is x10.com dead?

I blast X10 for being slow, unreliable, and for not having any protocol that can handle any real conplexity.

You have 4 computers... Any of them an 8 bit computer? With 20K of memory connected to a 110 baud modem. Using a modulator and your TV set to channel

You have some pretty up to date equipment. Why do you tolerate X10?

Because it does the job perfectly. Why spend more money on a "new" system to get something else that works as well?

In our case, we upgrade where improvements are worth the investment. Computer upgrades have allowed me to work more efficiently, and simulations run much faster. But, that old Maytag washes clothes just as well now as it did almost 40 years ago.

Jeff

Agreed, I was facetiously throwing out that argument.

Oh they ARE unique, aren't they? VERY good analogy for HA oddities.

An old friend of mine used to drive one to work in Boston back in the 60's. They used to have an adjustable, air-oil suspension system. For city driving they would pump up and for highway rides they'd slink down. When he would shut the engine off the thing would return to it's normal state. One day he came off the Mass Pike, drove several blocks and parked across the street from his favorite tobacconist -- directly in front of a bar.

As he stepped out the car made a hissing sound as it rose several inches. A drunk who had just emerged from the bar asked him, "Excuse me mister but did that car just go UP"?

My friend said, "Sure, don't they all?" and walked away. :^)

This thread has become so long that newcomers may have trouble following the discussion. As a public service I've decided to summarize the topic. I think we can condense the whole thread as follows:

1. X10 is awful and should not be used.
2. X10 works fine if you spend some time setting it up and preparing the environment.
3. Radio RA is too expensive and should not be used.
4. Radio RA is worth every cent it costs.
5. Z-Wave is going to fail because no one supports it.
6. Z-Wave is going to take over the world because everyone supports it.
7. Frank doesn't like me.

Did I forget anything?

At least the thread wasn't started with an even longer "search engine positioning" post.

Uh-huh. And take advantage of another opportunity to post your "sig line".

One minor correction. It isn't that "I don't like you". I just don't like your blatant advertising in a forum that has a specific policy (understanding) against it.

It's considered proper form to attribute any quotation you use to the author.

Frank Olson

He might have purchased it from my uncle who had a dealership in NY state (not sure there were too many dealers in the US). He only sold the high end Citroens. I'm not sure they were air, I think they were just hydraulic.It was fun to change the oil on them as you had to remove a huge sheet metal plate to get at the oil pan. The plate kept water off the engine. Water and hydraulics don't mix well.

I think they were all hydraulic. I rode in one a few times between Paris and the Loire Valley. They were very smooth even at very high speeds.

I was going to argue with you that they were a nice looking car. Then I saw the picture of the Citroen in the backyard and a light went on (Oh, yeah, that's what they looked like). Nice car to ride in, they also had strange fetures that made changing the tires very easy to do (if you got a flat). I hated the SM as did my Uncle (the Citroen dealer). Thanks for the link.

1. Frank denies that he doesn't like you but no one else believes him.

I haven't a clue why they wouldn't. I've never lied in this Newsgroup (or in any other). I've always found that "honesty" is the best policy. That way you don't have to "look over your shoulder" (or worry about someone doing a "Google" on your past) every time you post something into a forum like this.

Frank Olson

You're quite right there, Robert. My point is that in trying to predict the future the odds are better for a protocol that has the backing of a large number of significant players.

There's no guaranty that any of these protocols will be her 10 years from now.

From what I can tell, that's right. To tell the remote that you've dumped one or more units you dump them all and relearn them. The relearning process appears straightforward though this is something they need to work on.

The problem seems to be with the design of the remote and the transceiver -- not a protocol issue -- so it should be addressable by the manufacturer as well as by other vendors.

I have no idea where he bought it but I'm pretty sure it was a top of the line model.

Could very well be. It's been years since I saw him or the car.

1. It was my mistake mentioning him...

Next case?

You do that a lot.

They may have as many POTENTIAL security problems, but the facts are that there are more exploits out there for Windows system security problems. That is probably due to Windows being a more enticing target, but in actual usage it means I am less vulnerable by using Unix/Linux.

Nope. But published security reports are NOT obscurity. And if/when Unix/Linux systems become a popular target, I'll need to reevaluate, but until then, my Unix/Linux systems are in practice far more secure than Windows.

EOD

sdb