Re: Major shortcoming in Paradox new panel lineup

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight Reg. Paradox has now confirmed
they have discontinued a perfectly good line of products before they
even have the replacements in place so when dealers are out of stock
of the 1738 and 1759's, we will have to replace a defective board with
a board AND keypad with a panel line that isn't even available yet.
And they've also gone against even conventional standards used by
others to set a new backward standard of their own..And they
backhandedly admit they didn't talk to their customers before going
ahead with these design changes.

Brilliant !! This has got to be up right up there (exceeding even
DSC's wireless move)  for nomination for the " Stupidest Engineering
Move of 2007".

Don't these companies ever REALLY talk to their customers ????

RHC

On Jul 5, 3:10 pm, Tower Security <regsiem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just received a return phone call from the senior Paradox tech and
> they confirmed that they have received similar feedback from many
> dealers and the addition of simple 4-digit code arming and disarming
> is on their list of "future enhancements" but it will not happen in
> the short-term (not even the next release) and there is no possibility
> of the 1759 and 1738 remaining in production until that change.
>
> This same senior tech also added that while arming or disarming
> requires an additional key i.e. Arm 1234 or Off 1234, the system can
> be configured such that disarming during an entry delay warning can be
> accomplished by simply entering the code.  This might address the most
> urgent customer service implications in that you won't be dealing with
> the panic striken casual user that can't figure out how to disarm
> things.  Despite this consolation, the inability to arm with a simple
> code entry will result in a lot of casual users being unable to
> reliably arm the system.
>
> With nearly 20 years of installed hardware out there that operates
> simply and easily by entering a code, installing something that goes
> against that standard is not something that we will enter into without
> evaluating the consequences.  So it appears that our decision will
> have to be to go with DSC in the interim.
>
> BTW what makes matters worse...why go against the unintuitive standard
> (used by Ademco, etc.) of entering the code followed by the desired
> action i.e. 1234 On or 1234 Off?  Instead they've got it configured so
> that the command precedes the code i.e. Arm 1234 or Off 1234.
>
> Reg Siemens
> Tower Security Systems Inc.

a