EDIT: Sorry, I posted this to the wrong thread. Too many windows open!

So, what's up with the "professional" saying you cannot have a multizone install without having a different file installed on each remote! This seems like a labor intensive way to do things to say the least!

I too use duplicate MX-900's programmed with the SAME file. It makes a lot more sense to do things that way as my wife may carry a remote off from one room to the next. When this happens all she needs to do is go back to the main screen (I called it Home) and select whatever room she is in.

A system is much more manageable this way (provided you do not have over 40 devices as this is the limit of the MX-900). It would be stupid to program 7 remotes differently unless there was a distinct need (e.g. fear that two people would push a button at the same time, etc...). I guess if the customer pays for labor and you do not understand the technology, why not right?

I interface a home automation system with the MSC-400 (the MSC-400 is too dumb of a device for me to let it control things on its own). This thread has a lot of explanation and a great overview of my system:
[Link: cocoontech.com]

The FREE program I use is called Motorola Premise Home Control. It's completely free and many times more powerful and stable than any software URC has ever put out! I know as I've used both extensively.

I too believe in the long-term URC will have a problem existing if they don't change. For $120 or less anyone can buy a network based Global Cache controller and interface it with RS232 or IR devices large number of free PC applications and/or android apps to control all kinds of stuff. Folks are dreaming that the MSC-400 and other URC controllers aren't going to cost more than they are worth, resulting in the demise of URC. The GC-100 controller actually had two-way RS232 10 years ago!

URC can't even manage to release an SDK so integrators can write fully customizeable two-way RS232 or IP based interfaces either. This is stuff American companies were doing 10+ years ago! There really needs to be a simple way to do this in their URC Accelerator software.

So, what does URC do about this limitation? Instead of giving sytems integrators a great RF remote that has low power consumption and full two-way communications with something I can integrate with other main stream systems, they try to branch into areas like whole home automation when that market is already saturated with companies who do it a lot better than they do (and for much less money too)!

Seems kind of funny that a company who can't correctly fix a repeat command bug on the MSC-400 after almost 10 years (don't you love doing a work around each time due to URC's shoddy design work?), or even publish a Vista or Windows 7 driver for the MSC-400 which they still sale will ever survive. Based on my past experience with URC, I have to wonder if they could ever produce a reliable and well designed whole home automation line.

Don't get me wrong, URC makes great Korean made (not Chinese) remotes that feel great in the hand and are nice (but over priced). However, since they keep releasing touch screens, lighting, and multi-zone music systesm I have to wonder if they even realize what they are good at? Why not truly perfect what you are good at and try to lower costs in that arena to gain more market share?

Don't get me wrong, I hope fewer URC dealers throw in the towel this year than in previous years. I like having more competition in the market place. The last thing anyone wants is another controls company to go under as this would severely limit choice at this point.