Edit: Just noticed Nils' reply which is much more eloquent, succint and to the point, but I'll leave my rambling missive below anyways. 
mdavej wrote:Nils,
Could some of the rdf names be simplified, like "CPT0CPT0 (URC-8910(Old)_9910(Old)_8910(New)_9910(New)_HTPro).rdf"?
Thanks
Let me take a stab at this one:
The actual filename is somewhat immaterial (although I understand that if you are trying to start a NEW IR file in IR.exe from the "File>New" selection it may be a bit confusing) since in general in IR you do NOT start your work from a blank RDF, so the filename doesn't matter. You download FROM your remote, and IR.exe selects the correct RDF automatically.
(I know there is the exception when several RDF's for the same signature exist, but that is not the general case)
In RM, however, the structure of the filename is very specific, and although it may appear complex, I think you would agree that (perhaps not, but IMHO) the remote names that appear in the drop-down list are for the most part intuitive and readily understood.
For example, in the specific example you cite, that single RDF covers FIVE externally different remotes that use the same internal chip, signature and programming, and if you "simplify" the RDF name, you lose the ability to have them all appear individually in RM. This would force either:
(1) Creating FIVE RDFs with the same exact internal information, with the resulting burden of IR being unable to auto-select, but instead having to ask you to select from one of FIVE identical RDF sigs, not to mention maintaining FIVE RDFs instead of ONE; or
(2) If you keep only 1 "name-shortened" RDF, you would have confused users, who cannot find "their" RDF, since it's named "8910" instead of "9910" and/or who will see an 8910 image with the donut ring, when they are trying to program their HT Pro, which looks considerably different.
So this naming convention has gone through a few iterations through the years, but it seems to work pretty well with the current batch of tools.
That is not to say they CANNOT be better-named, but one would hope that any alternative would result from an attempt to improve usability rather than just simply an effort to shorten filenames.
We just went through a drill as the Atlas family of UEIC Cable-box remotes have been coming onto the market and as we discover that several of them share appearances, but in some cases have different chips/signatures, button names and layouts, and have tried to bring them all into a conformed system. That work may not be done, but overall I think the experts here do a pretty good job of balancing the complexities of the tools with the user-friendliness of the user-interfaces.