RE: Re: Clipsal questions

["Mike Griffiths" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In 1.1.5 the Comfort Sim is recognised as the Comfort Sim Well it is if
you call it that

It comes up as a INT_CIS Default Sim

Mike



________________________________

From: Kevin Hawkins [mailto:lists@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 March 2005 14:27
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: Clipsal questions



K. C. Li wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, David Buckley wrote:
>
>
>
>>I dont think the SIM being recognised as an unknown module is an
>>accident or a bug.  The toolkit knows perfectly well what its
dealing
>>with.
>>
>>
>
>I would agree with that. The SIM is manufactured by Clipsal and is a
>proper C-Bus module so it must have a unique identification. It may be
>that it comes as a special no C-Bus name module until it is further
>programmed by an OEM user.
>
>
>
I raised the 'not recognised' point a while back with Clispal - the
response was 'ooops we'll add it in next revision' . However the SIM
operates totally correctly and the point was that there is nothing in
there that can be 'configured' by the software so it really doesnt
matter (except network ID) .. The OEM doesnt further configure the SIM
(AFAIK)

>>The SIM was used in the Minder unit.  The Minder was a OEM badged
>>product, and for whatever reason, this product no longer exists as
a
>>Clipsal product, so Clipsal have discontinued the SIM to prevent
the
>>OEM from continuing to offer their product as out-of-the-box CBus
>>compatible, you now need the PCI.
>>
>>Thus, end of the SIM.
>>
>>
>
>The SIM is part of the C-Bus Enabled programme. The module is the only
way
>in which an OEM interface with C-Bus "natively" so I would be
surprised
if
>it is discontinued. Having said that, Clipsal definitely don't like
people
>using the SIM outside of their C-Bus Enabled programme.
>
>
I agree .  I use the SIM's on my xAP C-Bus board and again AFAIK it is
still readily available within the C-Bus Enabled program - I am sure
they would have communicated any intentions to withdraw it to the
members.   If anything I expect interoperability is an increasingly
desireable feature so it wouldn't seem a startegic move either.

Kevin