Re: building a new home

[robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx]

CJ,

Please note that while Mr. Houston routinely posts negative
"information" aboiuot Zwave, he has indicated in the past that he has
never actually had anything Zwave in his possession.

Most of his comments about the subject are based on speculation and
(possibly) some personal animosity toward one participanty of this
newsgroup who sells Zwave products.  I don't carry Zwave (other than
one RF transciever from ELK products) so I've not much of an ax to
grind on the subject.

There are several reasons to consider Zwave.  For one, the protocol has
garnered support from most of the major players in the industry as well
as several in the PC world (Intel, for example).

I'm a bit fatigued at the moment so I won't rehash much of what has
already been posted on the subject.  A Google search on "Zwave" OR
"Z-wave" within this newsgroup may prove interesting.

Regards,
Robert L Bass
www.BassBurglarAlarms.com


Dave Houston wrote:
> You're building new and say wiring is no problem, yet are planning to use a
> braindead RF protocol so I figured nice reasoning would go over your head.
> ;)
>
> There are several hardwired systems and hardwired beats wireless. Pick one
> that fits your budget. I would look hard at Clipsal C-Bus which Square-D is
> about to introduce to North America. It has an excellent track record in
> Australia/New Zealand and Europe (although it has only been available in
> Europe for a couple of years). They also have RF devices to handle any
> future needs you may fail to anticipate as you wire. Frank McAlinden (sp?)
> recently gave a URL to Square-D's Clipsal page.
>
>      http://ecatalog.squared.com/techlib/browse.cfm?hid=0b008926801ebe3d
>
> "cj" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >nice response and nice reasoning behind it aswell, really it was.
> >
> >--chris
> >cj@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >Dave Houston wrote:
> >> "cj" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Zwave looks to be the most advanced protocal for appliance control.  So
> >> >I figure Ill be using that.
> >>
> >> Figure otherwise.