Re: Napco system questions

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
> "mleuck" wrote:
>>
>> Umm okay, never seen any of that before, a circuit board is pretty
>> much a circuit board and I've yet to see a sensor cover break, maybe
>> you have big monkey hands or something.
>
> Umm no.  A circuit board can be made of flimsy (read "cheap") stuff or
> it can be better quality material.  DSC's boards, their cabinets and
> pretty much everything they make is just plain flimsy.
>


OK...  I'm no fan of DSC, but a lot of our clients use the product.
Their cans are pretty standard (read *not* flimsy) and the circuit
boards are pretty standard too.  In fact, I seriously doubt they're
using anything more (or less) "flimsy" than anyone else is using.

You have a predelection for Napco.  That's well and good.  Our customers
certainly wouldn't recognize the difference between the zone "options"
available on a Napco panel and the ones on a DSC, Paradox, or Ademco
system.  They're all far less sophisticated than the run of the mill
DIYer you often tell us that you deal with.  What my customers want is a
system that's easy to arm and disarm.  When it doesn't "arm" they want
to know why, so a keypad display that references "open" zones is much
appreciated.  DSC and Paradox are both really easy to "arm" and
"disarm".  They're also really easy to teach other end-users to use.
People like simple things, Robert.  And most of the installers I've
spoken with over the years prefer being able to set up a panel quickly
and with minimal "fuss".  I prefer to keypad program and most systems I
set up don't "depart" much from the standard panel defaults.  I use the
laptop for fire alarm systems most of which are a good deal more complex
to program than the "average" home alarm system.

I can see that this thread has the potential to degenerate to a level
that I personally don't want to see again.  I'll concede that Napco is
the superior product in every respect but one, and that's "price".
Let's leave it at that.