Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

[Matt Ion <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

J. <jsloud2001 wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:29:00 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>You have some sort of philosophical issues with PC-based DVRs?
>
>
>
> In a word, yes.
>
> I deal with a lot of medium to larger size facilities that almost
> always have their DVR's connected to a network.  If you do not connect
> to a network, then you lose a lot of the functionality of having a
> digital solution.  When you use a Windows PC as a DVR, you bring along
> all of the baggage associated with  Windows.  Each time a new exploit
> is found, Windows must be updated to control it.  If you connect to a
> network without keeping up to date on security patches and service
> packs, the machine will become vunerable.  Add to this fact that a PC
> based machine can and will be used by associates for other purposes
> and reliability suffers even more.

Umm, that's not a failing of PC-based DVRs... that's a failing of WINDOWS-based
DVRs on an unsecured or improperly secured network.  Or more specifically, a
failing of an IT department.  If a "medium to larger size" company doesn't have
a firewall between their network and the internet, and the proper security in
place. ALL their computers are volnerable, not just their DVR.  If they DO have
a firewall, the systems are pretty much invulnerable to direct outside access...
and as long as all the other systems are kept up-to-date with security measures
(patches etc.) and aren't infected, there's no real way for the DVR to be
affected unless someone's surfing the web on it... in which case you have other
issues.

> There are two types of PC based machines.  Factory built DVR's that
> come as a unit complete with a warranty vs. a user built off the shelf
> PC with a capture card and user installed software.  I have no problem
> with the former.  We've used DVR's and NVR's from AD, Bosch, Pelco,
> Verint, etc that are PC based and relatively free of issues, although
> embedded recorders such as GE/ Kalatel units do seem to be more
> reliable.  My problem is with user built DVR's where some guy takes an
> off-the-shelf Dell and puts a capture card and some software on it and
> calls it a DVR.  Windows, although improved in recent years, is still
> not the most stable platform for running critical applications.

Out of all the Vigil and VideoInsight DVRs I've installed and/or serviced, I've
only seen TWO actually fail because of Windows issues, and both, though designed
and built ONLY as DVRs, were used by their owners or employees onsite for
surfing the web (one guy even installed a couple games, since the DVR machine
was more powerful than his office PC). Again, that's not a failing of PC-based
designs, that's a failing of STUPID PEOPLE.  And as we know, hydrogen and
stupidity are the two most common elements in the universe.

I've had ONE PC-based DVR fail because the CPU fan died and the whole thing
overheated... any others that have died have been because of failing hard
drives, which can happen to embedded machines just as well as PCs.

Oh, and one where the video card died because the new owners on the site decided
to test the backup generator by just throwing the switch on the main building
power, and generated a nice power spike.  They killed the system drive in the
replacement machine by doing the same thing again two months later, despite LOUD
warnings (unheeded) to put the thing on a UPS.  But again, that's just human
stupidity; I've seen just as many standalone DVRs, as well as MUXs, VCRs and
cameras, killed by power spikes.

PC-based DVRs are no more or less INHERENTLY reliable than any other type of
video-recording system... they may be easier for (l)users to fuck up, but that's
a side-effect of ease-of-use.

> A small list of problems I've seen with PC based units never
> encountered with embedded DVRs:
>
> Version conflicts

With what?  I've seen the Vigil client complain if it's connecting to a
different revision of server, but it still works.

> Security patches
> Network worms

Shouldn't be necessary on a properly secured network.  Vigil machines still run
on Win2K; my VI machines run on a pretty bare-bones XP with all unnecessary
services disabled.  And not so much an issue with non-Windows-based (Linux, BSD,
and others) DVRs.

> Guards using box to surf the internet (viruses, spyware, malware, etc)

There's no accounting for the human factor.  How about this one: late-night
employee decided to review footage for the hot blonde who was just at the
counter, the forgets to restart recording, because the cheap standalone unit is
a simplex design.

> Windows update incompatibility

So don't use automatic updates.  Not necessary on a properly secured network.
And again, not an issue on non-Windows-based DVRs.

> Blue screen of death

Never had one of those on a DVR.

> Power interupt/ shutdown issues

That can affect ANY recording device, PC, standalone, or VCR.

In fact, PCs are able to BETTER handle those instances if they're on a UPS with
the proper support installed, because a UPS can trigger a clean shutdown of the
PC if the battery runs low after power has been off a while.

> Software conflicts caused by other programs running on PC

There shouldn't be any other programs running... again, a human failing, not a
design issue, and not really a problem anyway with non-Windows machines.  Even
with, it's not that difficult to lock down the machine to prevent installation
and use of other software.  Capture's machines run their own shell over the
Windows desktop and lock out most key combinations, such as ctrl-esc,
strl-alt-del, etc.  With password-protected shutdown, it's virtually impossible
for an unauthorized user to access the desktop or run any other software.