Switching audio via an Ocelot and SECU's [Archive]

John W

31-01-2006, 12:48 PM

Since you are using amplified speakers, the SECU16 relays will easily handle
the line level (i.e. unamplified) audio that you need to feed the speakers.
The 38W you refer to is the output of the amplifier in the speakers. Input
to the speakers is a relatively low voltage (line level) like that put out
by the sound card in your PC.

I use PC-style amplified speakers for my whole house audio and have no
problems with buzz or hum even though some of them have 50 feet of cable
connecting them. I use regular telephone cable (twisted pairs) for cabling
and buy it in boxes of 1000 feet for under $30. I use the same cable for my
PIR's and other SECU inputs as well.

So far, I have not tried switching audio sources with SECU relays but I may
do that to switch from my SpeakEasy to my PC sound card so I can play MP3's
from my PC on the same speakers.

If needed, you can double up on the pairs (I do this for powering my alarm
horns with 12vdc from my wiring closet).

John W

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:UdGdnafPtq-bP0PeRVn-gQ@rcn.net...
>I was so impressed by John Warner's Ocelot-based home audio that I decided
> to build one like it. I want to place PC amplified speakers throughout
> the
> house in zones corresponding to the 12 IR zones I have established
> (actually
> it will be one set of speaker for every two zones). I want to be able to
> mute the audio, simulate "distinctive rings" based on caller ID (if it's
> one
> of my wife's VIP #'s it rings one way, mine another, etc). I want to be
> able to pipe front door and speakerphone conversations through it as well.
>
> My question is this: How do I switch all of the audio feeds through a
> SECU
> without inducing hum or sharp "snap" transients? What kind of cable
> should
> I run? Should I remove the amps from the speakers and mount them in the
> wire room and just have normal speaker wire going to the speaker boxes?
> What kind of relay would switch a 38W Sound Blaster speaker without
> burning
> itself or the relay out? Any ideas will be helpful!
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>

Robert Green

01-02-2006, 08:46 AM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
news:66mdnUjmAdtIJUPeRVn-gg@powergate.ca...
> Since you are using amplified speakers, the SECU16 relays will easily
handle
> the line level (i.e. unamplified) audio that you need to feed the
speakers.
> The 38W you refer to is the output of the amplifier in the speakers.
Input
> to the speakers is a relatively low voltage (line level) like that put out
> by the sound card in your PC.

Yes - but my concern is still that the low voltage line level inputs will be
subjected to hum if run through unshielded wire. I've seen people tackle
this with baluns, mini coax and other forms of ground loop isolation and
still have hum issues. I'd hate to wire it up and find out that there's
some sort of unresolvable hum issue.

> I use PC-style amplified speakers for my whole house audio and have no
> problems with buzz or hum even though some of them have 50 feet of cable
> connecting them. I use regular telephone cable (twisted pairs) for
cabling
> and buy it in boxes of 1000 feet for under $30. I use the same cable for
my
> PIR's and other SECU inputs as well.

It could be that you're just lucky not to have any hum issues.
Unfortunately, I've already discovered I couldn't run one set of amplified
speakers through 3 position RCA stereo switchbox without outrageous hum. I
was trying to switch inputs from a small TV, a PC and a portable MP3 player
into a set of amplified speakers and as soon as the RCA cable from the PC
was plugged in, there was an outrageous hum problem.

I'm anticipating a number of devices feeding into the SECU audio switcher
with the output going to at least 3 sets of amplified speakers. My gut
tells me at least one of those combinations is going to hum if wired through
twisted pair. But I can simulate it pretty easily with uninstalled CAT-5
pieces I have lying around before I go through the trouble of pulling cable.
I just think the electrons in Canada behavior themselves better in audio
systems. :-)

> So far, I have not tried switching audio sources with SECU relays but I
may
> do that to switch from my SpeakEasy to my PC sound card so I can play
MP3's > from my PC on the same speakers.

That's where I think you might run into hum and crosstalk issues. Of
course, I live within a few hundred meters of a big cell tower, so that
might explain why hum is a bigger problem for me.

--
Bobby G.

Dave Houston

01-02-2006, 08:46 AM

The hum is probably from ground loops rather than from unshielded cables.
Baluns serve to isolate the different grounds. If you do use shielded cable,
only connect the shield at one end.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:66mdnUjmAdtIJUPeRVn-gg@powergate.ca...
>> Since you are using amplified speakers, the SECU16 relays will easily
>handle
>> the line level (i.e. unamplified) audio that you need to feed the
>speakers.
>> The 38W you refer to is the output of the amplifier in the speakers.
>Input
>> to the speakers is a relatively low voltage (line level) like that put out
>> by the sound card in your PC.
>
>Yes - but my concern is still that the low voltage line level inputs will be
>subjected to hum if run through unshielded wire. I've seen people tackle
>this with baluns, mini coax and other forms of ground loop isolation and
>still have hum issues. I'd hate to wire it up and find out that there's
>some sort of unresolvable hum issue.
>
>> I use PC-style amplified speakers for my whole house audio and have no
>> problems with buzz or hum even though some of them have 50 feet of cable
>> connecting them. I use regular telephone cable (twisted pairs) for
>cabling
>> and buy it in boxes of 1000 feet for under $30. I use the same cable for
>my
>> PIR's and other SECU inputs as well.
>
>It could be that you're just lucky not to have any hum issues.
>Unfortunately, I've already discovered I couldn't run one set of amplified
>speakers through 3 position RCA stereo switchbox without outrageous hum. I
>was trying to switch inputs from a small TV, a PC and a portable MP3 player
>into a set of amplified speakers and as soon as the RCA cable from the PC
>was plugged in, there was an outrageous hum problem.
>
>I'm anticipating a number of devices feeding into the SECU audio switcher
>with the output going to at least 3 sets of amplified speakers. My gut
>tells me at least one of those combinations is going to hum if wired through
>twisted pair. But I can simulate it pretty easily with uninstalled CAT-5
>pieces I have lying around before I go through the trouble of pulling cable.
>I just think the electrons in Canada behavior themselves better in audio
>systems. :-)
>
>> So far, I have not tried switching audio sources with SECU relays but I
>may
>> do that to switch from my SpeakEasy to my PC sound card so I can play
>MP3's > from my PC on the same speakers.
>
>That's where I think you might run into hum and crosstalk issues. Of
>course, I live within a few hundred meters of a big cell tower, so that
>might explain why hum is a bigger problem for me.

John W

01-02-2006, 12:00 PM

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:wuWdnaHpD5yJVkLeRVn-sw@rcn.net...
> "John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:66mdnUjmAdtIJUPeRVn-gg@powergate.ca...
>> Since you are using amplified speakers, the SECU16 relays will easily
> handle
>> the line level (i.e. unamplified) audio that you need to feed the
> speakers.
>> The 38W you refer to is the output of the amplifier in the speakers.
> Input
>> to the speakers is a relatively low voltage (line level) like that put
>> out
>> by the sound card in your PC.
>
> Yes - but my concern is still that the low voltage line level inputs will
> be
> subjected to hum if run through unshielded wire. I've seen people tackle
> this with baluns, mini coax and other forms of ground loop isolation and
> still have hum issues. I'd hate to wire it up and find out that there's
> some sort of unresolvable hum issue.

Twisted pair is not as good as shielded but it is cheap and what they
connect telephones with. Given that same wire is capable of carrying a
broadband signal (DSL) for several kilometers, it should (and, in my case
does) handle line-level audio adequately. If you have any around, you could
do some bench testing before installing anything?

>> I use PC-style amplified speakers for my whole house audio and have no
>> problems with buzz or hum even though some of them have 50 feet of cable
>> connecting them. I use regular telephone cable (twisted pairs) for
> cabling
>> and buy it in boxes of 1000 feet for under $30. I use the same cable for
> my
>> PIR's and other SECU inputs as well.
>
> It could be that you're just lucky not to have any hum issues.
> Unfortunately, I've already discovered I couldn't run one set of amplified
> speakers through 3 position RCA stereo switchbox without outrageous hum.
> I
> was trying to switch inputs from a small TV, a PC and a portable MP3
> player
> into a set of amplified speakers and as soon as the RCA cable from the PC
> was plugged in, there was an outrageous hum problem.

RCA jacks/cables normally carry amplified signals so I'm not sure what you
were switching? Line-level audio normally uses the 1/8" earphone style
jack/cables like MP3 players and PC sound cards use. Was the hum 60cycle?
If yes, it's probably a grounding issue between the devices your are
switching?
>
> I'm anticipating a number of devices feeding into the SECU audio switcher
> with the output going to at least 3 sets of amplified speakers. My gut
> tells me at least one of those combinations is going to hum if wired
> through
> twisted pair. But I can simulate it pretty easily with uninstalled CAT-5
> pieces I have lying around before I go through the trouble of pulling
> cable.
> I just think the electrons in Canada behavior themselves better in audio
> systems. :-)

Candadians do generally behave themselves quite well (even Canadian
electrons ;-) but a test with CAT5 sounds like a good idea. Just be sure
you are carrying the unamplified (line level) signal on it so the CAT5 goes
from the PC soundcard output (example) to the amplified speaker input.
>
>> So far, I have not tried switching audio sources with SECU relays but I
> may
>> do that to switch from my SpeakEasy to my PC sound card so I can play
> MP3's > from my PC on the same speakers.
>
> That's where I think you might run into hum and crosstalk issues. Of
> course, I live within a few hundred meters of a big cell tower, so that
> might explain why hum is a bigger problem for me.

You may also recall from previous posts that all of my SECU relays connect
to my relay board and are only used to switch these 10a DPST relays. This
provides isolation and higher current carrying capacity.

John W
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Robert Green

01-02-2006, 12:00 PM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> Twisted pair is not as good as shielded but it is cheap and what they
> connect telephones with. Given that same wire is capable of carrying a
> broadband signal (DSL) for several kilometers, it should (and, in my case
> does) handle line-level audio adequately. If you have any around, you
could
> do some bench testing before installing anything?

You bet I will before I go fishing cable through the walls! :-)

> >> I use PC-style amplified speakers for my whole house audio and have no
> >> problems with buzz or hum even though some of them have 50 feet of
cable
> >> connecting them. I use regular telephone cable (twisted pairs) for
> > cabling
> >> and buy it in boxes of 1000 feet for under $30. I use the same cable
for
> > my
> >> PIR's and other SECU inputs as well.
> >
> > It could be that you're just lucky not to have any hum issues.
> > Unfortunately, I've already discovered I couldn't run one set of
amplified
> > speakers through 3 position RCA stereo switchbox without outrageous hum.
> > I
> > was trying to switch inputs from a small TV, a PC and a portable MP3
> > player
> > into a set of amplified speakers and as soon as the RCA cable from the
PC
> > was plugged in, there was an outrageous hum problem.
>
> RCA jacks/cables normally carry amplified signals

???? On most of my stereo equipment, the red and white RCA jacks are used
to connect line level devices. The only time I've seen RCA connectors carry
amped signals was with an old, suitcase style phonograph player or are we
talking about different things?

> so I'm not sure what you
> were switching? Line-level audio normally uses the 1/8" earphone style
> jack/cables like MP3 players and PC sound cards use. Was the hum 60cycle?
> If yes, it's probably a grounding issue between the devices your are
> switching?

The switchbox had RCA style jacks for switching line level audio. I
connected to it with a mini-stereo 1/8" phone plug to two RCA plug cables.
And yes, it's probably a grounding issue and one that was impossible to
solve. I ended up using a two sets of speakers and a mini-stereo extension
cable so that I could connect and disconnect the PC and the MP3 player from
speaker input manually.

> > I'm anticipating a number of devices feeding into the SECU audio
switcher
> > with the output going to at least 3 sets of amplified speakers. My gut
> > tells me at least one of those combinations is going to hum if wired
> > through
> > twisted pair. But I can simulate it pretty easily with uninstalled
CAT-5
> > pieces I have lying around before I go through the trouble of pulling
> > cable.
> > I just think the electrons in Canada behavior themselves better in audio
> > systems. :-)
>
> Candadians do generally behave themselves quite well (even Canadian
> electrons ;-) but a test with CAT5 sounds like a good idea. Just be sure
> you are carrying the unamplified (line level) signal on it so the CAT5
goes
> from the PC soundcard output (example) to the amplified speaker input.

Candadians? Are they the male of the species? :-)

> >> So far, I have not tried switching audio sources with SECU relays but I
> > may
> >> do that to switch from my SpeakEasy to my PC sound card so I can play
> > MP3's > from my PC on the same speakers.
> >
> > That's where I think you might run into hum and crosstalk issues. Of
> > course, I live within a few hundred meters of a big cell tower, so that
> > might explain why hum is a bigger problem for me.
>
> You may also recall from previous posts that all of my SECU relays connect
> to my relay board and are only used to switch these 10a DPST relays. This
> provides isolation and higher current carrying capacity.

My feeling is that there was a problem in the audio switchbox but another
make and model behaved the same way. What the TV and the PC were using for
their audio ground weren't compatible. As for testing, since I am a
wood-worker by genetic disposition, the command "measure twice, cut once"
has a counterpart in the electronics world. "Test twice, then hookup."

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

01-02-2006, 12:00 PM

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:43dfd130.1011146968@nntp.fuse.net...
> The hum is probably from ground loops rather than from unshielded cables.
> Baluns serve to isolate the different grounds. If you do use shielded
cable,
> only connect the shield at one end.

I am going to try John's suggestion to use ordinary twisted pair - at least
I am going to test it with some spare wire remnants and the SECU.

FWIW, after a long period of no noise, my ESM1 is reporting a steady noise
signal that lights up two bars of the display. I've also been experiencing
intermittent operation of some devices that are at the ends of circuits.
Since it's uniform on each one of the circuits, my only guess is that it's
coming from outside the house.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

01-02-2006, 12:13 PM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> You may also recall from previous posts that all of my SECU relays connect
> to my relay board and are only used to switch these 10a DPST relays. This
> provides isolation and higher current carrying capacity.

A Candadian in the ADI forum, JC, posted: "Power relays require a minimum of
current through the contacts in order to stay clean. Switching audio will
eventually oxydize the contacts creating a high resistance path. Unless the
contacts are Gold or bifurcated silver cadmium (yes I know it's no longer
environmentally safe), the average 10 A contact requires a minimum of 100Ma
at 5V to stay clean."

That's the sort of thing I was also worried about, having been bitten by a
number of X-10 "gotchas" long after things were in place and issues began
appearing. I've just asked him how to avert a "resistance" crisis. I may
crosspost this thread to an audio group to get some more ideas.

--
Bobby G.

John W

01-02-2006, 02:34 PM

Have a look back at that post, I added some info about the relays the SECU
uses - not power relays so I don't think that problem will be an issue?

John W

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:L_idnSCkx8xhmn3enZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@rcn.net...
> "John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
>> You may also recall from previous posts that all of my SECU relays
>> connect
>> to my relay board and are only used to switch these 10a DPST relays.
>> This
>> provides isolation and higher current carrying capacity.
>
> A Candadian in the ADI forum, JC, posted: "Power relays require a minimum
> of
> current through the contacts in order to stay clean. Switching audio will
> eventually oxydize the contacts creating a high resistance path. Unless
> the
> contacts are Gold or bifurcated silver cadmium (yes I know it's no longer
> environmentally safe), the average 10 A contact requires a minimum of
> 100Ma
> at 5V to stay clean."
>
> That's the sort of thing I was also worried about, having been bitten by a
> number of X-10 "gotchas" long after things were in place and issues began
> appearing. I've just asked him how to avert a "resistance" crisis. I
> may
> crosspost this thread to an audio group to get some more ideas.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>

Robert Green

02-02-2006, 08:05 AM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ifmdnaoUWa9gjH3eRVn-vA@powergate.ca...
> Have a look back at that post, I added some info about the relays the SECU
> uses - not power relays so I don't think that problem will be an issue?

I looked - I'm still not sure of the answer. Am I missing something or can
you only search the ADI forum ONE topic forum at a time? Is there anything
I can select, like the View | Current View | Show Replies to My Messages in
Outlook Express, that would show me which posts I have made that need a
response? Is there any way to show the last 24 hours of activity rather
than clicking on "read today's new posts" at 12:01AM and being shown
nothing, even if there were 1000 posts in the previous 24 hours? Did I
mention how much I dislike web fora? Oy!

Back to the relay question. I thought JC's commentsimplied the only way to
prevent contact corrosion is to use gold or silver cadmium plated contacts:

<<Power relays require a minimum of current through the contacts in order to
stay clean. Switching audio will eventually oxydize the contacts creating a
high resistance path.

Unless the contacts are Gold or bifurcated silver cadmium (yes I know it's
no longer environmentally safe), the average 10 A contact requires a minimum
of 100Ma at 5V to stay clean.Power relays require a minimum of current
through the contacts in order to stay clean. Switching audio will eventually
oxydize the contacts creating a high resistance path.>>

I'm going to try posting this question elsewhere after doing a little
research to make sure I pick the right components for this. I hate "do
overs" when a little "pregame" research could have averted the problem.
This might even be more appropriate for you since you're connecting
higher-current relays to the SECU to handle more current than they can.
Hopefully the oxidation problem doesn't affect smaller relays like the ones
in the SECU but I'd hate to have to figure out how to clean them if they
ever did oxidize.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

02-02-2006, 08:05 AM

John W

02-02-2006, 10:37 AM

I think the operative word in his post is "Power" relays.

Lots of relays are used to switch line-level signals (that's how telephone
switching offices worked AFTER operators with jacks and BEFORE electronic
switching).

The SECU relays are small reed relays intended for applications such as
yours so should work fine?

wrt to the ADI forum - yes, the shortcomings you have identified are real...

John W

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:VoadneLGZ9zxWX3eRVn-iw@rcn.net...
> "John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ifmdnaoUWa9gjH3eRVn-vA@powergate.ca...
>> Have a look back at that post, I added some info about the relays the
>> SECU
>> uses - not power relays so I don't think that problem will be an issue?
>
> I looked - I'm still not sure of the answer. Am I missing something or
> can
> you only search the ADI forum ONE topic forum at a time? Is there
> anything
> I can select, like the View | Current View | Show Replies to My Messages
> in
> Outlook Express, that would show me which posts I have made that need a
> response? Is there any way to show the last 24 hours of activity rather
> than clicking on "read today's new posts" at 12:01AM and being shown
> nothing, even if there were 1000 posts in the previous 24 hours? Did I
> mention how much I dislike web fora? Oy!
>
> Back to the relay question. I thought JC's commentsimplied the only way
> to
> prevent contact corrosion is to use gold or silver cadmium plated
> contacts:
>
> <<Power relays require a minimum of current through the contacts in order
> to
> stay clean. Switching audio will eventually oxydize the contacts creating
> a
> high resistance path.
>
> Unless the contacts are Gold or bifurcated silver cadmium (yes I know it's
> no longer environmentally safe), the average 10 A contact requires a
> minimum
> of 100Ma at 5V to stay clean.Power relays require a minimum of current
> through the contacts in order to stay clean. Switching audio will
> eventually
> oxydize the contacts creating a high resistance path.>>
>
> I'm going to try posting this question elsewhere after doing a little
> research to make sure I pick the right components for this. I hate "do
> overs" when a little "pregame" research could have averted the problem.
> This might even be more appropriate for you since you're connecting
> higher-current relays to the SECU to handle more current than they can.
> Hopefully the oxidation problem doesn't affect smaller relays like the
> ones
> in the SECU but I'd hate to have to figure out how to clean them if they
> ever did oxidize.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
>

Robert Green

02-02-2006, 03:06 PM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message

> wrt to the ADI forum - yes, the shortcomings you have identified are
real...

That's close to being obscene. There's so much stuff that's CHA related at
that website it's a shame to see information so Balkanized. There was a
great review of UPP reliability in this thread:

http://www.appdigsupport.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000
196

but it will never get the exposure it deserves buried away on the ADI forum.
Nor will ADI generate many sales from their seemingly ever-dwindling
presence here in CHA. I bought three of their units recently directly
because of CHA. Neglecting this newsgroup just doesn't seem a wise product
strategy. I'm sure there's some sordid tale involved, but it just seems a
shame.

Maybe all they do these days is go to trade shows. That's the feeling I get
from the website. Maybe it's their blisteringly hot Front Page News that
says:

SHOWCASE Updated 2/24/05. ADI is exhibiting at the 2005 EHXPO in Orlando FL.

"Fire up your time machines and join us!" {sarcasm mine}

If it's really true that they haven't released a new product in three years
then maybe I should worry and start looking for a different automation
controller. Sure it does what I want it to do - mostly - but I really want
it to do a lot more like interface easily with RF. You can get a MiniITX PC
for less than a Leopard with USB, ethernet, modem, video, sound, and much,
much more and you can program it in a high level language.

Having to search forums one at a time - that's just *gruesome!* I feel like
I am playing the original Adventure game when I try to search for things.
"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." Cripes indeed!
What do they say in response to the complaints? I haven't griped to them
yet since it seems they HAVE to know how awful it is and I still want them
to like me enough to answer my questions! Oy! A company's website reflects
on their all-around competence, I'm afraid. I also thought that I read one
of their key men has left for someplace else (was it to work for Smarthome
or am I imagining all this?).

<sigh>

--
Bobby G.

John W

02-02-2006, 11:23 PM

In spite of its quirks, the ADI forum is very useful. It provides an
excellent archive of information that goes back several years. Searching
across topics would be nice and has been discussed in the forum but iirc, is
a limitation of the software package ADI selected? Once you get used to it,
you'll learn to love it - warts and all!

wrt development, ADI is a small company and HA is only part of their product
set. A recent post by ADI asking what products are of interest leads me to
believe we will see some new development soon?

IMO, even though the last update of CMAX is now a couple years old, there
are still no other products available that come close to these in their
flexibility and affordability...

John W

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:HeWdnWeWONUM4XzenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@rcn.net...
> "John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>> wrt to the ADI forum - yes, the shortcomings you have identified are
> real...
>
> That's close to being obscene. There's so much stuff that's CHA related
> at
> that website it's a shame to see information so Balkanized. There was a
> great review of UPP reliability in this thread:
>
> http://www.appdigsupport.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000
> 196
>
> but it will never get the exposure it deserves buried away on the ADI
> forum.
> Nor will ADI generate many sales from their seemingly ever-dwindling
> presence here in CHA. I bought three of their units recently directly
> because of CHA. Neglecting this newsgroup just doesn't seem a wise
> product
> strategy. I'm sure there's some sordid tale involved, but it just seems a
> shame.
>
> Maybe all they do these days is go to trade shows. That's the feeling I
> get
> from the website. Maybe it's their blisteringly hot Front Page News that
> says:
>
> SHOWCASE Updated 2/24/05. ADI is exhibiting at the 2005 EHXPO in Orlando
> FL.
>
> "Fire up your time machines and join us!" {sarcasm mine}
>
> If it's really true that they haven't released a new product in three
> years
> then maybe I should worry and start looking for a different automation
> controller. Sure it does what I want it to do - mostly - but I really
> want
> it to do a lot more like interface easily with RF. You can get a MiniITX
> PC
> for less than a Leopard with USB, ethernet, modem, video, sound, and much,
> much more and you can program it in a high level language.
>
> Having to search forums one at a time - that's just *gruesome!* I feel
> like
> I am playing the original Adventure game when I try to search for things.
> "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." Cripes indeed!
> What do they say in response to the complaints? I haven't griped to them
> yet since it seems they HAVE to know how awful it is and I still want them
> to like me enough to answer my questions! Oy! A company's website
> reflects
> on their all-around competence, I'm afraid. I also thought that I read
> one
> of their key men has left for someplace else (was it to work for Smarthome
> or am I imagining all this?).
>
> <sigh>
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>

Bill Kearney

03-02-2006, 12:37 AM

> I looked - I'm still not sure of the answer. Am I missing something or
can
> you only search the ADI forum ONE topic forum at a time?

Any time you come across a website with a crappy search interface you can
try using google.

Just use the 'site:' prefix to limit the searches to just a given website
address. As in:

relays site:www.appdigsupport.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Or as a whole URL:
http://www.google.com/search?q=relays+site%3Awww.appdigsupport.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fultimatebb.cgi

-Bill Kearney

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 05:41 AM

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote

> Any time you come across a website with a crappy search interface you can
> try using google.

[/flame on]

Yes, I know that trick. But why should *I* have to compensate for their
programming problems or poor choice of forum software?

My greater struggle is that "any time you come across a website with a
crappy search interface" usually means there's something *crappy* somewhere
in the company. The fact that they put up with their awkward interface for
so long without fixing it is not inspiring. *They* could put a Google-based
search box using the method you suggest on *their* site to compensate for
their ridiculous "one forum at a time, please!" search engine but they
haven't. Other sites do that, why can't they? Instead of useful search
tools, we get to adorn our messages at ADI's forum with lots of nice smilies
and emoticons while the basic requirements of an easy-to-use web forum go
unaddressed. It embodies almost all of the things I dislike about
non-Usenet forums.

I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS and
they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!! That's
*not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware from.
"We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the attitude
such I read from poor website design. From what I managed to glean from
Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started his
own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their job
for them. No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.

It's really put me off investing any more money in the ADI line of
equipment. Couple that with Dave's comment that they "lost" the BX24-AHT
that he sent them and a not-very-pretty paint-by-numbers image slowly
emerges. No new products in 3 years, no RF input, no ASCII string matching
as well as a host of other little "niggles" worries me. Dave Houston's
one-man shop launches more products more often then they do and he's
disabled! What's *their* excuse?

Considering I can buy a Pentium class mini-ITX for roughly the cost of an
Ocelot I think I need to re-evaluate my system design. I'll always be able
to find a replacement controller if I choose the PC-based strategy. On the
other hand, things could get pretty hairy if ADI goes out of business. I
keep thinking of the gentlemen from the UK who recently posted with his
burned-out control board who'll have to redo his entire system because the
specialized CPU board was no longer available. I think I might seriously
look into the Elk line of products to see if they're hitting more of their
marks than ADI. Although I can't find it with the forum search tool, I am
sure that one of ADI's key technical people left. I'll bet he took a lot of
"institutional memory" with him. That's a worrisome problem in a small
company. It's caused more than one such shop to shutter their doors.

For the things I am trying to do, I'm becoming more and more convinced that
a mini-ITX PC is the proper way to do it instead of the Rube Goldberg-ish
method of converting RF to IR to X-10 and torturing myself with ladder logic
programming to work around the shortcomings of the Ocelot. For a device
that's strongly oriented towards X-10 NOT to have some sort of X-10 RF
interface (especially when Dave even dumped on e in their laps!!!!) is just
bogus. There's no other word to describe it. They've fallen asleep at the
wheel, I fear. [/flames off]

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 05:41 AM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
news:up6dnYUgFtZUanzeRVn-sg@powergate.ca...
> In spite of its quirks, the ADI forum is very useful. It provides an
> excellent archive of information that goes back several years. Searching
> across topics would be nice and has been discussed in the forum but iirc,
is
> a limitation of the software package ADI selected? Once you get used to
it,
> you'll learn to love it - warts and all!

Everyone's got a hot button. Mine is having to assemble bits and pieces of
information from a dozen different websites with different passwords, user
interfaces, rating systems, icons and all the other warts when Usenet,
coupled with a good newsreader and Google, can put thousands of related
topics at your fingertips. It also offers the potential for thousands of
people to read your message and offer advice. If a non-member found the ADI
page via Google and saw that there was a critical error in someone's advice,
he would have to register and get a password before he could post "That
suggestion will burn your house down." I wonder if most people would
bother?

If you ask me how I feel as a customer I would say that ADI is making me do
a lot of extra work just to become interested in their product. Out of all
the things I *don't* need to do right now, learning to navigate their
webforum and building a small applet to Google search their site and correct
for their dismal search engine is not high on my list. Would you hire a
carpenter whose own front door didn't latch properly? I see a high
correlation between a website that's got all sorts of warts with a product
that's got all sorts of warts. People who pay attention to detail usually
pay it to everything they do. The converse it true.

Smart companies maintain at least a shadow presence in the newsgroups. Most
don't realize that they can't put an 18-year old clerk out there as their
company face, but instead must choose really, really net-wise and very
innately helpful and unflappable people.

Many small companies either try the 18-year old or put their CEO or chief
design engineer out on the net and it very predictably ends badly. CEOs and
chief engineers wither under heavy criticism - it's their precious baby
that's taking fire and their egos run away with them. So they can't really
be forum minders, either. After trying one or the other to rep them on
Usenet, a company withdraws behind their website castle walls where they can
strike down any poster that's too critical. At least ADI is searchable
through Google via the method Bill K. outlined. Many company forums are
not.

AFAIAC, any forum that's not being constantly monitored by HA experts like
Dave and Bruce and so many others here isn't really giving me information I
feel comfortable with. This is a tough crowd but it's a smart one. It
hurts ADI not to have a better presence here or even some way to shuttle
info to and from CHA. There's so much stuff at the ADI forum that's not
just ADI specific, but applicable to all home automators. They'd sell a
lot more boxes if that discussion occurred here and not in "search only one
forum at a time" ADI land.

> wrt development, ADI is a small company and HA is only part of their
product > set. A recent post by ADI asking what products are of interest
leads me to
> believe we will see some new development soon?

I know in my many trips round and round the ADI forum maze that people have
been offering suggestions for a long, long time. Aren't they three years
late? A dozen other companies have been putting their new protocol units
out for sale and ADI is *thinking* about some new stuff. Danger! Danger!
Will Robinson! There seems to have been a precipitous lack of focus on the
Ocelot/SECU/Bobcat in recent times. People have been asking for two-way
serial Bobcats for a while, they've also been asking for RF.

I'm sorry to be so negative but when I see a website limping along like
theirs I just have to re-evaluate my willingness to commit to buying $1000
worth of their equipment. I'd feel that I would have to buy a complete
duplicate set just to insure that ADI doesn't lose so much interest in the
Ocelot/SECU line that it folds leaving me without a source for spares.

Don't take any of this personally, please. You're ADI user 27, I'm #1402.
You've had a lot more time to acclimate! My wounds from their wretched
website are still bleeding! :-)

--
Bobby G.

Dave Houston

03-02-2006, 05:41 AM

Dan Boone's departure probably has delayed new product development somewhat.

Also, HA is not their primary business which being a contract manufacturer
of printed circuit boards for others.

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote:

>In spite of its quirks, the ADI forum is very useful. It provides an
>excellent archive of information that goes back several years. Searching
>across topics would be nice and has been discussed in the forum but iirc, is
>a limitation of the software package ADI selected? Once you get used to it,
>you'll learn to love it - warts and all!
>
>wrt development, ADI is a small company and HA is only part of their product
>set. A recent post by ADI asking what products are of interest leads me to
>believe we will see some new development soon?
>
>IMO, even though the last update of CMAX is now a couple years old, there
>are still no other products available that come close to these in their
>flexibility and affordability...
>
>John W
>
>"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>news:HeWdnWeWONUM4XzenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@rcn.net...
>> "John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> wrt to the ADI forum - yes, the shortcomings you have identified are
>> real...
>>
>> That's close to being obscene. There's so much stuff that's CHA related
>> at
>> that website it's a shame to see information so Balkanized. There was a
>> great review of UPP reliability in this thread:
>>
>> http://www.appdigsupport.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000
>> 196
>>
>> but it will never get the exposure it deserves buried away on the ADI
>> forum.
>> Nor will ADI generate many sales from their seemingly ever-dwindling
>> presence here in CHA. I bought three of their units recently directly
>> because of CHA. Neglecting this newsgroup just doesn't seem a wise
>> product
>> strategy. I'm sure there's some sordid tale involved, but it just seems a
>> shame.
>>
>> Maybe all they do these days is go to trade shows. That's the feeling I
>> get
>> from the website. Maybe it's their blisteringly hot Front Page News that
>> says:
>>
>> SHOWCASE Updated 2/24/05. ADI is exhibiting at the 2005 EHXPO in Orlando
>> FL.
>>
>> "Fire up your time machines and join us!" {sarcasm mine}
>>
>> If it's really true that they haven't released a new product in three
>> years
>> then maybe I should worry and start looking for a different automation
>> controller. Sure it does what I want it to do - mostly - but I really
>> want
>> it to do a lot more like interface easily with RF. You can get a MiniITX
>> PC
>> for less than a Leopard with USB, ethernet, modem, video, sound, and much,
>> much more and you can program it in a high level language.
>>
>> Having to search forums one at a time - that's just *gruesome!* I feel
>> like
>> I am playing the original Adventure game when I try to search for things.
>> "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike." Cripes indeed!
>> What do they say in response to the complaints? I haven't griped to them
>> yet since it seems they HAVE to know how awful it is and I still want them
>> to like me enough to answer my questions! Oy! A company's website
>> reflects
>> on their all-around competence, I'm afraid. I also thought that I read
>> one
>> of their key men has left for someplace else (was it to work for Smarthome
>> or am I imagining all this?).
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> --
>> Bobby G.
>>
>>
>>
>

Jeff Volp

03-02-2006, 05:41 AM

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:fuqdnd-k3fvHgH_eRVn-gw@rcn.net...
> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS
and
> they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!! That's
> *not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware
from.
> "We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the attitude
> such I read from poor website design. From what I managed to glean from
> Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started
his
> own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
> apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their job
> for them. No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.

I have to jump in here to defend ADI. Being a wizard on imbedded system
design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA. They are different
skills. And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
hardware designing my automation equipment.

Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches. That is expected of
industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
People here talk about X10 not being reliable. I would never trust my
automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
complicated than DOS.

Jeff

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 08:20 AM

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:43e23810.131995875@nntp.fuse.net...
> Dan Boone's departure probably has delayed new product development
somewhat.

Yeah, that's the name I couldn't remember. Kinda sad 'cause it's a pretty
well-known one! Oldtimers disease.

Thanks!

--
Bobby G.

John W

03-02-2006, 08:20 AM

I'm with you Jeff! My Ocelot, SECU's, SpeakEasy etc. haven't missed a beat
in the 5+ years they've been in service!

I look at ADI as a "cottage industry" company - small, but very good in
their specialized niche market.

Many companies have almost no support and, while the ADI board is not
perfect, it is a great tool for getting questions sorted out with the
experts. When required, ADI does jump in on a thread but quite frankly, I'd
rather have them spend their resources on product development than on
monitoring web boards! One could argue in any case, that the best experts
for answering many users questions are those who are already using the
products in a similar fashion?

I also follow several other boards (e.g. Ulead which is a very large
company) where the companies involved never post.

X10 is a huge company by comparison to ADI but have poor products and even
poorer support (they appear to rely on public Newsgroups and FAQ's)?

John W

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6csEf.909$fM1.140@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
> news:fuqdnd-k3fvHgH_eRVn-gw@rcn.net...
>> "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS
> and
>> they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!!
>> That's
>> *not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware
> from.
>> "We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the attitude
>> such I read from poor website design. From what I managed to glean from
>> Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started
> his
>> own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
>> apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their
>> job
>> for them. No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.
>
> I have to jump in here to defend ADI. Being a wizard on imbedded system
> design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA. They are different
> skills. And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
> hardware designing my automation equipment.
>
> Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches. That is expected
> of
> industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
> People here talk about X10 not being reliable. I would never trust my
> automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
> complicated than DOS.
>
> Jeff
>
>

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 08:20 AM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6csEf.909$fM1.140@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
> news:fuqdnd-k3fvHgH_eRVn-gw@rcn.net...
> > "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS
> and
> > they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!!
That's
> > *not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware
> from.
> > "We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the
attitude
> > such I read from poor website design. From what I managed to glean from
> > Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started
> his
> > own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
> > apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their
job
> > for them. No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.
>
> I have to jump in here to defend ADI. Being a wizard on imbedded system
> design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA. They are different
> skills. And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
> hardware designing my automation equipment.

C'mon Jeff, you don't have to a wizard to know there are serious, serious
problems with the ADI site. Part of being a good manager is to *find* the
people with the skills you lack to perform quality work that you can't do,
but that *should* be done. I really feel as if I have to pull teeth to get
to information buried in the forum. A company's website projects its
corporate image - that's just how it is - it's not my interpretation. If a
company's website is full of warts, it just *has* to make a logical person
stop, think, and worry about overall quality issues.

> Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches. That is expected
of
> industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
> People here talk about X10 not being reliable. I would never trust my
> automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
> complicated than DOS.

I'd use Linux on a MiniITX with a fanless 1GHz CPU, ethernet, video, audio,
USB, 256MB of memory, Firewire, serial and parallel ports and it would cost
me *less* than one Ocelot and one SECU or Bobcat module. It would likely
take up the same amount of cabinet space, too. But it would be infinitely
more capable. What happens when you run out of memory on the Ocelot? Can
you snap in another 1GB?

Then there's C-MAX, It's a natural language for microcoders like you and
Dave but it's just plain bizarre to anyone like me who was taught structured
and modular programming. So, to use an Ocelot I need to learn a new
webforum tool, a new programming language unlike any I have ever dealt with
and work around frustrating limitations in I/O and RF connectivity. With a
major player leaving like Dan Boone leaving, a website with a homepage
invitation to a *2005* conference, a hard to search, hard to use forum and a
*unique* programming language, Ocelot's fading fast as a serious candidate
for running my new home for the next 20 years. It's also a PITA to have to
search for Ocelot or Leopard information because 99% of such search words
lead to cats. There's lots and lots of discussion of the VIA Eden MiniITX
boxes:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=via+eden&sa=N&tab=wg

in lots of different conferences. It's a vibrant, growing product and there
are dozens of websites devoted to some really creative uses of the product.
Sadly many of these apps can't run via Ocelot, they are really too complex.
Maybe the ADI site and the "feline" product line is moribund because the
handwriting is already on the wall. Fanless, low-power CPU PC's running
Linux from a compact flash card are the future for HA embedded controllers.

Then there's the issues of spares. If I carried on-site spares for my
Ocelot system I'd have a box of extra and expensive HW doing nothing. A
spare for a MiniITX box is a working computer that can be earning its keep
running tests while still serving as a spare for the HA server.

I haven't punched all the factors into my Multiple Attribute Decision
Modeling software, <g> but it's becoming more and more clear that a mini PC
is the way for *me* to go, especially now that they have so many I/O ports
embedded on the motherboard. I can store data from transponders which the
Ocelot won't easily allow, I can hook in digital capture boards, use large
touchscreen monitors, incorporate talking caller ID, MUX switching via
serial port, IR I/O via the printer port. For HA purposes Dave's BXAHT was
the missing link for me. While I would have to work it over hard to talk to
an Ocelot the way I wanted, it can talk to a PC serial port just fine! The
execution speed of a 1 GHz PC running from a CF card should be quite fast
enough for most apps!

Will a mini PC crash more than an Ocelot? Absolutely. But if you run the
right OS, modern PCs are really far more reliable now than they ever were.
Can it do more than the Ocelot? Absolutely. Given that they cost the same
now, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make. It's a tradeoff I feel I *have*
to make because I sense a wilting of ADI's commitment to the Ocelot world.
I've been orphaned more than once my manufacturers big and small. It's not
a pleasant position.

A mini PC can support real-time video using a USB LCD touch screen for less
than the cost of a Leopard. It may be that we've reached the "tipping
point" for microcontrollers in that price range.

--
Bobby G.

Dave Houston

03-02-2006, 12:22 PM

In defense of ADI, most of their personnel are engineers. Some got drafted
to do the documentation and set up the forum. It's really outside their
skillset. And the HA market is much, much smaller than all the sturm und
drang in CHA might lead one to believe.

Also, running a forum on a company server requires some real expertise to
avoid security issues. One "security expert" who spews BS here frequently
runs a system that's wide open to exploitation and hasn't the foggiest
glimmer of what he's risking. ;)

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:6csEf.909$fM1.140@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>> news:fuqdnd-k3fvHgH_eRVn-gw@rcn.net...
>> > "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >
>> > I guess it really torques me that they are allegedly automation EXPERTS
>> and
>> > they can't get their web page automated worth a tinker's damn!!!!!
>That's
>> > *not* that kind of company I want to buy automation SW, HW or firmware
>> from.
>> > "We know it's crappy, but we can't be bothered fixing it" is the
>attitude
>> > such I read from poor website design. From what I managed to glean from
>> > Google and elsewhere, it wasn't until Bryan Karras, as a vendor, started
>> his
>> > own CPUXA forum that ADI got their act in gear to deploy one - they
>> > apparently had nothing up until that point. A *vendor* had to do their
>job
>> > for them. No warm and fuzzy feeling there, either, I'm afraid.
>>
>> I have to jump in here to defend ADI. Being a wizard on imbedded system
>> design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA. They are different
>> skills. And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
>> hardware designing my automation equipment.
>
>C'mon Jeff, you don't have to a wizard to know there are serious, serious
>problems with the ADI site. Part of being a good manager is to *find* the
>people with the skills you lack to perform quality work that you can't do,
>but that *should* be done. I really feel as if I have to pull teeth to get
>to information buried in the forum. A company's website projects its
>corporate image - that's just how it is - it's not my interpretation. If a
>company's website is full of warts, it just *has* to make a logical person
>stop, think, and worry about overall quality issues.
>
>> Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches. That is expected
>of
>> industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
>> People here talk about X10 not being reliable. I would never trust my
>> automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
>> complicated than DOS.
>
>I'd use Linux on a MiniITX with a fanless 1GHz CPU, ethernet, video, audio,
>USB, 256MB of memory, Firewire, serial and parallel ports and it would cost
>me *less* than one Ocelot and one SECU or Bobcat module. It would likely
>take up the same amount of cabinet space, too. But it would be infinitely
>more capable. What happens when you run out of memory on the Ocelot? Can
>you snap in another 1GB?
>
>Then there's C-MAX, It's a natural language for microcoders like you and
>Dave but it's just plain bizarre to anyone like me who was taught structured
>and modular programming. So, to use an Ocelot I need to learn a new
>webforum tool, a new programming language unlike any I have ever dealt with
>and work around frustrating limitations in I/O and RF connectivity. With a
>major player leaving like Dan Boone leaving, a website with a homepage
>invitation to a *2005* conference, a hard to search, hard to use forum and a
>*unique* programming language, Ocelot's fading fast as a serious candidate
>for running my new home for the next 20 years. It's also a PITA to have to
>search for Ocelot or Leopard information because 99% of such search words
>lead to cats. There's lots and lots of discussion of the VIA Eden MiniITX
>boxes:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=via+eden&sa=N&tab=wg
>
>in lots of different conferences. It's a vibrant, growing product and there
>are dozens of websites devoted to some really creative uses of the product.
>Sadly many of these apps can't run via Ocelot, they are really too complex.
>Maybe the ADI site and the "feline" product line is moribund because the
>handwriting is already on the wall. Fanless, low-power CPU PC's running
>Linux from a compact flash card are the future for HA embedded controllers.
>
>Then there's the issues of spares. If I carried on-site spares for my
>Ocelot system I'd have a box of extra and expensive HW doing nothing. A
>spare for a MiniITX box is a working computer that can be earning its keep
>running tests while still serving as a spare for the HA server.
>
>I haven't punched all the factors into my Multiple Attribute Decision
>Modeling software, <g> but it's becoming more and more clear that a mini PC
>is the way for *me* to go, especially now that they have so many I/O ports
>embedded on the motherboard. I can store data from transponders which the
>Ocelot won't easily allow, I can hook in digital capture boards, use large
>touchscreen monitors, incorporate talking caller ID, MUX switching via
>serial port, IR I/O via the printer port. For HA purposes Dave's BXAHT was
>the missing link for me. While I would have to work it over hard to talk to
>an Ocelot the way I wanted, it can talk to a PC serial port just fine! The
>execution speed of a 1 GHz PC running from a CF card should be quite fast
>enough for most apps!
>
>Will a mini PC crash more than an Ocelot? Absolutely. But if you run the
>right OS, modern PCs are really far more reliable now than they ever were.
>Can it do more than the Ocelot? Absolutely. Given that they cost the same
>now, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make. It's a tradeoff I feel I *have*
>to make because I sense a wilting of ADI's commitment to the Ocelot world.
>I've been orphaned more than once my manufacturers big and small. It's not
>a pleasant position.
>
>A mini PC can support real-time video using a USB LCD touch screen for less
>than the cost of a Leopard. It may be that we've reached the "tipping
>point" for microcontrollers in that price range.

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 12:22 PM

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> In defense of ADI, most of their personnel are engineers. Some got drafted
> to do the documentation and set up the forum. It's really outside their
> skillset.

That's a basic problem with engineers - so many attempt work clearly outside
their skillset. <grin> Seriously, if you get a toothache, you go to a
dentist, you don't buy MicroSoft's "Dentist on a Disk" and try to do it
yourself because it looks like you can. If you know something's outside
your skillset there are better options than just muddling through and hoping
for the best. The ADI forum started as a mailing list. Why it couldn't
stay that way is anybody's guess.

> And the HA market is much, much smaller than all the sturm und
> drang in CHA might lead one to believe.

I guess that's still the "read it and weep" bottom line. HA, particularly
at the Ocelot level is really niche stuff. Still, your website efforts show
that a nice, simple, hierarchical design that presents the information in a
format that's easy to understand *isn't* beyond the reach of even
"engineering types." :-)

> Also, running a forum on a company server requires some real expertise to
> avoid security issues. One "security expert" who spews BS here frequently
> runs a system that's wide open to exploitation and hasn't the foggiest
> glimmer of what he's risking. ;)

Which is precisely why running a forum *shouldn't* be part of their
business. At least 1/2 of the posts in the forum have relevance outside of
ADI. Usenet has search engines, newsreaders, easy-to-save messages, etc.
Reinventing the wheel and using a hexagon instead makes for a bumpy ride.
I'm not sure what was wrong with a mailing list or Usenet, but it seems they
opted for the least optimal solution.

It's been a useful examination, though, and I'm sorry if I riled any
feathers. I've been fussing with teaching my CPUXA IR codes that the X-10
remote can't learn and the results haven't been encouraging. I've also been
struggling with C-MAX and I realize now that I'd be much better off
polishing up my Unix than learning C-MAX.

More importantly, I also realized that if I want to avoid obsolescence, I
should stick with mini-PCs. They aren't a "sole supplier" item like the
Leopards - years of government procurement experience makes me shiver when I
see those two words. A Leopard and a mini-pc with a USB touchscreen LCD
cost about the same, but their capabilities are a galaxy apart.

Wasn't it you that said once you've seen full motion video on an LCD screen
it's hard to settle for static bitmaps? Well, if I am going to deploy LCD
control panels throughout the house, they *have* to be capable of showing me
who's at the front door. Perhaps I missed it, but that sort of home
automation doesn't seem to be part of the Leopard's skillset.

--
Bobby G.

Bill Kearney

03-02-2006, 12:22 PM

> Yes, I know that trick. But why should *I* have to compensate for their
> programming problems or poor choice of forum software?

Hey, worth every penny that registration costs you, right? <grin>

Yeah, some sites suck more than others. But think back a few years. I'm
not complaining!

> My greater struggle is that "any time you come across a website with a
> crappy search interface" usually means there's something *crappy*
somewhere
> in the company.

No, I wouldn't go that far. Too many of us online folks are SERIOUSLY
over-skilled compared to the 'real people' slaving away at those real jobs.

> It's really put me off investing any more money in the ADI line of
> equipment.

Well, I'd put more emphasis on how well the actual product works, not just
the web forums.

> Considering I can buy a Pentium class mini-ITX for roughly the cost of an
> Ocelot I think I need to re-evaluate my system design. I'll always be
able
> to find a replacement controller if I choose the PC-based strategy.

True, but babysitting a PC, over time, is a LOT more tedious that
set-and-forget appliance-like boxes.

> On the
> other hand, things could get pretty hairy if ADI goes out of business.

And if a meteor struck tomorrow we'd likewise be screwed.

> I keep thinking of the gentlemen from the UK who recently posted with his
> burned-out control board who'll have to redo his entire system because the
> specialized CPU board was no longer available.

The curse of proprietary/bleeding edge.

> I think I might seriously
> look into the Elk line of products to see if they're hitting more of their
> marks than ADI. Although I can't find it with the forum search tool, I am
> sure that one of ADI's key technical people left. I'll bet he took a lot
of
> "institutional memory" with him. That's a worrisome problem in a small
> company. It's caused more than one such shop to shutter their doors.

SO true.

> For the things I am trying to do, I'm becoming more and more convinced
that
> a mini-ITX PC is the proper way to do it instead of the Rube Goldberg-ish
> method of converting RF to IR to X-10 and torturing myself with ladder
logic
> programming to work around the shortcomings of the Ocelot.

Oh now from THAT perspective, yes, a PC would certainly be a lot more
flexible and less of a pain to get configured. Just aim for building it as
'appliance-like' as possible. Heck, if you can run the stuff in linux I'd
go for one of those low-end router device hacks. Soekris (sp?) comes to
mind.

> For a device
> that's strongly oriented towards X-10 NOT to have some sort of X-10 RF
> interface (especially when Dave even dumped on e in their laps!!!!) is
just
> bogus. There's no other word to describe it. They've fallen asleep at the
> wheel, I fear. [/flames off]

Yeah, all your points are valid. Hopefully they'll re-energize themselves.

-Bill Kearney

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 01:32 PM

"John W" <Don't_Spam_Me@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jbGdnTq6gJgs73_enZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@powergate.ca ...
> I'm with you Jeff! My Ocelot, SECU's, SpeakEasy etc. haven't missed a
beat
> in the 5+ years they've been in service!

No one's saying they're not more reliable than a PC. Simple is always
likely to be more reliable than complex. But the whole HA industry seems to
be leaving them in the dust.

> I look at ADI as a "cottage industry" company - small, but very good in
> their specialized niche market.

I look at them from a government and military critical item procurement
standpoint. That analysis says they are a precariously small shop, they may
have "key man" problems, they are the sole source of their equipment, they
haven't made any improvements for 3 years, they apparently don't support any
of the newer HA protocols and the rest of the industry has grown to the
point where I can buy a whole Mini PC a little bigger than the Leopard for
the cost of a Leopard. If I were buying these for the USMC, I'd have to
insist on a hell of spares program - maybe three levels deep. These are the
kind of small shop problems that have led to such a serious shortage of
ceramic plates for body armor for US troops.

> Many companies have almost no support

And I won't buy products from them unless the web has comfortable level of
user-sponsored support. That's where lots of people using the product in
lots of different environments may even be MORE useful than company tech
support coming from off-shore dweebs who can't even understand the questions
posed to them.

> and, while the ADI board is not perfect, it is a great tool for getting
> questions sorted out with the experts.

There's no doubt about that, but it seems, all in all, that a much smaller
percentage of overall HA experts read through that forum. That's probably
because it's so bloody hard to
search and appaers to be equally as hard to see if anyone's left a message
for you. They would be selling a lot more Ocelots if people here in CHA
were to read of the interesting things that people are doing with them.
ADI, IMHO, is shooting their own feet off with crappy forum software, FAQ's
that aren't and no serious presence on Usenet.

> When required, ADI does jump in on a thread but quite frankly, I'd
> rather have them spend their resources on product development than on
> monitoring web boards!

That begs the question: what have they produced in the last three years of
operating in that mode? There are people asking for RF, translators, more
memory, bidirectional serial Bobcats and more. Apparently they've been
asking for years. If ADI were truly as busy as beavers I can see them not
monitoring the web forum closely. But that's not what I see. It tells me,
as Dave suggested, that Ocelots and such are not their bread and butter but
a sideline.

> One could argue in any case, that the best experts
> for answering many users questions are those who are already using the
> products in a similar fashion?

Scan Google for Epia or Via or Mini-ITX. There are thousands more active
discussions in Usenet, on mailing lists, at the VIA website, etc. then at
the ADI forum. Which should I trust my house's central nervous system to?
A Mini-PC that I can program in languages that I am comfortable with, that
can replace a SpeakEasy, talk to RS-232, Ethernet, IR, IDE, floppy,
Firewire, VGA and USB without buying more modules and that can be replaced
even if Via goes bankrupt because there are so many units in play. Or
should I use a controller from a cottage industry that can do only 1/50 of
the above, whose programs look like spaghetti code, whose memory is
miniscule and appears to be not upgradeable, and whose "keepers" seem to
have lost interest in the product?

> X10 is a huge company by comparison to ADI but have poor products and even
> poorer support (they appear to rely on public Newsgroups and FAQ's)?

Hot Button! When I went looking for FAQs at ADI, I kept getting bounced
back into the forums. Why do they announce they have a FAQ when they
don't?!!!! This URL

http://www.appdig.com/adicon_new/leopard2_faqs.htm

which alleges to provide a LeopardII FAQ dumps me in the forum where I see a
list like this:

[new] Icon 1 Cover for the Lep 2 gdm 3 February 01, 2006 01:54 PM
[new] Icon 1 IR using LEP2 doesn't work gdm 7 January 31, 2006 08:31 PM
[new] Icon 5 Should I upgrade to Leo II? Steve13 3 January 29, 2006
04:46 PM
[new] Icon 9 HELP!!!SOS!! Leopard II Albina 1 January 27, 2006 08:54 AM
[new] Icon 1 HELP!!! SOS Leopard II Albina 0 January 27, 2006 05:09 AM
[new] Icon 1 bad news Vaidas 4 January 24, 2006 04:07 PM
[new] Icon 1 Leopard Master or Slave? Todd R. 13 January 22, 2006 07:03
PM
[old] Icon 1 PRESET DIM LEVELS RM 3 January 19, 2006 03:18 PM

Oy Vey Ismir!!!!! A reverse chronological listing of forum posts IS NOT A
FAQ! :-)

Not only do they PROGRAM in ladder logic, they do EVERYTHING in ladder
logic. They appear to expect users to scan every message in a giant read
loop and pluck out what they need that way. If they know they've got a
lousy search engine, then can't they PLEASE put things in a FAQ in some sort
of logical sequence.

You've been very helpful to me John, and I feel badly going into such
gruesome detail but you've been at the ADI forum since the beginning and you
probably don't see the utter chaos a first-time user like me sees. It's
very disheartening, especially since I know a couple of college students
that could produce an excellent FAQ from the data on the site and generally
overhaul it for very little money. Hell, they'd probably do it for some ADI
equipment to play with.

--
Bobby G.

Jeff Volp

03-02-2006, 01:32 PM

Ah, I see the problem. You are obviously from the software world. I'm from
the hardware world.

I come from an era when we could do just about anything in 16K. In another
life we developed a computer graphics adventure game (Powerstar) for the old
Atari 8-bit computer. It fit into a 16K cartridge, and included 256 graphic
images, text for each location, puzzles, and some animation. While a LONG
way from today's graphics, we managed to build each image from roughly 16
bytes of compacted data in a 1/4 second. Several lines of text describing
each location cost us another 16 bytes average. The Ocelot has more memory
than I will ever need.

Regarding CMax, it is NOT a natural for me. It comes from the industrial
automation world, and evolved from relay logic. It is not at all like
assembly language programming. Assembly is similar to high level, but
without all the structure. It has subroutines, passing multiple parameters,
and all that. I did most of my work with Motorola microcontrollers, which
have a rich set of instructions, including hardware multiply. The PIC on
the other hand is downright archaic. I think it received so much acceptance
because it is cheap and simple. Did I say it is CHEAP.

I built industrial automation equipment (another garage operation) for
companies that relied on that equipment for their productivity. It had to
work non-stop day in and day out. It was a crisis when something broke
down. I still remember an early morning I was called into their facility to
fix a problem. They said "Your equipment won't indicate continuity!", and
placed a clip lead across those inputs to my controller to prove it. I ran
a short internal diagnostic, and said "Your clip lead is open." After that
they checked their wiring first.

I've participated in the ADI users group for several years, and have had to
find things myself. No, it's not Google. But it works.

So, go ahead and get your mini PC and all your high-end GUI stuff. My
simple Ocelot and X10 will still be chugging along fine until we finally
have to downsize a decade or two from now. It's kind of like the
refrigerator. It does what it is designed to do. We never really think
about it, but it would be hell to be without it.

Jeff

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:bradnXYix52n7n_enZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@rcn.net...
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:6csEf.909$fM1.140@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I have to jump in here to defend ADI. Being a wizard on imbedded system
> > design doesn't make one a wizard on HTML or JAVA. They are different
> > skills. And I would rather have someone who focuses his full effort on
> > hardware designing my automation equipment.
>
> C'mon Jeff, you don't have to a wizard to know there are serious, serious
> problems with the ADI site. Part of being a good manager is to *find* the
> people with the skills you lack to perform quality work that you can't do,
> but that *should* be done. I really feel as if I have to pull teeth to
get
> to information buried in the forum. A company's website projects its
> corporate image - that's just how it is - it's not my interpretation. If
a
> company's website is full of warts, it just *has* to make a logical person
> stop, think, and worry about overall quality issues.
>
> > Our Ocelot runs 24/7 week after week with no glitches. That is expected
> > of industrial automation equipment, which is where the Ocelot came from.
> > People here talk about X10 not being reliable. I would never trust my
> > automation to a PC running 24/7, at least not using any M$ software more
> > complicated than DOS.
>
> I'd use Linux on a MiniITX with a fanless 1GHz CPU, ethernet, video,
audio,
> USB, 256MB of memory, Firewire, serial and parallel ports and it would
cost
> me *less* than one Ocelot and one SECU or Bobcat module. It would likely
> take up the same amount of cabinet space, too. But it would be infinitely
> more capable. What happens when you run out of memory on the Ocelot? Can
> you snap in another 1GB?
>
> Then there's C-MAX, It's a natural language for microcoders like you and
> Dave but it's just plain bizarre to anyone like me who was taught
structured
> and modular programming. So, to use an Ocelot I need to learn a new
> webforum tool, a new programming language unlike any I have ever dealt
with
> and work around frustrating limitations in I/O and RF connectivity. With
a
> major player leaving like Dan Boone leaving, a website with a homepage
> invitation to a *2005* conference, a hard to search, hard to use forum and
a
> *unique* programming language, Ocelot's fading fast as a serious candidate
> for running my new home for the next 20 years. It's also a PITA to have
to
> search for Ocelot or Leopard information because 99% of such search words
> lead to cats. There's lots and lots of discussion of the VIA Eden MiniITX
> boxes:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=via+eden&sa=N&tab=wg
>
> in lots of different conferences. It's a vibrant, growing product and
there
> are dozens of websites devoted to some really creative uses of the
product.
> Sadly many of these apps can't run via Ocelot, they are really too
complex.
> Maybe the ADI site and the "feline" product line is moribund because the
> handwriting is already on the wall. Fanless, low-power CPU PC's running
> Linux from a compact flash card are the future for HA embedded
controllers.
>
> Then there's the issues of spares. If I carried on-site spares for my
> Ocelot system I'd have a box of extra and expensive HW doing nothing. A
> spare for a MiniITX box is a working computer that can be earning its keep
> running tests while still serving as a spare for the HA server.
>
> I haven't punched all the factors into my Multiple Attribute Decision
> Modeling software, <g> but it's becoming more and more clear that a mini
PC
> is the way for *me* to go, especially now that they have so many I/O ports
> embedded on the motherboard. I can store data from transponders which the
> Ocelot won't easily allow, I can hook in digital capture boards, use large
> touchscreen monitors, incorporate talking caller ID, MUX switching via
> serial port, IR I/O via the printer port. For HA purposes Dave's BXAHT
was
> the missing link for me. While I would have to work it over hard to talk
to
> an Ocelot the way I wanted, it can talk to a PC serial port just fine!
The
> execution speed of a 1 GHz PC running from a CF card should be quite fast
> enough for most apps!
>
> Will a mini PC crash more than an Ocelot? Absolutely. But if you run the
> right OS, modern PCs are really far more reliable now than they ever were.
> Can it do more than the Ocelot? Absolutely. Given that they cost the
same
> now, it's a tradeoff I am willing to make. It's a tradeoff I feel I
*have*
> to make because I sense a wilting of ADI's commitment to the Ocelot world.
> I've been orphaned more than once my manufacturers big and small. It's
not
> a pleasant position.
>
> A mini PC can support real-time video using a USB LCD touch screen for
less
> than the cost of a Leopard. It may be that we've reached the "tipping
> point" for microcontrollers in that price range.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

Robert Green

03-02-2006, 03:25 PM

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O-qdnQslb-4vNH_enZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > Yes, I know that trick. But why should *I* have to compensate for their
> > programming problems or poor choice of forum software?
>
> Hey, worth every penny that registration costs you, right? <grin>

But I get so much more for the same registration fee out of Usenet! :-)
And I get green stamps, too!

> Yeah, some sites suck more than others. But think back a few years. I'm
> not complaining!
>
> > My greater struggle is that "any time you come across a website with a
> > crappy search interface" usually means there's something *crappy*
> somewhere
> > in the company.
>
> No, I wouldn't go that far. Too many of us online folks are SERIOUSLY
> over-skilled compared to the 'real people' slaving away at those real
jobs.

I suppose. But the talent's out there. Web design is a skill that can be
practiced remotely very easily. I don't know what their marketing budget is
like but it seems hefty enough to support lots of roadshows. They could
hire someone, somewhere to fix simple things like this:

http://www.appdig.com/adicon_new/application.htm

It looks very strange in FireFox and there's no reason to have HTML files
listed for download. Then a little proofreading of the articles, removing
dead links
like those to www.futurestandard.com - just a general tune up. The kind of
thing that every halfway decent site needs at least once a year if not two
or three times.

> > It's really put me off investing any more money in the ADI line of
> > equipment.
>
> Well, I'd put more emphasis on how well the actual product works, not just
> the web forums.

It's not just the forums, it's the shabby condition of the website, the
haphazard mix of Word documents, HTML, PDF and text files. You just get the
feeling you're walking into some time warp. All the documents seem to date
to 2002 when ADI's Ocelot/Leopard area of the website seems to have gone
into hibernation.

Configuring the Modem 20 Dec 2002 (144K)
Driveway Sensor 20 Dec 2002 (144K)
Sprinkler Control 20 Dec 2002 (144K)
.. . .

..> > Considering I can buy a Pentium class mini-ITX for roughly the cost of
an
> > Ocelot I think I need to re-evaluate my system design. I'll always be
> able
> > to find a replacement controller if I choose the PC-based strategy.
>
> True, but babysitting a PC, over time, is a LOT more tedious that
> set-and-forget appliance-like boxes.

Agreed. There isn't any denying that set-and-forget is better for
"autonomous" functions like home control but I've been researching these VIA
boxes for a few weeks now. Lots of server-meisters are switching over
because the power consumption of the units is so low compared to a standard
PC and the reliability appears to be quite good. There are lots of posts
describing which flavors of Linux and which builds are the most stable and
lots of creative ways of mounting and accessing the boxes.

The really low end (but still quite capable) VIA boards with CPUs sell for
$100. At that price and with a low power consumption in the 5-15 watt range
you can offload some processing to other units. Keep the HA server simple
and use separate media servers and HVAC servers to minimize the impact of a
failure or system hang of any one machine.

> > On the
> > other hand, things could get pretty hairy if ADI goes out of business.
>
> And if a meteor struck tomorrow we'd likewise be screwed.

Oh, I think we both know which is the more likely outcome given the host of
issues facing small businesses. I've seen them shuttered because of forced
sales due to death of key personnel, dissolution of partnerships, a shift in
the company's market strategy, a technologic advance that strands them,
buyouts and all sorts of perils. I forget what the failure rate is, but I
think it's either 1/3 or 1/2 of all small businesses fail. Wait - I just
looked it up since last time I looked was ten years ago:

"The authors concluded that cumulatively 64.2% of the businesses failed in a
10-year period"

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/news/coladvice/ask/sa990930.htm

You'd better pray your chances of getting hit by a meteor aren't equal!!!

Ever see a product called the "Omni Reader?" They were going great until
technology brought forth the flatbed scanner and put them into jack-rabbit
quick bankruptcy.

> > I keep thinking of the gentlemen from the UK who recently posted with
his
> > burned-out control board who'll have to redo his entire system because
the
> > specialized CPU board was no longer available.
>
> The curse of proprietary/bleeding edge.

Ocelot no longer bleeds - it's on the trailing edge of the latest HA surge
indeed. But proprietary it certainly is. Obscure, too. I would venture
that both you and I (and thousands more like us) could sit down at someone
else's HA PC and eventually figure out exactly what it was doing, what
programs were running and where there might be problems although we had
never seen the machine before. That's because we know enough about PC HW
and SW to logically decompose the process. I doubt there's 1/1000 the
number of people who could sit before an Ocelot and do the same debugging.

> > I think I might seriously
> > look into the Elk line of products to see if they're hitting more of
their
> > marks than ADI. Although I can't find it with the forum search tool, I
am
> > sure that one of ADI's key technical people left. I'll bet he took a
lot
> of
> > "institutional memory" with him. That's a worrisome problem in a small
> > company. It's caused more than one such shop to shutter their doors.
>
> SO true.

It's a danger that simply disappears with the mini-PC option because other
manufacturers make similar boxes. Try converting your Ocelot setup to Elk
with just a copy of Ghost and a blank DVD-R. When enough servers have been
converted from Dell and HP to VIA machines, Intel and AMD might nose into
the waters. VIA's been making support chips for a long, long time. They
have a proven track record.

With power prices up, 15 watts instead of 150 for people running multiple
PC's isn't chump change. The Ocelot consumes less power, true, but try
getting it to play a DVD or pipe your front door cam to the wall LCD while
simultaneously recording all front door activity and keeping a running log
of all home events.

> > For the things I am trying to do, I'm becoming more and more convinced
> that
> > a mini-ITX PC is the proper way to do it instead of the Rube
Goldberg-ish
> > method of converting RF to IR to X-10 and torturing myself with ladder
> logic
> > programming to work around the shortcomings of the Ocelot.
>
> Oh now from THAT perspective, yes, a PC would certainly be a lot more
> flexible and less of a pain to get configured. Just aim for building it
as
> 'appliance-like' as possible. Heck, if you can run the stuff in linux I'd
> go for one of those low-end router device hacks. Soekris (sp?) comes to
> mind.

I'm convinced from reading all the posts that I have from server operators
that the VIA machines are pretty robust under Linux. They even seem to be
stable under W2KPro although I doubt I would use it. Lots of people are
writing drivers for the VIA boxes and there's lots of enthusiasm for them
because they conserve so much (increasingly) expensive electricity to
perform the same tasks nearly as well as their full-sized brothers.

> > For a device
> > that's strongly oriented towards X-10 NOT to have some sort of X-10 RF
> > interface (especially when Dave even dumped on e in their laps!!!!) is
> just
> > bogus. There's no other word to describe it. They've fallen asleep at
the
> > wheel, I fear. [/flames off]
>
> Yeah, all your points are valid. Hopefully they'll re-energize
themselves.

Hopefully. But these flaws have been pointed out to them before and not
much has changed. Here's but one sample:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Code Monkey
Junior Member
Member # 950

Posted August 28, 2004 04:59 AM
The forum page could use a little updating. You can have the best product on
the planet, but if the place where you are referring your customers to for
support looks like it hasn’t been touched in almost a year it doesn’t
instill much confidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

As I said before. Oy!

--
Bobby G.

Bill Kearney

04-02-2006, 06:03 AM

> And I get green stamps, too!

Heh, kids today would have no idea what that means. Remember the coupons
they used to give out with packs of cigarettes? Fine way to involve the
whole family!

> You'd better pray your chances of getting hit by a meteor aren't equal!!!

Or by a bus while crossing the street.

> It's a danger that simply disappears with the mini-PC option because other
> manufacturers make similar boxes. Try converting your Ocelot setup to Elk
> with just a copy of Ghost and a blank DVD-R. When enough servers have
been
> converted from Dell and HP to VIA machines, Intel and AMD might nose into
> the waters. VIA's been making support chips for a long, long time. They
> have a proven track record.

It's not so much the chips as the OS running on top of them. Often it's
just plain more reliable to have NO operating system and just run the app
itself on the bare iron. Quite a few appliance-like devices do this. They
end up lacking all the other doo-dads you see on an actual OS but at least
they stay running.

> With power prices up, 15 watts instead of 150 for people running multiple
> PC's isn't chump change. The Ocelot consumes less power, true, but try
> getting it to play a DVD or pipe your front door cam to the wall LCD while
> simultaneously recording all front door activity and keeping a running log
> of all home events.

Hold on, let me juggle those knives, that bowling ball and a chainsaw! One
foot, now HOP!

> I'm convinced from reading all the posts that I have from server operators
> that the VIA machines are pretty robust under Linux. They even seem to be
> stable under W2KPro although I doubt I would use it. Lots of people are
> writing drivers for the VIA boxes and there's lots of enthusiasm for them
> because they conserve so much (increasingly) expensive electricity to
> perform the same tasks nearly as well as their full-sized brothers.

Yes, I agree.

-Bill

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 06:03 AM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8GyEf.324638$qk4.55711@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Ah, I see the problem. You are obviously from the software world. I'm
from
> the hardware world.

Well, that's not exactly true - I build PC's for fun and have built at least
30 of them since 1984 when the clones first hit the market. That was back
in the days of the IBM PC (even before the XT!) when you could expect a
clone motherboard to have mounting holes that didn't quite match up with the
case mounts. PC's represent the fulfilment of the dream of completely
interchangeable parts, something that Detroit, the electronics industry and
many others have never really achieved. You could take apart 20 PC's made
from different "generations" mix the parts and I could reassemble them all
because I am so familiar with the parts that make up PC's and the "epochs"
they represent. EISA, ISA, PCI, PCI-E, SCSI I,II,II, LVDS, AGP 1-8X, SIMMS,
DIMMS, 16K memory chips, 1GB DDR pairs, flip chips, etc, etc. There's
nothing that makes me happier than taking someone's castoff PC and
rebuilding it into something useful like a HW firewall.

> I come from an era when we could do just about anything in 16K. In
another
> life we developed a computer graphics adventure game (Powerstar) for the
old
> Atari 8-bit computer. It fit into a 16K cartridge, and included 256
graphic
> images, text for each location, puzzles, and some animation. While a LONG
> way from today's graphics, we managed to build each image from roughly 16
> bytes of compacted data in a 1/4 second. Several lines of text describing
> each location cost us another 16 bytes average. The Ocelot has more
memory
> than I will ever need.

Yes - if you start from that kind of background you're naturally going to be
very thrifty with your memory. My first IBM PC came with 16K on the
motherboard and BASIC on a ROM. I wince when I see how much space an OS
like XP required. But I keep seeing people asking in the forum about when
ADI is going to boost the memory in the Leopard. That leads me to believe
my use of memory would be more like theirs than yours. It's also a reason
why I find C-MAX so frustrating. There are so many times I want to do
something with a procedure call, or pass a parameter or use a case statement
and there's no easy way to do it. It's really as far away from structured
programming as you can get and still call it programming.

I recall someone working very hard on a compiler for C-MAX a few years back
where a high level language could be used to write code and the compiler
would then take those instructions and turn them into C-MAX code. I'm not
sure what happened to it. The HomeSeer option looked good for a while, but
it still requires a PC running 24/7 so it seemed somewhat pointless to have
an Ocelot if you need a PC running all the time to command it.

> Regarding CMax, it is NOT a natural for me. It comes from the industrial
> automation world, and evolved from relay logic. It is not at all like
> assembly language programming. Assembly is similar to high level, but
> without all the structure. It has subroutines, passing multiple
parameters,
> and all that. I did most of my work with Motorola microcontrollers, which
> have a rich set of instructions, including hardware multiply. The PIC on
> the other hand is downright archaic. I think it received so much
acceptance
> because it is cheap and simple. Did I say it is CHEAP.

Agreed. It *was* cheap - much cheaper than any PC-based solution when it
first appeared (at least 10 years ago, I'm guessing, probably longer). But
now a fully loaded mini-PC weighs in at the same cost, a little bit larger
size, a little bit greater power consumption and outrageously greater
capabilities. The cost savings that were obvious before are no longer quite
so clear. Now ADI's main claim to fame is reliability.

My shopping list for new ADI equipment was approaching the $900 mark before
I decided to investigate other options. The fact that nothing changed on
the ADI website since I looked four years ago really made me nervous. I
don't want to run the risk of running my house on what turns out to be an HA
version of Betamax. I think ADI also realizes that the playing field has
changed in HA and lots of people require more horsepower than the Ocelot can
deliver. I can't help but think that's one of the reasons Dan Boone left.
He realized the Ocelot line isn't nearly as cost-effective as it once was
and that time might be running out for it. On the other hand, HA in general
keeps getting closer and closer to being a mainstream product.

> I built industrial automation equipment (another garage operation) for
> companies that relied on that equipment for their productivity. It had to
> work non-stop day in and day out. It was a crisis when something broke
> down. I still remember an early morning I was called into their facility
to
> fix a problem. They said "Your equipment won't indicate continuity!", and
> placed a clip lead across those inputs to my controller to prove it. I
ran
> a short internal diagnostic, and said "Your clip lead is open." After
that
> they checked their wiring first.

:-) It's *always* a crisis when things break down. That's why, in another
message, I said I might break down the HA tasks into chunks that can be
processed by multiple PCs so that if I have fault, it doesn't bring down the
entire house. I'm going to have to be very careful with the design. As I
noted elsewhere, though, a set of spares for an ADI setup is a box of
equipment that has no other use. A set of spares for a mini-PC based system
can actually be used as a PC testbench for SW, etc. until it's needed for a
swap out.

> I've participated in the ADI users group for several years, and have had
to
> find things myself. No, it's not Google. But it works.

I hope you'll taken into account the fact that you've been working with that
forum for years now - you've followed it from when there were very few
posts. I've been trying to illustrate just how chaotic and out-of-date it
seems to newcomers. Calling a list of the most recently asked questions a
FAQ is just bogus. Call it a an EDQEA - "Every Damn Question Ever Asked"
(in no particular order!)

Yes, the forum is what it is, and it's hard to use - although not
impossible, but cleaning out dead links and announcements for years gone by
doesn't require a SuperWebMan, it just requires attention to detail.
Churning through all the posts and creating a *proper* FAQ doesn't require
fantastic web programming skills, it requires a little hard work. Worse,
still, it's not as if the "website suggestions" forum isn't chock full of
these same sorts of comments. All in all, these little items, when added
up, projects a sense that they don't much care about the product anymore.
Maybe that's a good thing in the PIC world. No changes means no issues with
version control!

> So, go ahead and get your mini PC and all your high-end GUI stuff. My
> simple Ocelot and X10 will still be chugging along fine until we finally
> have to downsize a decade or two from now. It's kind of like the
> refrigerator. It does what it is designed to do. We never really think
> about it, but it would be hell to be without it.

The problem for me is it *can't* do what I want it to do. It's deaf to RF,
it's impossible to maintain intellectual control over the program (at least
for me) because C-MAX programs seem to grow like Topsy and it's pretty
expensive when you compare what's in an Ocelot box to what's in a Mini-ITX
PC. The problem I see is that if they can't attract new customers, they
really can't sustain operations. Others disagree, but I see the moribund
website and the lack of any new components in three years as very telling
signs that the interests of the people making the Ocelot have moved
elsewhere.

As for OS's, "we don't need no stinkin' GUI!" I grew up with DOS and Unix.
I'm probably more comfortable than most people with nothing but a C: prompt
staring me in the face. I wouldn't have made this decision without the
tremendous groundswell of support for Linux, particularly on small boxes
like the VIA's. As you said before, I would *never* trust an MS Windows
product if I hoped to even approach the levels of reliability that the
Ocelot offers.

--
Bobby G.

Jeff Volp

04-02-2006, 06:03 AM

I understand your point a lot better now.

But, PCs aren't quite that interchangeable. I've got a box full of ISA
boards that won't plug into any current motherboard. I do use the only P5
motherboard I could find that still accepted an ISA board. Then there is
the continuing evolution of harddrive interfaces. Don't forget the ATX
update that rendered the old cases obsolete. Yes, we can plug that junk
back together an get a running obsolete computer. Why?

Jeff

Dave Houston

04-02-2006, 06:03 AM

I also keep an eye out for motherboards with ISA & PCI slots. My development
machine has an 8 serial port PCI card and an ISA oscilloscope card. I like
to have a spare motherboard should mine give out. USB oscilloscopes with the
capabilities of my ISA card cost more than a new PC.

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote:

>I understand your point a lot better now.
>
>But, PCs aren't quite that interchangeable. I've got a box full of ISA
>boards that won't plug into any current motherboard. I do use the only P5
>motherboard I could find that still accepted an ISA board. Then there is
>the continuing evolution of harddrive interfaces. Don't forget the ATX
>update that rendered the old cases obsolete. Yes, we can plug that junk
>back together an get a running obsolete computer. Why?
>
>Jeff
>

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 06:03 AM

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9KGdnXp5roiE-H7enZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > And I get green stamps, too!
>
> Heh, kids today would have no idea what that means.

It's Old Geek Code. I still have a GE vacuum in service paid for in green
stamps (it was that well made it's lasted well over 30 years). Now you're
lucky if a gas station has a bucket and a squeegee for you to wipe your own
windshield.

> Remember the coupons they used to give out with packs of cigarettes?
> Fine way to involve the whole family!

The family that smokes together, chokes together. I had forgotten all about
the ciggie coupons.

> > You'd better pray your chances of getting hit by a meteor aren't
equal!!!
>
> Or by a bus while crossing the street.

One of the dead links on ADI's website points to the defunct
futurestandard.com site. An ironic reminder of the high mortality rate of
new small businesses!

> > It's a danger that simply disappears with the mini-PC option because
other
> > manufacturers make similar boxes. Try converting your Ocelot setup to
Elk
> > with just a copy of Ghost and a blank DVD-R. When enough servers have
> been
> > converted from Dell and HP to VIA machines, Intel and AMD might nose
into
> > the waters. VIA's been making support chips for a long, long time.
They
> > have a proven track record.
>
> It's not so much the chips as the OS running on top of them. Often it's
> just plain more reliable to have NO operating system and just run the app
> itself on the bare iron. Quite a few appliance-like devices do this.
They
> end up lacking all the other doo-dads you see on an actual OS but at least
> they stay running.

It's not impossible to keep well made, well-powered (UPS w/auto-shutdown)
and well-cooled PC's going for long periods of time if you set them up
properly and don't overload them or feed them too much M$ stuff.

The mini-PC that's going to take the place of the Ocelot in my design will
mostly control relays and talk to Dave's BXAHT and the powerline. AV and
phones will be handled via a different PC because those are the apps most
likely to blow up for some obscure reason. With WOL and other options that
are standard in the PC HW, it should work out quite nicely and very
cost-effectively both for the equipment and the cost of operation.

But it's no big thing for me if I have to remote reboot the AV server from
time to time or even if it fails and requires occasional tweaking. The
alarm system is completely separate as well, handled by an OmniLT. The HVAC
part is still up in the air because it depends a lot on what kind of heating
and cooling goes into the next house.

> > With power prices up, 15 watts instead of 150 for people running
multiple
> > PC's isn't chump change. The Ocelot consumes less power, true, but try
> > getting it to play a DVD or pipe your front door cam to the wall LCD
while
> > simultaneously recording all front door activity and keeping a running
log
> > of all home events.
>
> Hold on, let me juggle those knives, that bowling ball and a chainsaw!
One
> foot, now HOP!

I noticed that HomeSeer is selling a Mini-ITX (For about $2K, IIRC) to run
their SW. Sign of the times, indeed!

> > I'm convinced from reading all the posts that I have from server
operators
> > that the VIA machines are pretty robust under Linux. They even seem to
be
> > stable under W2KPro although I doubt I would use it. Lots of people are
> > writing drivers for the VIA boxes and there's lots of enthusiasm for
them
> > because they conserve so much (increasingly) expensive electricity to
> > perform the same tasks nearly as well as their full-sized brothers.
>
> Yes, I agree.

I've been reading about folks in CA (where electric bills apparently soar
during the summer) who have small server farms at home that have cut $300+
from their monthly bills. One guy said he knew he had to do something when
his electric bill got bigger than his T-1 charges. So that's a lot of smart
people whose PC needs include long periods of uptime putting these babies
through their paces.

I frankly couldn't be happier if VIA and Linux ate big holes in Intel and
MS's profits. Maybe then they'll even start listening to the consumer
again. HA Har!

It's also clear that VIA listens and watches intensely and makes very quick
modifications based on user feedback and requirements. I like that.
They've even come out with a dual CPU Mini although I can't see how. The
one CPU board is so crowded they have to resort to space saving tricks like
mounting the RTC/CMOS battery vertically!

--
Bobby G.

Jeff Volp

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:43e38cf7.219265625@nntp.fuse.net...
> I also keep an eye out for motherboards with ISA & PCI slots. My
development
> machine has an 8 serial port PCI card and an ISA oscilloscope card. I like
> to have a spare motherboard should mine give out. USB oscilloscopes with
the
> capabilities of my ISA card cost more than a new PC.
>

The one I've been using for several years is the MSI Pro4 MS-6391.

http://www.msicomputer.com/product/detail_spec/845pro4.htm

I have it in two systems. But, given the lifetime of this stuff, it's
probably obsolete and discontinued by now.

Jeff

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
news:JyLEf.328284$qk4.277417@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I understand your point a lot better now.
>
> But, PCs aren't quite that interchangeable.

I challenge you to name something similar that's *more* interchangeable!
They are the most universally interchangeable commodity that I know of.
Maker A's board usually runs in Maker B's PC without problems. Try that
with home automation equipment from Z-wave, ZigBee, Centralite, HAI, X-10,
Insteon, and on and on. For a while it was stabilized quite nicely with
lots of different manufacturers adhering to the X-10 protocol, but Babel has
come to HA.

> I've got a box full of ISA
> boards that won't plug into any current motherboard.

Well, I'd have a hard time plugging radio tubes into these teensy IC
sockets! Should there never be any progress? You could take those cards
and plug them into any motherboard that still has an ISA slot and they would
work. You could sit all day in front of a Z-Wave switch with an X-10
controller and not get anywhere. That's what I am talking about when I say
interchangeable. Maker A's board works with maker B's computer.

> I do use the only P5 motherboard I could find that still accepted an
> ISA board.

There have to be allowances for architectural advances. In the PC world,
when the ISA bus became too slow, the PCI bus (and for a short while, the
EISA bus) took its place. You could take virtually any PCI card from
manufacturer A and stick it in any PCI slot from manufacturer B and it would
work. Let's compare that situation with home automation.

Like ISA, the X-10 bus has *almost* run out of gas. Instead of moving from
one standard to another, we have at least 6 competing standards on the
market now with very little interchangeability. Then there's the AV market
where devices all have proprietary remotes, S-Links, etc. When you get to
automobiles, about the only parts that you can interchange between makers
are batteries, lamps and fuses and some fluids. SLR cameras had only a
flash shoe, a tripod socket and a film size that was standardized.
Everything else was "manufacturer's choice." There would be no mounting
Canon lenses on Nikon bodies with adapters that usually did not support all
the features of either the lens or the camera.

> Then there is the continuing evolution of harddrive interfaces.

The key word is evolution. When we jumped from ATA33 to ATA133 tremendous
efforts were made to keep things backward compatible. You could install a
new controller in your old PC to run the new drives easily *because* the PCI
bus had long been standardized. I've done it many times as the various HD
size barriers were crossed. Now almost all new boards come with both PATA
and SATA drive connectors to ease the transition to ATA150, just as there
was a time when motherboards came with both ISA and PCI slots - to ease the
transition. So far only Dave Houston and Smarthome appear to have given any
thought to interoperability among HA equipment.

There isn't any consumer product that's nearly as standardized as desktop
PCs. Interestingly enough, for a long time there was chaos reigning in the
laptop arena because each maker made their own disk drives, memory strips,
batteries, etc. It's gotten a little better because competitively, you can
build better and cheaper if you standardize and are able to source parts
from more than one supplier.

> Don't forget the ATX update that rendered the old cases obsolete.

The ATX standard was SUCH an improvement over the old cases with the "wire
by hand" rat's nest of ribbon cables and pin headers that most PC people
were quite happy to get rid of the old cases. Reliability shot up
tremendously as a result of attaching all the I/O connectors to the
motherboard. It should be noted that ASUS did make boards that fit into
either style case for a time - once again to ease the transition. I still
own two and they are still working hard as general purpose PC's. If the
case PS dies I can move the board to an ATX style. There's nothing else I
can think of that's so adaptable.

FWIW, the ATX standard has changed slightly again with the addition of a
separate 4 wire cable to supply power directly to the PC. This had to be
added because CPU's got so powerful they began drawing more current than the
original power supply spec provided for. But that's a good thing, not a bad
one because it's easy to buy and mount a new PS in an ATX case. Why?
They're standardized! Four screws and that PS is outta there.

> Yes, we can plug that junk back together an get a running obsolete
computer.
> Why?

Because some very specialized apps require ISA. I have an old SLT laptop
connected to a RatShack digital multimeter, turning an old piece of "junk"
into quite a powerful and useful data recorder. Another one's working as a
firewall and others do intermittent service as RS-232 terminals, etc. Still
another had a specialized digital audio capture board to connect to my Sony
DAT recorder. ISA only. My X-10 CP290 won't talk to anything new-fangled,
either!

I have, however, scrapped all my 486's full sized PC's, only because I have
enough old laptops and other PC's to more than cover my needs.

--
Bobby G.

Jeff Volp

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

Comparing X-10 and Z-Wave is like comparing a PC with a Mac. They both do
the same thing, but there's not much compatibility. Even today, stay within
X10 (or Leviton DHC), and everything works fine. It's perhaps even more
compatible than the PC because those old brown BSR X10 modules still work
today. They come into service every year at Christmas candle time. There
aren't many parts left over from my XT that are useful today. Anybody want
an ATI Wonder card?

Jeff

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:3bGdne86_fUYTn7enZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@rcn.net...
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:JyLEf.328284$qk4.277417@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I understand your point a lot better now.
> >
> > But, PCs aren't quite that interchangeable.
>
> I challenge you to name something similar that's *more* interchangeable!
> They are the most universally interchangeable commodity that I know of.
> Maker A's board usually runs in Maker B's PC without problems. Try that
> with home automation equipment from Z-wave, ZigBee, Centralite, HAI,
X-10,
> Insteon, and on and on. For a while it was stabilized quite nicely with
> lots of different manufacturers adhering to the X-10 protocol, but Babel
has
> come to HA.
>
> > I've got a box full of ISA
> > boards that won't plug into any current motherboard.
>
> Well, I'd have a hard time plugging radio tubes into these teensy IC
> sockets! Should there never be any progress? You could take those cards
> and plug them into any motherboard that still has an ISA slot and they
would
> work. You could sit all day in front of a Z-Wave switch with an X-10
> controller and not get anywhere. That's what I am talking about when I
say
> interchangeable. Maker A's board works with maker B's computer.

(much other stuff snipped)

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote

> Comparing X-10 and Z-Wave is like comparing a PC with a Mac.

It's funny you should make that analogy at this moment. Macs and PCs have
been on a convergence path for a long time now. It started with SCSI and
then moved to PCI and USB. This month, they made the transformation
complete and switched to Intel CPUs!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/techspecial2/25pogue.html

The official reason was speed and heat but the real reason was that they got
sole-source throttled by IBM who was not giving them the supply of chips
they wanted. In essence, the need for interchangeability forced them to do
it.

AMD and VIA can make Pentium-class CPUs so there are other options if Intel
tries to throttles them like IBM did. Add to that all the businesses that
really couldn't justify maintaining two whole different support staffs, HW,
training and everything else that comes with a dual standard and it was
inevitable. That means, in essence, there's really only one CPU
architecture left for desktop computing. That's pretty bloody
standardized!! <g>

WinTel machines were moving towards Apple as Apple was moving towards them.
MS stole all the GUI parts that made Apple so different in the early years
from the same place Apple did. :-) The just got around to using it a little
later. That's remarkable convergence compared to the utter Babel of the
home automation world where no one player has emerged as a market leader,
except, maybe for X-10.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote in message news:ueQEf.329770

<stuff snipped>

> The one I've been using for several years is the MSI Pro4 MS-6391.
>
> http://www.msicomputer.com/product/detail_spec/845pro4.htm
>
> I have it in two systems. But, given the lifetime of this stuff, it's
> probably obsolete and discontinued by now.

Ah, but this stuff often gets a second or third life cycle on Ebay. I've
seen ten year old equipment go for more than it cost new. In some cases the
cost of switching to a different HW and SW platform is so great that full
list for a 10 year old card is often a super deal!

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green

04-02-2006, 01:56 PM

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote

> Comparing X-10 and Z-Wave is like comparing a PC with a Mac. They both do
> the same thing, but there's not much compatibility. Even today, stay
within
> X10 (or Leviton DHC), and everything works fine. It's perhaps even more
> compatible than the PC because those old brown BSR X10 modules still work
> today. They come into service every year at Christmas candle time. There
> aren't many parts left over from my XT that are useful today. Anybody
want
> an ATI Wonder card?

An All in Wonder card? I'll take it! :-) The point you raise is
interesting. X-10 didn't modify the underlying technology of its PLC
protocol - but they did do an awful lot in both in the RF arena and with the
CM11A as an automation controller that didn't need a PC. The CM11A was a
technological extension of the CP290 - IIRC they hit a design wall in their
design that make it unworkable on Win95 systems. BTW, I find my CP290 far
more reliable than the CM11A! So there's been steady progress on the X-10
front, even though it may not seem that way. If there's no pressing need to
update the standard, it lingers until there is a reason to change or until
it's no longer needed.

Floppy drive cables haven't changed in 20 years - nor have floppy ports or
parallel printer ports or keyboard ports or mouse ports. Sure there are
more options today with USB, but those ports are still there, relatively
unchanged because there was no pressing need to change them.

I think Insteon and other have arrived on the scene at this moment for a
reason: The proliferation of CFL's and other signal suckers has finally
rendered the X-10 protocol more likely to fail than to succeed in a first
time deployment by a new enthusiast. We see evidence of that here in CHA
all the time. The technological issue of a polluted power line finally
triggered the burst of new protocols. The same "we've hit a wall and must
redesign" process occurs in the PC world, but about every 5 years, not every
30 as in home automation.

--
Bobby G.

BruceR

04-02-2006, 04:15 PM

All good points. Another of the reason it's taken so long is the X10
patent that pretty much kept everybody else out of the biz. X10, even in
the early days had a lot of signal integrity problems which is why it
never became a mainstream product like an iPOD. X10 has certainly sold
a lot of product but most people have still never really heard of it.

From:Robert Green
ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM

> "Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote
>
>> Comparing X-10 and Z-Wave is like comparing a PC with a Mac. They
>> both do the same thing, but there's not much compatibility. Even
>> today, stay within X10 (or Leviton DHC), and everything works fine.
>> It's perhaps even more compatible than the PC because those old
>> brown BSR X10 modules still work today. They come into service
>> every year at Christmas candle time. There aren't many parts left
>> over from my XT that are useful today. Anybody want an ATI Wonder
>> card?
>
> An All in Wonder card? I'll take it! :-) The point you raise is
> interesting. X-10 didn't modify the underlying technology of its PLC
> protocol - but they did do an awful lot in both in the RF arena and
> with the CM11A as an automation controller that didn't need a PC.
> The CM11A was a technological extension of the CP290 - IIRC they hit
> a design wall in their design that make it unworkable on Win95
> systems. BTW, I find my CP290 far more reliable than the CM11A! So
> there's been steady progress on the X-10 front, even though it may
> not seem that way. If there's no pressing need to update the
> standard, it lingers until there is a reason to change or until it's
> no longer needed.
>
> Floppy drive cables haven't changed in 20 years - nor have floppy
> ports or parallel printer ports or keyboard ports or mouse ports.
> Sure there are more options today with USB, but those ports are still
> there, relatively unchanged because there was no pressing need to
> change them.
>
> I think Insteon and other have arrived on the scene at this moment
> for a reason: The proliferation of CFL's and other signal suckers
> has finally rendered the X-10 protocol more likely to fail than to
> succeed in a first time deployment by a new enthusiast. We see
> evidence of that here in CHA all the time. The technological issue
> of a polluted power line finally triggered the burst of new
> protocols. The same "we've hit a wall and must redesign" process
> occurs in the PC world, but about every 5 years, not every 30 as in
> home automation.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

Robert Green

05-02-2006, 06:32 AM

BR> Another of the reason it's taken so long is the X10
BR> patent that pretty much kept everybody else out of the biz.

Certainly the X-10 patent had a lot to do with it but many, many companies
rebadged and then abandoned the X-10 line. It never took off. I think
companies like IBM, Stanley and Sears jumped ship because of the
ever-worsening reliability problem. Remember what a house looked like in
the BSR days? There were very few wallwarts compared to today, no cordless
phones and almost no computer equipment. The X-10 signal was designed to
navigate that simple, peaceful electrical environment and it "soared like an
eagle" on most home's powerlines. Ironically, the big problem back that was
that the signal went too far!

Today, the X-10 signal is more of a mole that has to tunnel its way under
all the predatory signal suckers and confusing noise sources that live in a
modern home. I've helped deploy X-10 for a number of friends recently and
all needed couplers and will likely need repeaters. If Insteon has indeed
solved that problem without the need to hire an electrician, they have made
the big jump to the next HA level. I estimate that maybe as many as half of
X-10 users stop expanding their system when faced with the coupler option.
It was X-10's Achilles' Heel.

From what Dave's been teaching me slowly about RF, it was never very hard to
couple X-10 phases by wireless, either - they just didn't think of it and
apparently, neither did anyone else. Dave, if you're reading this, how hard
would it be to couple X-10 via RF as Insteon has done?

As for the IPOD, it's success is even more interesting when you consider
that's its really the reincarnation of the Sony Walkman, the granddaddy of
portable music. There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has
come - again!

--
Bobby G.

"BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:SwWEf.7653$Ou1.1660@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> All good points. Another of the reason it's taken so long is the X10
> patent that pretty much kept everybody else out of the biz. X10, even in
> the early days had a lot of signal integrity problems which is why it
> never became a mainstream product like an iPOD. X10 has certainly sold
> a lot of product but most people have still never really heard of it.
>
> From:Robert Green
> ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM
>
> > "Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@msn.com> wrote
> >
> >> Comparing X-10 and Z-Wave is like comparing a PC with a Mac. They
> >> both do the same thing, but there's not much compatibility. Even
> >> today, stay within X10 (or Leviton DHC), and everything works fine.
> >> It's perhaps even more compatible than the PC because those old
> >> brown BSR X10 modules still work today. They come into service
> >> every year at Christmas candle time. There aren't many parts left
> >> over from my XT that are useful today. Anybody want an ATI Wonder
> >> card?
> >
> > An All in Wonder card? I'll take it! :-) The point you raise is
> > interesting. X-10 didn't modify the underlying technology of its PLC
> > protocol - but they did do an awful lot in both in the RF arena and
> > with the CM11A as an automation controller that didn't need a PC.
> > The CM11A was a technological extension of the CP290 - IIRC they hit
> > a design wall in their design that make it unworkable on Win95
> > systems. BTW, I find my CP290 far more reliable than the CM11A! So
> > there's been steady progress on the X-10 front, even though it may
> > not seem that way. If there's no pressing need to update the
> > standard, it lingers until there is a reason to change or until it's
> > no longer needed.
> >
> > Floppy drive cables haven't changed in 20 years - nor have floppy
> > ports or parallel printer ports or keyboard ports or mouse ports.
> > Sure there are more options today with USB, but those ports are still
> > there, relatively unchanged because there was no pressing need to
> > change them.
> >
> > I think Insteon and other have arrived on the scene at this moment
> > for a reason: The proliferation of CFL's and other signal suckers
> > has finally rendered the X-10 protocol more likely to fail than to
> > succeed in a first time deployment by a new enthusiast. We see
> > evidence of that here in CHA all the time. The technological issue
> > of a polluted power line finally triggered the burst of new
> > protocols. The same "we've hit a wall and must redesign" process
> > occurs in the PC world, but about every 5 years, not every 30 as in
> > home automation.
> >
> > --
> > Bobby G.
>
>