RE: [Project] RFC re Bulkhead (98k attachment)

[Keith Doxey <ukha@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Ken

The CRESTRON remotes control nothing but the Crestron unit in much the same
way as people are using Pronto to drive their Homevision.

Homevision is way easier to program than Crestron and IMHO much more user
freindly. You can buy a Homevision for less than the cost of a Crestron IR
Learner.

What I was saying was to use the iPaq as the Remote. If you have a web
front
end to Homevision or similar that does the IR work for you.

The Pronto is a superb remote but that is all it is. (I dont actually have
a
Pronto or Epod). A PDA or Webtablet gives you so much more. You can use it
as a remote but you can also use it for normal computing tasks. People with
PDA's keep them with them most of the time so you always have your remote
to
hand and being wireless it gives you feedback on what you have done.

You can get the TV guide on it and just click the program you want to
watch,
then the command goes to the HA Controller and changes the TV for you.

I fully agree that Crestron is way beyond most peoples budgets, but what I
envisage is an affordable, CUSTOMISABLE, modular system where you get the
bits you want and dont get the bits you dont want.

What is essential to meet WAF is that the system should be user freindly
and
as close to 100% relaiable as it is possible to get. That is why I choose
Lutron/Crestron as examples to work to. I have firsthand experience of both
systems and am very impressed by the robustness of them. I am much less
impressed the the user freindlyness of the programming software though :-(

Keith



-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Watt [mailto:kennethwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 04 June 2001 08:54
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [Project] RFC re Bulkhead (98k attachment)


Guys,

I've watched this project with interest and it is fascinating reading, I
myself have never been an electronics buff when it comes down to building
things, I just like using them really.

But here's my thing, its all very well designing equipment that talks via
HTTP, one-wire etc. and I applaud you guys on your efforts thus far but I
have an issue with I-Paqs and EPODS in that, yes they can talk to a PC or
they can talk to a home auto set-up via a PC/wireless network with no
problem, but as a consumer I still need a Pronto or remote to turn on the
TV
or the amp or whatever really!

Keith mentions the Creston remotes as the granddaddy of all remotes and it
probably is, but it's beyond most peoples means, or wills to buy. But, it
does have full IR capability therefore controlling devices that fall
outside
the remit of any project are controllable using that box. What I want as a
consumer is one-box solutions for control methods, not a steadily
increasing
amount of control systems or remotes glorified or otherwise to do,
essentially one job. In other words, why do I need a Pronto, an EPOD and
several remotes for RF stuff too?

I see where you are going with this, I think, in that the control via an
I-Paq/EPOD or whatever is an additional feature of the system you are
designing but when EPOD fever gripped the HA scene I resisted, simply
because it was not worth my while to buy an EPOD to control X10 when I
already had a Pronto that controlled it all as well as a EPOD really. Yes,
the EPOD would be nice and it allows true real time interaction etc etc but
you still come back to the questions, do I really need it and why?

All I'm trying to point out is that these devices have a limited
functionality outside of talking to devices that can be seen by a PC, we
tried playing about with an Aero a while ago to get it to send standard IR
codes and that was a bust, anyway the range was next to useless and the
batteries only last a few hours once the device is off its cradle.

Just some thoughts, I could be barking up the wrong tree here but it's just
my tuppence worth and I hope I have not offended anyone with my ignorance
;o)

K.





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/