Re: No more X10 at Radio Shack?

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> There aren't many collisions in a two-person household.  It's basically a
> non-issue for us, although I'd be quite willing to agree it wouldn't be
> acceptable for others.  I like the option of having 256 possible addresses
> for real devices, virtual ones and things that might come along in the
> future.

Motion sensors swamp X10 quite rapidly.  But seeing as how the sensors
themselves are crap anyway that's only adding to the disaster.

> It's pretty strange that Lutron limited itself to 32 loads without
> addition equipment.

Yep, no argument there.

> That's important to me and puts
> a big plus on the side of X-10.

Again, unreliable control of ANY number of devices is useless.

> Powerline noise really wasn't any sort of issue for me until the advent of
> switching power supplies, PC equipment and surge protectors.  That
occurred
> from around 1985 on.  I had a problem was with an APC UPS that was my
first
> "black hole."  Up until then, I had remarkable success using X-10 and
their
> wireless, eight button belt clip controller, the precursors to the
RR-501's
> from RatShack and Maxicontrollers that are still in use today.

Technology marches on, it's time X10 was left behind.

> > My point is, and as a warning to newbies, that without cobbling up such
> > workarounds there's no way to use X10 reliably.
>
> That's reasonable.  But it should also be pretty easy to understand why
lots
> of folks like me who have dealt with X-10's admitted many foibles resist
the
> characterization of "total shiite" since it does work for them.  I might
> still recommend it to newbies just to get their feet wet in HA at very low
> cost or if their need was very limited (turning on a porch light from the
> bedroom, for example).  I'd be reluctant to recommend any current protocol
> because I think that there will be soon big losers in that arena, and
> perhaps sooner than later.

I won't even recommend X10 just as a test for newbies.  It runs afoul of so
many disasters, so quickly, that it's not fair to aggravate them.

> Dude, I've admitted the probabilities are quite small but the physics are
> this: if someone fires up a powerful enough transmitter on the same
> frequency as RadioRA near enough to your house, it's hasta la vista baby.

And if I light off a thermonuclear bomb we're all fucked, so what's your
point?

You're arguing that it MIGHT be possible for an RF-based system to suffer
interference, as if that somehow countered the fact that an X10 system WILL
SUFFER interference.  How is this comparable?

> I
> won't bother looking up the articles about the people whose radio-based
> garage door openers got wiped out by a new Air Force radio system - I've
> posted it twice before.

Find an article discussing how something was DEMONSTRATED to interfere with
currently shipping RF-based automation controls and you'd have a point.
That a military transmitter might've interferred with a crappy garage door
opener, again, does nothing to address the underlying disaster that is X10.

If you're simply trying to deflect the argument, that dog won't hunt.


> Changing remotes is about the lowest SAF thing I can do around here, other
> than blowing my nose in the curtains.  I hope it works better for you than
> it did for me.  I suppose I should mosey over to Ebay and put my OFA
remote
> up for sale.  The rating was:  Too big, too heavy, too poorly balanced,
too
> complicated.  I liked it, though!

Oh yeah, there's fodder for a whole other thread, one free of the 'agree to
disagree' perspectives X10 engenders.

I'll still keep my Radioshaft 15-2117 RF remotes and let the wife use the
Harmony.  I can live with, and prefer, the "device oriented" approach to
most traditional remotes.  But the new "activity oriented" approach on the
new Harmony remotes is rather nice.  That and their integrated help makes it
pretty painless to use (at the pain of unit cost though!)

> The paddles seemed to confuse too many people - although they always
seemed
> to get the light on because default human behavior *is* to jiggle the
switch
> if it doesn't come on right away.  The big issue with them is that when
the
> paddle's down, they won't respond to remote commands.

Agreed, and this is the sort of nonsense that just drove me away from them.

> > Well, in the three decades of consumer grade HA that holy grail's been
> > promised many times.  I'm not holding my breath on that happening
anytime
> > soon.  But with the push Control4 is making to big box stores it might
get
> > more interesting.
>
> I fully expect to move to something else in the future when the protocol
> wars have shaken out.  As I've said elsewhere, what will drive that
decision
> will be appliances that come from the manufacturer with some sort of
> *standard* control ability built into them (not just RS-232 or some
> proprietary BS).

Interestingly the Harmony remotes use Z-wave.  No interfacing is indicated
to go directly to other z-wave devices however.  It's just for the remote to
base station interconnect.

> Until then, I'm very happy that Jeff''s made it possible
> to wait out the protocol wars to see if a clear winner emerges.

Yes, he's done an excellent job with that.

-Bill