Re: pc based security intrusion and camera system

["Roland More" <NoSpamroland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>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

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/default.mspx

A modern PC appliance running Windows Embedded could be as reliable as your
DOS based 486. An embedded OS is not the same as having no hard drive and
using memory chips. Since you are nearer lost wages Nevada than I am, you
have probably seen slot machines that use some flavor of Windows Embedded
OS, maybe without knowing it. I see a lot of mission critical stuff running
a Linux or Windows Embedded OS. However if you want to use a regular OS that
is as tough as a Mack truck I'd try SCO Open Server 6.
http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/. You just can't beat it to death.

"Bob La Londe" <alarm_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1187051182.600485.69330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
>