Re: is x10.com dead?

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I can understand your position if truly half of your commands did not
work.
> That is clearly unacceptable.

Yeah, honest to god, trying to just do simple stuff was so hit-and-miss that
it was impossible to use reliably.

> You mentioned a plethora of electronic equipment.  Back when X10 was
> developed, the house was a much friendly environment.  Most electronic
> equipment we take for granted today was not even thought about.  Many
> manufacturers add a capacitor directly across the AC inlet to get THEIR
> equipment to pass conducted radiation tests.  It's a cheap fix, and does
not
> care about what other products they share the environment with.  That is
why
> the filters are necessary.  They add the components the equipment
> manufacturer left out to save costs.

Yes, true.  Not a good thing, but a known thing.  And that it bedevils X-10
versus other products not having trouble makes it clear that using X-10 is
not a good idea.

> With several hundred X10 command sent daily, and an observable glitch
> perhaps every couple of months, I can honestly say our reliability is
> 99.99%.  That's pretty darn good.  That is what X10 is capable of with
some
> planning.

No argument there, other than to say most folks aren't going to apply that
much effort.  And it's my contention they shouldn't NEED to bother with
that.  If a product can't work reliably in the modern household it has no
business being sold, let alone promoted by as a solution.  There are better
offerings, that's all I'm saying.