Upgrade HomeSeer to 2.0 ?

[George Pontis]

I have a current copy of HomeSeer and received the promotional offer to upgrade to
2.0 for $39. I am wondering if my current version of the HAI Omni Plug-in would
continue to work with the new version. (I sent email to HomeSeer asking this
question a week ago but no response yet.)

And what is everyone's feeling about having to install the .NET framework to
support this new version ?

George

[L. M. Rappaport]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:42:59 -0700, George Pontis <gpontis@spamcop.net>
wrote (with possible editing):

>I have a current copy of HomeSeer and received the promotional offer to upgrade to
>2.0 for $39. I am wondering if my current version of the HAI Omni Plug-in would
>continue to work with the new version. (I sent email to HomeSeer asking this
>question a week ago but no response yet.)
>
>And what is everyone's feeling about having to install the .NET framework to
>support this new version ?
>
>George

I think I'm in exactly the same situation. FWIW, I did upgrade. (I
wish I hadn't) I think you should go to the Homeseer forums
(http://board.homeseer.com) and read what others have said - actually
it seems to be quite negative. The setup I am using - Homeseer 2 with
NEW HAI plugin, seems to mostly work when the machine is running, but
there are errors. There is a missing file and the machine is reboots
a lot. Since Homeseer doesn't seem to want to run as a service, a
reboot stops everything.

The new web interface is pretty nice, but until this gets some
stability, I'd stay away. I have got my HAI OmniPro II doing almost
all of the work now. The only reason for using HomeSeer was to take
advantage of its interface with the ACT I103 and its more powerful
output. (I have a few outbuildings). I don't use the phone and other
stuff, and I find the consoles WAY overpriced.

I don't know if the instability problems are due to the .NET framework
or Homeseer - the latest build is 1972. If you read the feedback
under the forum message "Build 1972 Feedback", you'll see that more
than a few others are having problems.

FWIW, the machine it's running on uses Windows 2000 Pro...

Email me if you'd like more feedback.
--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

[dicko]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:42:59 -0700, George Pontis <gpontis@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>I have a current copy of HomeSeer and received the promotional offer to upgrade to
>2.0 for $39. I am wondering if my current version of the HAI Omni Plug-in would
>continue to work with the new version. (I sent email to HomeSeer asking this
>question a week ago but no response yet.)
>
>And what is everyone's feeling about having to install the .NET framework to
>support this new version ?
>
>George

I had quite a bit of trouble with the installation.

I dont have internet access on my computer running my house, and when
I need an update to homeseer, I can only plug in a modem.

So much to my surprise, everytime I went to install HS2 from a USB
thumb drive, it wanted to access the internet. I later found it wanted
the .NET framework. Not only that, it wanted .NET SP1 too. I had to
download that directly from microsoft at a friends house and install
it via my thumb drive first before installing HS2. I'm not sure, it
may come with the CD version of HS2 but isnt included with the
downloaded version..

Once I had .NET installed, the install process died because us.txt
wasnt included in the download, so I had to dig that from my old HS1
installation. BTW, I'm installing this on a celan "test" computer,
not my actual "production" computer.

I get everything installed, and then it wants to go back to the
internet to register itself (I'm getting really frustrated with this
internet addiction). HS2 is going with a microsoft type registration
process where you provide some computer unique information, and the HS
servers respond with the registration code. Once again, no internet,
so I followed instructions, emailed the license codes and received the
registration keys a day later and manually enterred them.

This is what really worries me. If I ever get this thing working to my
satisfaction, I'll have to go through the whole registration process
on a different computer and convince them I dont have two copies
running. And what happens if the computer crashes in the middle of the
night and I have to wait for them to send me a registration key to get
things running again. I'm not sure I'm too keen to try this.

The actual program seems to run OK. I'm running build 1972, but my
setup is pretty simple. Just several events, no scripts. From the
little I've played with it, it responds much faster than HS1 did.
Operation of the lights just seem snappier. My z-wave lights
definitely work faster.

Oh yeah, I've never been able to get the Updater to work at my house.
As I said before, I'm on a dial up modem and things download real
slowly at 28Kb. There seems to be a session timer at a minute and a
half that cuts the update session off everytime I try. It worked just
fine however when I carried the entire computer over to my friend's
house and connected it to his cable modem. I can really see myself
doing that with the actual production computer every time I need an
update.

I've started looking at the other automation programs out there
principly because of this registration issue. Unfortunately there are
only a few on the market that handle z-wave, I havent liked their
human interface. So for now, I'm hoping HS gets their act togther and
things turn out OK and I can stay with HS. I'm sticking with running
HS 1.7 until things stabilize a bit more.

dickm

[Dean Roddey]

CQC supports Z-Wave, and it has a far more powerful interface system than
HS, and doesn't have any of the issues you are concerned about in your post,
so you should at least give it a whirl before you decide. On
www.charmedquark.com, go to the Learn tab, and you can go through the Quick
Tutorial which will quickly give you a hands on tour of the product.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

"dicko" <drwho@universalclock.com> wrote in message
news:e4c4i1d70nlnn1um8qn12ni44mai0nobcs@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:42:59 -0700, George Pontis <gpontis@spamcop.net>
> wrote:

> I've started looking at the other automation programs out there
> principly because of this registration issue. Unfortunately there are
> only a few on the market that handle z-wave, I havent liked their
> human interface. So for now, I'm hoping HS gets their act togther and
> things turn out OK and I can stay with HS. I'm sticking with running
> HS 1.7 until things stabilize a bit more.
>
> dickm

[HansO]

dicko <drwho@universalclock.com> wrote:

I upgraded now to take advantage of the lower price of the upgrade. I will test
before going into production, but it seems to work fine. That will take several
weeks/months at least, 1.7 is a fine product.

I received registration codes by email, so I dont expect problems going from
test to production machine. I do agree with the worry of software expecting to
be on a internetworked computer. Homeseer is one of those programs now, like
WIndows itself is. Homeseer is a kind of program that shines in a (home) network
though!

Hans, http://www.hansotten.com

[dicko]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:03:30 GMT, "Dean Roddey"
<droddey@charmedquark.com> wrote:

>CQC supports Z-Wave, and it has a far more powerful interface system than
>HS, and doesn't have any of the issues you are concerned about in your post,
>so you should at least give it a whirl before you decide. On
>www.charmedquark.com, go to the Learn tab, and you can go through the Quick
>Tutorial which will quickly give you a hands on tour of the product.
>
>-------------------------------------
>Dean Roddey
>Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
>www.charmedquark.com
>
>"dicko" <drwho@universalclock.com> wrote in message
>news:e4c4i1d70nlnn1um8qn12ni44mai0nobcs@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:42:59 -0700, George Pontis <gpontis@spamcop.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> I've started looking at the other automation programs out there
>> principly because of this registration issue. Unfortunately there are
>> only a few on the market that handle z-wave, I havent liked their
>> human interface. So for now, I'm hoping HS gets their act togther and
>> things turn out OK and I can stay with HS. I'm sticking with running
>> HS 1.7 until things stabilize a bit more.
>>
>> dickm
>
Dean
I actually downloaded the free trial of CQC and gave it a try. I came
away with a few impressions

1. Its not a program for non-technical people. I had a tough time
trying to figure out what was happening and in the end, I still
couldnt get it to do a simple event: "if A1 received, then send B1". I
assume I had to write a script but could find no examples of how to do
that. Even though I work in the computer industry, I'm not a
programmer and had no clue where to begin. Do you have an example of
how do this that you should show me? I'd be glad to revisit it.

2. I really liked the z-wave implementation. It seemed to work
faster/snappier than homeseer2. You even copied over the groups as
well as the individual units into CQC which I thought was really
useful. Things worked well when using the onscreen on/off buttons but
again, I didnt know how to make things happen upon reception of a
powerline command. It also appeared to react faster for X10 too. Press
an on screen on/off button and the light turns on/off without the
latency I notice in HS1 and in a lesser extent HS2. I even didnt
notice the problems with the zwave USB interface that I have with
Homeseer. Oh, you should make the USB zwave driver part of the
download package. I had to hunt all over the CQC website to find a
reference as to to where to download the drivers. Or at the very least
put a reference to it on the main CQC download page.

3. CQC seems to be oriented toward AV control, which I do very little
off. I just want to make lights go on and off. So I had little use
for the extensive screen drawing/control flow user interface. Unless I
missed something and that is where I really implement the events I
want. It looked to me like I could design a virtual control panel
for my A/V system but unless I wanted to control my house from the
computer screen, I couldnt use it to create events.

4. I didnt see any support for X10 RF like the W800 or MR26 receivers
which is important to me. Again, I guess its different applications.

My overall impressions was that it was a well crafted program and an
excellent program for A/V control. I had thoughts of going out and
buying a wireless tablet PC and creating the ultimate remote control
but thats not the application I need it for. But while it is
infinitly flexible, that flexibility comes at a price. it is complex
to install and program. I dont think its a program for newbies,
certainly not for someone without a background in computers.

dickm

[wkearney99]

> CQC supports Z-Wave, and it has a far more powerful interface system than
> HS, and doesn't have any of the issues you are concerned about in your
post,
> so you should at least give it a whirl before you decide.

Bearing in mind, of course, that it doesn't support the same range of
devices as HomeSeer. CQC does indeed look like a solution well worth
considering, provided it's supported devices are sufficient for you.

[Dean Roddey]

1. Its not a program for non-technical people. I had a tough time
> trying to figure out what was happening and in the end, I still
> couldnt get it to do a simple event: "if A1 received, then send B1". I
> assume I had to write a script but could find no examples of how to do
> that.

You were not hallucinating. That doesn't exist yet. It's coming up in the
1.5 release, and will likely be the only 1.5 major feature, so that we can
get it out very fast. For us, unlike HS, these types of things have to be on
a network wide basis, since CQC is fully network distributed, so it's a lot
more complex problem for us. But we've worked out our strategy and I'm
working on it as we speak actually. Once we get this in place, that will be
the last significant hole filled on the core automation side.

> Homeseer. Oh, you should make the USB zwave driver part of the
> download package. I had to hunt all over the CQC website to find a
> reference as to to where to download the drivers. Or at the very least
> put a reference to it on the main CQC download page.

I'm kind of leary of putting third party drivers in the actual package. The
package is documented on the Z-Wave driver page. Any time you have a
question about a given device, go to Learn,then Suppored Devices and check
the driver docs for that device. Any third party drivers needed by that
device will be linked to there.

> 3. CQC seems to be oriented toward AV control, which I do very little
> off. I just want to make lights go on and off.

Well, I would say that, in addition to traditional automation, it's strong
in the theater and media management areas :-) It's not really oriented
towards anything, since it's just driver based. But it just has a good
number of drivers for theater oriented devices at this point. And I'd argue
that the extensive user interface support we have is very much important in
the traditional home automation world as well, though it's not important to
every user of course.

> 4. I didnt see any support for X10 RF like the W800 or MR26 receivers
> which is important to me. Again, I guess its different applications.
>

There aren't currently drivers for those. We'll be getting them before too
much longer, and of course someone else could do them if they want to.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. We don't have the
range of device support that HS does, but if you look at what HS is going
through right now, in large part because they never really controlled their
own device support and depended on third party support of highly varying
quality and commitment, it's something that we've always been careful about.
We do of course support third party drivers, and all the tools are in the
package, but we work closely with each person implementing one and vet them
carefully. We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qPOdnZ3DRcg6dL_eRVn-1Q@speakeasy.net...
>> CQC supports Z-Wave, and it has a far more powerful interface system than
>> HS, and doesn't have any of the issues you are concerned about in your
> post,
>> so you should at least give it a whirl before you decide.
>
> Bearing in mind, of course, that it doesn't support the same range of
> devices as HomeSeer. CQC does indeed look like a solution well worth
> considering, provided it's supported devices are sufficient for you.
>

[dicko]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:01:21 GMT, "Dean Roddey"
<droddey@charmedquark.com> wrote:

> 1. Its not a program for non-technical people. I had a tough time
>> trying to figure out what was happening and in the end, I still
>> couldnt get it to do a simple event: "if A1 received, then send B1". I
>> assume I had to write a script but could find no examples of how to do
>> that.
>
>You were not hallucinating. That doesn't exist yet. It's coming up in the
>1.5 release, and will likely be the only 1.5 major feature, so that we can
>get it out very fast. For us, unlike HS, these types of things have to be on
>a network wide basis, since CQC is fully network distributed, so it's a lot
>more complex problem for us. But we've worked out our strategy and I'm
>working on it as we speak actually. Once we get this in place, that will be
>the last significant hole filled on the core automation side.
>
I'll be sure to give it another try when 1.5 hits the streets.

dickm.

[Brian W. Antoine]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
wrote:

>Yeh, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. We don't have the
>range of device support that HS does, but if you look at what HS is going
>through right now, in large part because they never really controlled their
>own device support and depended on third party support of highly varying
>quality and commitment, it's something that we've always been careful about.
>We do of course support third party drivers, and all the tools are in the
>package, but we work closely with each person implementing one and vet them
>carefully. We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.

Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
continue to do so for some time.

[Don]

It sure did. I have had a help ticket for a problem with a Homeseer
supported plugin since JUNE and nothing yet except WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT
and that they are swamped with support for the HS2 and can't support a HS1
plugin.

NOT GOOD.


"Brian W. Antoine" <briana@nas-kan.org> wrote in message
news:i4gbi1d78ri86v70b5m6iu5qhhelh8e959@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
> wrote:
>
We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.
>
> Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
> get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
> continue to do so for some time.

[Marc F Hult]

The reason that Savoy pulled CyberHouse from the DIY market was the same
reason that they pulled it from the installer market and (I gather) the reason
that Premise Systems was sold to Motorola and is in now limbo -- the
difficulty of supporting hardware from multiple vendors.

This is a rough row to hoe ...

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org


On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:14 -0400, "Don" <kyham@k9soa.net> wrote in message
<2ef2$432b3340$438d0cde$5461@ALLTEL.NET>:

>It sure did. I have had a help ticket for a problem with a Homeseer
>supported plugin since JUNE and nothing yet except WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT
>and that they are swamped with support for the HS2 and can't support a HS1
>plugin.
>
>NOT GOOD.
>
>
>"Brian W. Antoine" <briana@nas-kan.org> wrote in message
>news:i4gbi1d78ri86v70b5m6iu5qhhelh8e959@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.
>>
>> Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
>> get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
>> continue to do so for some time.
>

[Brian W. Antoine]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:14 -0400, "Don" <kyham@k9soa.net> wrote:

>It sure did. I have had a help ticket for a problem with a Homeseer
>supported plugin since JUNE and nothing yet except WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT
>and that they are swamped with support for the HS2 and can't support a HS1
>plugin.
>
>NOT GOOD.
>
>
>"Brian W. Antoine" <briana@nas-kan.org> wrote in message
>news:i4gbi1d78ri86v70b5m6iu5qhhelh8e959@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.
>>
>> Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
>> get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
>> continue to do so for some time.
>

June of what year? :)

[Dean Roddey]

I'm just finishing up support for a pure-software based solution that allows
us to access serial ports at our customer's homes. So you'll just need to
have CQC installed at the client side and that will allow us to connect to a
device there and do development of serially based drivers. I think that this
will make a big difference in our ability to support new devices since we
don't have to have them sent here or buy them ourselves. The customer can
just give us access to the serial port.

We were initally going to use an IP based multi-port card, but they are
somewhat expensive and we'd only have a limited number of them to send
around. So I just said the heck with it and did a software based version.
Our product is built on our own very extensive object framework, so
abstracting a serial port was pretty straightforward. The driver development
tools just allow you to enable access to a remote serial port server running
at the customer's site, which they can run and enable when needed, and his
ports show up as local ports to the driver development tools.

We could already do IP based devices this way of course, I did the Sony
Qualia driver like that, and it worked out quit well. But serial devices
were always a problem. That's a hole that we've now closed. I'll be adding 4
very useful new drivers over the next week using this new feature.

Try that with Homeseer :-)

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

"Marc F Hult" <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
news:9udmi1hcrjdp4rl36tkkonedj7d00j1gbp@4ax.com...
> The reason that Savoy pulled CyberHouse from the DIY market was the same
> reason that they pulled it from the installer market and (I gather) the
> reason
> that Premise Systems was sold to Motorola and is in now limbo -- the
> difficulty of supporting hardware from multiple vendors.
>
> This is a rough row to hoe ...
>
> Marc
> Marc_F_Hult
> www.ECOntrol.org
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:14 -0400, "Don" <kyham@k9soa.net> wrote in
> message
> <2ef2$432b3340$438d0cde$5461@ALLTEL.NET>:
>

[MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com]

Neat! Does that mean I'm absolved from disconnecting and mailing the Aprilaire
thermostats, DMX lighting controller, Slinke and so on ?? ;-) The idea of
foregoing HVAC, lights and music would be/is too suggestive of a disaster
situation ...

Remote Desktop Connection (RDC)/ Microsoft Terminal Server Client and Server
are standard with XP Pro and Server 2003 and allow the option of connecting
remote serial ports, so I don't see exactly why this couldn't be done with
Homeseer. A kludge to be sure.

One advantage of an IP-based serial hub is the ability to have failover of
hard-wired serial connections to a backup PC -- on site or remote. A minor
advantage in most cases, but could be very useful in remote installations such
as a cabin or where the local folks are unwilling/unable to set things right.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.EControl.org

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:08:46 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
wrote in message <2gIWe.1255$7x4.783@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:

>I'm just finishing up support for a pure-software based solution that allows
>us to access serial ports at our customer's homes. So you'll just need to
>have CQC installed at the client side and that will allow us to connect to a
>device there and do development of serially based drivers. I think that this
>will make a big difference in our ability to support new devices since we
>don't have to have them sent here or buy them ourselves. The customer can
>just give us access to the serial port.
>
>We were initally going to use an IP based multi-port card, but they are
>somewhat expensive and we'd only have a limited number of them to send
>around. So I just said the heck with it and did a software based version.
>Our product is built on our own very extensive object framework, so
>abstracting a serial port was pretty straightforward. The driver development
>tools just allow you to enable access to a remote serial port server running
>at the customer's site, which they can run and enable when needed, and his
>ports show up as local ports to the driver development tools.
>
>We could already do IP based devices this way of course, I did the Sony
>Qualia driver like that, and it worked out quit well. But serial devices
>were always a problem. That's a hole that we've now closed. I'll be adding 4
>very useful new drivers over the next week using this new feature.
>
>Try that with Homeseer :-)
>
>-------------------------------------
>Dean Roddey
>Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
>www.charmedquark.com
>
>"Marc F Hult" <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>news:9udmi1hcrjdp4rl36tkkonedj7d00j1gbp@4ax.com...
>> The reason that Savoy pulled CyberHouse from the DIY market was the same
>> reason that they pulled it from the installer market and (I gather) the
>> reason
>> that Premise Systems was sold to Motorola and is in now limbo -- the
>> difficulty of supporting hardware from multiple vendors.
>>
>> This is a rough row to hoe ...
>>
>> Marc
>> Marc_F_Hult
>> www.ECOntrol.org
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:04:14 -0400, "Don" <kyham@k9soa.net> wrote in
>> message
>> <2ef2$432b3340$438d0cde$5461@ALLTEL.NET>:
>>
>

[Dean Roddey]

If they already have an IP-based box we could certainly use it, but it often
requires that we install whatever Acme virtual comm port drivers that box
requires on our side, and we aren't too hip on doing that on our system.
This scheme means we don't have to deal with any of that.

Another reason why I went forward with this is that about 80% of that work
is the same work that will be required to support serial ports that don't
have such virtual com port drivers, such as the GC-100, to make them look
like regular com ports to us (though it's still limited in that case because
the GC-100 ports are very limited in their capabilities.)

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

<MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
news:vkmmi1pooahf03iugpt15l1ben70elv0f4@4ax.com...
>
> Neat! Does that mean I'm absolved from disconnecting and mailing the
> Aprilaire
> thermostats, DMX lighting controller, Slinke and so on ?? ;-) The idea of
> foregoing HVAC, lights and music would be/is too suggestive of a disaster
> situation ...
>
> Remote Desktop Connection (RDC)/ Microsoft Terminal Server Client and
> Server
> are standard with XP Pro and Server 2003 and allow the option of
> connecting
> remote serial ports, so I don't see exactly why this couldn't be done with
> Homeseer. A kludge to be sure.
>
> One advantage of an IP-based serial hub is the ability to have failover of
> hard-wired serial connections to a backup PC -- on site or remote. A
> minor
> advantage in most cases, but could be very useful in remote installations
> such
> as a cabin or where the local folks are unwilling/unable to set things
> right.
>
> ... Marc
> Marc_F_Hult
> www.EControl.org
>

[MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:32:13 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
wrote in message <huJWe.4581$6e1.1205@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>:

>If they already have an IP-based box we could certainly use it, but it often
>requires that we install whatever Acme virtual comm port drivers that box
>requires on our side, and we aren't too hip on doing that on our system.
>This scheme means we don't have to deal with any of that.

Got it: a trade off that increases uncertainty and potential for driver
conflicts/BSOD. FWIW, I've found Comtrol drivers to be rock-stable.

>Another reason why I went forward with this is that about 80% of that work
>is the same work that will be required to support serial ports that don't
>have such virtual com port drivers, such as the GC-100, to make them look
>like regular com ports to us (though it's still limited in that case because
>the GC-100 ports are very limited in their capabilities.)

OK. But couldn't you use a PC with multiple com ports supported by the _OS_ to
serve as an IP serial hub? I suppose that puts you in the serial hub "market"
which may not be what you want.

And I still don't see why MSTSC/RDC isn't a solution. If I have CQS (or
Homeseer, Cyberhouse, Premise) running on a local machine, why can't the
program use the comm ports on a remote PC as if they were native? Or
vice-versa? I use MSTS/RDC all day long with no problems. But I've just assumed
that the comm ports work as advertised. Am I missing something?

One question this line of discussion can eventually lead to is whether a
back-up server (whether CyberHouse, Homeseer, Premise or CQS) requires a second
licence ;-)

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Dean Roddey]

> OK. But couldn't you use a PC with multiple com ports supported by the
> _OS_ to
> serve as an IP serial hub? I suppose that puts you in the serial hub
> "market"
> which may not be what you want.

Since CQC is fully distributed, and if you already have a PC there, we'd
just say load CQCServer there and let it do control locally and all of those
devices will then be available anywhere else on the network. That would be a
better deal for us, since you've already got the PC there anyway.

> And I still don't see why MSTSC/RDC isn't a solution. If I have CQS (or
> Homeseer, Cyberhouse, Premise) running on a local machine, why can't the
> program use the comm ports on a remote PC as if they were native? Or
> vice-versa? I use MSTS/RDC all day long with no problems. But I've just
> assumed
> that the comm ports work as advertised. Am I missing something?

Customers might not want to give us that level of control. Our scheme just
provides us access to serial ports and nothing else. And I'll probably set
it up so that customer can limit it to particular serial ports. So we have a
lot less 'liability' this way, since we can't possibly get into anything we
shouldn't or do any damage to the PC if we are writing drivers late at night
and are a bit foggy. Wouldn't want to erase their hard drive by accident or
anything :-)

The other thing is that unless they have Windows Server or something like
ThinSoft, then in order to RDP into their machine we lock them out of it
completely, AFAIK. XP only supports a single session, and if you RDP into it
you lose the local session. This way we don't prevent them from continuing
to use their automation system while we work on a driver.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

[Marc F Hult]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:12:37 GMT, MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com wrote in
message <sarmi15q8hourkqru6en1v0m47sa80peb5@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:11:49 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
wrote in message <VPLWe.1472$2J3.373@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

>Since CQC is fully distributed, and if you already have a PC there, we'd
>just say load CQCServer there and let it do control locally and all of those
>devices will then be available anywhere else on the network. That would be a
>better deal for us, since you've already got the PC there anyway.

This is what I am used to because it is also the architecture of CyberHouse
(since 1997 at least). In the case of CyberHouse, the clients are/were
available free and downloadable by anyone and the servers are/were licensed
with additional fees for additional devices.

Frankly, the ability to for anyone to download valid clients of the net
(Homeseer, CyberHouse, Premise, CQS) is not helpful from a security
standpoint. Fortunately both CyberHouse and CQS have useful security measures.
Homeseer 1.x had too many security issues of various sorts to be considered
(by me, for my needs). Dunno about 2.x.

By "better deal for us" I hear you to mean mostly that it is more robust and
easier to hook into, not in any particular financial sense.

>> And I still don't see why MSTSC/RDC isn't a solution. If I have CQS (or
>> Homeseer, Cyberhouse, Premise) running on a local machine, why can't the
>> program use the comm ports on a remote PC as if they were native? Or
>> vice-versa? I use MSTS/RDC all day long with no problems. But I've just
>> assumed
>> that the comm ports work as advertised. Am I missing something?
>
>Customers might not want to give us that level of control. Our scheme just
>provides us access to serial ports and nothing else. And I'll probably set
>it up so that customer can limit it to particular serial ports. So we have a
>lot less 'liability' this way, since we can't possibly get into anything we
>shouldn't or do any damage to the PC if we are writing drivers late at night
>and are a bit foggy. Wouldn't want to erase their hard drive by accident or
>anything :-)
>
>The other thing is that unless they have Windows Server or something like
>ThinSoft, then in order to RDP into their machine we lock them out of it
>completely, AFAIK. XP only supports a single session, and if you RDP into it
>you lose the local session. This way we don't prevent them from continuing
>to use their automation system while we work on a driver.

Good points all.

Yours is a 'better way' IMO.

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Dean Roddey]

> By "better deal for us" I hear you to mean mostly that it is more robust
> and
> easier to hook into, not in any particular financial sense.
>

Yep, the former. It's a site license so we don't make any more for you to
install CQC on another machine in the network.

> Frankly, the ability to for anyone to download valid clients of the net
> (Homeseer, CyberHouse, Premise, CQS) is not helpful from a security
> standpoint. Fortunately both CyberHouse and CQS have useful security
> measures.
> Homeseer 1.x had too many security issues of various sorts to be
> considered
> (by me, for my needs). Dunno about 2.x.

Yeh, we have a pretty strict, server-based, security system. So just hacking
a client tool won't get you in. You have to log in and get a security token
in order to do anything useful. That security token has to be passed back in
on any calls made from the client.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

[Don]

Yes that is probably true along with the fact that they don't seem to
realize the difference between ALPHA and BETA testing or putting out a
product WAY BEFORE IT IS READY. They just caused their own overload
problems. Can't feel sorry when they caused most of their own problems by
putting the product out way too soon.

Even with that, they HAVE TO SUPPORT CURRENT PRODUCT AND USERS. By not
doing that, they are shooting themselves in the foot for credibility.

It is at the point that I am advertising on my website that they are not
providing support for their product and users and that is why my site is
down.

I used to get a fair amount of site visitors, 1000+ a month, and now all
they get is the message that HS is ignoring their best advertisement by not
fixing a long term outstanding security hole.

Don





"Brian W. Antoine" <briana@nas-kan.org> wrote in message
news:i4gbi1d78ri86v70b5m6iu5qhhelh8e959@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yeh, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. We don't have the
>>range of device support that HS does, but if you look at what HS is going
>>through right now, in large part because they never really controlled
>>their
>>own device support and depended on third party support of highly varying
>>quality and commitment, it's something that we've always been careful
>>about.
>>We do of course support third party drivers, and all the tools are in the
>>package, but we work closely with each person implementing one and vet
>>them
>>carefully. We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.
>
> Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
> get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
> continue to do so for some time.

[Marc F Hult]

AS I understand it, v2.0 was many months late in coming out. They set up
expectations for one date and then didn't deliver.

While there may be some problems with their A&B process, the biggest
problems seem to be 1) intrinsic to supporting many devices 2) code coming in
part from third parties, and 3 the underlying code and then switch to NET.

I've evaluated Homseer every couple of years since it became available and
these problems have been there forever. The nature of the beast is that the
problems grow exponentially even as software functionality seems to grow only
arithmetically. It's almost always this way ...

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www,ECOntrol.org


the On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:49:01 -0400, "Don" <kyham@k9soa.net> wrote in
message <918fe$4336485f$438d0cde$10596@ALLTEL.NET>:

>Yes that is probably true along with the fact that they don't seem to
>realize the difference between ALPHA and BETA testing or putting out a
>product WAY BEFORE IT IS READY. They just caused their own overload
>problems. Can't feel sorry when they caused most of their own problems by
>putting the product out way too soon.
>
>Even with that, they HAVE TO SUPPORT CURRENT PRODUCT AND USERS. By not
>doing that, they are shooting themselves in the foot for credibility.
>
>It is at the point that I am advertising on my website that they are not
>providing support for their product and users and that is why my site is
>down.
>
>I used to get a fair amount of site visitors, 1000+ a month, and now all
>they get is the message that HS is ignoring their best advertisement by not
>fixing a long term outstanding security hole.
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>
>"Brian W. Antoine" <briana@nas-kan.org> wrote in message
>news:i4gbi1d78ri86v70b5m6iu5qhhelh8e959@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:03:52 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@charmedquark.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeh, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. We don't have the
>>>range of device support that HS does, but if you look at what HS is going
>>>through right now, in large part because they never really controlled
>>>their
>>>own device support and depended on third party support of highly varying
>>>quality and commitment, it's something that we've always been careful
>>>about.
>>>We do of course support third party drivers, and all the tools are in the
>>>package, but we work closely with each person implementing one and vet
>>>them
>>>carefully. We just cannot afford to get into the situation HS is in.
>>
>> Support for plugins they own is a problem also. I suspect the push to
>> get HS2 out the door consumed every resource they had, and will probably
>> continue to do so for some time.
>