Re: What is the best solution for PC based lighting control?

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:47:00 GMT, "Steve" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message  <EPPUg.180758$FQ1.112261@attbi_s71>:

>
>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:n8b5i29i1meos71et9clf844mom0gb7m5f@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:54:03 GMT, "Steve" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> in message  <LeOPg.976412$084.916668@attbi_s22>:
>>
>>>Looking at UPB, Insteon and Z-wave.  Hard to tell which one of those will
>>>be the winner.  Anyone have a hot pick, and more importantly why?
>>
>> A bit like asking whether Harley-Davidson, GM or Boeing "will be the
>> winner".
>
>Interesting analogy...I view them as notionally equivalent competing
>solutions based on different technologies.  Curious as to why do you
>percieve them as that different.

Because Power Line Controls (= PLC, eg: x-10, UPB and INSTEON) and Radio
Frequency (= RF, eg: Z-wave, Zigbee and RadioRA) have some tradeoffs that are
_completely_ different one from another, just as do flying and driving.

For example, RF solutions may be near-useless in houses with masonry walls,
floors and ceilings, or with metal mesh in plaster walls owing to signal
attenuation. But RF attenuation may be minor and acceptable in homes with
wooden stud-wall construction.

Similarly, folks that live in an apartment building without the ability to
install blocking filters to preclude signals leaking in from other occupants
may be flat out of luck with respect to PLC. There are other similar
differences that preclude picking a "winner" for all cases for all time.

>My real concern is buying into something
>that is subsequently abandoned by the market and manufacturers.  Buying the
>right stuff upfront, even if its more costly is the right lifetime solution.

You are the only person that can define "lifetime" for your situation.

If "lifetime" for you means "while I own the house", it is quite different
than if it means  "I want the next owner to  perceive and(or) receive value
when I sell in five years".

The folks what built my house had no idea that piping for gas lighting would
later be installed, and those folks in turn had no clue about electricity, and
the folks that retrofitted the knob-and-tube 110VAC did not anticipate --  and
so on.

Conceptually, ever-evolving HA hardware is no different -- albeit with
compressed time scales. (See at www.econtrol.org the combination gas-electric
hanging lamp in my dining room as an example of a conflicted choice between
"winners" at the turn of the last century.)

Also, your "winner takes all " requirement/perspective implies that the only
acceptable solution is a solution that uses _one_ hardware solution
exclusively.

Why assume that a priori? By doing so, in some cases you may preclude arriving
at _any_ solution. For example, you may need a different solution for your
garage than for your house because of differences in situation and
limitations. I use X-10 (only a couple of places left) INSTEON, and a variety
of home brew and standardized hardwired lighting and control. The issues I
have with their co-integration revolve almost entirely around _software_
compatibility (I'm behind in writing custom code) and has next to nothing to
do with their intrinsic hardware functionality/functioning.


>> Of these, (and I  own/have experimented with all but Crestron and AMX)
>> Charmed Quark with INSTEON through an ELK MG1 hardware panel would be my
>> choix-du-jour. The Elk panel is a capable bargain, and INSTEON hardware
>> woes (in an all-INSTEON -- not hybrid INSTEON/X-10 system!) has been
>> subjected  to much hippo-speak in this newsgroup by folks with insufficient
>> actual experience in my opinion. CQ seems rock stable and soundly designed
>> which  are the most important criteria in my opinion.
>
>I will look into CQ.  All of the technologies have PC interfaces.
>
>I have looked at the Elk, but I don't think there is going to be a security
>panel in this home.  Retro wiring the perimeter is just going to be too
>hard.  May go with minimal panel later, but nothing worthy of an Elk.

Actually, I mentioned the Elk panel as a way to get INSTEON connectivity
through ELK's firmware and to get around some PC software interface issues. I
have an ELK MG1 but don't use it for perimeter security either. Allows you to
have events detected and rules implemented without depending on a PC running
24x7. (This seems to be a religious issue for some folks.)

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org