I don't mean to be critical of Jeff's device but it is sorta like a bigger hammer. ;)
But the lamp, if controlled by X10, might stop working when you plug in the laptop. ;)
Dave Rye will love you.
It may not be so much "a bigger hammer" as "finally the RIGHT sized hammer." What percentage of Insteon's transmission success lies in their stronger signal? IIRC (and that's a big if!) don't UPB and Insteon both boost the voltage of the control signal beyond what stock X-10 uses? If I could bolt a same sort of performance boost(percent boost per buck) in a carbureutor, I'd still be driving my big, ol' comfortable gas guzzler. If a bigger hammer is what it takes, I say "Bam Bam!"
The landscape always changes and the smart DNA adapts and survives. X-10 needs care and feeding - no doubt about that. But an XTB will make any existing X-10 network a whole lot less troublesome. I haven't run any tests without my notorious signal suckers unmasked but I'll bet their effect is much less noticeable on the stronger XTB signal. It's something I'll make a note to try.
Great article. I especially agree with this part:
"All this academic talk about emerging technologies is actually quite humorous. It doesn't matter whether it's Z-Wave, Zigbee, INSTEON, or whatever. They are all unproven technologies. All these emerging technologies tout how they are "better than X10." By "better" they mean faster transmission, or more codes, or no code wheels to set, or two-way. They all say "X10 has technical problems." These new technologies haven't been around long enough to even know what problems they have. They won't be better than X10, they'll just be different."
We're already seeing that!
-- Bobby G.
Simulation showed the XTB series-resonant output circuit actually drives harder (more current) into a major signal sucker. The heavier the load, the cleaner the waveform.
At the far end of the house I measured .1Vpp at the same outlet that powered an APC UPS with its capacitor directly across the AC line. That's low, but still acceptable for X10 control. That outlet is well over 100 feet wire-wise from the XTB.
While I'm not saying that no filters are needed anymore, the XTB should help with the "signal sucker" issue.
For those interested, I updated the assembly notes on the XTB web page last night.
Now, I've got a date with a hot soldering iron....
Jeff
So hot you forgot the URL?
-- Bobby G.
Another one ready for testing...
I thought everyone interested would already have it bookmarked:
UPB uses a ~40V pulse they get by rapidly discharging a capacitor. This causes a "ringing" at the natural frequency of the system in much the same way as a triac turning on and off. The ringing dies down after 5-10 cycles.
Insteon uses a much LOWER signal level. Their spec says "3.16 Vpp into 5 Ohms" is the minimum level. I haven't seen a maximum level spec but the scope screenshots I made when testing the starter kit were about 5-6Vpp IIRC.
Both get their reliability from the fact they use two-way protocols with ACK/NAK.
Philosophically, Insteon is elegant while XTB is brute force. UPB is betwixt and between.
I think we'll have to wait and see whether Jeff's XTB has unforseen effects. Try roaming about with an AM radio tuned to a harmonic of 120kHz. And, I'd like to hear from someone who tries it with a TM751 or RR501 that's prone to the "endless dim syndrome". I think it can only exacerbate that.
And we'll have to wait and see whether Dave Rye is correct in his analysis. I think he's whistling past the graveyard. X-10 appears to be betting the farm on cheap and one-way. Dave's probably nearing retirement anyway. ;)
Again, don't get me wrong. If your X-10 works, I say stick with it. If you're new to HA, look at Insteon & UPB.
The >It may not be so much "a bigger hammer" as "finally the RIGHT sized hammer."
You'd have to ask Jeff about how he generates his higher-than-stock X-10 pulses. There is a whopping big 25V capacitor inside the case, so I'm assuming his method is similar. I don't see anything wrong in putting 20 volts of signal on the line if UPB puts 40. The voltage limitation in the original spec was probably based on the assumption that in 1980, a 5 volt signal could have very easily reached the neighbor's house. That's no longer the case. Using an amplifier like Jeff's is really the only logical, simple way to account for the growing issues on home power lines. It's like the Gordian Knot that stumped the wisemen for years until Alexander came along and cut it with his sword.
OK - it uses less power but that's because each unit is a repeater and it couples phases via RF, correct? Unfortunately, Insteon interferes with X-10 in subtle but certain ways. It's become clear that it's not a realistic migration path, except, of course, unless the X-10 controller is boosted via the XTB. Insteon also seemed to have inherited their "Whoops, I lost my settings" problems from the previous generation of Smarthome modules. What was it that Rye said: "these protocols are too new to even *know* if they have problems yet."
Interesting enough in the article you cited Rye talks about how poorly two-way X-10 modules sell compared to the other stuff. I'm also glad that he mentioned how many homes use X-10. Five million. I had once calculated two million plus users based on their most recent SEC filings but that was a bare minimum. 5,000,000 users is a pretty impressive installed base. I suspect that as word gets out, a lot of them will be interested in Jeff's device because they've got significant amounts of time, programming effort and money in X-10.
I'm also fairly certain the number of people that can afford to pull their entire X-10 system for Insteon, the way Bruce did, is a small one. Even Bruce had special pricing help and is unwilling to abandon the X-10 based Stargate. David Rye sounds like he's got it pretty well scoped out. The battle is mostly over three things: Price, price and price. I think once the reports start to come in about the XTB, it's going to revitalize X-10 and present serious problems for some of the other protocols. Why switch if you can address the primary weakness of the current system?
Financially, Insteon and UPB are unfeasible, but the XTB fits right into the budget. Alexander's solution used brute force and he went on to conquer most of the known world. Sometimes, it's the right solution.
There's no doubt that something will show up but I made a point of throwing everything I could at it. The simplicity of its design doesn't leave lots of room for problems the way Insteon's coupling through RF but acting through mesh networked PLC does. The more complex, the more prone to failure.
I only use AM radio in the car, during blackouts and to find stuck transmitters. Since it's mostly sitting there passively, I don't think it's going to be an EMI nuisance, at least one that affects me.
That may be true. I did experience an issue with the Robodog, but I believe it's defective so I didn't test it thoroughly. You have to remember that the 20+ volt signal from the XTB falls off rapidly. You won't see more than
2 or 3 volts as you move away from it and that's well within the spec and no more challenging than a maxicontroller on the same branch as a TM751.Figure out a way to reliably induce the "endless dims" and I can rig up some sort of test to see if the XTB's a problem. From what I read in Google, the endless dim problem is still an "open issue." If it's a problem, users might have to switch to a BX-AHT or some other transceiver.
He's spot-on when he talks about having buried Echelon and CeBus. I'm absolutely certain that in another five or ten years, X-10 will have another dead protocol or two buried under it. I'm equally certain that it will still have millions of users, happily turning lights on and off just like they always have. The 110VAC powerlines are not likely to change for another 20 years and maybe even 50. As for two-way, it's nice, but it's not really necessary and it induces another set of issues related to retries and fatal embraces. Besides, if you want two-way, X-10's got them.
Why? Who wants to be stuck with a dead protocol. Sure, once you're all installed and buy some spares you'll be safe from a belly-up manufacturer for a while. But get hit by lightning that knocks out only half of your obsolete stuff and what do you do? Take it in the shorts. Or you build an addition or want to finish a basement. X-10's got lots of suppliers and an aftermarket on Ebay that's flourishing. Not so for any of the other contenders. None of them will even come close to shipping 50K units let alone 5M. You know about economies of scale quite well and can easily guess the advantage a company like X-10 has because of their user base.
Did I mention the lack of expertise, webwise, in all the new protocols? There's tons of X-10 information everywhere you look. Lots of it compiled by YOU! (-: Where will you find Unix software for all this new stuff? Add on devices like your AHT or the various pool and spa controllers? While a lot of gear is beginning to appear for Insteon, the other protocols seem to have very little in their lines that remotely approaches the breadth of equipment offered in X-10. Where would I get a deal like I did today. A nearly new RF controller that does both X-10 and all my HT for 99 cents. I'm about as eager to switch to Insteon as I am to drill small holes in my gas tank.
John XTB (apologies to John Henry)
John XTB said to his shaker, "Shaker, why don't you sing?" "I'm a throwin' 20 volts from my caps on down, Just listen to that copper wire ring!
It's good enough for me, lawd, it's good enough for me.
-- Bobby G.
I usually just lurk here, but since no one else seems to be saying it, I have to respond to this. This attitude is the reason Microsoft is as large and has as much power as they do. Years ago many people in decision-making positions knew they didn't like MS software but chose to use it simply because of their existing market share. It made it virtually impossible for better options to survive in the marketplace and we've all suffered. If everyone takes that attitude now, we'll see the same thing. I'm not looking to start a religious war here. Some people like(d) MS OSes and apps. Some people like(d) X10. If you choose to use it because it's the best thing for you, that's perfectly reasonable. But to choose an old technology when other (possibly better) options exist simply because the newer technologies haven't had an opportunity to prove themselves will forever keep us with the old stuff and stifle progress.
I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with what you have and adding a new tool that solves your old problems. I agree that for you it does sound like the right choice. Dave's comment was that new installations should consider other options. Unless new users do that, there can't be progress. Sure, lightening could knock out much of your system. But if you've got that much hardware to replace, does it matter which hardware you replace your whole system with? Especially if it's a PLC protocol. You wouldn't be running new wire for a different network. No mess. Just the same expense of replacing burnt equipment with the same or different stuff. With controllers like the Elk and others that can handle multiple protocols, or a translator like Rozetta, I don't see the problem of adding a new addition on your house and bridging the old with the new. Ideal? No. But I don't think taking a chance on a newer protocol is as risky as you make it sound.
As for me, I've only been into this stuff for a year now. The need to automate was forced on me due to a family disability. I looked at a lot, decided I couldn't make a decision in a short time about what I wanted to do, and dove into the cheapest starting point I could, fully intending to toss out all the X10 stuff I bought down the road once I had time to figure out what I really needed. Basically, X10, a Mac mini, and a homebrew doorlock controller has been my test bed for what my family needs. In the last year, I've learned a lot and made lots of notes, so when I build a house in the not too distant future, I'll be able to do it right with whatever I decide to use. I don't think it will be X10. If I decide to stick with X10, it won't be because it's what other people already use.
manufacturer
Hello, Larry! Always glad to see someone de-lurk.
I agree and disagree with your comment. (-: Microsoft is in actuality a monopoly. Since the advent of globalization that's considered a good thing - at least by the governments where such monopolies reside. Hence, the US Justice Department didn't just turn a blind eye to MS's predatory practices, it bought power shovels so they could collectively dig their heads in the sand. MS has not fared so well abroad, where other jurists have ruled that it is indeed a monopoly for all intents and purposes. So I think, for that reason, right out of the gate it's not a fair comparison. X-10's big, but it's not MS big and probably will never be.
Forgive me but I have to challenge that assumption only because the word "simply" just doesn't cover the range of decisions that went into purchasing MS software. I was one of those "many people" who made the MS decision at a time when they might have been stoppable.
The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC area. If you've got a lot of users, people will write software for your OS. People will design hardware based on your OS. Documents are easier to exchange with common platforms. Education of users is easier with a common platform. No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a Windows system.
After MS targeted WordPerfect as profoundly as it did, the war was over. People chose MS because they schmoozed the buyers, cared for the big customers and because machines came with the damn stuff already on it. And they offered standardization, even if it meant that mediocre software would be the result.
X10's not like an OS. There's a lot more room for competition in the HA arena that there is for a new OS to take hold. I'm a fairly frugal person. I'm not likely to abandon something I've spent a lot of time and money on unless there's no choice. That's why X-10 makes sense for me. I also think it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA experience. They start up costs are small and there's an awful lot of support resources on the net. With Jeff's new device, the basic issues with X-10 mostly disappear. Even when including it in the system price, HA is still cheaper using X-10. That's one of the big reasons that X-10 has 5 million users. It delivers a lot of bang for the buck.
Nor am I. Hopefully any further discussion by others can proceed along the very calm and reasoned lines you've followed.
The best mousetrap usually wins in the long run. I think it's great that there *are* other technologies for home automation available. I still have high hopes the ZigBee will induce manufacturers to put limited control modules in their appliances and products that allow for true device control and monitoring. Unless there are "smarts" inside the air conditioners, washing machines and stereo equipment that can respond to external queries and events, almost every new HA technology is as equally hampered as X-10. For that reason, I've avoided looking very closely at any other options.
I've got a lot invested in X-10 in both money and operational experience. Jeff's device has basically recovered that investment. I was just about to go hard-wired with everything because I was flat out sick of signal strength issues.
In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology: Jeff's! That's what I think is lost here. Jeff's taken something admittedly loaded with problems and eliminated most of them. That makes X-10, at least IMHO, a far more robust competitor to UPB and Insteon than it was just a month ago. He's changed a fundamental part of the equation. I am NOT plugging plain vanilla X-10. I am saying that it's only truly workable with an add-on like Jeff's XTB signal booster.
New users *are* working with Insteon, Zwave, UPB and lots of others. Jeff's new device just heats up the competition a little. If someone's going to get into HA and can get by with only one or two controllers, I still see X-10 as a vibrant and quite workable option with the XTB. X-10 + XTB also gives me the bonus of having more controllers and devices in their catalog than any other manufacturer.
There's a wide assortment of software, hardware, test tools and other add-ons that are just not available with any of the competition. X-10 also has a track record. They might not shutter their doors like some of the others. I was involved in some bad HW and SW decisions. Being orphaned is not a pleasant experience. In the worst case you lose the $ spent on the equipment, the installation and the training. You also get to pay for downtime, retraining, etc. Remember: before MS it was IBM that ruled computing with an iron fisted monopoly. When the time is right, the mantle will pass.
Worst case scenario. "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever goes out of business. Your house takes a hit but not all the equipment is ruined. Just the controller. Well, if there's no replacement controller, you've got to pull the rest of the switches - probably not covered by insurance because they are still OK - and get something else. With X-10 that wouldn't happen. Loads of controllers from lots of different makers. Probably a dozen NIB replacements available within days from a number of sources.
As I said, worst case, you have to pull good stuff along with the bad because the line went extinct.
The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it becomes. That's just the way things are. I would not want to mix protocols unless I absolutely had to. I've had to help maintain Apple and IBM on the same network. What absolute and utter misery THAT was.
Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're spending your own money. I wouldn't recommend any of the new protocols to a newbie, still. As Dave Rye said, and I paraphrase, these new technologies all claim immunity from the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've got problems all their own.
From what I've seen, from my personal experience and even from your personal experience very few people start out with a $1000 controller and a whole house full of automatic lights. They start out small. X-10 still is the best and cheapest solution I've found to get people's feet wet with HA and to get them thinking about larger and more complex systems. That's why I still stand by my recommendation for newbies to start with X-10. Not really because "everyone uses it" but for the benefits conferred by such a large user base.
That's a perfectly viable option. Here's where the popularity of X10 is so useful. You can always sell that gear on EBay when you step up. There's no other protocol that offers so many different types of controllers so cheaply. There are at least a dozen X-10 books and 100's of X-10 related sites to learn from. Those are among the reasons that are included in my reasoning for advising newbies to try X-10. It's also why I take issue with the word "simply" to describe why I'd would still give that advice.
That's indeed just the strategy I would choose for a newcomer, then and now. Particularly because Jeff's device overcomes most of the issues they're likely to run into, along with a few cheapo filters. His contribution means that X-10 users can now correct X-10's fatal flaw (low power) and not experience signals too weak to activate equipment as the system expands. Why, exactly, would you choose another protocol, Larry?
Again, it's *so* complicated. X-10 is incredibly cheap. One of the reasons is because so many people use it. X-10 has lots and lots of choices in add-on equipment and software; More than any other competitor. Why? Because so many people use it and it's been around a long time. X-10's incredibly well covered on the net. Yes, you know the reason. There are
1,000's of X-10 items for sale on the net. Yada yada yada. So, yes, I use it, in part because so many people use it but I also use it because it gets the job done for 1/2 to 1/10 of what other systems would cost. Why? (-:Thanks for sharing your views, Larry and for giving me the opportunity to explain my reasoning in a little more (and maybe excruciating) detail!
-- Bobby G.
My turn to challenge your assumptions. I was doing computer support in the early '90s. The common platform idea sometimes has merit, but when it came down to it, I prefered to help people with the appropriate software for their job. With very little truly cross-platform software, that usually meant multiple hardware platforms as well. If all of your users are doing the same job it's easier to have them all use the same stuff. But even putting them on the same platform doesn't standardize the software used by the art department and accounting, so much of the benefit is lost while possibly adding unintentional complications.
But only if you're willing to try the competition. Your recommendation to newbies is still to stick with the installed base. Then once they've gained experience, they already have an investment in hardware that they'll want to keep using. So how will another product line take hold?
I'm not suggesting you abandon an installed system if a fix exists (which it seems to). I'm just suggesting everyone stay open to alternatives for new installations. I suppose I'm strange in that I started with a system that I planned to yank out.
The start up cost is small. That's why I started with it. But while the resources exist, I found myself with a lot of unclear and sometimes conflicting advice. And it took a lot of time to put all the informational pieces together. Out of the box, X10 is unreliable. A new, non-technically inclined HAer has to learn that you need pieces from X10, Inc, including filters or other third party products (like Jeff's) just to make the system work as it was originally advertised. Someone walking into Radio Shack to buy stuff off the shelf isn't handed any of the reference material you're referring to. They just see a display that says they can automate their lights by plugging in these few things. You have to know that you need that information first. I know a few people that tried X10 before, didn't get the results they expected, and then gave up on HA without doing any research. Creating a working X10 system may be easy with the right knowledge, but it's a confusing path for a newbie any way you look at it. Now if X10 wants to start selling Jeff's device as part of a starter kit, things might be different.
One thing I have to say never confused me and I wish it existed across the board is code wheels or some other way of programming things right on the device itself. You can set the device in your hand quickly and easily and lookat it later and know how it's set. Like many people in this group, my greatest concern about Insteon is the current lack of an easy way to set up the network. (I haven't look into any of the software that's been mentioned here the last few days to solve this.)
But it's a patch on an old system. Apparently a good patch, one that's needed by a lot of people, and something I believe he deserves lots of credit and money for. But until it's integrated into starter kits (or the X10 devices themselves), it's still going to be applied as a bandaid. As someone that has been following changes in the HA market for a little while, that has read many of the online references, and has already invested money in X10, it may well be the thing I choose to use. I think it's going to be a hard sell to a newbie.
That worst case scenario is bad, but unlikely. It's a gamble I think I would be willing to take. (I know you already made a distinction between your own money and someone else's, so I already know your objection to this.) I wouldn't install a controller that's already off the market. But I'd be willing to take the chance that a controller that *may* die, *may* be impossible to replace. Using your own example of ebay, when this happens, there will either be someone else in the same positionas you that wants to sell the old stuff or that will buy your old stuff.
I don't see the problem here. In those old networks you needed an Apple to talk to the IBM. Here you just need a controller to send the right signal to each device and receive signals from those devices. The devices aren't talking to each other. Mixing protocols on the same branch of the network might be an issue since you can end up with one device being a signal sucker for another. I have one server (think of it as the central controller/bridge) in my house that understands NFS, SMB, and AFP. None of the non-server devices that use any of those protocols care about any of the others and there are no conflicts.
And to paraphrase Dave Houston, "the XTB isn't old enough or well-tested enough to know if it has problems." :-) And what if Jeff stops selling his device for any reason? If you're dependent on his hardware to make your whole system work, you're in the same boat as if you went with something else.
This is true and disappointing. If I could get Insteon motion sensors, that might have changed my decision to start with X10. (Actually, I don't recall if Insteon was selling yet when I bought my first modules.)
Well, for one, I have the same distaste for X10 Inc as I have for MS. The spam and pop-up/under crap they pulled early on was more than just an irritant. I know that has nothing to do with protocol, but that distaste has me wanting to find a decent alternative from a company that has more user friendly business practices. I can buy smarthome modules, but I haven't had the best of luck with them (which does have me worried about Insteon). I didn't realize that some of the other stuff I bought was indeed made by X10 until after I got it.
It's not really the protocol I'm deciding on anyway. It's the overall system. Can I get the pieces I want (a plus for X10)? Is it reliable (not just the communications, but the hardware itself)? Can I get the status information I want (I like 2-way communication)? Will other advances in technology potentially cause problems down the road? (I prefer wired to wireless if I'm building new since wireless has a greater chance of outside interferences.)
A keyless doorlock system is also important to me. No way I'd trust security stuff to X10. But right now, I'm using X10 along with my own hard wired keypad. Hey there's an example of mixing protocols with no interaction between them.
Aside: One thing that really bugs me about what I have right now may be due to X10, it may be due to MisterHouse, or it may be that I'm doing something wrong. I'm open to any suggestions. When I walk into a room with a motion sensor, it may take several seconds before my lights turn on. I don't have the lights on the same code as the motion sensor. Instead, I have MisterHouse respond to a message from the MS by turning on the appropriate lights at the right times or otherwise logging activity. Is this delay of a few seconds normal with X10? with other protocols? or do I have something screwy I need to debug?
Same here. I appreciate the discussion. I will somehow figure out what I want to do when I build the new house.
You need to provide a little more information.
It takes about 75mS for the motion sensor to send the first copy of the RF code. The transceiver may miss the first one(s) but will adjust its threshold and usually capture the second or third. They come at ~108mS intervals and most RF transmitters send 5 copies (minimum).
If you are using a transceiver, it takes it about 1/2 second to transmit a PLC code so you should see the light in about 1 second.
How does Mr. House learn of the motion. It sounds like it's by PLC from the transceiver so you have another 1/2 second or more delay for it to respond (the PLC code is sent twice) and send another PLC code. 1-1/2 to 2 seconds would not surprise me. If it's via RF or if it takes more than 2 secs, you have a problem that needs diagnosing.
If you have multiple motion sensors and are using transceivers you may be getting PLC collisions which can delay things. But, it really depends on the type of transceiver. TM751s do not sense collisions so only transmit one set of five codes. RR501s sense collisions and retransmit once the line is clear.
Some of the toys I've designed receive RF directly (including from X-10 security devices) and then take whatever action has been defined by the user. I've also programmed a replacement PIC for the MR26A which Jeff Volp will offer through his online store once I get out from under developing roZetta. You could use the modified MR26A to input the MS RF directly.
This is a case where a $50 ESM1 meter will tell you whether there is lengthy PLC traffic.
Larry Moss wrote:
[snip]
Long threads like this get really hard to follow when there are interleaved comments from 2 or more authors so I'll put my brief, mostly off-topic, comments here.
MS became a monopoly because they realized the importance of standardization when all of their competitors were still selling "better" solutions. When IBM went looking for an OS for their PC, the guy who created CP/M blew them off. Businesses could buy Unix systems (at $30K per seat) for specialized tasks, a DEC for mid-sized businesses or, for small businesses, you could buy a Commodore PET and write your own simple apps. I was the lazy type and bought an Osborne with a spreadsheet program. Europe may not be doing their small businesses any favors by aiding and abetting those same MS competitors who failed in the marketplace.
X-10 became a monopoly during the years their patent was in effect. Their dominance (and installed base) is more a result of that than of technical superiority.
Economists (I think the last one died recently) used to refer to "natural" monopolies like railroads, utilities, airlines, etc. I think MS comes close to being a natural monopoly. Most of the classic monopolies have now been crushed but I doubt there's anyone other than Alfred Kahn who still thinks airline deregulation has had a good outcome. Even Ken Lay probably now regrets utility deregulation.
Jeff's device is >>> The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC
OH pulleze. If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
How's your 110 baud modem, teletype, and PDP-8? What was good enough then is good enough now.
Of course. People are lining up to buy one of those wonders.
Well, it was actually a PDP-10 but you got the rest right. Of course there's no comparison with that to modern day computing, BUT, just how much bandwidth is really needed to turn on a light switch? Really no more now than 30 years ago. What's REALLY important to me is that the light goes on or off when it should, every time. To that end I've ripped out all my X10 stuff in favor of Insteon. It works much better for single commands BUT, until I can run a macro error free without inserting a bunch of delays, it's actually not as good as what I had with X10. So if the XTB can solve the X10 signalling issues I'll happily use the X10 feature of the Insteon switches til I have a better controller.
And, back in the 80's and even early 90's the software and hardware landscape was dramatically different than it is today. Back then it really was a hard decision to choose Quattro, Visicalc, Supercalc, Lotus 1-2-3 or some other spreadsheet program. If you were a law firm tech you had to deal with Wordstar, Wang, Wordperfect, lots of wonderful shareware apps and Word. I remember what it was like when every major app had a different set of keys (mostly function keys across the type with ctrl/alt "extenders)? and all came with keyboard templates.
Support groups in large corporate IT shops went through some nightmarish times. End users were switched from one SW app to another every year or so. Users eventually revolted and that was part of the force driving people to MS. You learn *one* MS package and that made learning the next that much easier.
The art and accounting departments were traditionally the last ones ported over to a common platform and only because they were the ones likely to already be on graphics workstations or mini-computers when the PC revolution hit. But when their apps became old and dodgy, the next jump was invariably away from the specialized hardware and software and towards the packages that could "do it all." Again, this reminiscing is only relevant as it compares to how X-10 operates.
The same way it always has and the same way it's working with you. People who can't accept the shortcomings of the current big thing, seek out something different. The "next" big thing.
I don't doubt that of the many X-10 challengers, one of them has the potential to dethrone X-10. I think it's ZigBee because sometimes the last entry into the game is the best. They've had an opportunity to see, debug and improve upon the competition. Like evolution, it's a slow process.
Look how long it took Kodak to begin its death spiral. They still believed in silver-based photography until the consumer market began to shrivel up. Now they're scrambling to catch up.
No. You're not strange. X10 is a perfectly acceptable "start up" option. It's HA 101 for a lot of people who could not otherwise graduate into the Elks, Ocelot and Omni's of the world. HA is both very simple and extremely complex. I believe if you start someone non-technical in the extremely complex stuff, they're doomed to failure.
Think of everything you've learned by lurking here and having X-10 to "play with." I know when I started here I was lost - and that was with X-10! It took a long, long time before I understood enough of what was going on to realize I needed an X-10 meter to ever have any hope of fixing my X-10 problems. Should HA work without a meter? Yes. That's for the "next big thing" though.
And that's precisely why so many other people started with it. Entry path, migration path, exit strategy. Whether it's PC's, HA or fighting wars, they've got remarkably similar pathways. X-10 is so large because they gave away millions of $ of product to "seed" the market. Then, they duped some poor guy out of his pop-under technology (there's remarkable irony there - I want to feel sorry for the inventor of pop-unders but I just can't!). As despicable as their techniques were (sort of like MS forcing Windows on every new PC) they kept building market share.
I'll agree - with some caveats. It always seems to fairly work well for the first light module and controller kit you buy. Especially if you are just turning the overhead bedroom light off by a bedside minicontroller. It's the scaling up that kills X-10 because every transmitter is also a signal sucker. And that's where the genius of some of the new systems lies. Every transmitter is not only a signal sucker, but a signal repeater. That little technotrick overcomes the very serious "more is worse" problem of X-10. Unfortunately, it makes the transition from X-10 somewhat more problematic in some cases.
Oddly enough, we're back to MS because who would have thunk you'd need a spam filter, a virus filter, a worm filter, a firewall, spyware killers and weekly updates to keep that "easy" MS system running? :-) The Dark Side of the Force, to be sure.
There's no magic pill that makes you smart about something. Radio Shack would sell plutonium to Osama if it were legal and they could make a buck. The support he'd get would be the same as what an X-10 user gets: An acned high schooler who knows the buzzwords but not the real skinny. Look at this from the rapacious capitalist viewpoint: If you're selling the stuff like hotcakes, you wouldn't want to queer those sales by announcing that your produce it hard to use or unreliable. So they don't. Car companies have to be dragged through the courts, kicking and screaming, just like drug companies, to acknowledge what they often know to be a bad product.
It's up to responsible buyers to at least investigate what they are buying. Type "X-10" and "reliability" in a search engine. Read and learn. You've done that. And you've lurked long enough to feel comfortable discussing your views. That means there was a lot of learning that you've done just by reading along. That's the true beauty of Usenet. It's almost like the fabled "sleep learning!"
The problem is, what you've done is not what most people want. They want "point and shoot" and "don't bother me with the details." It's why newer cameras are so frustrating to me. Too many "stupid people" options with pretty icons that only get in the way of the experienced user.
They might have to consider an option like it to stay alive in the face of increasing competition that takes aim at X-10's Achille's heel - poor signal strength.
There are lots of reasons to love code wheels. Probably more reasons to love them than to hate them. It's a touchy problem. Codewheels can't be set remotely, which is sometimes a problem. More importantly, codewheels take up a lot of space compared to the tiny chips that replace them. Codewheels expose the innards of the modules to dust and grime. But, and in my view it's the biggest 'but' in the bunch, codewheels DON'T RESET THEMSELVES MAGICALLY!
That's an incredible flaw in some of the Smarthome (and other) gear and it's been reported here time and time again. They've GOT to fix that to truly "conquer" the codewheel technology across the board. The may have to adapt a something like Gigabyte motherboards use with dual BIOS chips. If something's wrong with BIOS A, you can automagically boot via the backup copy and instruct the machine to automatically copy the backup copy over the corrupted original. Whatever they have to do, they'd better do it quick because it's a well-known issue that scares potential buyers away. Once you get a bad rep for something on the internet, it can follow you for years and years as it's repeated.
He's got over $200 of my money. He convinced me, at least, (well his product did) that it would fix the problems in my X-10 setup. It's a patch, true, but it's a patch that I believe will enable me to "wait out" the HA protocol wars. When it comes time to upgrade, and it will, I will have (hopefully) missed the shakeout period and the possibility of picking one of the inevitable losers.
Yes, it's a bandaid, but it really stops the bleeding!! It *will* be a hard sell to newbies, just as a signal strength meter usually is. They have to come to it by their own needs, and that usually happens when they find out their new TV has made the porch light X-10 stop working. I do believe that Jeff will find a large market in people like Bruce R who has a huge house and lots of X-10 devices. He's already discovered that Insteon has its limits. I can't wait to reads his reports about the turbo-charged Stargate.
In fact, that's really where the XTB shines. It enables many controllers: the Elk, Omni, Stargate, Ocelot, etc. that all use X-10 (among others) to work better. Once the word gets out and the feedback comes in, I predict Jeff will be banging these babies out by the 100's. I wish I could get a cell phone booster that worked as well for dropped calls as the XTB does for dropped X-10 signals.
Sadly, what I've seen from Ebay, is that if there's no more of something being made, the price skyrockets. Some old server CPUs cost more now then they did new because the only other option to replacing the CPU is replacing the server. That can end up costing outrageous amounts of money so it makes the premium price well worth it, but I don't like being in that boat. Insteon and some other protocols are dependent on the fortunes of one single company. That violates the "eggs in one basket" common sense rule, at least for me and a few others here as well.
No, I'm afraid it's much more complex. I've been tracking Dave Houston's Rozetta and Bruce R's problems getting Stargate and X-10 to coexist with Insteon. There are some incredibly complex "gotchas" involved with making sure the transmissions don't interfere with each other, especially with macros. Dave could explain it in much better detail.
That's because there are 100's of millions of PC's and PC users and the network topology is defined by a pretty well-defined set of standards and technologies like the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model. Yes, the home wiring is a network, but it's very vague and ill-defined in many ways, at least compared to an ethernet network. Here's where AZ Nomad has a point about bandwidth. HA's bandwidth has typically been so low that re-transmissions and long transmissions create issues that are not likely to exist when packets are whizzing about at 1 gigabit per second. It's probably X-10's second most troubling flaw and one that the XTB does little to help. It will be the issue that eventually drives me from X-10. Unless Jeff can solve THAT problem, too! :-)
Touche. But I knocked the hell out of the beta for a few weeks dredging up X-10 equipment that even Jeff had never heard of for testing. His beta device was the best I've ever run into it terms of "It does exactly what it says it will do and doesn't do anything it shouldn't." I've beta tested a lot of stuff - probably just because I write a lot - and I was impressed enough to buy nearly half of the first production run.
:-) And what if Jeff stops selling his device for any reason?
I bought four, will probably buy more and he's made the plans, the circuit boards and the parts list available. That's an open system dream! If I buy a stack of printed circuit boards, I should be good for the next 50 years.
As I just noted, that's not the case with the XTB. I could build one from scratch (assuming God touched his finger to mine and made me a perfect solderer!). I couldn't ask for more future-proofing.
Breadth of product line is hard to ignore. Sundowners, mini-timers, phone responders, integrated motion sensors, cameras, repeaters, whole-house controllers, Palmpads, keychain remotes, Supersockets, 220VAC heavy-duty modules, in-line modules, etc. It's going to be a long time before any competitor reaches that array of products and I predict that a few of them never will. The worst part is that because the competition is dealing with such a smaller market, they can never bring the price down to X-10 levels. All the folks who were ever involved in manufacturing here can attest to the value of economies of scale.
The "new" X-10 isn't a company that anyone can love, but they were not that way to start. I've also had trouble with Smarthome gear. And yes, X-10 makes the majority of X-10 gear as an OEM. But it terms of support, their website does present a lot of technical data and user forums. Newbies can often get their questions answered there and pretty quickly and accurately from what I can tell. That's why I would recommend it to newbies over something newer that doesn't have the netwide support options that X-10 does.
I have 20+ year old X-10 (actually BSR) gear that's still working (through many a storm that's killed other electronics). In my mind, the reliability question was settled a long time ago.
X-10 has two-way modules. They are not as useful as some other two-way protocols, but they are there. Hardwired is always preferable to wireless for reliability and security reasons. But it's not always the right choice.
No one in their right mind would use X-10 alone for security. As you've found, you can mix technology suited for the job like a keypad into your X-10 setup with very little consequence. And, no, it's not an example of mixing protocols exactly because the keypad is not in contention with anything for access to the network wiring. That's where the HA protocol gets troublesome but I leave that explanation to the experts like Dave and Bruce.
Dave's already given some excellent advice, BTW. I'll try to add to it if I get a minute. It's almost time to do real work!
Well, despite the ever-decreasing traffic, there's still an incredibly "knowlegdeable" brain trust here in CHA that can help you sort through the jungle. (-:
-- Bobby G.
"AZ Nomad" wrote
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:05 GMT, BruceR >
If me, 60 BPS plenty good bandwidth! (-: (Baud ain't the right term, BTW, it's bits per second)
Here's an idea if you *really* want huge bandwith check this article out:
*PENISES HAVE HIGHER BANDWIDTH THAN CABLE MODEMS*"The human genome is about 3,120,000,000 base pairs long, so half of that is in each spermatozoa -- 1,560,000,000 base pairs. Each side of these base pairs can either be an adenine-thymine or a guanine-cytosine bond, and they can be aligned either direction, so there are four choices. Four possibilities for a value means it can be fully represented with two bits; 00 = guanine, 01 = cytosine, and so forth. . . . the number of sperm in a human ejaculation to be anywhere from 50 to 500 million. Putting these together, the average amount of information per ejaculation is 1.560*109 * 2 bits * 2.00*108, which comes out to be
6.24*1017 bits. That's about 78,000 terabytes of data!"So obviously you need to look into getting a penis-based home automation system. Nothing comes close in terms of bandwidth!
-- Bobby G.
Nomad has a point, though. If the BPS were faster, you would not likely be experiencing some of the macro problems you are. HA transmission do need to be faster because the time lag for X-10 has always been there and chaining macros really makes it obvious that it's slow.
stuff in favor of Insteon. It works much better for single commands
That's a courageous admission but you're also in a rather unique situation with the Stargate. I'm really chafing to see how the XTB performs in the Aloha state. I think you'll be wowed.
Well, for me, the XTB arrived at a time when I had done all I could do to make X-10 better but ran out of tools. I'm still looking to upgrade to something better, but I don't feel as pressured as I did by X-10's previous unreliability.
-- Bobby G.
That's an interesting point. Where were Insteon, UPB and all the rest of them back then? Would they have been stopped by patent infringement? Of the competitors that did show up, like CeBus and Echelon, who still thrives? Centralite's still alive. Then there's ah, um, I dunno. Centralite's still alive. (-:
-- Bobby G.
Bobby,
Like many folks that participate in this newsgroup, your window on what is available in HA seems to be based on what you afford/prefer/have and what is in the air and echoes around c.h.a.
That is an exceedingly narrow subset of what goes for HA now-a-days. You could do everything you want and more by calling up a contractor specializing in Crestron
Marc Marc_F_Hult
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.