Mac OSX automation

[paddy2042]

I am new and I don't even know if this is the correct forum. I have purchased a W Home home automatio0n kit and am trying to use it with a Macintosh under OSX10.4 and Xtension which is the software. It has a USB connection. I cannot get it to work and the helpline has been no help. I canoot get the preferences to recognise the USB port even though I have downloaded a couple of USB to Serial drivers. Is anyone able to help as this is driving me nuts.
I would appreciate any help

paddy2042

[Richo]

I don't know if anyone here has tried using C-Bus with the Mac XTension software. Certainly no one in CIS has tried. What are you using the connection your Mac to C-Bus? PCI?

A quick google suggests that XTension can talk to C-Bus, but I found no specific info on how.

[McGoo]

Hi Guys,

I use a mac for C-Bus but I use it thru Parallels, which uses windows. Never a drama and always finds the comms port.

Not sure if it is what you are after as I am only new to C-Bus.

[RossW]

I don't know if anyone here has tried using C-Bus with the Mac XTension software. Certainly no one in CIS has tried. What are you using the connection your Mac to C-Bus? PCI?


I notice this is a very old thread with very little said in it. I suspect there has been little progress on the "anything other than windoze" front, but hey, I live in hope.

I have some cbus installations, the PCI plugs into an 8-port ethernet terminal server and lets me access just fine via ethernet, as you'd expect, even remotely.

I don't have parallels, or windoze, just OS/X 10.4 - is there any practical way I can use the mac to program, maintain and monitor my installation(s)?

It just doesn't seem like it should be that hard.... yet I've not seen anything anywhere that even gives me hope?

[NickD]

If you have an Intel based Mac, you can run VMWare Fusion, which will let you run a Windows (or any other) virtual machine (VM) on the Mac. Fusion itself cost about $80 from memory, plus you need a version of Windows to install in the VM.

I use Fusion with an XP VM on a Macbook... it works fine with a USB PCI talking to Toolkit, or using PICED to program a Mk2 B&W CTouch (a PAC uses the same USB driver/IC so should also be fine, but I haven't tried).

Nick

[znelbok]

It just doesn't seem like it should be that hard.... yet I've not seen anything anywhere that even gives me hope?

On the contrary, I would think that it is hard. Compiling it for a different OS, supporting it for any OS specific issues that arise etc.

You have to remember that toolkit is free to the user (actually paid for by the hardware which is a unique situation really). The economics involved in supporting a version to run elsewhere would be prohibitive - especially since toolkit/homegate etc install base is relatively small.

Don't get me wrong, this is not anything against any particular OS, but if you were going to write something, you would write it [first] for the OS that has the largest penetration in the market.

I am sure that if the MAC OS became the largest used OS that there would be a trend for a lot of software to migrate over to the bigger platform.

If you want to monitor the system with your MAC, then you will probably need to commission someone to create something for you. The protocol has now been release to everyone and there is nothing stopping you creating a MAC version of something like homegate and using that.

Mick

[genesis]

Rumor has it that a software package called "miser" (Not a great choice of names, me thinks!) and a bunch of new hardware is soon to be released. I have no further details, except the source said 'it would be very hard to find information on this on the web. the search continues.....

edit.. actually i think it was supposed to be the "wiser" not miser (Whew!)

[RossW]

On the contrary, I would think that it is hard. Compiling it for a different OS, supporting it for any OS specific issues that arise etc.

Ahh, but thats one of the major claims by Java: develop once, deploy on any platform.

Reality is: there's Java, and Java, and Java, and Java... and just because it runs in one JRE doesn't mean it behaves similarly or the same in another. And Java sucks my will to live.


You have to remember that toolkit is free to the user (actually paid for by the hardware which is a unique situation really).


Yes, and I handed over my $50,000 odd for the cbus stuff for my house alone.



The economics involved in supporting a version to run elsewhere would be prohibitive - especially since toolkit/homegate etc install base is relatively small.


See above about "platform-independant development"



Don't get me wrong, this is not anything against any particular OS, but if you were going to write something, you would write it [first] for the OS that has the largest penetration in the market.


I write stuff all the time. It's my job. But I don't write for doze, I write for the platform that best suits the application. In my case, Unix.



I am sure that if the MAC OS became the largest used OS that there would be a trend for a lot of software to migrate over to the bigger platform.


I hated the mac. But I realised that my problem was that it was just too "different" to what I was used to. In virtually every respect, the mac is far superior to the peecee equivalent. But just like Beta vs VHS, it didn't win the marketing war. (It DOES however, dominate in the pro graphics arena)



If you want to monitor the system with your MAC, then you will probably need to commission someone to create something for you. The protocol has now been release to everyone and there is nothing stopping you creating a MAC version of something like homegate and using that.


Yeah, I started down that path, but kept getting dragged off on other work. I'd just hoped that somone had become sufficiently frustrated with it to do it.

I DID find, a couple of years ago, detail of someone who got it running on Mac, but they had to jump through hoops to get a compatible JRE running. I can't find the article now though. :(

[RossW]

If you have an Intel based Mac, you can run VMWare Fusion, which will let you run a Windows (or any other) virtual machine (VM) on the Mac. Fusion itself cost about $80 from memory, plus you need a version of Windows to install in the VM.


I don't have an intel-mac. I'm still using the older PPC based boxes. This is mostly because I really appreciate getting 6+ hours runtime out of the batteries (none of the new ones seem to), and it draws so little power.

I live off-grid (not entirely by choice) but have to have several machines running 24/7. The difference even just 3 computers makes is quite a surprise. 100 watts * 24 hours = 2.4 KWH/day *MORE* for the other machines, which is 20% of my total daily power. When you have to make (and store) every watt, it *IS* an issue, even if you can't beleive it :)

[wappinghigh]

Paddy:

I've pasted this from a previous thread that was closed down after I was criticised for speaking out on the lack of Mac c-bus support.

It concerns controlling c-bus through the new web based WISER. I assume this was from a CIS representative, though I can't confirm this. I quote:

"A MAC native projector is available should it be required however, the web-app works fine on a Mac as it is."

So why doesn't CIS just release the MAC native projector???:)

I'd sure love CIS to inform a bit more about when such a MAC projector might become available....;)

In the meantime, I'm going to run a dedicated older G5 on my network: permanently logged in via the web interface.

[NickD]

It concerns controlling c-bus through the new web based WISER. I assume this was from a CIS representative, though I can't confirm this. I quote:

"A MAC native projector is available should it be required however, the web-app works fine on a Mac as it is."

So why doesn't CIS just release the MAC native projector???

I'd sure love CIS to inform a bit more about when such a MAC projector might become available....

My *guess* as to why it may not have been released is that there is no perceived need in the market to justify the testing effort required..

Wiser works fine on the browsers I'm using (Safari/Firefox on 10.3.9 and Safari on 10.5.x)... but perhaps I'm missing something... can you elaborate on why you need it?

Cheers,

Nick

[ashleigh]

Mr Wapping:

The Wiser works by doing all the display using Flash (as in Macromedia Flash - or whoever owns them this week). If you have a normal PC, or MAC, running ANY operating system at all that supports Flash - then you can use and control the wiser - and the user interface will be the same.

In other words - its Operating System independent.

There are some devices where the overhead of running Flash though the web browser is difficult or impossible (some small mobile devices, for example). For these devices, a stand-alone "projector" is required. This is just a flash player with a little bit of other magic woven in. These projectors are, unfortunately, not Operating System independent.

So the point about control by MAC is that you can use the web interface, or if it were released, a stand-alone projector (for MAC). However, the user experience through them both would be identical.

WRT to you previous compaints about MS Media Centre. This is a separate application, it allows the wiser to be controlled from MS Media Centre. Again, the user experience is the same, its just integrated in. You don't HAVE to use this application.

I hope this helps.

[wappinghigh]

Thankyou. Asleigh and NickD. I really appreciate the efforts in explanation.

So what you are saying is you still need to use a web interface to use wiser. Sure, this isn't OS dependent, but with all due respect this is not the same "user experience" as a dedicated program or application that runs under OSX. It is not as user friendly and can't be easily incorporated into applescripts, or launched automatically, for example.

I know the differences. I know and use several such examples of both web based linux based devices (various NAS devices, a video camera server, even my older router...so I know how this interface operates.)...as apposed to a dedicated OSX interface such as the Sonos desktop controller and XBMC, for example.

Will people stop with the "no need in the market" stuff about integration with Apple products. How well does CIS really understand what is going on in the home computer market?? When is CIS going to understand Apple has an ever increasing presence in the home computer as apposed to business market place. I'll ask a simple and obvious question here. Aren't CIS looking more closely at HOME as apposed to BUSINESS automation? If customers like me want this sort of integration, why argue. Why not just do it? Behind early adopters like me there are myriads of others waiting to take the plunge...

I'm still getting a Wiser though and integrating it onto my network. And I'll wait for a proper stand alone "projector" for OSX to be released (and one for the iphone for that matter)...

Thanks again for the explanation, but I hope you get were I'm coming from...;)

[NickD]

I get where you're coming from, but I still don't think you've fully grasped the concept of the Wiser (no offense intended)... This is understandable as you probably haven't had the opportunity to play with one or see a real life demonstration.

In case you haven't seen it, there is an interactive demo... I couldn't find it on the Clipsal website but I found a link here (http://www.cleverhome.com.au/products/Clipsal-C-Bus-Wiser-Home-Controller.shtml).

The projector on the mac will look pretty much exactly the same as what you get in the web browser.... this is one of the aims of the Wiser - to give a consistent user interface on all devices. The user interface you see on the touchscreen in the demo is what you would get in your web browser or via the projector... there is a (limited) chose of colour schemes.

Will people stop with the "no need in the market" stuff about integration with Apple products.

My comment about possibly being no need in the market was not saying that there was no need for mac support, but that there was no need for a mac projector in order for the product to work on the mac, because the support is already there via the browser.

Nick

[Will]

I rarely wade into these conversations, though this time I thought that I would like to add the weight of one more voice.

I also have noticed a huge increase in the number of Apple products in the home and would also like to see more support in all areas of CBUS. Since the introduction of the Intel Chipset in Mac's, I have completely changed my entire office and rid myself of the slow and frustrating PC. Productivity is up and I can't remember the last time I heard the words "Oh come ON" growled around the office.

The biggest realisation from my own Apple experience is that the products all appear to interact seemlessly and via IP.

I've noticed that many luxury car manufacturers are now fully supporting the iTunes iPod style interface for control of the iPod library from a vehicle touch screen. I feel that this would be the one thing that I would like to see most on a CTouch.

[tunkselectrical_ryan]

I rarely wade into these conversations, though this time I thought that I would like to add the weight of one more voice.

I also have noticed a huge increase in the number of Apple products in the home and would also like to see more support in all areas of CBUS. Since the introduction of the Intel Chipset in Mac's, I have completely changed my entire office and rid myself of the slow and frustrating PC. Productivity is up and I can't remember the last time I heard the words "Oh come ON" growled around the office.

The biggest realisation from my own Apple experience is that the products all appear to interact seemlessly and via IP.

I've noticed that many luxury car manufacturers are now fully supporting the iTunes iPod style interface for control of the iPod library from a vehicle touch screen. I feel that this would be the one thing that I would like to see most on a CTouch.

I have a 15" Macbook pro with Vista on a bootcamp partition. It is amazing the difference in speed when using windows as compared to OSX on exactly the same machine. OSX boots in about 1/3rd the time of vista. I for one would love to see a native homegate for mac.

[tonypeter]

I have a 15" Macbook pro with Vista on a bootcamp partition. It is amazing the difference in speed when using windows as compared to OSX on exactly the same machine. OSX boots in about 1/3rd the time of vista. I for one would love to see a native homegate for mac.

Yes it is true the amount of iMacs are being used in the home and business environment because they are a stable system compared to many PC's we use them in our office.

As far as a Mac version goes our iPhone/iTouch C-Bus app is written in Mac code and as many of you know connecting to C-Bus without an issue so if there was enough interest then we could do a Mac version

Tony

[ashleigh]

ha ha - its interesting that this kind of subject comes up over and over again.

I'll give you the one biggest reason that a mac can be faster (on boot... most of the faster on operation stuff is perception not reality... instructions run at the same speed once the app is going)...

It is...

Apple control the hardware. It might be an intel processor, but there is no need for handled roughly 6.5 million different ethernet cards, printers, graphics adaptors, etc etc. when you control the h/w architecture and peripherals, your O/S only needs to support your own limited subset. Lifes easy :)

All that over and done with tho... what s/w is supported on what platform is a matter of market demand. I guess you makes the demands and we see who listens :)

[Darpa]

Apple control the hardware. It might be an intel processor, but there is no need for handled roughly 6.5 million different ethernet cards, printers, graphics adaptors, etc etc. when you control the h/w architecture and peripherals, your O/S only needs to support your own limited subset.

Totally agree with Ashleigh here regarding the perceived speed of the OS.
While Apple products have their places, there are still alot of areas where they are not suitable.

Also, you're locked into Apple's expensive and proprietary hardware if you want to run OSX, unless of course you're willing to break their EULA and install it on third party hardware, and provide your own support.

[Darren]

The topic of support for the Mac has come up several times on the forum, and is raised at every Point One conference.

I don't want to start a raging debate, but there are a few points which really need to be made so that everyone understands the problem:
1. CIS understands that some people want support for the Mac. Please do not assume that CIS does not know or care. We love our Mac users as much as anyone else ;)
2. Mac users are currently a small minority of the users for C-Bus software. We understand that they are a growing minority, but they still constitute a relatively small number.
3. There are existing solutions (virtual machines, for example) which enable Mac users to commission a C-Bus system. We understand that this is not as nice as having a native Mac application, not nonetheless, it is a solution for many users.
4. The Mac may have a lot of technical benefits - we are not debating that; it is just completely irrelevant to the discussion. If the Mac had won the "war" and become the predominant desktop computer, then you can be sure that all CIS products would have been written for the Mac instead.
5. CIS did some concept software for platform independence many years ago using Java. The application user interface was painfully slow, and would not have been deemed acceptable. There were many other problems with this approach, apart from speed. C-Gate, not having a user interface, was found to be well suited to Java.
6. Now that we have a large suite of software built for the PC platform, it would be an enormous commitment to change. The CIS PC software products (not including C-Gate) together have nearly 3 million lines of code. To rewrite these for another platform (or for platform independence) would require many tens of man-years of work. This has many implications:

CIS only has a finite number of developers. Every CIS product in development would be delayed for a long time (years, or more) to accommodate such an update. I suspect that this would make most CIS customers very unhappy indeed.
To re-do all of the software in a reasonable time (say a couple of years), would require the development team and the test team to be three or four times as large. It would be a huge problem to recruit, train, accommodate and manage all of these people. Then there would be the problem of being overstaffed at the end of the development.
This update would be bound to introduce thousands of new bugs and incompatibilities.
Unless a truly platform independent development was done, we would end up with unhappy customers who still couldn't use our software (on Linux for example).
If we had two versions of all of our software (PC and Mac), then we would have twice the work to update, maintain, test, document and support the software, along with the brand-new problem of incompatibilities between the two software builds.
Every new product development needs to have a business case to justify the work involved. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of being able to justify spending tens of millions of dollars and causing major disruption to the development of other products in order to make life easier for a minority of our customers. If we tried to proceed with something like that, our shareholders would probably (rightly) demand that we all be fired.


I apologise if any of the above sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our situation :(

We honestly would love to have all of our customers (Mac and Linux users included) being 100% satisfied, but it just isn't going to be possible. We haven't just given up, and we certainly aren't ignoring our Mac and Linux users. We just need to be as efficient and clever as possible and work together to get the best overall solution which is practical for everyone.

[Darpa]

Well said Darren.
And thank you for clarifying several points in this recent debate.

Something that just occured to me, and it might sound stupid to many, but just curious of whether it would be of interest to anyone who does not use the Windows OS.

If someone were to build custom embedded PCs, about the size of 2 VHS tapes, that ran a very slimmed down version of windows, used minimal power, but were capable of running all relevant CIS software for C-Bus related programming and operation (Ie; Toolkit, PICED), and could be accessed over a network from any Linux or OSX computer, (using VNC for example), all while being hidden away in a cupboard with a CNI or PCI, or even just sitting next to people's ethernet network hardware.

Would that be a helpful solution to people's problems with CIS software being Windows dependant?

[wappinghigh]

Well said Darren.
And thank you for clarifying several points in this recent debate.

Something that just occured to me, and it might sound stupid to many, but just curious of whether it would be of interest to anyone who does not use the Windows OS.

If someone were to build custom embedded PCs, about the size of 2 VHS tapes, that ran a very slimmed down version of windows, used minimal power, but were capable of running all relevant CIS software for C-Bus related programming and operation (Ie; Toolkit, PICED), and could be accessed over a network from any Linux or OSX computer, (using VNC for example), all while being hidden away in a cupboard with a CNI or PCI, or even just sitting next to people's ethernet network hardware.

Would that be a helpful solution to people's problems with CIS software being Windows dependant?

You bet ya....this would be great! :)

[wappinghigh]

The topic of support for the Mac has come up several times on the forum, and is raised at every Point One conference.

I don't want to start a raging debate, but there are a few points which really need to be made so that everyone understands the problem:
1. CIS understands that some people want support for the Mac. Please do not assume that CIS does not know or care. We love our Mac users as much as anyone else ;)
2. Mac users are currently a small minority of the users for C-Bus software. We understand that they are a growing minority, but they still constitute a relatively small number.
3. There are existing solutions (virtual machines, for example) which enable Mac users to commission a C-Bus system. We understand that this is not as nice as having a native Mac application, not nonetheless, it is a solution for many users.
4. The Mac may have a lot of technical benefits - we are not debating that; it is just completely irrelevant to the discussion. If the Mac had won the "war" and become the predominant desktop computer, then you can be sure that all CIS products would have been written for the Mac instead.
5. CIS did some concept software for platform independence many years ago using Java. The application user interface was painfully slow, and would not have been deemed acceptable. There were many other problems with this approach, apart from speed. C-Gate, not having a user interface, was found to be well suited to Java.
6. Now that we have a large suite of software built for the PC platform, it would be an enormous commitment to change. The CIS PC software products (not including C-Gate) together have nearly 3 million lines of code. To rewrite these for another platform (or for platform independence) would require many tens of man-years of work. This has many implications:

CIS only has a finite number of developers. Every CIS product in development would be delayed for a long time (years, or more) to accommodate such an update. I suspect that this would make most CIS customers very unhappy indeed.
To re-do all of the software in a reasonable time (say a couple of years), would require the development team and the test team to be three or four times as large. It would be a huge problem to recruit, train, accommodate and manage all of these people. Then there would be the problem of being overstaffed at the end of the development.
This update would be bound to introduce thousands of new bugs and incompatibilities.
Unless a truly platform independent development was done, we would end up with unhappy customers who still couldn't use our software (on Linux for example).
If we had two versions of all of our software (PC and Mac), then we would have twice the work to update, maintain, test, document and support the software, along with the brand-new problem of incompatibilities between the two software builds.
Every new product development needs to have a business case to justify the work involved. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of being able to justify spending tens of millions of dollars and causing major disruption to the development of other products in order to make life easier for a minority of our customers. If we tried to proceed with something like that, our shareholders would probably (rightly) demand that we all be fired.


I apologise if any of the above sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our situation :(

We honestly would love to have all of our customers (Mac and Linux users included) being 100% satisfied, but it just isn't going to be possible. We haven't just given up, and we certainly aren't ignoring our Mac and Linux users. We just need to be as efficient and clever as possible and work together to get the best overall solution which is practical for everyone.

Yeh Yeh understood...:D

If it wasn't such an issue, why is it raised at every point one conference?
....still using windows xp?? :rolleyes:

..Who can really be bothered with ALL the networking/update problems/viruses/ old xp interfaces/hastles of running PC's in the home..I've got other things to do, like enjoying and tweeking cbus :):):):)

So ANY way of helping Apple uses would be useful. Adding more access to cbus/toolkit/PICED via a web/http interface (like you've done for WISER), would be the obvious move....

As a matter of interest have you seen what a mac interfaced platform is REALLY capable of...? see www.savantav.com

....Now tell me why it's not worth at least some initial "planning ahead" for SOME sort of better integration with OSX....
....And with everything moving online to things like "cloud" OS's, google, mobile me, exchange etc, think 10-20 years out...will Windows still even be around???
....I mean why isn't it within the realms of possibility in the not too distant future, that everyones cbus file is actually stored by a secure backup server at CIS, kept in sync realtime with some sort of device like Darpa mentioned, and accessed and edited from "the cloud"......

[Darren]

If it wasn't such an issue, why is it raised at every point one conference?
....still using windows xp?? :rolleyes:
I didn't say it wasn't a significant issue. For some people (Mac users), it is an issue. For the vast majority of users, it is not an issue at all.

It turns out that Mac users are very passionate, and tend to express their opinion whenever they have an opportunity. It is good to be passionate, we just ask that people understand that what it important for them is irrelevant to others.

..Who can really be bothered with ALL the networking/update problems/viruses/ old xp interfaces/hastles of running PC's in the home..I've got other things to do, like enjoying and tweeking cbus :):):):)
I agree to an extent, but this is missing the point. We are not arguing that PCs are a better platform. We are saying that the majority of our users have PCs and want our products to run on PCs. As I explained above, we don't have enough people or time or do everything, so we try to make the most people happy that we can with the time and resources we have. This applies to product development in general. We try to develop products that are most needed, and give the most "bang for the buck".

So ANY way of helping Apple uses would be useful.
Agreed. It just comes down to priorities. Putting a huge amount of effort into helping Apple users at the expense of all of our others users is not really good business sense.

The best short term solution is to provide guidance for how to get our software running on a Mac using a virtual machine (or similar solutions). There are a few posts already about how this can be done. Maybe we could generate some documentation on various alternatives for Mac and Linux users. Would that be of use?

Adding more access to cbus/toolkit/PICED via a web/http interface (like you've done for WISER), would be the obvious move....
Here I have to disagree. Providing end user access to control via a web interface is very useful, and the Wiser product does this very well.

Providing installer tools via a web platform would provide no benefit to the end user at all. It might make things easier for some installers, but web based tools would have a lot of other problems. The main problem is that we would never be able to justify the amount of work required (see previous post). It would require a complete re-development. You would not just be able to tack a web front-end onto existing tools.

As a matter of interest have you seen what a mac interfaced platform is REALLY capable of...? see www.savantav.com
Very nice, but nothing that could not be done with Windows, Linux or one of the embedded operating systems.

....Now tell me why it's not worth at least some initial "planning ahead" for SOME sort of better integration with OSX....
We aren't ignoring this issue entirely. We do have discussions from time to time about what can be done now and in the future. The problem is that "some" support is not necessarily better than none at all. If you have one application (say ToolKit) which runs on a Mac, you still need some way of running the other applications (PICED, MARPA, CIRCA, TICCA etc). So, to a large extent, it is really all or nothing.

....And with everything moving online to things like google, mobile me, exchange etc, think 10-20 years out...will Windows still even be around???
Impossible to say. It seems very likely that there will be a gradual transformation of Windows into something else we would not even recognise today.

The problem is which of these myriad bandwagons do you jump on? There is a never ending stream of new technologies, each promising to solve all of your problems. In 2003, we looked very closely at OSGI (http://www.osgi.org/Main/HomePage). It is a platform independent technology (Java) and has a plug-in architecture. It is quite a neat bit of technology. It was going to take the world by storm and allow every product/system to interface to every other one. Clearly it hasn't achieved this yet. Maybe it will one day, but if we had bet the farm on OSGI then (2003), by now (2009) we would be in all sorts of trouble.

[wappinghigh]

1/ Re "virtual windows machine"...yep more information would be very useful. :)

2/ Re web access/platform for installers into Toolkit and PICED within say PACU..I think this would be VERY useful! My Installer is logging on now any changing my WISER offsite all the time, this is saving me heaps of time and money. But as you know not all of cbus can be tweeked this way. :confused:

3/ Alot of mac users like myself have moved on from Windows because they are "over" spending time on all the hastles of the operating system and want to spend time on the applications themselves. Perhaps you could develop a "simple" interface that runs on all platforms/or a browser, for end users to tweek basic stuff and for simple firmware updates and leave the complicated Windows stuff of toolkit etc to the installer to tweek via the net. Control 4 uses a similar approach with their "Home Edition" of Navigator. I really hate spending time (again!!) with all the hastles of serial or USB connection into Windows..."failed again..." or mucking around with what is now a very old xp interface...

I'll give you a good example. I've just installed new cbus thermostats, and getting them "set" right for our house is quite an ordeal, because it involves detailed changes in toolkit. It's plain silly, that my installer has to come out everytime, bring his xp laptop, sit on a little chair cramped under the stairs to do this sort of fine tuning. Same for group address changes, power saving, lighting changes or small changes to logic...eg say moving the time forward when the "lights" turn on at a set time in the morning. Whatever the changes may be, it would be easier for basic logic and other simple stuff to be either made "tweekable" using another interface, or accessible via the installer offsite. Nobody said we want access to ALL the runnings of cbus. It's too complicated. But simple access to changes that might matter for everyday living would be really useful..

4/Darpa's idea of a "dedicated" embedded Windows machine running in the background, permanently and exclusively connected to cbus is a great idea. Removes all the cbus-windows interfacing problems and if this was networked with a secure WAN port to the outside world, could provide simple access for point ones/installers. It could even have a simple program running backup of important files at regular intervals...that way leave all the complex toolkit stuff to the installers and let us get on with the fun stuff of using cbus...:D

Anyway...thanks for listening!!

[sasha]

2/ Re web access/platform for installers into Toolkit and PICED within say PACU..I think this would be VERY useful! My Installer is logging on now any changing my WISER offsite all the time, this is saving me heaps of time and money. But as you know not all of cbus can be tweeked this way. :confused:
You can apparently use C-Bus tool kit to connect to a remote network using a CNI or wiser. Doesn't this already do what you want?

You can also get piced to transfer projects to a colour c-touch through wiser. You should be able to transfer projects to a c-touch or paca through wiser and C-Bus. It might be slow, but it is better than a long drive to a distant site :)

I have heard of people using remote desktop or VNC to remotely program a site too.

It seems to me that web browser applications are not going to add a lot of value. There are more important things to do. Like a ceiling fan control :)

[NickD]

Hi wappinghigh.

I know where you're coming from.. I'm one of the engineers here at CIS, and I'm also a mac convert... I bought my fourth one last week... the first one is still running and has been 24/7 for nearly 6 years.

That said... I'm also realistic... most of the software we write here is for the purposes of commissioning C-Bus. It's a tool. Part of the job of installing C-Bus requires you to have the right tools to do the job, and for better or for worse, one of those tools is a Windows computer. I use a lot of other tools in my job on a daily basis... CAD for drawing schematics and PCBs, simulation tools for circuit design.... I don't expect them to be available on a mac, because I can understand from the software company's point of view there would be little value for them in providing it.

The other point is, that the majority of our end users are not interested in playing with the programming... most of them would either be too busy, or not technically minded enough. You are clearly one of the exceptions.. which is why you're hanging out here :) You may disagree with me (and our product management) on this... that's OK, but we'll have to agree to disagree, because for all the reasons darren outlined, it's just not going to change.

Now... onto something useful... there are various ways to commission C-Bus stuff from a mac platform..

1) Use Boot Camp. If you have an Intel mac, you can dual boot it and install Windows. Then you just run Toolkit/PICED etc in windows on your mac hardware. Not ideal, as you have to reboot, but the cheapest solution as you only have to pay for a Windows license.

2) Use VMWare Fusion (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/). This lets you run a Windows virtual machine inside OS X. You really want a dual core Intel machine, with a couple of gig of RAM to do this, but these days that's most machines. We actually do most of our development here inside virtual machines, and they run well. This is what I use at home for my managing my own C-Bus installation. This is the next most expensive option, as you have to buy VMWare (<$A$100 if you buy it online.. a bit more in the store from memory), as well as a Windows license. You don't need to reboot in to Windows.. you can swap back into OS X at any time.. but you do have to start up the VM when you want to do something.

3) Run a dedicated Windows machine, and use Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop for mac is a free download, and lets you remotely access a Windows machine. This is something along the lines of Darpa's suggestion... run a dedicated Windows machine on your network, and access it remotely for commissioning your C-Bus gear. Since you're a big fan of the mac hardware... you could get yourself a mac mini (you can pick these up for about US$300-400 on ebay in the US), or you can get an as-good-as-new one with a full warranty on the "Refurbished Mac" page in the Apple Store, usually for about 15% off retail. Install Windows under boot camp (note that with Vista and W7... only the Ultimate and Business versions allow remote desktop connections.. whereas all versions of XP allow them). Obviously this is the most expensive option, but it's probably the quickest when you actually want to do something.

Also...

2/ Re web access/platform for installers into Toolkit and PICED within say PACU..I think this would be VERY useful! My Installer is logging on now any changing my WISER offsite all the time, this is saving me heaps of time and money. But as you know not all of cbus can be tweeked this way.

and

I'll give you a good example. I've just installed new cbus thermostats, and getting them "set" right for our house is quite an ordeal, because it involves detailed changes in toolkit. It's plain silly, that my installer has to come out everytime, bring his xp laptop, sit on a little chair cramped under the stairs to do this sort of fine tuning.

Did you know he can use Toolkit to connect to your C-Bus network remotely through the Wiser as well?

HTH.. If you want any assistance with any of the options above... feel free to ask and I'll do what I can.

Nick

[Matty]

In response to the post from Will a couple of days ago,

I've noticed that many luxury car manufacturers are now fully supporting the iTunes iPod style interface for control of the iPod library from a vehicle touch screen. I feel that this would be the one thing that I would like to see most on a CTouch.

The Colour C-Touch has a feature very similar to this. Here's how to use it:

1. First get one of these http://www.iportmusic.com/products/in-wall with RS-232
2. Create a Colour C-Touch project
3. Select 'Start iPod server when program starts' from the 'options 2' tab in the 'project details wizard'.
4. Place a button in the project somewhere that has a special function set to 'media player control'.

[Darren]

I have added a new item to our system (#17641) to add support for all of our software for the following operating systems. I can't promise when these will all be complete.

2K
64 Studio
86-DOS
A/UX
Absolute Linux
AbulÉdu
Acados
ACP (Airline Control Program)
Adamantix
AdaOS
ADIOS
Adler Linux
Admelix
ADMIRAL
Admiral Linux
Adrenaline
aerolitheOS
AGNULA
Aimos
AIOS
AIX
AIX/370
AIX/ESA
Alinex
aLinux
AliXe
Allegro
AllianceOS
ALT Linux
Alto OS
amaroK Live
Amber
Amiga OS
Amoeba
Amstrad
AMX RTOS
Android
AngelOS
Annvix
AnNyung
Anonym.OS
Antarctica
ANTEMIUM
AOS/VS
Aperios
APODIO
Apollo Domain/OS
ApolloOS
Apostle
Arabian
Arch Linux
ArcheOS
Archie
Ark Linux
Armed Linux
AROS
ARTOS
Arudius
Asbestos
AsianLinux
Asianux
ASP Linux
Astaro
Athena
Athene
AtheOS
ATmission
Atomix
AtomsNet
Aurora
AuroraOS
Aurox
AUSTRUMI
B2D
BackTrack
BAL
Banyan VINES
Basic Executive System
Bayanihan
BearOps Linux
BeatrIX Linux
Beehive Linux
BeIA
BeleniX
BeOS
Beowulf
Berry
BestLinux
B-Free
BIG LINUX
BinToo
BioBrew
Bioknoppix
BKY
Black Cat Linux
blackPanther
BLAG
Blin
Blue Cat Linux
BlueEyedOS
BlueLinux
Bluewall
Bonzai Linux
BOS
BOS1810
BoxOS
bpmk
BPMK
BRiX
BS2000
BS600
BSDi
BU Linux
Buffalo
BugOS
Burapha
C Executive
Caixa Mágica
Caldera Linux
Calmira
cAos
Càtix
CCP (Computer Control Program)
CCux
CDlinux
CDOS
Cefarix
Censornet
CentOS
Chaos
Chimera
Chippewa OS
Choices
Chorus
Cinder OS
Cisco IOS
ClarkConnect
Clicker32
cLIeNUX
Clusterix
clusterKNOPPIX
CMW+ (SCO)
CobaltOS
COBRA
Co-Create
Coherent
College
Condorux
Conectiva Linux
CONSENSYS
ConvexOS
Corel Linux
Cos
Cosy
Counterpoise
Coyote
CP/CMS
CP/K
CP/M
CP/NET
CPF (Control Program Facility)
Craftworks Linux
Cromix
Cronus
CRUX
CTOS
CTSS
CX/SX
Cyber (CDC)
Cygnus
Damn Small
Danix
DARKSTAR
Darwin
Data General
DC/OSx
DCP
Debian GNU/Linux
Deep-Water
Degenerate OS
DeLi
Delitalk
Delix Linux
Deming OS
DEMOS
DesktopBSD
DESKWORK
Devil
DG/UX
DIGITAL UNIX
dingOS
Dizinha
DK/DOS
DLD
DLD
DNALinux
DNIX
Domain OS
DOS
DOS 50
DOS2
Dosket
Dragon Linux
DR-DOS
Dreamlinux
dr'ex
Drops
Drywell OS
DS-OS
DTOS
DVIX
dyne:bolic
DYNIX Unix (Sequent)
Dzongkha
E/OS LX Desktop
Eadem
Eagle
eAR OS
easyLinux
easys
ECL-3211
eComStation
eCos
Edubuntu
eduKnoppix
EduLinux
EduOS
EGOS
Ehad
Eisfair
ekkoBSD
Elate
eLearnix
ELF
Elfstone Linux
Elive
ELKS
ELP
ELX
Elysium
Embedix
Endian
EnGarde
EOS
EP/IX
EPOC
ERaMS
ERIKA
EROS
ERPOSS
ESER
ESIX
ESware
Eumel
EuNIX
Euronode
EvilEntity Linux
Evinux
Exopc
ExOS
Express
EzPlanet One
FAMELIX
Famos
FDOS
Feather
Featherweight
Fedora
Fermi
Fiasco
Finnix
Flamethrower
Flash
FlashOS
FlexOS
FlightLinux
Flonix
FLP-80 DOS
Flux
Flux-Fluke-Flask
FMS
Foresight
FoRK
Forth
FoX Desktop
FreeBSD
FreeDOS
FreeDOWS
Freedows
Freeduc
FreeNAS
FreeSBIE
Freespire
FreeVMS
Frenzy
Frugalware
FTOSX
FullPliant
FunatixOS
FxOS
GazOS
GCOS
GECOS
GeekOS
GeeXboX
Gelecek
GEM
Gemini Nucleus
Genera
GenieOS
Gentoo
Gentoox
GEOLivre
GEORGE
GEOS
Gibraltar
Ging
GM OS
GNIX
Gnoppix
GNU Hurd
GNUbie Linux
gnuLinEx
GNUstep
GNUstep
Go
Goah
GoblinX
GoboLinux
Google Chrome OS
gOS (Google OS)
Gould OS
GParted
Grafpup
Grasshopper
grml
Guadalinex
GUIDE
GuLIC-BSD
Haansoft
Hactar
Haïku
Hakin9
HAL-9000
Halloween Linux
HA-MSP
Hancom
Harmony
Hedinux
Helios
Helix
Heretix
HES
Hikarunix
Hive
Hiweed
Holon
HOLON Linux
Honeywall
HOPE
How-Tux
HP-87 OS
HP-UX
HT-11
Hubworx
Hurd
Hurricane
HydrixOS
i5/OS
IBM PC-DOS
iBox
IBSYS
Icaros Desktop
ICE Linux
Icepack Linux
ICL Unix
IDMS
Ignalum
Immunix
Impi
Independence
IndLinux
Inferno
INMOS
INTEGRITY RTOS
IPCop
Iridium OS
IRIX
iRMX
IRTS
ISC (Interactive)
ISIS
ISSL
ITRON
ITS
JAMB
JavaOS
Jbed
JBLinux
JeniOS
Jeo-OS
Jibbed
JoLinux
JOS
JTMOS
Julex
JUNOS
Jurix Linux
JxOS
K12LTSP
Kaella
Kaladix Linux
Kalango
KANOTIX
KAOS
Karamad
Kate OS
Katix
K-DEMar
Kea
Kerberos
KeyKOS
Kinneret
Klax
kmLinux
knopILS
Knoppel
Knopperdisk
Knoppix
Knoppix 64
KnoppiXMAME
KnoppMyth
KnoSciences
Komodo
Kororaa
KOS
KRONOS
KROS
KRUD
KRUD
Kubuntu
Kurumin
Kwort
Kylin
l OS
L.A.S.
L13Plus
L4
LainOS
LAN Manager
LCARS (Library Computer Access and Retrieval System)
LDOS
LegOS
leJOS
LFS
LG3D
LibraNet Linux
LIIS
Linare
LindowsOS
Lineox
LinEspa
LinnexOS
Linpus
Linspire
Linux
Linux Antarctica
Linux by LibraNet
Linux DA OS
Linux distributions (463)
Linux Mint
Linux XP
Linux+ Live
Linux4One
LinuxConsole
Linux-EduCD
LinuxMCE
LINUXO
LinuxOne
LinuxPPC
LinuxTLE
Lisa OS
Litrix
LiveCD Router
LiVux
LLGP
LliureX
LNX-BBC
Loco
Lormalinux
LST Linux
LTSP
LTSS
Luit
Lunar
LuteLinux
Lycoris Desktop/LX
LynxOS
m0n0wall
Mach
Magic
Mandrake
Mandriva
MANOS
MaRTE OS
Maruti
Masix
Maverick OS
MAX
MaxOS
Mayix
MBOS
MCNLive
MCP (Master Control Program)
MDOS
Media Lab
Mediainlinux
MenuetOS
MEPIS
Merlin
Micriµm
MICRODOS
MicroVMS
MikeOS
Minima
Minix
Minux
Miracle
Miranda
Miray µnOS
MirOS
MITE 80/IOS
MK++
MkLinux
ML
Möbius
Moblin
Mockup
ModulOS
MoLinux
Momonga
Monitor
Monoppix
Monte Vista Linux
Morphix
MorphOS
MOS
MOSIX
MoviX
MPE OS
MPE/iX
MRT1700
MSC
MS-DOS
MSOS
MT809
Multics
Mungi
Muriqui
Murix
MURIX
Musix
Mutagenix
MUTOS
muVinix
MVS
Myah OS
myLinux
MythBuntu
NachOS
Nasgaïa
Nature's
Navyn OS
NCR Unix
NEC DOS
NECUX
Nemesis
NeOS
NepaLinux
NetBSD
NetSecL
Netware
Netwosix
NewDeal
NEWDOS
NewOS
NEWS-OS
Newton OS
Nexenta
NexentaOS
NeXTStep
NextworksOS
Nexus
Niigata
Nimbus
Nintendo DS
Nitix
Node OS
NoMad Linux
Nonux
NOS
NOS/BE
NOS/VE
Nova
Nova
Novell DOS
NS/GDOS
NSK
NST
NTDIOS
nUbuntu
Nucleus
NuxOne
Oaesis
Oasis
Oberon
Objex
Ocularis
Odin
Omega 4
Omoikane
On Time RTOS-32
OnCore
O-Net
Opal
OpenBeOS
OpenBSD
OpenDarwin
OpenLab
OpenLinux
OpenLX
OpenNA
OpenRavenscar
OpenServer
OpenVision
OpenVMS
Openwall
OppcOS
Oralux
OS/2
OS/2 Warp
OS/360
OS/390
OS/400
OS/9
OS/ES
OS/M
OS-2
OS-2200
OS4
OS-9
OS-C
osCAN
OSE
OSF/1
Overclockix
OZONE
P BASIC
P!tux
PAIPIX
PAKOS
Palm OS
PAPL
ParallelKnoppix
Paramecium
Pardus
ParixOS
Paros
Parsix
Parsix GNU/Linux
PaulOS
PC/M-System
PC-BSD
PC-DOS
PCLinuxOS
PDOS
PEACE
Peanut Linux
Pebble
Pegasos
PelicanHPC
Penguin Sleuth
Pentoo
Pequelin
PETROS
pfSense
Phaeronix
Phantom OS
Phat Linux
Phos
Pie Box
Pilot
Pingo
Pingwinek
PIOS
PizziOS
Plamo
Plan 9
PLATO
PLD
Plex86
PM_SZ_OS
PocketLinux
PocketPC 2003
Poseidon
Power Desktop
PowerMAX
PowerOS
PowerSX
PowerUX
Pozix Linux
pQui
ProDOS
Progeny
Prologue
Proolix
ProOSEK
PSOS
pSOSystem
PSP
PSU
PTS DOS
PublicOS
PUD
Puppy
PURE
QDOS
QiLinux
QNX
Quadros
Quantian
RadiOS
Raidiator
RBASIC
RCOSjava
RDOS
ReactOS
REAL-32
Realogy Real Time Architekt
REBOL-IOS
Red Flag
Red Hat
Redmond Linux
redWall
ReWin
REX-80/86
REXX/OS
RHODOS
RIP
RISC OS
RMOS
RMS 68k
RMX
Roadrunner
ROCK
Rock Linux
Rocks Cluster
ROME
Rome
ROOT
ROSLIMS
rPath
rPath Linux
RSTS/E
RSX-11
RT Mach NTT
RT-11
RTEL
RTEMS
RTLinux
rtmk
RTMX
RTOS-32
RTOS-UH
RTS-80
RTX
RTXDOS
Rubix
RxDOS
S.Ha.R.K
Sabayon
Sabayon Linux
Salvare
SAM
Samhain Linux
Sanos
Santa Fe
SCI.Linux
Scientific
SCO Linux
SCO OpenServer
SCOPE
ScorchOS
ScottsNewOS
Scout
SCP
SCP (System Control Program)
ScrudgeWare
Securepoint
Self-R
Sentry Firewall
SeOS
Sequent
SEVMS VAX
Shark
SharpOS
ShawnOS
SIBO
SimplyMEPIS
Sinclair
Sinix
SINTRAN III
Skolelinux
SkyNet
SkyOS
Slackintosh
Slackware
Slamd64
SLAMPP
slax
SLAX
Slikware
SLS
SLYNUX
SME Server
SmoothWall
sMultiTA
SNAPPIX
Snøfrix
SOBS
SoL
Solar_OS
Solaris
Solbourne UNIX
Sorcerer
SOS
SOT Linux
Source Mage
SP6800
Spectra Linux
SphinxOS
Spice
Spice/MT
SPIN
Spinix
SPOX
Spring
Squeak
SSP (System Support Program)
Stampede
STARCOS
STAR-OS
Starplex II OS
StartCom
STD
Sting
Stormix
StressLinux
STUX
STX
Subsump
SuliX
SUMO
Sun Linux
Sun Wah
SunMOS
SunOS
SunriseOS
SuperDOS
SuSE
SVM
SVR
Syllable
Symbian OS
SymbOS
Symobi
Symphony OS
Symphony OS
Synapse
System V Release
SystemRescue
T2
Tablix
Tabos
TABOS
TA-Linux
TalOS
TAOS
Taprobane
TechLinux
TENEX
THE
Thinstation
Thix
ThreadX
ThrillOS
TI-99 4A
Tilix
Tinfoil Hat Linux
TinyOS
TIS APL
TNIX
tomsrtbt
Topologilinux
TOPS-10
TOPS-20
Topsy
Tornado
Torsion
TOS
TPF (Transaction Processing Facility)
TriangleOS
Trinity
Tripos
Trixbox
TRON
TRS-DOS
Tru64 UNIX
Trustix
Truva
TSX-32
TUD:OS
TumiX
TUNES
TupiServer
Tuquito
TurboDOS
Turbolinux
Turkix
UberOS
Ubuntu
UbuntuME
uClinux
UCSD-p
UDOS
Ufficio Zero
UHU-Linux
Ultima
Ultrix
UMDS
UMN
Underground
Uni FLEX
UNI/OS
Unicos
UNICOS/lc
Unifix Linux
Unisys U5000
Unix System
UnixWare
Unununium
uOS
USIX
UTS
Ututo
UXP/V
V2 OS
Vapour
Vector
VERSAdos
Vidalinux
VideoLinux
Vine
Visopsys
Visual Network OS
VLOS
VM/ESA
VM/VSE
VME
VMS
VNLinux
Voltalinux
VRTX/8002
VRTX/OS
VSE
VSOS
VSTa
VTOS
VxWorks
Wazobia
WEGA
White Box
Whitix
Wienux
WIENUX
WildMagnolia
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2000
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 7
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows CE
Windows ME
Windows Mobile
Windows NT
Windows Server 2008
Windows Vista
Windows XP
WinLinux 2001
WIZRD
Wolvix
WOMP!
X/OS
Xandros
XAOS
Xarnoppix
Xenix
Xenoppix
X-evian
Xfld
Ximian Desktop
Xinu
x-kernel
xMach
XOS
Xteam
XTS
Xubuntu
Yamit
Yaxic
Yellow Dog
YES
Yggdrasil Linux
Yoctix
Yoper
z/OS
Z9001-OS
ZealOS
Zenwalk
Zeta
Zeus Zilog
zeVenOS
ZMOS
ZoneCD
ZotOS
ZRTS 8000
z-VM

If I have missed any that are important, please let me know ;)

[ashleigh]

I want it running on CICS. You will need to rewrite it in RPG for an IBM-370. 3270-screen support is mandatory, in page mode please. I'll settle for a TSO version running as an add-in to SPF, but it's a poor second choice.

When you have done that one then the RSTS-E version should be next on the list. Everyone has a PDP-11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pdp-11-40.jpg) to run it on, they are common as muck. Actually, I have the later LSI-11, a bit more upmarket, and a lot smaller. Top stuff me!

[Ashley]

Wow, this is sounding better and better, although I would prefer the Vaxstation 3100 as I gave all my LSI-11 boards away when I moved to Adelaide. I am a bit concerned though Ashleigh that you opted for RSTS-E over RSX11-M

[ashleigh]

Wow, this is sounding better and better, although I would prefer the Vaxstation 3100 as I gave all my LSI-11 boards away when I moved to Adelaide. I am a bit concerned though Ashleigh that you opted for RSTS-E over RSX11-M
RSX-11M - its a bit like VAX/VMS's little brother. RSTS (RASTAS!!! Another lemming!!! Hmmm, maybe you had to be there) is a bi more raw. You really cop a better experience. It's like driving one of the old Minis like Mr Bean has. You are so close to the road you REALLY KNOW you are driving :)

Hmm... Perhaps its time for the TRSDOS version as well :)

[wappinghigh]

Hi wappinghigh.

Did you know he can use Toolkit to connect to your C-Bus network remotely through the Wiser as well?

HTH.. If you want any assistance with any of the options above... feel free to ask and I'll do what I can.

Nick

Thanks for all that..(and your understanding!)......just found out that he's been accessing toolkit through the wiser...:)

Some simple initial requests...

1/ A much simpler upgrading path would still be appreciated...

..hit "upgrade firmware " within Wiser. Reboot. All done. Toolkit/PICED/cgate whatever all upgraded at once. no multiple logging in via windows. I'm really over the "com port" issues of Windows...:rolleyes:

2/ Also a simpler backup method...without turning on Windows....so that everything just get's backed up into time machine...the same way some Linux based routers have the one backup file. There are so many files floating around> PICED/cGate/toolkit....I get lost which ones are important....can't everything just be backed up into the one file?..Lets call it something like "My cbus project file.cbus" or something like that....or is this asking too much?...Regards..