Re: Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?

["Tom" <donot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hadn't thought about the transceiver but that does make sense given what I
know about the stock unit. I'm doing integration piecmeal... can't afford to
it all at once. I plan to add a few wired switches at watch to see what
problems I run into. I'm just using modules right now and have had little or
not problems other than two different types of controllers that worked
poorly from day one. I have two other controllers that have never yielded a
single problem in the 7 years I had everything. So, the question is, as I
start to encounter problems, which would be the first step - the transceiver
or the amp? I'm assuming the transceiver but I might be missing something.


"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ge-dnTVnB8h9Ov7VnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
> "BruceR" <bruceNO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Poedna-JqOXGk_7VnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Stick with X10 and solve your signal integrity problems with Jeff Volp's
>> XTB-IIR.
>> See http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm
>
> Good advice.  Since you're into wireless, I'd add a good RF transceiver to
> the XTB as well because the stock X-10 RF units have abysmal range
> compared
> to something like WGL's line of gear. You can read my review of the XTB
> here:
>
> http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.04/green/xtb.htm
>
> and the VS572 here:
>
> http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.06/green/wgl.htm
>
> While Z-Wave may eventually "conquer the world" there are still a lot more
> control options available in the X-10 world, from remotes to sensors to
> whatever and at far lower prices than you'll pay for Z-wave gear.  It's
> not
> immune to problems, either:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=zwave+problems
>
> and it's proprietary.  In one way it's quite inferior to X10.  Z-Wave is
> *only* RF whereas X-10 has three types of control signal technologies:
> RF-PLC, IR-PLC and PLC-PLC.  If EMI ever got so high aroudn here it
> blocked
> X-10 RF signals, I could still control most of my gear via the powerline
> or
> a handheld IR controller.  IIRC, Z-Wave uses the license-exempt 900MHz ISM
> band.  EMI only seems to be growing, so how or if it will effect either
> protocol's RF transmissions remains to be seen.  Lots of people are happy
> with it but lots of people also didn't know how easy it was to turbocharge
> an X-10 setup with XTB and WGL gear.
>
> There's no denying that ZWave or something like it will be the future of
> HA.
> In the meantime, as competition increases, prices for Zwave gear will fall
> and device quality and variety will improve.  Since I am now in a position
> to wait it out to see who survives, I will stick with X-10.  I'm hoping
> that
> a open standards platform is the ultimate winner, but it may not turn out
> that way.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>> "Tom" <insync50@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:GID8k.13353$PZ6.1042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > There is no doubt in my mind that z-wave is superior to x-10 but
>> > x-10's advantage is cost. Even with the extended x-10's protocol, it
>> > still falls short for complex applications. In my situation, I have a
>> > few x-10 recievers controlling a few lamps around the home. I
>> > basically use it to turn on/off lights in the room I'm in. I don't
>> > have a need for pre-set lighting moods (complete with the hide-away
>> > bar that appears with Burt Bacharach music that starts to play.) I
>> > really don't see a need for lighting computer interface for how I
>> > currently use the system. My house is basically square with one floor
>> > at about 1800 sf. My real motivation is to perpetuate my couch-potato
>> > lifestyle by not needing to budge from the chair to operate room
>> > lighting or to turn-off lights in another room. I'm now getting ready
>> > to hardwire wall switches to control ceiling fans and lights along
>> > with some lights for the pool area.
>> >
>> > What I'm asking of you folks here is a justification for one or the
>> > other based on how I use wireless techology. I'm not interested in
>> > entertaining other technologies and would strongly prefer to hear
>> > about just the two.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>