is x10.com dead?

Robert,

OK,OK, > Robbert,

Hi Jeff,

Interesting, I am currently using several of the 'Lights of America CF' units. The biggest problem I have is caused by the X10 feature that allows you to turn the light on by turning it off and then back on at the light itself. The CF bulbs seem to trigger this function when you turn them off via X10. I have to include a small 4 watt incondescent in each circuit to prevent them from turning right back on.

It sounds like those filters wire in directly behind the wall switch in the same box. I agree with your approach of taking steps to avoid problems at the geginning. Cost is usually the limiting factor in fully implementing this fully. These RF noise filters shouldn't be very expensive though.

Thanks Dennis

Jeff Volp wrote:

FWIW I have been an X10 user for at least 10 years (best I can remember). I am currently using the latest CMs for controlling lighting at both my Florida and Pennsylvania homes. In both cases we have heard comments from neighbors that they have no idea when we are home or when we are not. To me this means that the X10 has accomplished it mission. Is it perfect, no. I have had the challenges of learning it's limitations and complexities (distance on CM, programming of smart macros, etc). The bottom line is that I find the X10 a great value for the money. Anyone considering using it should do web based research to fully understand the system before purchase. In my opinion (and after 40 years in the electronics and computer industry) X10 is not a "miserably defective solution". Decide for yourselves.

Bill Kearney wrote:

The LOA bulb that caused a problem was one of the early CF bulbs where the bulb itself was replaceable. As I recall, I had to also defeat the local current sense in that module due to the problem you describe.

We use perhaps half a dozen brands now, and everything works fine. Of course, we do have the filters for the ceiling cans. Those tiny filters are about $25 each new. We had specified deep metal boxes would be used wherever X10 switches could be later installed to give plenty of room. That also addressed the thermal issue for the dimmers.

Jeff

controllable

You see?? I don't sell/install products I either can't (or won't) support, or won't use myself. Your frequent comments (in this group and others) are just full of statements like this. You personally won't use DSC products, Ademco contacts... You sell them, but you "say" you'd never use them yourself. But then, why am I not surprised?

That's comforting. At least you don't sell it.

I'm not sure about that, Bruce. After all, Nutone is still making intercoms and Radio Shack is still selling electronics equipment. In fact, those are among the largest players in their respective fields though there are certainly better brands / vendors.

IMO, there will be a significant market for X10 for many years. There will always be those who are willing to tolerate its short comings considering its price. Likewise there are and will continue to be those with the skill and patience to make X10 work in their homes. Finally, with such a large base of existing systems that depend upon X10 there will continue to be a market for replacement and expansion hardware.

As more reasonably priced alternatives like Z-Wave come to the fore, X10 may lose some of its market share but I doubt they're going away any time soon.

I can accomplish much of what I plan to do in my new home with X10 but I'm planning to use a combination of Z-Wave and hard-wired controls instead. In my case the decision is based only partly on prior headaches with X10 and SH. The other element is I want to gain more experience with Z-Wave, which I will eventually offer for sale. I already know how to retrofit wiring in an existing home so that's not much of a challenge.

There's the rub. A light switch shouldn't require that. Solutions from other companies not using X-10's crappy signally likewise don't require that. To have to walk on eggshells just to plug in devices because of X-10's design defects is crazy.

Ah, but for what this stuff is supposed to it SHOULDN'T MATTER what other devices I'm putting on the wire!

Not hardly. While I'd *certainly* prefer these switches didn't cost an arm-and-a-leg, I learned to recognize the value proposition. Switches that have worked 100% of the time have certainly been worth the money spent.

Thus it seriously needs to cease being promoted. If anything, it's certainly not worth continued efforts to promote work-arounds. It's dead, let it go.

Proprietary hacks don't quite qualify as 'standards'.

Agreed. But the designers didn't have a good enough crystal ball to see what modern home wiring would look like. I'm just thankful I can protect my now significant investment in admittedly old technology by buying a meter and a dozen X-10 filters.

Next time around I'll do what Jeff did and isolate all the troublemakers in one place. I'll also have a supply of X-10 CFL friendly bulbs, and a few snipped "no local on" modules to go with the in-line filters in the ceiling cans. I can't downgrade X-10 as much as you do because it can be "worked around." There have been plenty of technologies that disappeared once they hit a significant wall and they usually took your investment with them. Got any of those huge videodiscs or Beta tapes? :=)

Worth it to *you.* It's really a personal proposition. Ultra-reliable switches or Carribean cruise? Monty Hall, I choose door number 2, the cruise!

If it were dead, I would agree. But there certainly have been a number of voices that have stepped forward to confirm the reports of X-10's death are premature. I'm still buying X-10 equipment - the deals just keep getting better on Ebay! With Dave's new Rozetta device, I can implement a much better RF-based solution that I can convert to the next great HW protocol at my leisure. I want to separate the application layers from the hardware layers and Rozetta seems remarkably well-suited to that task.

X-10's basic 256 device control matrix is still pretty much the same as it was when it first came out. You don't need any sort of adapter for a 2006 appliance module to hear a command from a 1985 control console. That's a standard, like it or not, and there aren't many with that longevity.

-- Bobby G.

And sending an email shouldn't involve learning about firewalls, patches, viruses, POP3, ISPs, file types and so on. But we live in an imperfect world.

Proprietary solutions that could blow away at the next economic downturn. Picking an HA strategy involves evaluating some fairly disparate qualities, among them cost, reliability, functionality and support. X-10 has spent a lot of money giving away starter kits to make HA accessible to the non-technical. To that end, I think they've succeeded. The question is "Now what?"

You're seeing the half-empty glass. I would rather have a protocol that allowed for such fixes (your eggshells) than one that didn't like videodiscs. When VD technology was through it was dead and gone very quickly. No fix of any kind would let you put a 12" videodisc inside a DVD slot. At least with X-10 you can buy phase couplers, repeaters and filters that can usually insure a working X-10 installation. Yes, there are gotchas waiting down that path as well, but they are almost all solvable.

-- Bobby G.

The two don't conflate. An internet solution is hosted through an ISP. Wall switches are installed in a home. If you're going for analogies, pick something that works.

Umm, X-10 /is/ proprietary. You do recall their attitude regarding patents, do you not?

Giving away s**te doesn't take the smell off it. Giving away crack still has you ending up living in a crack house. No thanks.

Again, pick better analogies. Instead of X-10 just pick solution that doesn't depend on it's unreliable protocols and poorly made devices. You're apologizing for a solution that I've found to be completely unsuitable, on several fronts; quality, technical engineering and usability. Why is it X-10 needs so much apologizing for it?

-Bill Kearney

"Instead of X-10 just pick solution that doesn't depend on it's unreliable protocols and poorly made devices. You're apologizing for a solution that I've found to be completely unsuitable, on several fronts; quality, technical engineering and usability. Why is it X-10 needs so much apologizing for it?"

It is obvious you have had problems with X10 and simply don't like it. Likewise I have had a good experience and consider X10 great value for the money. The protocal works fine for me and I have had devices installed for years and operating perfectly. Quality and usability therefore rate highly in my book. I have not done a technical design review, but real world experience tells me that the design works. Guess we have to agree to disagree. We are both entitled to our respective opinions. Let those who come to this thread decide for themselves whether or not X10 is for them. I don't see the need for X10 to apologize for anything, nor do I feel the need to apologize for X10. A GOOD analogy is the selection and purchase of a car. I am sure that I can find previous Volvo owners that would council all who will listen not to buy a Volvo, likewise for SAAB. I own both and would buy another in a heartbeat. Now ask me about a Ford and I will tell you of personal, bad experiences with body designs that rust through prematurely, electronics that don't work properly or reliably, build quality that borders on outrageous, and lack of fitness for use. Good experiences make advocates, poor experiences make critics.

That's the crux of it. It's a solution YOU'VE found completely unsuitable. Many others who invest some time and effort are rewarded with an economical system that can work very well. Even if these "new and better" choices were available at the same price, I would still choose X10 due to its wide selection of components. Like I said in the beginning, some people choose Chevys, some Caddys. If you learn how to drive, they all get the job done. It may be harder to learn how to drive the X10 system, and some people can't be bothered. Guess that's why most people drive automatics today...

Jeff

Sure they compare. If you want to use PC's, you have to make an effort to understand them, their liabilities, their strengths and weaknesses and how to configure them. You face an assortment of perils from phishers to hackers to version conflicts to incompatible hardware. You've got to put it a lot of smarts to be able to use the technology that's labeled, facetiously, plug and play.

X-10's a slightly different sort of technology and was ironically born just about the same time as personal computing. It's no surprise that you still have to learn the ropes with either technology. To escape that learning cost you have to take something that's been around for 80 years like an electric drill. Anyone can drill a hole without being an expert on motors.

HA and PC's are not commodities like power drills or hair dryers. They both have serious gotchas. The "gotcha" for Lutron RA is that it doesn't offer anywhere NEAR the breadth of options that X-10 does. For me, an "F" in that column means I won't buy it, no matter how reliably it does whatever else it does. Lutron RA gets a big "F" from me in terms of available devices and interoperability with other HA and security devices. It also gets a big "F" for cost. Two "F"s means I probably wouldn't buy it even if it was the only game in town.

Wrong sir, it's lost its patent protection and is now an open standard.

Disparaging my analogies and then comparing X-10 to crack tends to cast doubt on your ability to evaluate analogies, yours or mine. Is this where I say listen to your own advice and "pick an analogy that works?" HA and PC's are both modern technologies, crack is an addicting drug that destroys people's lives. I leave it to you to decide, rationally which analogies hold true.

We've already covered reasons why that's not acceptable but I will review. The reasons Lutron RA gets an F in my book are: Lack of devices and too high a price. Failure on both counts. No amount of work arounds will make Lutron devices out of something else. No amount of work arounds will make Lutron RA palatable to me, pricewise. Yet poor old maligned X-10 *does* allow me to increase my reliability factor. It is what RA is not, it is flexible and its shortcomings are overcomeable. With RA, I would not have devices I need nor would I be able to afford to automate what I wanted to. I would not be happy with a Lutron RA solution for any number of other reasons as well.

The magic buzzwords "I've found" translate it the famous YMMV. Mine certainly does. Apparently others have found differently from you as well.

We're not apologizing, we're merely explaining. X-10 was born in an older, simpler era and had to find its way through an increasingly more complicated and unfriendly environment. I feel it's done admirably. That hardscrabble life story appeals to some of us, I guess.

-- Bobby G.

Not even close. Were that the case then any time your Volvo drove down a street at the same time as a Ford it would mysteriously just stop running. Or it would suddenly start itself if a Peugot drove down the street. No thanks.

Or you just buy a machine running an OS without the risks and a firewall to block the garbage. I suppose the analogy of a mac or linux box behind an added firewall box would compare to getting better switches and a repeater that works reliably.

If those options don't work reliably, can't work reliably because of their antiquated design and substandard manufacturing, then they're no solution.

De facto does not equal standard.

One might want to call a few spouses and get their unbiased opinions on just what HA efforts have done to peoples lives. I know I'm not asking mine!

Fortunately I can afford reliability and encourage others to insist on it. X-10 can't deliver that.

hardscrabble

Oh for pity's sake, give me a break. Apologizing and then trying to defend it as some of underdog? The argument is getting desperate. It's old, was poorly designed, is made with miserably sub-par manufacturing standards and cannot operate reliably in a modern home. It's day is done.

-Bill Kearney

4 computers, two LCD tvs, one CRT tv, a pair of touchscreens, and a ton of cordless phones, all the major household appliances as signal suckers and noise generators. 6 switchlinks, two inline modules, and a ton of lamp modules. All my X10 stuff works perfectly. The only complaint I have is that I wish there were a lamp module that responded to scenes.

People blast X10 for requiring a phase coupler.. but I mean... $20 for something that took me 12 seconds to install, incluing unpacking. Not to mention the fact that insteon wants an RF module on each phase to be reliable, too.

My house is very modern, technologically speaking. That said, I'm sure my reliablity comes from the fact that my house is small, only around 1500f^2, and the fact that I don't have a huge number of X10 devices installed. Those of you with larger houses probably have 5 or more TVs, 20 or so switches, etc.

If I were building a new, high-end, large house with dozens of controlled switches, there's no way I'd put in X10. But for a retrofit into a small house where some creative wiring was needed (do any of the other technologies even have in-line modules yet?!), X10 has been perfect for me.

I made my decision based on the cost of the switches, the amount of investment I wanted to make in this house, the available devices, and the proven record. Not a perfect record, but a well-documented and well-troubleshooted record. When my projection screen would only lower while the AC was on, I immediately knew that the compressor was acting as a phase coupler, so that's what I needed. It's nice to know there are a thousand websites covering any problems I might have.

I'm having trouble understanding why this debate has become so heated. I suspect it's because we all have a lot of money and personality invested in each of our projects. But come on. Obviously X10 is working reliably in plenty of homes, and is a viable option for some. To each his own.

The LM14A responds to scenes although it has a limited number of groups it can join. The scenes can be set with an Ocelot using the Leviton command set (which is really the X-10 extended protocol).

Most of the various flavors of LampL>The only complaint I have is that I wish there were a lamp module that

I once owned a Ford like that. :^)

Ever drive a Citroen? Now *there's* an interesting ride.