Re: is x10.com dead?

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> > 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.

> 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.

> > 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.

> 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 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.

> > 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.

> 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.

> 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 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.

-Bill Kearney