Re: is x10.com dead?

[AZ Nomad <aznomad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:01:50 -0500, E. Lee Dickinson <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



>"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>  It's old, was
>> poorly designed, is made with miserably sub-par manufacturing standards
>> and
>> cannot operate reliably in a modern home.  It's day is done.

>4 computers, two LCD tvs, one CRT tv, a pair of touchscreens, and a ton of
>cordless phones, all the major household appliances as signal suckers and
>noise generators. 6 switchlinks, two inline modules, and a ton of lamp
>modules. All my X10 stuff works perfectly.  The only complaint I have is
>that I wish there were a lamp module that responded to scenes.

>People blast X10 for requiring a phase coupler.. but I mean... $20 for

I blast X10 for being slow, unreliable, and for not having any protocol that
can handle any real conplexity.

You have 4 computers... Any of them an 8 bit computer?  With 20K of memory
connected to a 110 baud modem.  Using a modulator and your TV set to channel
3?
Two LCD tvs?  Any of them a 12" black and white?
Touchscreens:  you don't use a printing terminal instead?

You have some pretty up to date equipment.  Why do you tolerate X10?