Re: is x10.com dead?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:we6dnUszuNJ8n2nenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Part of the great disparity between opinions on X-10 probably has a lot
to
> > do with what people do with it.  There's no system anywhere near the
price
> > that allows me to control so much of my house with a single handheld
> device.
> > It's just a great bonus that it's cheap and nearly indestructible, too.
I
> > control AV, CCTV and X-10 all through a single remote and there's one or
> > more in every room of the house, too.
>
> Provided it actually worked reliably, sure.  It just doesn't.

I wish you'd add the caveat "for me" because for a lot of the rest of us, it
works just fine.  When CD's came out, I couldn't wait to replace my
scratched LPs with CDs.  I spent hundreds of bucks buying the very same
music all over again.  Why?  Because CD's represented so great a leap
forward in convenience and usability that they couldn't be ignored.  I don't
feel the same way about Lutron RA or any of the other protocols compared to
X-10.  While I wasn't lucky enough to able to lay out my house like Jeff V.
did, I have been able to make X-10 quite reliable enough to suit my needs.

> > There was a very high SAF for blowing away a table-top full of remotes
for
> a
> > single one that not only controlled the house lights, but the stereo and
> > CCTV system.  If my next project is successful, it will also control the
> > door intercoms and allow us to use the remote to dial the speakerphone
and
> > answer phone calls with it.  One remote.  One CHEAP remote.  Lutron
can't
> do
> > that and it costs what, 10 times as much?  Clearly, there's more to the
> > equation than 100.00% reliability, at least for me.
>
> I have no patience for devices that only sporadically function.  I'm
willing
> to pay to avoid that nonsense.  I held out for years, too many years, but
> the bliss of devices that WORK, *every* time, has been well worth the
added
> cost.

If I were to switch today, I'd be giving up a ton of tangible benefits for a
marginal increase in reliability.  No way.

> Sure, it'd be nice to see the RadioRA stuff cheaper.  But not if it means
> sinking to X-10 levels of unreliability.
>
> > Lacking appliance modules and wall outlets is a pretty serious
deficiency
> in
> > my book.
>
> Yep, but save for the holiday lighting I've found I don't need those.  I
> still use X-10 for those but that's only because the RF receiver that
> controls them is IN the same wall socket.
>
> > And, unless Lutron is using high powered transmitters that can
> > blast through any interference, they are susceptible to RF interference.
>
> Add an RF repeater and you're done.  I've only got one for the whole
house.
> This being a structure known for wrecking 802.11 and dropping cell service
> from 5 to 1 bar.  Works great.
>
> > Every few months you read about some poor group of car owners that can't
> use
> > their RF remotes because of interference from nearby military bases.
>
> Yeah?  Move.  Who wants to be near a base anyway?  <grin>

:-)

> > Who knew plasma TV were going to cause so much trouble for high-end
> Xantech IR
> > receivers that they designed a new line to resolve the problems?  Who
> knows
> > what interference might lie ahead for Lutron or any RF-based solution?
>
> As opposed to, what, the KNOWN trainwreck that is X-10?  The Lutron
stuff's
> been entirely immune to anything I've thrown at it.  And with all the
> devices I've got here that's no small claim.

Perhaps the plethora of oddball electronic goodies represents a hostile
enviroment for X-10 and you need Lutron the way the US Army needs EMD
hardened gear.

> > > This has as much to do with the hobbyist nature of the HA market more
> than
> > > anything else.
> >
> > Disagree.  They had a protocol and managed to stick to it without too
many
> > different flavors arising.  Think of all the standards that have come
and
> > gone since X-10 arrived on the scene - 8 tracks, cassettes, vinyl LPs,
> 5.25"
> > floppies, 35mm film, BetaMax, carbon paper, typewriters, etc.  Yet I can
> > still go down to the RatShack and buy a minitimer for $15 on sale that
> > controls all the modules I own.
>
> 8 tracks and the rest sold BILLIONS of units.  I'd daresay X-10 has sold
> nowhere near the same quantities.  It's still just a hobbyist plaything in
> comparison to mass-market consumer electronics.

I dunno.  Try to buy an 8-track from Ebay.  Now type in X-10.  For a
plaything, it's got awfully deep penetration.   X-10 has been popping up
windows for years now.  I think the last time I toted their sales it was
over the 100M mark.

> > Not only can it control the old and new modules, it comes with a
> > battery-backed little microcomputer capable of maintaining two sets of
> > ON/OFF times for 8 X-10 addresses and even randomizing the ON/OFF times.
> > Plus it offers manual control of 8 units locally and is an alarm clock
to
> > top it all off.  There's nothing like that in the Lutron RA world, at
> least
> > not for $30 list, $15 sale.
>
> True, but all that jimcrackery doesn't mean shit if it still DOESN'T WORK
> RELIABLY.  I've got all those X-10 devices and if they actually WORKED
then,
> yeah, it'd be great!  But the sad fact is they don't.

Not for you, but they did for her and for me and they worked quite nicely
compared to what she had been dealing with.  Again, a house that had little
more than a single VCR in the living room and not even a cordless phone.

> > > More like fail just as randomly now as they did when new.  That's not
> the
> > > same as being "good".
> >
> > Again, I think it's a usage pattern issue.  We don't do much dimming and
I
> > think that's a real failure vector in X-10, both from the "endless dim"
> > problems and the failure from heat buildup.  So it's likely if you are a
> > "dimmer" you've got a different view of X-10's reliability than a
> > "non-dimmer" like me.
>
> Oh indeed, the dimmers are even more worthless (if that's even possible)
but
> the appliance and lamp modules have been just as flaky.

You may also have power problems. Spikes and sags and power blinks don't
seem to agree with the modules, either.  I don't disagree that X-10 has
sucked for you, but by the same token, you should acknowledge that it
appears to work for well for a lot of people, especially those who know and
can work around its well-known weaknesses.

> > I also don't use the keychain remotes for anything
> > but really short range, in house work.  That may change after I install
> > Dave's new transceiver with a much greater range.
>
> Yes, it'll be fun to see how his new device works.  I only use the RF
> remotes for picking up signals into a PC.  Which then sends RadioRA
signals
> via RS-232, and/or IR signals via a usb-uirt.  The X-10 RF remotes are an
> entirely different technology than that gawd-awful powerline crap.  I
never
> use the keychains as they're not all that useful.

I depend mostly on the RF gear.  The CM11A has voltage issues that I could
never get around.  It also has other problems that make it unsuitable and
yet ActiveHome and others use it as the main X-10 controller because there's
little else.  Again it just shows that with proper attention to
configuration you can really minimize the heartache.

> > I perhaps have one
> > appliance module fail every two or three years, now.  That's a rate I
can
> > live with.
>
> Heh, two more were found dead when setting up for Xmas this year.  These
> being units whose SOLE purpose is the holiday lighting.  I only use them
> during the season and store them indoors the rest of the year.  They
crapped
> out just SITTING IN A BOX.

When you use them, do you set the outside in a baggie?  That's not conducive
to their long-term health, IMHO.  At least some of the CHA'ers do that and
it's tough on a device designed for indoor use only.  A little condensation
or water in the wrong place and boom.  If a module fails, I have boxes full
of others.  At less than $5 a load, I can afford to be 10X deep in spares.
It takes me all of five minutes to locate and switch out such modules.  No
big whoop.

> > > Crappy stuff that drives me and my wife crazy is not my idea of a
> bargain.
> >
> > Again, if you expect more than it can give, you're going to be
> disappointed.
>
> Oh please, while I despise the insanity of the X-10 devices I've never
tried
> to use them in anything other than a typical household setup.  They just
> don't work reliably.

But Bill, you just told us "And with all the devices I've got here that's no
small claim."  I just don't believe that your house represents John Q.
Public's typical dwelling - not for a moment! :-)

> > It can't give long RF range without modification.  It can't handle long
> > macros without the possibility of someone stepping on the transmission.
> Too
> > many Hawkeyes can create collisions when used with TM-751s.  X-10 often
> has
> > serious problems with dimming lights.  If you need the above features
from
> > X-10, you're going to have to do some serious work or work-arounds.
>
> Indeed, but even when you scale back to just simple stuff it still fails.

For you . . . but not for me.  (apologies to Devo)

> > You're going to need an X-10 meter and a box of X-10 filters, too.
>
> No, I'm not.  That's just putting a band-aid on a shotgun wound.  No
thanks,
> good money after bad.

That's what I had to do to increase my reliability from perhaps 75% to 95%.
It's not a bandaid, it's a analytical way to deal with the reality of
powerline devices that are more and more likely to interfere with the X-10
signal.

> > That's clearly a personal choice.  It's interesting that the divide
breaks
> > down so neatly along two categories: price and performance.
>
> For me low price at the high cost of aggravation is NO BARGAIN.

I think you aggravate more easily than I do.  It's hard to normalize data
like that.  We want different things from our HA systems.

--
Bobby G.