Homeseer 2.0 Ready for Release?

[BraveSirRobbin]

Lets see... the $99 upgrade (maybe somewhere down the distant road) might be worth the dozen hours of fighting the now bug ridden version people are being forced into trying

John:

I went to Homeseer's site (all by myself on my own), selected the upgrade option on their main page, purchased the software for $39, and have all the license info and docs sitting in an Email here in my Inbox.

Nobody forced me to do anything, still running HS1.7, oh wait, hey you , stop that, quit twisting my arm, how did you get in here, oh ouch, ouch, hey....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(BSR ACCOUNT -$39)

 

[Skibum]

I dunno... I consider insisting that you purchase before software is ready for release unless you want to pay a stupidly high price for an upgrade a good bit of arm twisting!


sob that hurts.

 

[jwilson56]

Ditto on that Skibum

 

[Squintz]

Cost is not an issue. I would have happily paid $99 for the software if HomeSeer honestly thought it was stable enough to call a release. Its not stable and should not be called a release. Its not about the money its about the fact that they are making stupid decisions again. I dont want to buy the software because as a company they are making bad decisions and I am afraid that they will be out of business sooner than later. To me it sounds like they are in trouble and are making these choice to try and save the company.

I am now considering other options. I am not the only one considering these other options either. I know electron has already made the decision to not use HS at all any more. Not even the 1.X version.

The only reason I want HomeSeer is for the web interface. I like to be able to check the status of my house from work.

I am starting to like the idea of using other hardware such as the Elk M1G along with UPB instead.

Again its not about the money its only about the fact that HomeSeer has got a bug up their ass in the last 1 or so that screams bad customer service. The HomeSeer people as individuals are nice people but as a company they have made me very upset and I no longer "TRUST" the company

 

[Skibum]

You're right Squintz. It's really not about the money.

When was it that HST started to go all south... let me Tink a minute.

 

[smee]

I am starting to like the idea of using other hardware such as the Elk M1G along with UPB instead.

I don't have any problem with people wanting to try stuff other than HomeSeer. That whole competition thing is usually good for improving products - although the HA software market does not seem to be driven this way. I think the individual programs are too isolated from each other. A lot of people tend to use the first or second one they come across without investigating the market (I may be guilty of that as well).

However, I don't think that HS and the Elk M1 series are exactly equivalent. I don't know about your specific setup, but I know that most of what I'm using HS for absolutely can not be done with the M1. Very little of my automation involves things like turning on lights. And I'm not running (don't require) a full security system. Without a platform like HS (or one of its competitors [1]) or writing something similar myself, I couldn't do most of what I want to do.

The level of functionality and expandability just isn't there in the stand-alone units. They excel in things like stability and robustness, however. I think the ideal solution for most people is a combination of the two. But if all of your automation needs can be handled by one of these units alone, then it certainly makes sense to remove the PC from the loop.

[1] And I'm not convinced that any of the competitors are as versatile (i.e., able to meet my needs) as HS.

 

[DavidL]

I am curious - squintz, skibum, what's the beef? More to the stories that aren't posted in forums?

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't get it. HST appears to me to be a few talented guys doing what they can to continue to deliver what I see as the best HA software on the market. HS2 like any brand new piece of software has had it's problems, but I am now on two continous days with not an error in the log outside of some of my scripting errors (which isn't affecting HS due to good HS design and multithreading).

If not HS, what? CQC? HAL? Housebot? Meedio's? I have looked at all of these and they are not up to what I need just yet.

 

[smee]

I think most of the problem, and this has been mentioned before, is the timing of the final release. After releasing what seems like a beta version each day, all of a sudden one of these versions is called "final." Now, the countdown for the discount time limit starts.

It makes the final release look like another beta. If they had waited longer, without releasing beta versions, to say that this version is now stable and will be released it would have appeared much better.

Everyone knows that software will have bugs and will need updates (to fix bugs or add features). It just seems to many people that this final release looks like just another beta.

 

[Skibum]

Exactly!

The final is an untested beta.



DavidL

2 days does not exactly make me comfortable. If you said 2 MONTHS, I might listen a bit closer! <_<

 

[tech-home]

You're right Squintz. It's really not about the money.

When was it that HST started to go all south... let me Tink a minute.

I would say the marketing guy they hired.

I would like to combine Medio with HS. Medio might be the software to beat. Maybe not for power user but for the everyday guy.

I also do own Charmed Quark and play around with it. Deans' business model makes much more sense to me.

I think stability issues come into play when you try to support to much. Dean has support alot fewer hardware and makes stability rock solid.

But as I've said I use m1 for as much as possible and HS for web interface and more logic.


Also I had a help desk ticket (my only one) that was answered within 1 day. It was a bug when selecting a time that was fixed in the next version 1949 or something.

To each their own

 

[DavidL]

ski, can't tell you more than two days because as you know the release just was released. Also, I dink with this stuff all the time I am rebooting and relaunching weekly.

But with two plus days with no issues, no memory expansion issues noted, I believe it would run the two months as all of my daily cycles have now been tested and error free. There should be "no" difference then of two days or two months.

"The final is an untested beta." Ah, that is definately not the case. I personally (and several others) have been testing this for months. Each significant issue that at least I brought up (and most that others brought up) was resolved or addressed in a subsequent release - which is standard beta development / testing process. There is not suppose to be any significant difference from the latest beta to the transition (which is usually a marketing / support / revenue transition - not development) to a production release. That is the nature of software development and release cycle.

 

[AccessX10]

This has turned into an interesting discussion and I wanted to put in my 2 cents worth. I went to vote and noticed the this: "You have already voted in this poll". Strange... I don't recall voting. So what did I vote?

 

[AutomatedOutlet]

Same thing happened to me. It's because I wanted to see the results before I voted. You then get a "null" vote.

 

[Skibum]

"The final is an untested beta." Ah, that is definately not the case.

Seems to me the last beta was released yesterday.... however as some have pointed out, I could be a day off..... That is not what I call a tested beta.

 

[smee]

Before releasing a final version, they should have stopped releasing daily betas. This does not mean that they stop finding and fixing errors. It means that they don't release those fixes. They should have let a beta release sit for at least a week (should be longer) to determine if there are any major bugs that must be fixed before a release. That beta should then be called final.

As long as you continue to fix bugs, you don't know what kind of new bugs you are creating. Allowing a beta version to remain current for a while allows these "killer" bugs to show up.

Nobody expects them to release bug free code. But we should expect them to test the stability of a beta before they release it. Even when you think you are making a minor change, the ramifications can be major.

Having many beta versions and people willing to test them is good. It just seems like they jumped the gun for the release. Even if there are no major problems, it just doesn't make sense. They should have given it at least a little time to see what happens. Then, when they decide it is stable, they just rename the latest beta to be the release - they don't make changes and release that.