X10 vs. LonWorks for Home Automation ???
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Fred Mau on November 16, 2004, 12:59 am
Please log in for more thread options background of commercial building automation (I work for a major OEM in that area). In the commercial world, there's virtually no market penetration of X10-type powerline communications devices, almost everybody talks either LonWorks (or, to a lesser extent, a few other proprietary protocols like IMPACC) with a slight-but-growing penetration of wireless ethernet devices. The fact that there's no commercial market makes me wonder how "seriously" I should take X10 if I want to do my own home automation ? There's no disputing that X10 seems to "own" the home automation market. Or is there ? Is X10 the prevailing home automation standard because it's the best available technology - or because it's the cheapest and easiest given the skill level of the typical homeowner ? Or are there other better alternatives ? I see a handful of LonWorks devices out there, but nowhere near the variety that X10 has. Is there anything else ? - FM - | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Daniel Ellebracht on November 15, 2004, 9:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options and not geared for the DIY crowd > area).
X10-type
> > In the commercial world, there's virtually no market penetration of > powerline communications devices, almost everybody talks either LonWorks
Or
> (or, to a lesser extent, a few other proprietary protocols like IMPACC) > with a slight-but-growing penetration of wireless ethernet devices. The > fact that there's no commercial market makes me wonder how "seriously" I > should take X10 if I want to do my own home automation ? > > There's no disputing that X10 seems to "own" the home automation market. > is there ? Is X10 the prevailing home automation standard because it's the
devices
> best available technology - or because it's the cheapest and easiest given > the skill level of the typical homeowner ? > > Or are there other better alternatives ? I see a handful of LonWorks > out there, but nowhere near the variety that X10 has. Is there anything
else
> ?
> > - FM - > > | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by wkearney99 on November 16, 2004, 9:29 am
Please log in for more thread options > There's no disputing that X10 seems to "own" the home automation market.
Or
> is there ? Is X10 the prevailing home automation standard because it's the
devices
> best available technology - or because it's the cheapest and easiest given > the skill level of the typical homeowner ? > > Or are there other better alternatives ? I see a handful of LonWorks > out there, but nowhere near the variety that X10 has. Is there anything
else
LonWorks just never pursued the market. X10 sucks. LonWorks is great stuff but it's probably beyond the abilities of most retail customers to install, program and operate. Oh but I *wish* LonWorks would try the residential market. But as it stands the commercial market is probably much more cost effective. They can sell units at higher prices and don't have to stand up a support network for all the retail idiots that would call asking questions. I think that has more to do with it than anything else. -Bill Kearney | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Anthony R. Gold on November 16, 2004, 3:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
> X10 sucks.
I agree, and I still use it extensively because I don't know of any alternative as a low cost flexible control LAN with no pre-wiring. I wish that the companies involved would collaborate to create a protocol which was more reliable (with ack/nack) and less vulnerable to interference. Tony | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by jch on November 27, 2004, 8:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:29:22 +0000, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >>> X10 sucks.
>>
>> I agree, and I still use it extensively because I don't know of any >> alternative as a low cost flexible control LAN with no pre-wiring. I >> wish >> that the companies involved would collaborate to create a protocol which >> was more reliable (with ack/nack) and less vulnerable to interference. >
> UPB ( http://www.pcslighting.com/UPBProducts.htm ) fits the bill (it > acks the commands sent). I haven't tried it yet (next month) but it > looks promising. Expensive!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> background of commercial building automation (I work for a major OEM in