|Originally Posted by smoothtlk|
I think the more important point is - what driver support is Cinemar missing? A quantity of esoteric drivers of very low volume usage is not what will affect the majority of users. If you are doing the counting thing, there are multiple devices supported in many Cinemar drivers. We develop drivers for where there is a need. And Cinemar is in the process of increasing it's driver portfolio fairly dramatically (for popular devices).
It's all about choices. I'd rather have the best of both worlds. A set of drivers that supports the more popular devices, and lots of drivers that are 'esoteric' in case I happen to deviate from the norm. I hate being locked into a given path of hardware because that's the only driver available.
|We also have the MLGenericDevice plugin which essentially allows any strong DIY or dealer to develop their own driver to get out of a pinch. This will allow sharing of drivers between users and from Cinemar to a user / dealer. This replaces the MLGenericSerial that is used for hundreds of devices now (but we aren't doing the counting thing - because who cares?).|
CQC has two versions of this. PDL drivers that are basic one-way or two-way and are fairly easy to create, and CML drivers which allow for pretty much anything. Both PDL and CML comes with the full system package at no cost.
|If you look at a particular driver, I have found that CQCs are basic vs. a MainLobby driver can sometimes be an application all by itself. One example is the Rain8Net irrigation controller. Dean's basically allows CQC to turn the device on and off. MainLobby's is a scheduling system, a user interface and a base level turn a zone on / off.|
That's because it's redundant. CQC has a rich event scheduler, so it wouldn't make sense to create more overhead by putting redundancy into the driver. It's very easy for a DIYer or Pro for that matter to have a canned set of events loaded into the scheduler. You're really reaching here.
|This is so someone can buy that driver and be up and running in a short period of time controlling their system.|
The operative word here is buy
. It's free with CQC as are all other drivers, pluggins, etc.
|sorry you had to wade through all of the CQC vs. MainLobby dribble.|
To which you are as large a contributor as anyone.
To me the bottom line is this: MainLobby is a good product, is commercially successful, has a good following of adopters and for the most part does what it needs to do for those who use it. CQC is also a good product, is also commercially successful given its infancy, has a following of passionate adopters that's growing rapidly and for the most part does what it needs to do for those who use it. These debates are getting mostly pointless as you can never do an apples to apples comparison. One product will always excel where another may be lacking in one area and to sit here and highlight only those areas for the benefit of promoting a product is fruitless and a disservice to those searching for real answers.
I mean c'mon....We know that ML doesn't have 24/7 phone support and we know that you can hibernate a laptop when CQC is installed correctly. We know that ML has working Insteon driver and that CQC's is in its infancy. We know that you have to buy most additional drivers and some pluggins for ML and pay upgrade costs for new versions. And we know that CQC charges $95 a year to cover all their upgrades.
I can dog MainLobby all day long and could do the same for CQC, choosing to focus on the shortcomings only, skewing the facts to support my argument, glossing over the frailities of both. And for what purpose? At this point, it doesn't help anyone here to make a decision on which product to purchase. The proof is in the pudding. I suggest that anyone contemplating either product, go to the respective sites/forums, download and use the product during trial, participate in discussions and then and only then will you know which product suits you.
And, in the interest of fairness, don't populate this thread with, "why doesn't product A do this or that"? Spend some time on the products forum to determine A) if it really doesn't and B) if there is a legitimate reason it doesn't. Anyone who has used ML and tries CQC or vice versa are of course going to find differences. So spend a month and then write a dissertation as to why you like one product over another. But to prematurely spout off about shortcomings (many of which are proven wrong on both sides) is pointless.