Frustrated with home automation software
- Thread starter Deane Johnson
- Start date
pete_c
Guru
Yeah thinking I bought it mostly to see it and compare it to Windows 95. Both though now thinking in '94 maybe. I recall the "bank" and automotive industry was pure "blue" / IBM. I never saw anything else. It was a couple of years later that I saw a bunch of OS2 Warp machines around.
I did sort of bridge microsoft and IBM having an IBM desktop in my office and my very own IBM AS400. The IBM desktop ran Windows and IBM Rumba.
The AS400 ran as my little catch all server and controller of sorts and the desktop was running MS SQL and doing screen scrapes of the Rumba stuff plus using the IBM as my cache all storage between locations.
In the automotive industry utilized the screen scrape stuff for tracking a build (car) on the line; matching the specifics to the car and eventually where the car was on the line. Very neato stuff.
In the banking industry it was used for overdraft stuff; screen scraping the back end and making lists of overdrafts (auto / manual type of process) and mortgage banking stuff.
I did sort of bridge microsoft and IBM having an IBM desktop in my office and my very own IBM AS400. The IBM desktop ran Windows and IBM Rumba.
The AS400 ran as my little catch all server and controller of sorts and the desktop was running MS SQL and doing screen scrapes of the Rumba stuff plus using the IBM as my cache all storage between locations.
In the automotive industry utilized the screen scrape stuff for tracking a build (car) on the line; matching the specifics to the car and eventually where the car was on the line. Very neato stuff.
In the banking industry it was used for overdraft stuff; screen scraping the back end and making lists of overdrafts (auto / manual type of process) and mortgage banking stuff.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
The 32 bit version of OS/2 was really nice. It was there and solid before NT was, but of course Microsoft at that point had all of the mind-share so it didn't make any difference. And, unlike NT, OS/2 was able to start from scratch, so it had a very consistent, very well defined naming scheme for all APIs. NT had to effectively inherit the Win16 interface, extended to 32 bit, so it was a lot messier. And the really weird thing of course is that, underneath it, was also a fresh start OS, designed by the guy who did the VAX VMS system (to loop back around to some above discussion.) But the exposed API to the developer had to carry forward the existing Windows API or it would have never succeeded.
OS/2 was used in a lot of ATMs, and it was a very solid OS definitely. I was a beta tester for the 32 bit version and liked it a lot. I was quite depressed when I finally had to dump it and go to NT. Now of course it's hard to even recognize Windows as it is now as what came originally from NT.
OS/2 was used in a lot of ATMs, and it was a very solid OS definitely. I was a beta tester for the 32 bit version and liked it a lot. I was quite depressed when I finally had to dump it and go to NT. Now of course it's hard to even recognize Windows as it is now as what came originally from NT.
pete_c
Guru
Yup; it was Novell that was the "cat's meow". Never failed always up. I would take it down for hardware maintenance. It never broke.
IBM OS/2 also never broke. The banking stuff I did was to look at it to migrate it over to Wintel. By the time that happened nobody knew anymore what it was. At home just played and I did like it more than Windows 95 at the time.
First playing with Microsoft NT servers (4.0?); always saw BSODs.
IBM OS/2 also never broke. The banking stuff I did was to look at it to migrate it over to Wintel. By the time that happened nobody knew anymore what it was. At home just played and I did like it more than Windows 95 at the time.
First playing with Microsoft NT servers (4.0?); always saw BSODs.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
Since I started this thread during some really frustrating days thinking about where to go with software, I've spent a lot of time looking into both HomeSeer and CQC. I first spent a lot time becoming better acquainted with HomeSeer. Mark was kind enough to spend two hours on the phone with me yesterday (Thursday) answering a lot of questions. What I mostly learned was how to find my way around and accomplish procedures. I was prepared to not like the browser based approach, but I found it has some definite benefits. I like being able to pop onto my programming from any computer. Since I have two large computer systems, this is an interesting feature for me. Since I had previously spent a trial period with 2.0, the basic concepts were already known. I believe 3.0 should have taken a different GUI approach and Mark graciously listened to my concerns. I admire the job they are trying to do in a tough business climate. As the HA software business gets tougher and tougher, I suspect HomeSeer will hang in there as a major player, maybe the major player.
I've also spent a lot of time looking at and working with CQC this week. While I had a reasonable knowledge of the inner workings of HomeSeer, CQC was a complete unknown. All I knew was that it was respected as a robust and reliable system, but has a steep learning curve.
Dean Roddey has been most generous with his time and has been most patient with my challenges of learning a fairly complex structure while possessing an aging memory. Frankly, I had been frightened a little bit by the repeated commentaries over the months of the "difficult learning curve". Well, that exists, but it's not as difficult as I thought it was. Today I figured out how to paste an IR code in, how to put a button on the screen that operated the IR code, and best of all, how to run it from my iPad. You might say, what's the big deal about that, but if you think about it, once you master that series of activities, filling up a touch screen is simply a redundancy of that one set of activities with small variations.
It's no secret, I've been a big Elve fan for some time, mostly because it's robust, easy to learn and very stable. My reaction at this early point is that CQC is sort of like Elve on steroids. Some of the approaches are much the same, CQC goes further with options. It's probably not surprising they have some similarities, I believe John said he was a CQC user before he started Elve.
At first I was frightened of the many pop-up screens that occurred when you set out to do something. I'm now sort of thinking that all you need to know are the basics and that the extra choices are simply extra things you can do if you wish to learn how to use them. I probably won't use many of them, but they're there if I want them.
I believe the thing I feared most about CQC was having to write script. Guess what, I don't write script. I fully expected to get into CQC and have to just abandon ship due to a need to write script. I was pleasantly surprised to discover there isn't any. It's mostly multiple choice, or simply entering a value of your choice. Of course there's a place to use script if you wish, just as there is with Elve and HomeSeer.
The single thing that has been most challenging for me are the abbreviations Dean uses. With a less than sterling memory it's harder for me to remember what an abbreviation is saying. I know he does this to make choosing faster at a glance for a good young mind. For me, I have to go slower and would be perfectly willing to take time to read more words.
I've spent more space here talking about CQC then Homeseer, but that's mostly because much about HomeSeer was already known and not a new thing to me. On the other hand, I found some surprises in CQC that it's not nearly so ominous as I thought it was. I'm going to take the wise approach and work with both pieces of software until Thanksgiving week, then go with the one I am most comfortable with. Sort of like dating two girls while you decide which one you want to marry. In this case the two choices are very different from each other. At this moment, I am most fascinated with the possibilities of CQC, that is if I don't hit a brick wall along the way as i travel towards Thanksgiving D-Day.
I really appreciate the time Mark Colegrove and Dean Roddey are both willing to spend helping someone work with their software. I've been a royal pain in the rear for both of them this week and not hesitant to post my thoughts on their product. And, they're still speaking to me.
I've also spent a lot of time looking at and working with CQC this week. While I had a reasonable knowledge of the inner workings of HomeSeer, CQC was a complete unknown. All I knew was that it was respected as a robust and reliable system, but has a steep learning curve.
Dean Roddey has been most generous with his time and has been most patient with my challenges of learning a fairly complex structure while possessing an aging memory. Frankly, I had been frightened a little bit by the repeated commentaries over the months of the "difficult learning curve". Well, that exists, but it's not as difficult as I thought it was. Today I figured out how to paste an IR code in, how to put a button on the screen that operated the IR code, and best of all, how to run it from my iPad. You might say, what's the big deal about that, but if you think about it, once you master that series of activities, filling up a touch screen is simply a redundancy of that one set of activities with small variations.
It's no secret, I've been a big Elve fan for some time, mostly because it's robust, easy to learn and very stable. My reaction at this early point is that CQC is sort of like Elve on steroids. Some of the approaches are much the same, CQC goes further with options. It's probably not surprising they have some similarities, I believe John said he was a CQC user before he started Elve.
At first I was frightened of the many pop-up screens that occurred when you set out to do something. I'm now sort of thinking that all you need to know are the basics and that the extra choices are simply extra things you can do if you wish to learn how to use them. I probably won't use many of them, but they're there if I want them.
I believe the thing I feared most about CQC was having to write script. Guess what, I don't write script. I fully expected to get into CQC and have to just abandon ship due to a need to write script. I was pleasantly surprised to discover there isn't any. It's mostly multiple choice, or simply entering a value of your choice. Of course there's a place to use script if you wish, just as there is with Elve and HomeSeer.
The single thing that has been most challenging for me are the abbreviations Dean uses. With a less than sterling memory it's harder for me to remember what an abbreviation is saying. I know he does this to make choosing faster at a glance for a good young mind. For me, I have to go slower and would be perfectly willing to take time to read more words.
I've spent more space here talking about CQC then Homeseer, but that's mostly because much about HomeSeer was already known and not a new thing to me. On the other hand, I found some surprises in CQC that it's not nearly so ominous as I thought it was. I'm going to take the wise approach and work with both pieces of software until Thanksgiving week, then go with the one I am most comfortable with. Sort of like dating two girls while you decide which one you want to marry. In this case the two choices are very different from each other. At this moment, I am most fascinated with the possibilities of CQC, that is if I don't hit a brick wall along the way as i travel towards Thanksgiving D-Day.
I really appreciate the time Mark Colegrove and Dean Roddey are both willing to spend helping someone work with their software. I've been a royal pain in the rear for both of them this week and not hesitant to post my thoughts on their product. And, they're still speaking to me.
Dean Roddey
Senior Member
Deane Johnson said:
I may be misunderstanding this bit, but just in case I just wanted to point out that CQC is networked at a fundamental level. You can manage it from any machine where you install the CQC tools, and you can distribute various back end bits and pieces around as well and manage those from any machine. If you want to use a machine just for configuration/development purposes, choose the 'client tools' install mode and it'll just install the tools you need to configure the CQC system. Or you can also choose to install some other back end (server) goodies on it as well.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
The fact of the matter Dean is that I just haven't gotten that far with CQC. Remember I'm the guy who just got excited about being able to open and close the drawer on his DVD player. 
Seriously, I'm glad you pointed this out. That feature has me curious to understand as I move forward.
Part of the joy of home automation for me is to keep discovering new things I can do.
Seriously, I'm glad you pointed this out. That feature has me curious to understand as I move forward.
Part of the joy of home automation for me is to keep discovering new things I can do.
http://forum.universal-devices.com/topic/14467-is-insteon-dead/page-2#entry121057
http://forum.universal-devices.com/topic/14458-frustrated-with-vera-what-are-the-isy-z-wave-limitations/
You may want to read these threads being you use Z-Wave and X10. People with experience in various systems are not impressed with some after trying the ISY994i controller.
http://forum.universal-devices.com/topic/14458-frustrated-with-vera-what-are-the-isy-z-wave-limitations/
You may want to read these threads being you use Z-Wave and X10. People with experience in various systems are not impressed with some after trying the ISY994i controller.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
I would be using the ISY exclusively for X-10. It's performance with that protocol would be most interesting. I didn't see much mention of X-10 in those two threads, but I could have missed it.
I could change out my X-10 dimmers, but they perform flawlessly, so I hate to go to the trouble. I use a motor drive device to run my side masking in and out, and it's is driven by X-10. You put in an address code, and the next 6 codes are available for that many intermediate stops. In the past I used the intermediate stops, but with my new masking system, I only use open and close. I might be able to switch that to momentary switch contact.
If anyone has experience with ISY and X-10, it would be great to hear from you on how it is working out.
I could change out my X-10 dimmers, but they perform flawlessly, so I hate to go to the trouble. I use a motor drive device to run my side masking in and out, and it's is driven by X-10. You put in an address code, and the next 6 codes are available for that many intermediate stops. In the past I used the intermediate stops, but with my new masking system, I only use open and close. I might be able to switch that to momentary switch contact.
If anyone has experience with ISY and X-10, it would be great to hear from you on how it is working out.
The powerline frequencies are very close. 120kHz and 131kHz. Don't quote me on that one. My X10 phase coupler appears to work flawlessly with Insteon and my few X10 except at the far reaches of my house where X10 doesn't reach well or at all. The ISY has a further reach for X10 than any of my old X10 transmitters. did. The repeating Insteon modules help the reach. X10 is NOT repeated in the Insteon modules though.
Most ISY users inject a WAIT 1-2 seconds after X10 commands as they can muddle Insteon commands that play so much more politely than X-10 signal protocols.
After having boxes full of X10 and mostly migrating to Insteon on the ISY I cannot wait to replace all the X10 units. Insteon has a much longer range, reliability of signals, confirmation, instant updates for devices operated locally (unlike Z-Wave complaints). Insteon is more expensive than the clearance $5 X-10 units sold off for years. I still use many for Christmas trees and cabinet lights where speed, feedback, and reliability are not required.
If you migrated to the ISY with a lot of X10 units you would want the X10 module, a piece of software that auto-downloads into the ISY. It provides addressing of X10 modules by nickname and the devices appear in the ISY device (directory) tree. Pro isn't necessary until you have over 200?? devices and 256 programs.
Read some of the UDI forum. The support is unmatched anywhere I have experienced. Don't base your evaluation on the SmartHome forum. Quite the opposite attitude.
ISY supports Insteon and X10 natively. Z-Wave is in the finishing stages of finepoint debugging and requires a plug-in board. Many are using Z-Wave with it for door locks and some thermostats where Insteon falls down a bit. Zigbee is also supported but no room for Z-Wave and Zigbee simultaneously in the micro box about the size of a Raspberry Pi.
Most ISY users inject a WAIT 1-2 seconds after X10 commands as they can muddle Insteon commands that play so much more politely than X-10 signal protocols.
After having boxes full of X10 and mostly migrating to Insteon on the ISY I cannot wait to replace all the X10 units. Insteon has a much longer range, reliability of signals, confirmation, instant updates for devices operated locally (unlike Z-Wave complaints). Insteon is more expensive than the clearance $5 X-10 units sold off for years. I still use many for Christmas trees and cabinet lights where speed, feedback, and reliability are not required.
If you migrated to the ISY with a lot of X10 units you would want the X10 module, a piece of software that auto-downloads into the ISY. It provides addressing of X10 modules by nickname and the devices appear in the ISY device (directory) tree. Pro isn't necessary until you have over 200?? devices and 256 programs.
Read some of the UDI forum. The support is unmatched anywhere I have experienced. Don't base your evaluation on the SmartHome forum. Quite the opposite attitude.
ISY supports Insteon and X10 natively. Z-Wave is in the finishing stages of finepoint debugging and requires a plug-in board. Many are using Z-Wave with it for door locks and some thermostats where Insteon falls down a bit. Zigbee is also supported but no room for Z-Wave and Zigbee simultaneously in the micro box about the size of a Raspberry Pi.
You cant go wrong with UDI products. Their support is awesome. HS uses Bugzilla but they get backlogged for months and months. HS ignores the customer complaints in the forums and discourages comments about the prolonged wait for bug fixes etc. UDI will listen to their customers in the forum and instead of deleting customer comments UDI does their best to address the problem the customer is having.
I am not saying that UDI is perfect I am sure they are not but they are much better at supporting their products. HS3 has much more potential uses but currently is unreliable for many and their support lacks because their business model is to keep coming out with more features and products rather than support what they have. It will change for the better sooner or later. They just don't know how many people have not upgraded to HS3 or if they have left HS for something else.
I don't know anything about CQC other than I have heard it has a learning curve.
I am not saying that UDI is perfect I am sure they are not but they are much better at supporting their products. HS3 has much more potential uses but currently is unreliable for many and their support lacks because their business model is to keep coming out with more features and products rather than support what they have. It will change for the better sooner or later. They just don't know how many people have not upgraded to HS3 or if they have left HS for something else.
I don't know anything about CQC other than I have heard it has a learning curve.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
Thanks Larry. That's the sort of information I needed. I've allowed my home automation to run itself for multiple years with Elve, but now I'm getting into updating it. It was the desire to play with Philips Hue that got my attention back on it. Now, I have so many updates to deal with, as well as learning and programming new software, I won't get to the Hue for some time.
My testing of CQC is going well, better than I expected. It's probably the way I will go, but the next few days of getting it in place will solidify that position. I really like the serious nature of it and the ability to drill deep into something if one needs to.
My testing of CQC is going well, better than I expected. It's probably the way I will go, but the next few days of getting it in place will solidify that position. I really like the serious nature of it and the ability to drill deep into something if one needs to.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
Thanks Digger. Both you and Larry have raised my confidence level. My demands aren't too great on the ISY, but I always hate to spend money on a boat anchor.
I purchased a Vera recently, but promptly returned it. I didn't like the concept.
On the "learning curve" for CQC, I find it a lot like Elve in that regard. Once you learn to do the things you want, it's mostly doing the same thing over and over. If you learn to paste an IR code in, they all paste in alike, etc.
I was pleased when I pasted my first one in that was from the Cambridge Audio web site and it was in the wrong format for the GC-100. It was automatically converted within CQC, leaving both the old and the new in the window. I then deleted the old and it's been working perfect ever since.
I think one of the things I am sensing about CQC is that it is very solid (as was Elve). Once you correctly set something up, it seems to stay right where you put it. I think Dean is sufficiently fussy that he's not going to leave anything in the software package that doesn't work properly.
My biggest issue is with knowing what the abbreviations mean. I may try to encourage Dean to consider a glossary of his abbreviations. His technical papers on the site are very well written.
I purchased a Vera recently, but promptly returned it. I didn't like the concept.
On the "learning curve" for CQC, I find it a lot like Elve in that regard. Once you learn to do the things you want, it's mostly doing the same thing over and over. If you learn to paste an IR code in, they all paste in alike, etc.
I was pleased when I pasted my first one in that was from the Cambridge Audio web site and it was in the wrong format for the GC-100. It was automatically converted within CQC, leaving both the old and the new in the window. I then deleted the old and it's been working perfect ever since.
I think one of the things I am sensing about CQC is that it is very solid (as was Elve). Once you correctly set something up, it seems to stay right where you put it. I think Dean is sufficiently fussy that he's not going to leave anything in the software package that doesn't work properly.
My biggest issue is with knowing what the abbreviations mean. I may try to encourage Dean to consider a glossary of his abbreviations. His technical papers on the site are very well written.
Deane Johnson
Active Member
Dead Post.
