Re: is x10.com dead?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > I don't think that anyone here who runs X-10 successfully tolerates a
> 50/50
> > chance of each command working or not.  If that's *really* the kind of
> > reliability you were getting, you probably own some piece of equipment
> > you've been taking around from site to site that's stepping on your X-10
> > signal.
>
> Ah, but for what this stuff is supposed to it SHOULDN'T MATTER what other
> devices I'm putting on the wire!

Agreed.  But the designers didn't have a good enough crystal ball to see
what modern home wiring would look like.  I'm just thankful I can protect my
now significant investment in admittedly old technology by buying a meter
and a dozen X-10 filters.

Next time around I'll do what Jeff did and isolate all the troublemakers in
one place.  I'll also have a supply of X-10 CFL friendly bulbs, and a few
snipped "no local on" modules to go with the in-line filters in the ceiling
cans.  I can't downgrade X-10 as much as you do because it can be "worked
around."  There have been plenty of technologies that disappeared once they
hit a significant wall and they usually took your investment with them.  Got
any of those huge videodiscs or Beta tapes? :=)

> > Hopefully you're just engaging in a little hyperbole and perhaps a
> > subconcious need to justify that the system you spent so much money on
was
> a
> > good investment.
>
> Not hardly.  While I'd *certainly* prefer these switches didn't cost an
> arm-and-a-leg, I learned to recognize the value proposition.  Switches
that
> have worked 100% of the time have certainly been worth the money spent.

Worth it to *you.*  It's really a personal proposition.  Ultra-reliable
switches or Carribean cruise?  Monty Hall, I choose door number 2, the
cruise!

> > Bill, X-10 was designed at a time when the average home powerlines
looked
> > very different than they do today.  It's not realistic to expect a
design
> > hardened against threats that didn't exist.
>
> Thus it seriously needs to cease being promoted.  If anything, it's
> certainly not worth continued efforts to promote work-arounds.  It's dead,
> let it go.

If it were dead, I would agree.  But there certainly have been a number of
voices that have stepped forward to confirm the reports of X-10's death are
premature.  I'm still buying X-10 equipment - the deals just keep getting
better on Ebay! With Dave's new Rozetta device, I can implement a much
better RF-based solution that I can convert to the next great HW protocol at
my leisure.  I want to separate the application layers from the hardware
layers and Rozetta seems remarkably well-suited to that task.

> > It's just part of the double-edged sword of standards.
>
> Proprietary hacks don't quite qualify as 'standards'.

X-10's basic 256 device control matrix is still pretty much the same as it
was when it first came out.  You don't need any sort of adapter for a 2006
appliance module to hear a command from a 1985 control console.  That's a
standard, like it or not, and there aren't many with that longevity.

--
Bobby G.