Re: pc based security intrusion and camera system

[Bob La Londe <alarm_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 12, 8:34 am, ABC <3...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I hate to break it to you, but the technology used in most alarm
> systems hasn't changed much in 35 years.  It is simply lagging because
> of attitudes such as yours.  The newer PoE devices are so far advanced
> over what existed 10 years ago, you can't even begin to compare.  So,
> legacy...yes.
>
> While I agree that a alarm control panel is probably more reliable,
> that due to the fact that the features are much more limited.
> You can keep your attitude that PC/LAN based systems are not the way
> to go, but you will find yourself out of a job in 10 years.
>
> I would suggest you take a look at the IP based video system coming
> out now and get with the times.  We run one that hasn't been down in
> over 100 days due to redundant power and solid configuration.
>
> Sure, PC based systems aren't 100% reliable, but a 1 speed bicycle is
> probably more reliable than a car.  Do you still ride around on a 1
> speed bicycle.
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:38:08 -0700, "Bob La Londe" <nos...@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"ABC" <3...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:0j1sb3hff3b7gv8mthkav8jjuaj4uvj5pi@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> >Legacy Alarm?  LOL.
>
> >You may choose to try and redefine things to be the way you think they
> >should be, but until Microsquish is run out of the business there will never
> >be a PC based alarm that is anywhere near as reliable as a standard simple
> >proprietary alarm control panel.
>
> >Now, if you want to try something else instead, you might consider upgrading
> >your alarm panel and keypads to something newer.  Something compatible with
> >a home automation package.  It would be capable of sending alarm information
> >to your automation software, but would never be dependent on a PC to
> >operate.  (You may still not be happy though.  Most of those "legacy" alarms
> >that send info to PC like to talk to a "legacy" RS-232 ports.)  ROFL.
>
> >I suggest you ask about features and options in comp.home.automation  There
> >are a lot of guys over there into the DIY automation scene.
>
> >Actually there are some panels out there with some pretty cool ethernet
> >add-on modules that can transmit data over LAN WAN or Internet.  Just need
> >to find a compatible automation package or write your own interface.
>
> >Quit trying to make your PC the center of everything though.  PC based
> >recording is is Eh!, but it works ok if you don't do anything else on that
> >PC and you set it up for atleast weekly auto re-boot.  Daily would be
> >better.
>
> >On the other hand if this is your sole hobby and you like tinkering with it
> >every day and maybe you would have fun making a PC-en-stein and coaxing it
> >along.
>
> >--
> >Bob La Londe
> >Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
> >Fishing Forums & Contests
> >http://www.YumaBassMan.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually a lot of the
components in modern alarm panels didn't even exist 35 years ago, but
hey.
Still to a certain degree.  You are correct.  Modern alarm panels tend
to
use older more reliable tech.  Thats a good thing.  For security and
life
safety reliability is very important.

Seriously, all in one soluions are usually not the way to go.
Individual or
modular systems that communicate work much better and are far more
reliable
over all.  Mainly because Winblows sucks.  Then nothing critical is
dependent on Windows.  I have nothing against a well built PC.  The OS
is
the problem.  I've got a 486DX in my back office running PCDOS and
running
continuously since it was first set up with maybe 6 reboots in all
that
time.  I don't know how many years that has been.  I don't think any
of the
reboots were from PC problems.  If somebody had written a popular OS
that
was stable I would gladly use a PC built to that quality as part of a
system.  The problem is still the OS.  Even if the PCs built today and
the
operating systems in place were more reliable I would still opt for a
modular system with good communications rather than a centralized
system
that performs multiple different functions all dependent on one
processor.
All things can fail.

I actually work with this stuff everyday, and have to make things work
for
people.  My biggest number one concern is reliability.  Ease of use
is
always second, but it is important.  If its not easy enough then it
won't
get used.

Anyway, I still think you would be better served by running an
automation
package and an independent alarm.  How you manage your video is a
little
more nebulous.  I've seen that even a purpose built PC running Windows
for
their OS seem to have problems if not rebooted periodically, and most
aren't
setup that way by default.  I've got embedded OS systems though that
have
been in continuous service for several years without a single reboot.

Ethernet is a great medium for communications, but its not the end
all.
Just like telephone is a great medium for communications, but last
time I
checked you could not reach through the phone with your hammer to
drive a
nail.  LOL.  On the other hand you could tell somebody at the other
end of
the line how to use the hammer, and with ethernet and good
applications you
could even show them.  AND of course if the phone line failed they
would
still have their hammer.  LOL.

Anyway, as I suggested before, you would probably find the most guys
to help
you wth your project by checking comp.home.automation.

You mention IP products.  I use them everyday.  They are great, but
they do
not provide the maximum uptime for critical services if they are
totally
dependent on the network or worse a single central server also running
other
critical applications simoultaneously, just like your alarm compoents
tied
into your PC.  An independent system with communication to your PC
however
would remain functional during all kinds of conditions that would keep
your
PC from functioning, and you would still have all the conveniences of
using
your PC during the same amount of time that your PC is working
properly.

Reliability, reliability, reliability....  Its not any closed minded
viewpoint or lack of imagination.  I play with new toys all the time.
I've
got shelves full of stuff I bought just to try out.  For me its about
reliability.  If I can't get a system that will work pretty much
continuously for years unless tampered with by external forces I
prefer not
to sell it.  Its simple minded, but not without thought out or
untested.

Of course there is always the human factor. Lets take video recording
as an
example.  An old style VCR (commercial timelapse or VRT) worked.  It
recorded whatever video was fed into it, and most of the
manufacturers
reccomended about 10,000 hrs of service between reconditioning the
unit.  In
other words it could run continuously for a little over a year as long
as a
human changed the tapes.  Unfortunately humans are lazy, and
complacent.
Maybe some aren't routinely, but it shows through at times in almost
everybody.  The number one cause of failing to get a recording of a
critical
incident was because nobody bothered to put in a fresh tape in the
VCR.
Pretty sad.  In this case even a single channel DVR is superior even
if it
has to be rebooted periodically becasue it can be setup to auto
reboot, and
some of the better embedded OS units will now run longer than the old
VCR
even with out reboots, and if setup proerly with UPSs and so on they
are not
dependent on humans who are too lazy, complacent or just plain busy to
even
learn to use them much less actually do a simple thing like changing
the
tape once a day.  In this case the digital product may not have been
mechanically more reliable than the analog (ancient tech) product,
but
operationally it was more reliable.  Now of course you could argue
that
there are more reliable products than the old tech available today,
and I
would have to agree, but not all of the new stuff is, and just about
all of
the old DVRs will still run 10,000 hrs if somebody remembers to change
the
tapes every day or week or month as setup.

Anyway, in my long winded and no doubt quite boring manner it comes
down to
this.  PCs are not as reliable as they should be, and a modular
solution
will provide maximum reliabilty and convenience if implemented
properly. In
spite of limitation in any other "module" of the system.  You will
have the
reliability of the independent system and the convenience of the PC.

Gee, that's about what I said the first time.  You just didn't listen
because you took offense to the part where I was poking fun at you.


P.S.  We had simple alarm based hardware/software available as
freeware
almost 20 years ago.  When BBSs came into vogue the software was
available
for download off many of them.  I think I first ran across it in some
documentation from Heathkit for one of the computers we built when I
was a
kid.  I wrote a simple program to read the status of a switch (all an
alarm
panel really does) and make noise.  Woo, hoo.  It used an RS232 port,
which
back then was quite expensive.  It would be pretty simple to
extrapolate
writing a VB program to run under Windows to monitor a multiple port
card in
the same way.  I mention VB because so few modern "programmers" can
write
Assembler code and it would be way beyond a user.  VB is within the
scope of
almost anybody to learn  Bells and whistles added as needed of
course.
Remeber my mention earlier of the word modular.  Well if you write
clean
modular code then all kinds of things can be done "as needed" in the
future.
There are still some hardware issues with my example in this simple
solution, but I tend to put out the basic concept and assume an
intelligent
person can fill in the obvious gaps, like power, newer communication,
newer
devices, etc.

Of course getting back to my original statement.  Many of those
problem are
overcome by using a regular modern alarm panel paired with a seperate
PC
running an automation interface program.

--
Bob La Londe
Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
Fishing Forums & Contests
http://www.YumaBassMan.com