New Technology

noCo wrote:

Microsoft/DOS/IBM computers allow you to, and therefore require you to, customize everything.

This is wrong. Most people buy a Windows PC and run it forever just as it came out of the box.

My issue is not with what was in the box, but what the user can do - if necessary, or just desired - to increase the capabilities of the machine.

Before there was an IBM PC, I had a CP/M computer for which a friend and I built a custom card so that I could connect the computer to my type setter. If the computer had not had a free expansion slot, I could not have done that. I have a friend who controls his dynamometer with a PC, using a dedicated card which requires an available expansion slot. His other option was to buy a console from the dyno manufacturer for about $50,000.  One project I worked on required the use of a special, non-standard monitor, which came with a special video card for which I had to write the drivers - once again, a free slot on the motherboard was required.

I'm not sure that Apple has produced a computer with free expansion slots since the Apple II. Maybe the old Macs.

The idea that a user should have to adjust his working style to accommodate the preferences of the computer's developers and sales staff is not one with which I agree, whether it be Apple or Microsoft (who seem to be heading in that direction).

You seem to have the idea that I am anti-Apple and pro-Windows. Neither is true. I want a machine that allows me to do what I want to do. I don't give a shit who makes it or how cute the logo is.

NoGo wrote:

Listen, some guys like English sports cars. They're fun to work on. They never get to DRIVE them but they're fun to work on.

I have had numerous British sports cars. From Sprite to E-Type. I've also had many American cars. There was no significant difference in the amount of maintenance and repairs required. The only people who believe that are those without the proper experience to make the judgement.

Then again, there is an old joke:
"Why do the British drink warm beer?
Because they have Lucas refrigerators."

Look it up.

Grrrr, my new remote has been backordered since mid-December. I just got notified its back ordered again. Wonder if I'll ever get it?

Maybe it's about to be replaced by a new model.

Can't you use your iPad for a TV remote?

Actually, I can -- and do.

But only for changing channels. Not for volume control, switching inputs, playing movies, navigating Pandora.

Your suggestion was probably tongue in cheek, but let me explain why it will never happen. The TV remote operates on infrared. The iPad operates on Bluetooth and wifi. Unless or until someone comes out with an IR adapter it'll never happen.

That's not a bad idea though, come to think of it!

If you can change channels, there is apparently some way for the iPad and TV to communicate. Doesn't your TV have bluetooth or wi-fi?

iPad communicates to Comcast via Internet, Comcast changes my channel.

My TV is internet connected (for inputs) but not for v/c.

Investigating the IR iPad adapters & software.

There are some IR adapters available that plug into the headphone port. There are a few different software apps available -- most of them are rated one star, apparently cause the iPad to crash with great regularity but there is one rated about half one star and half five stars.

Investigating what needs to be done to get to that state of working.

The idea is intriguing -- I usually have my iPad next to me when watching TV or movies, so a remote on it would be cool, if it operates as a full-function remote.

I'd like to be able to cancel the Logitech, which is painfully expensive.

Okay I canceled the remote.

Instead ordered a Logitech Harmony Smart Remote, which comes with a handheld remote, a tabletop mounted IR sender, and an app for iPad/iPhone.  Supposedly will control not only TV/stereo components but also other smart devices like my new NEST thermostat.

Reviews are decidedly mixed.  Lots of people having lots of problems setting it up.  I'm fully expecting it to be pretty frustrating, but I hope it will eventually be successful because there are also a lot of very happy reviews.

Ve szall zee.

I like this unit, specifically, because of the tabletop IR sender.  All of the others have an IR dongle, which plugs into the headphone jack.  The dongle then has IR LEDs on it which must be, naturally, pointed at the TV to send a signal.  That would be fine for an iPhone 4, which had the headphone jack at the top of the phone.

But I have an iPhone 5, where they moved the jack to the bottom of the phone.  It's more convenient for headphones, but exactly backwards for an IR sender.  On my iPad the headphone jack is on the side, or I guess the top if you oriented it sideways -- but I don't.  So the tabletop sender seemed like a better idea.   And possibly more reliable.

I also like the idea that the IR sender doesn't have to plug into the iPad. I carry my iPad around, I use it in different rooms depending on where I am, and therefore having to plug and unplug a dongle all the time seems counter-productive.

There is also available a "mini blaster" IR extender, which plugs into the main IR hub.  It you have equipment inside a cabinet where IR doesn't reach, or around the corner (IR is line of sight) you can set up one (or two) of these $10 IR accessory transmitters to send signal somewhere else.

All my equipment is in one rack, open to the air, so I shouldn't need an extender.  

Make that two racks. I have my stereo rack downstairs. Maybe the iPad can be trained to control that too. Oh wait. I'd need an IR sender downstairs wouldn't I. Nevermind.

The NEST thermostat is across the room, but I can probably point the hub that direction on the rare occasions where I want to change the temp from the couch.

Hmmm, I wonder. I have an old Logitech IR transmitter that came with an early wireless mouse. At least I *think* it's infrared? Must dig it out. I wonder if it could be called into action downstairs?

Chances are slim, huh.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The idea is intriguing -- I usually have my iPad next to me when watching TV or movies, so a remote on it would be cool, if it operates as a full-function remote.

Although my iPad is usually on the side table while watching TV -- to check email occasionally -- or watching a movie -- to google actors, etc. -- I never or very rarely have used the Comcast app which allows me to see a schedule and change channels.  It's just too laborious to fire up the app.  Easier to press the up/down buttons on the remote, or the "last channel" button which allows me to swap between two channels not next to each other.

Occasionally though I'd like to be able to switch between three or more channels.

And if the iPad could be used to mute, raise/lower the volume, control which input is playing, run play/pause on the DVD, and -- specifically mentioned in the Harmony remote website! -- control Apple TV, then I'd probably use the Comcast app a lot more.

One of the reasons I am anticipating some frustration in getting everything set up is that my system is fairly complicated right now. Even though the TV has channel controls and a volume control, I do not use those. The channel actually must stay on "4" so Comcast can control what's coming in. The volume must stay on zero so my external theater sound system can control the volume. When I power off the system, I don't actually turn everything off -- only the TV screen. That kills the picture and the sound (which come through the TV) but I leave everything else on because nothing else draws any current to speak of.

Mrs NoCo would like it if she had a remote that controlled everything, without having to know what is actually connected to what.

I don't understand why there should be any difficulty setting up the remote. All it needs is the IR codes for the devices you will control with it.

"Learning" remotes have been around for at least twenty years, allowing one remote to control multiple devices and even send a sequence of commands. I would hope that a primary improvement in remotes would be ease of setup. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ve szall zee.

This one says it'll learn from other remotes, but I also have a bunch of other devices I want to get on this remote that the other never addressed. The single-purpose remotes (like Apple) may not output the proper codes for identifying its associated device, I don't know.

On the learning remotes I have, you put the learner into learning mode and press the key to which you want to attach a code. Then you point the other remote into the IR end of the learner and hold the key you want to copy. When the remote believes it has it, it flashes an LED. No product ID is used; it just copies the IR signal from the other remote.

Much easier to just download all the codes.

Maybe. Different manufacturers use different codes -- possibly/probably the manufactuer's ID is embedded in the control codes, not a separately output ID code. But I dunno.

New remote system shipped today. No back order on this sucker!

Why aren't they using bluetooth for remotes now? Seems better than IR.

That's a very good question, Howard.

Bought myself a new remote control.

Ran across this article about using the Nest thermostat as a motion detector. Thought NoCo might be interested.

Fascinating, Captain.

Of course the Nest doesn't sense you until you're about 5 feet away -- so it would only work if somebody was actually walking up & down the hallway -- but it's still a neat hack. Might even be worth playing with!

"walking up & down the hallway"?

You mean it wouldn't sense a person who just walked by it once?