Re: Ping: Jim (Napco PCI-Mini)

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 6, 8:37=A0pm, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "mleuck" wrote:
>
> > Honeywell is selling a lot of [graphic keypads] which is why...
>
> So you claim, but my ADI rep says that's not true. =A0They're not moving =
many of
> them at all, especially compared to converntional keypads. =A0Having exam=
ined the
> Honeywell graphic touchpads, I can see why they're not that popular. =A0T=
hey offer
> very little *usable* functionality yet they cost significantly more than
> standard keypads.

If your ADI rep says they aren't selling many of them then he is not
stating fact, I never said sales compared to standard keypads

>
> > I guess we can live without that one, too.
> > Well you have no choice and just because you get 2 or 3 queries a year =
doesn't
> > mean they aren't wanted
>
> No, it meant that about 2 or 3 people a year express interest in them. =
=A0From my
> perspective that indicates they're just not needed. =A0Clearly, Napco's
> development team (who probably know more than you) has decided it's not w=
oth the
> expense.

Or that you have 2 or 3 customers, still not an accurate
representation of the industry

> I suspect the main reason Honeywell even offers graphic keypads is to be =
able to
> say they have something cutting edge. =A0Considering their alarm products=
 have
> always lagged behind the rest of the industry that's not surprising. =A0T=
his isn't
> just my take on the matter. =A0Many others here have said the same thing =
-- =A0
> perhaps even you.

I think the fact they have created 4 different graphics keypads and
Napco hasn't tells me quite a bit about who's cutting edge

>
> >> Napco has an IP interface but I have not tried it so I can't comment.
> > Only works with a couple of panels and even then requires a chip upgrad=
e, not
> > easy to set up behind firewalls
>
> You saying it's not easy means nothing. =A0I have DIYers who do what you =
do and do
> it faster.

Not if they are using the PC-MINI

> >> Can your vaunted DIY customers download over cell? Uhh no yet DSC, GE/=
Caddx,
> >> Honeywell can
>
> You're comparing customers to hardware??? =A0Some of my DIY clients have =
designed
> and built their own HA systems. =A0One of them, a fellow named Helmke bou=
ght a
> P9600 from me years ago. =A0I provided him with the data he needed to get=
 it to
> talk to a PC (at the time there were no HA apps that worked with Napco). =
=A0That
> client now sells the software product he developed. =A0Perhaps you've hea=
rd of
> it -- Homeseer.

Good for him, I hope the next panel he picks will be a bit more up to
date, like an NX-8E or Vista

>
> >> I don't recall anyone ever asking to do so. You, on the other hand, ro=
utinely
> >> harp on the "fact" that most installers don't download at all.
> > Well you don't offer the equipment and don't know it exists so I imagin=
e
> > nobody asks you about it
>
> Correct. =A0No one has ever asked me to download a Naqpco panel by cell p=
hone.
> That's pretty good for you -- about 1 out of 30.

Nobody has asked because for your brand you can't

>
> > I did say most installers don't download, it has nothing to do with thi=
s
> > discussion.
>
> Yes, you did. =A0You've said it repeatedly. =A0The bearing on this discus=
sion is it
> illustrates how disingenuous you are -- trying to belittle my products be=
cause
> they don't do something you have elsewhere claimed is of no import.

I never said it wasn't important

>
> >> Control over the Internet like Alarm.com? uhh no
>
> > Same thing. Those who want Internet control usually ask for a home auto=
mation
> > system. We sell those as well. However, a fair number of my clients hav=
e
> > integrated Napco systems with PC-centric home automation systems. The s=
ystems
> > can be accessed and controlled over the Internet or LAN.
> > I'm talking about those who don't have home automation systems which fa=
r
> > outnumber those who do.
>
> Those who don't have an interest in HA rarely express any interest in Int=
ernet
> access to their alarms. =A0If they really want that, I can do it with Nap=
co but
> IMO it's not worth the bother.

Or like keypad programming you don't know how to do it

 =A0There are easier ways to check system status
> remotely without worrying about constant access to the Internet at both t=
he site
> and the remote location. =A0Napco has had a telephone interfacte that doe=
s that
> for many years.

Constant? Perhaps you don't quite understand the technology

>=A0Many other manufacturers offer similar devices. =A0They're more
> popular than Internet connected devices partly because they're simpler bu=
t also
> because the client can access his system from any touch tome phone or cel=
l
> phone.

Assuming his system is connected to the phone

>
> > A home automation system shouldn't be required to do something simple l=
ike
> > control an alarm panel over the Internet
>
> Wrong. =A0The Internet shouldn't be required to do something so simple as=
 control
> an alarm system. =A0Also, by connecting an alarm to the Internet one open=
s the
> door to the possibility of hackers disabling the alarm.

LOL! it's obvious you REALLY don't understand the technology, I'd love
to see someone hack into an Alarm.com system

>
> > GE, 2GIG and Honeywell can, Napco can't.
>
> Napco decided not to. =A0I agree.
>
> > There over are 60 indepentantly selectably options for every zone on a =
typical
> > Napco panel. System-wide options are far more flexible than anything fr=
om
> > Honeywell, GE or DSC -- arguably the most popular brands among dealers =
who
> > post
> > here. Napco is also far better built than DSC.

BTW You keep mentioning this 60 different options for every zone, it's
obvious you haven't looked at the Vista-20P's configurable zones which
would likely put each zone option quite a bit higher than 60

> Offset by the limited CID or SIA signal reporting...
>
> Nope. =A0That is a deliberate misrepresentation and you know it. =A0IOW, =
you're
> lying. =A0Every competent CS lists precisely what is in each zone. =A0Not=
e: I said
> "competent." =A0I don't know what your company does.

Our company doesn't have receivers in the spare bedroom like yours

On every Napco panel you can only report 8 different CID/SIA possible
signals on zones, even the lowest DSC can send well over 20. The fact
that you have to explain to the central station why you have explain
to the central station why you can't send a low temp signal seems
silly these days when every other panel can

>
> When a signal comes in using CID it says the nature of the problem and th=
e
> specific zone that was triggered. =A0Even in the small central station I =
ran for
> many years the operator's screen would display, "Burglary: Front Entry Do=
or" or
> whatever.

Burg sure, try temperature sometime, and it's too bad they still can't
tell what the type of burg zone it is like everyone else does

> It is significant that in th8is argument you deliberately ignore the fact=
 that
> the various sub-types of alarm codes available with CID do not specify *w=
here*
> the alarm originated -- only the type of zone activated (delay, instant,
> interior, etc.). =A0While this is somewhat handy, it is not as important =
as
> knowing the specific opening or location involved.

CID isn't designed to do that and neither is SIA, only Radionics can
also send the zone description. Why would you think the central
station wouldn't already know that information?
>
> > lack of hardware like the previously mentioned graphics keypads, more d=
iverse
> > wireless
>
>> and expansion modules that everyone else has
>
> More diverse wireless expansion modules? =A0Napco offers various wireless
> receivers and also keypads with built-in receivers. =A0I'd like to see a =
repeater
> added to the mix for extremely large locations but that's about it.

Or CO2 detectors, seems every other manufacturer except DSC has had
that for years now, Asset protection sensors, touchplates, RF
keypads...on and on and on

Oh wait people don't call about it so it's not important

>
> > I've downloaded DSC and Honeywell a number of times over IP without mak=
ing
> > trips between panels and keypads, you must be thinking old products aga=
in
>
> I've woprked with DSC. =A0The products are simple, poorly designed and of=
 flimsy
> construction. =A0I can understand why you feel so at home using the stuff=
.

I can't understand then why you actively sell it on your website then

>
> > Yea it's called a cellular or IP module which every system should have.=
..
>
> Bullshit! =A0You know damn well most installers aren't going to spring fo=
r a
> cellular or IP module and most clients don't want one either.

Considering we monitor well over 150,000 cellular/IP products I'd say
you are quite inaccurate

>
> > Honeywell offers over a dozen different cellular or IP products that ar=
e
> > bus-compatible with their panels, Napco offers 2 and they only do diale=
r
> > capture
>
> Honeywell offers unnecessary modules but their main products have not bee=
n
> significantly upgraded in a decade.

Last I checked Honeywell introduced the 15P, 20P, 21iP in the last 10
years, DSC's introduced the 9047, 9155, 1616, 1832, 1864, GE's
introduced the 8E, Concord 4, Allegro, Careguard.

Napco's introduced a 1664, that's the problem with smaller
manufacturers, they don't have the R&D to create new products and
instead keep releasing obsolete stuff