Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

[J. <jsloud2001<removeme>@netscape.net>]

Well said.  As a matter of fact, I just got a phone call from a
600,000 sq ft plant/ warehouse where we did the fire alarm about a
year ago.  The owner's buddy set them up with two home built DVR's and
a bunch of bullet cameras.  We've now been asked to evaluate and
replace their equipment.  They've got 32 channels of low end video
from $80 bullet cameras running over RG-59 to two problem prone,
unreliable home made PC's with capture cards.  Some of those RG runs
have to be 1500 feet or so.  I amazed there's any video at all.  We'll
replace it with proper commercial/ industrial grade AD, Bosch, and/or
GE equipment and the customer will get what he needs.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:45:44 GMT, "Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>It is easy to see the PC in many DVR units. That said some DVR units are
>more PC than others. One beef (of too many to mention) I have with
>VideoInsight  is that they won't create a COTS spec for their grabber card
>and create a Windows XP Embedded OS to go with it (they won't even suggest a
>policy editor template for OS modification or even msconfig). The developers
>of the product were honest enough to tell me that they lack the sales volume
>to be able to even begin justify such a move. And a 100% fully automated
>recovery CD? Not on your life. Auto throttle bandwith with QoS? That's
>always coming in the next release.
>Many people get confused about the term embedded OS and say one thing when
>they actually mean another. Nearly all build it yourself units run on some
>form of Windows OS. No matter what kind of Policy Editor you use it will
>still be that version of Windows at the shell. Many DVR units use Windows XP
>Embedded (more information here
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/windowsxpembedded/default.aspx ) others
>use an embedded OS. According to the Microsoft Embedded site Microsoft
>Windows XP Embedded provides the ability to build a customized operating
>system image which contains the components and technologies that are
>appropriate for your specific device. One thing you should never do is apply
>XP Pro patches to XP Embedded. If you can't tell one from the other the
>splash screen after the POST shows XP Embedded and there is always the tiny
>XP Embedded sticker (versus the much larger XP Pro sticker) on the case to
>point out the difference. Some Integral Technologies units and Bosch DiBos
>units use Windows XP Embedded, some units like Dedicated Micros use an
>embedded OS (at least that is their description). Some units like Dallmeier
>and March Networks use a Linux OS, although not the same distribution. Some
>units like the Intellex use a highly modified Windows OS that is almost XP
>Embedded (on version 4.x), but it is really just an odd duck. I'll say it
>again, if you're a computer guy discovering CCTV then getting a grabber card
>and building you're own unit seems cool. If you're a security guy, or more
>specifically a systems integrator, you won't have time to build your own.
>The puny margins in building your own DVR would never be worth it. If you
>are thinking about supporting an up the Coax PTZ (Bosch PTZ units, Panasonic
>PTZ units or Pelco PTZ units to name a few) with Bilinx (Bosch) or using
>BiPhase (Bosch) to support a different protocol, no build it yourself unit
>would ever be an option. And we haven't even mentioned access control
>integration, POS integration or an Aegis interface (developed by KapLogic
>Corporation). If you are using professional camera gear like Bosch Auto
>Domes or AD Ultra  few cusomers are going to consider it a plus to cheap out
>and have you drag in some weird ass home built PC no matter how you try to
>promote it as a DVR. If you do a dozen or so simple mostly fixed camera DVR
>deployments a year that never interface with anything else maybe you have
>found your calling with build it yourself. When you walk into a major sports
>arena or giant medical center and think about a DVR solution to deploy the
>build it yourself option never crosses your mind, ever! Well, if you're
>going to check yourself in at the Psych ward in medical center maybe. In my
>opinion if you ever aspire to serve those sorts of large customers in the
>future in that type of upper end market segment you should not afflict your
>current customers with the crippled limitations of build it yourself, leave
>that for the box sale guys or the lame IT guy with too much time and no
>budget.
>
>"Matt Ion" <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:9yaTg.70351$R63.30733@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>>
>