upload and download the remotes using the IBM ThinkPad laptop, does it matter that the Interface Check fails? I’m thinking it might so I thought I’d ask.

I’ll provide the “post schottky” results when I’m done.

Thanks everyone.