Re: Ademco Vista Programming

["Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have never read a post where Bass says he doesn't like Ademco. But if he
really doesn't like Ademco products, why does he sell it? If he doesn't like
Ademco (Honeywell) because of the product itself and not what the company
did to him to make him mad at them, then that shows he has some good sense
in my book. Have you ever programed a Vista 250 FB with over 200 points? Go
fault a zone and count how long it takes to trip the panel or worse yet show
at the keypad. Even the factory boys warn you (privately of course) not to
get near 200 points (on a panel that says it has 250 points AND YOU PAY FOR
250). And you'd better use serial (not dip switch) to boot on the polling
modules. That is just the tip of the iceburg. How about the access products?
What good is the N1000II? Stuffed a matchbook cover under a lithium battery
at some odd hour of the morning? Then you too have installed an N100II. An 8
volt battery mounted on the panel DOOR of all places! How about any of the
NStar panels? Or the software that runs either panel. WinPAK in any version
is terrible. How many all nighters have you pulled in a big multistory
trying to find the bad panel that pulls down the whole sorry 20ma comm loop.
Are you kidding me about Ademco? I have seen guys pull working Ademco panels
just to take them out for target practice. For real!
Any panel can be installed improperly. Why increase that chance by having
goofy designs, fake product claims, poor documentation and support. Frankly
in the scheme of things it is hard for me to get excited about Bass' posting
showing Honeywell doing another stupid thing by not securing their site. If
you are trying to interest me in blaming Bass for Honeywell's laziness and
stupidity I can say that is not what I choose to do.

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZKidnY5BKZe9FurYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:FgLdh.7719$ql2.5366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:EvCdnbX70I5A6OvYnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Then I take it you have no problems with people publicly posting logins
> to
>> > secure websites then? Ask him why he doesn't post Napco or DSC's site
>> > logins
>>
>> I'm thinking because it would be his User Name & Password the whole world
>> would be using... Honeywell needs to assign each WebTech user his/her own
>> password...
>
> Perhaps but thats hardly the point, numb-nuts shouldn't have posted it in
> the first place. I have a feeling if Honeywell did go to individual logins
> he'd figure out a way to post it anyway. He doesn't like Ademco and he
> will
> not post logins to companies he does like such as Napco
>
>