SurGard MLR2000

I was just checking the boards and seen to where some comments were being discussed in regards to the SurGard's MLR2000 back in Sept of

2005. Was wondering if there was anyone in this group that was still working with these and wanting to do some cross discussion on this subject.

Was also wondering what their thoughts were on the company's statement this month of the receiver being discontinued.

Signalman

Reply to
Signalman
Loading thread data ...

We have 4 of them and they are awsome however they have always had limited market potential compared to the SGIII, they are extremely expensive and there is only a limited number of central stations that could afford one or use it to its capacity which is about a million accounts.

Also the brain is a Pentium I which is long discontinued so they had an obsolete platform that would have been far too expensive for SurGard to update

Reply to
Mark Leuck

Yea, well I totally understand what you are saying there. Unfortunately, (as you can tell I changed my profile on here) let's just say I have a friend that is a proud owner of 35 of these units. :) The features of this receiver far out do the quality of the design. I am just really surprised that after DSC had bought out SurGard, then Tyco taking over DSC, that they are phasing out the receiver in the way that they are. Now the SystemIII, even though operates the same protocol and software version that the MLR2000 does, is still limited in two properity versions that the MLR2000 however handles, therefore limiting the capabilites of some of SurGard's current customers.

Just wondering about the other guys, you stated that you have 4 units installed. Are you using 60 line units, or 255 unit cabinet sets? DNIS or POTS lines?

Would like to tech chat further on this if you wished.

Signalman...

Mark Leuck wrote:

Reply to
Signalman1968

Your friend must work for ADT then, those receivers are $100,000 each

I'm not surprised and it has nothing to do with Tyco, the fact is that is a receiver with an extremely limited audience.

But the SG-III is a platform to improve on, the SG-2000 is a dead-end road technology-wise. Also the SG-III adds Internet monitoring which can't be done on the 2000

60 line cabinets and DNIS
Reply to
Mark Leuck

Well, was it hard to guess? lol

Yea, I agree with you there, my only issue is that DSC, and now along with Tyco, has cut the original staff of SurGard that there isn't many of them left that even know any of their receivers.

Again, another point to agree upon, however there are several issues in the works as of right now that we have discovered with the SGIII that we have themn working on. The bugs of that receiver have definately not been worked out as of yet. But the size and price of the design is more industry friendly than what the 2k is for sure. I am still totally amazed how a company can produce a rcvr with the quality of workmanship of the MLR2, and then put out a unit as of the tin box of the 2K.

Great, glad to hear others are using DNIS also, I have ran into others that only use it for line to line, therefore limiting quite a few features of the 2k.

We use DNIS from in house switch, then each unit is set to multiple platforms here.

Reply to
Signalman1968

I'm trying to understand then why you are asking about it?

I only deal with 2 people there, Sasha and Mike Rappos. I dont know anyone else there

SurGard has a habit of releasing amazing promising products then don't deliver, the 2k was supposed to do a ton of other things except they never got around to implementing them. It took them a while to get the bugs out of the 2k

Reply to
Mark Leuck

What issues do you have with the SGIII? We were looking at purchasing one to use for internet monitoring. Should I wait a while....

James

Reply to
J Barnes

Well, with the various different ways to populate this rcvr, I was just wondering how anyone else was doing. There always room to share some knowledge. While still keeping in line with company policy, I see no reason why some various techiques can not be trading back and forth, in order to better help others utilizing. That is one of the main reason why some of these boards even exist, isn't it? As mush as I feel, no matter how much we do, most of us are the building power of the companies and the industry anyhow. Its the upper arms of the company that should control and handle the competion between each other to yank customers back and forth. As with the market share out there, there is always room for everyone, no saying that some companies dont hold to those practices though, and im not excluding any, if you know what I mean. In the long run, you can say, I am from the Old School of the alarm industry and changes that I see today I tend to disagree with quite frequently. Just wondering how the other guys are doing it, and could always learn something, right? No harm in that.

Oh yea, I know them well! lol As well with most of the other SurGard associates. Things really are changing up there now, since Sascha has been takin on Dual task with the Sales since Crawfords Departure, but now with Nigels medical leave, I have a feeling that they are going to run him in the ground. I know his wife doesnt like it.

Mostly due to lack of design techiques for future use as well. As a matter of fact, numerous changes that you probably see today of you have any of the last couple of years updates, I have worked to get for some time. But yet, another basket to set aside and open the next box.

Reply to
Signalman1968

JB,

With the position that I stand in today, I will have to hold my opinion on whether you should or not, but understand this that the SIII runs off of the exact same software of the 2K. The 2K is still being worked so you would have to make that decision. What I would suggest is there are other advanced receivers out there working on IP, that I might add, work quite well, so some shopping might me in order.

Mark,

Do you mind if I ask if you are using any of the 1.7 version SW yet? and if you have any modemII on yours?

J Barnes wrote:

Reply to
Signalman1968

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.