Re: Upgrade HomeSeer to 2.0 ?

[MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:32:13 GMT, "Dean Roddey" <droddey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message  <huJWe.4581$6e1.1205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>If they already have an IP-based box we could certainly use it, but it often
>requires that we install whatever Acme virtual comm port drivers that box
>requires on our side, and we aren't too hip on doing that on our system.
>This scheme means we don't have to deal with any of that.

Got it: a trade off that increases uncertainty and potential for driver
conflicts/BSOD. FWIW, I've found Comtrol drivers to be rock-stable.

>Another reason why I went forward with this is that about 80% of that work
>is the same work that will be required to support serial ports that don't
>have such virtual com port drivers, such as the GC-100, to make them look
>like regular com ports to us (though it's still limited in that case because
>the GC-100 ports are very limited in their capabilities.)

OK.  But couldn't you use a PC with multiple com ports supported by the _OS_ to
serve as an IP serial hub? I suppose that puts you in the serial hub "market"
which may not be what you want.

And I still don't see why MSTSC/RDC isn't a solution. If I have CQS (or
Homeseer, Cyberhouse, Premise) running on a local machine, why can't the
program use the comm ports on a remote PC as if they were native? Or
vice-versa? I use MSTS/RDC all day long with no problems. But I've just assumed
that the comm ports work as advertised. Am I missing something?

One question this line of discussion can eventually lead to is whether a
back-up server (whether CyberHouse, Homeseer, Premise or CQS) requires a second
licence ;-)

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org