Re: XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Larry Moss" <moss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> On 2006-06-04, Robert Green <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Why?  Who wants to be stuck with a dead protocol.  Sure, once you're all
> > installed and buy some spares you'll be safe from a belly-up
manufacturer
> > for a while.  But get hit by lightning that knocks out only half of your
> > obsolete stuff and what do you do?  Take it in the shorts.  Or you build
an
> > addition or want to finish a basement.

> I usually just lurk here, but since no one else seems to be saying it, I
> have to respond to this.  This attitude is the reason Microsoft is as
large
> and has as much power as they do.

Hello, Larry!  Always glad to see someone de-lurk.

I agree and disagree with your comment.  (-:  Microsoft is in actuality a
monopoly.  Since the advent of globalization that's considered a good
thing - at least by the governments where such monopolies reside.  Hence,
the US Justice Department didn't just turn a blind eye to MS's predatory
practices, it bought power shovels so they could collectively dig their
heads in the sand.  MS has not fared so well abroad, where other jurists
have ruled that it is indeed a monopoly for all intents and purposes.  So I
think, for that reason, right out of the gate it's not a fair comparison.
X-10's big, but it's not MS big and probably will never be.

> Years ago many people in decision-making positions knew they
> didn't like MS software but chose to use it simply
> because of their existing market share.  It made it virtually
> impossible for better options to survive in the marketplace
> and we've all suffered.

Forgive me but I have to challenge that assumption only because the word
"simply" just doesn't cover the range of decisions that went into purchasing
MS software.  I was one of those "many people" who made the MS decision at a
time when they might have been stoppable.

The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC
area.  If you've got a lot of users, people will write software for your OS.
People will design hardware based on your OS. Documents are easier to
exchange with common platforms.  Education of users is easier with a common
platform.  No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or
trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a Windows
system.

After MS targeted WordPerfect as profoundly as it did, the war was over.
People chose MS because they schmoozed the buyers, cared for the big
customers and because machines came with the damn stuff already on it.  And
they offered standardization, even if it meant that mediocre software would
be the result.

> If everyone takes that attitude now, we'll see the same thing.

X10's not like an OS.  There's a lot more room for competition in the HA
arena that there is for a new OS to take hold.  I'm a fairly frugal person.
I'm not likely to abandon something I've spent a lot of time and money on
unless there's no choice.  That's why X-10 makes sense for me.  I also think
it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA experience.  They start up
costs are small and there's an awful lot of support resources on the net.
With Jeff's new device, the basic issues with X-10 mostly disappear.  Even
when including it in the system price, HA is still cheaper using X-10.
That's one of the big reasons that X-10 has 5 million users.  It delivers a
lot of bang for the buck.

> I'm not  looking to start a religious war here.

Nor am I.  Hopefully any further discussion by others can proceed along the
very calm and reasoned lines you've followed.

> Some people like(d) MS OSes and apps.  Some people like(d)
> X10.  If you choose to use it because it's the best thing for you,
> that's perfectly reasonable.  But to choose an old technology
> when other (possibly better) options exist simply because the
> newer technologies haven't had an opportunity to prove
> themselves will forever keep us with the old stuff and stifle
> progress.

The best mousetrap usually wins in the long run.  I think it's great that
there *are* other technologies for home automation available.  I still have
high hopes the ZigBee will induce manufacturers to put limited control
modules in their appliances and products that allow for true device control
and monitoring.  Unless there are "smarts" inside the air conditioners,
washing machines and stereo equipment that can respond to external queries
and events, almost every new HA technology is as equally hampered as X-10.
For that reason, I've avoided looking very closely at any other options.

I've got a lot invested in X-10 in both money and operational experience.
Jeff's device has basically recovered that investment.  I was just about to
go hard-wired with everything because I was flat out sick of signal strength
issues.

In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology:  Jeff's!  That's what I
think is lost here.  Jeff's taken something admittedly loaded with problems
and eliminated most of them.  That makes X-10, at least IMHO, a far more
robust competitor to UPB and Insteon than it was just a month ago.  He's
changed a fundamental part of the equation.  I am NOT plugging plain vanilla
X-10.  I am saying that it's only truly workable with an add-on like Jeff's
XTB signal booster.

> I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with what you have and adding a
> new tool that solves your old problems.  I agree that for you it does
sound
> like the right choice.  Dave's comment was that new installations should
> consider other options.  Unless new users do that, there can't be
progress.

New users *are* working with Insteon, Zwave, UPB and lots of others.  Jeff's
new device just heats up the competition a little.  If someone's going to
get into HA and can get by with only one or two controllers, I still see
X-10 as a vibrant and quite workable option with the XTB.  X-10 + XTB also
gives me the bonus of having more controllers and devices in their catalog
than any other manufacturer.

There's a wide assortment of software, hardware, test tools and other
add-ons that are just not available with any of the competition.  X-10 also
has a track record.  They might not shutter their doors like some of the
others.  I was involved in some bad HW and SW decisions.  Being orphaned is
not a pleasant experience.   In the worst case you lose the $ spent on the
equipment, the installation and the training. You also get to pay for
downtime, retraining, etc.   Remember:  before MS it was IBM that ruled
computing with an iron fisted monopoly.  When the time is right, the mantle
will pass.

> Sure, lightening could knock out much of your system.  But if you've got
> that much hardware to replace, does it matter which hardware you replace
> your whole system with?

Worst case scenario.  "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever goes out of business.
Your house takes a hit but not all the equipment is ruined.  Just the
controller.  Well, if there's no replacement controller, you've got to pull
the rest of the switches - probably not covered by insurance because they
are still OK - and get something else.  With X-10 that wouldn't happen.
Loads of controllers from lots of different makers.  Probably a dozen NIB
replacements available within days from a number of sources.

> Especially if it's a PLC protocol.  You wouldn't be running new
> wire for a different network.  No mess.  Just the same
> expense of replacing burnt equipment with the same or different stuff.

As I said, worst case, you have to pull good stuff along with the bad
because the line went extinct.

> With controllers like the Elk and others that can handle multiple
> protocols, or a translator like Rozetta, I don't see the problem of adding
> a new addition on your house and bridging the old with the new.  Ideal?
> No.

The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it becomes.  That's
just the way things are.  I would not want to mix protocols unless I
absolutely had to.  I've had to help maintain Apple and IBM on the same
network.  What absolute and utter misery THAT was.

> But I don't think taking a chance on a newer protocol is as risky as
> you make it sound.

Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're spending your
own money.  I wouldn't recommend any of the new protocols to a newbie,
still.  As Dave Rye said, and I paraphrase, these new technologies all claim
immunity from the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are
neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've got
problems all their own.