Rumor has it that the MX810 will be posted to the Universal Remote site [Link: universalremote.com] shortly.

OK. I have been reading all the " I hate the software but I love the remote" comments. I think that the real problem is that the "CI's" and I am one are pissed of becouse this remote is what we have been looking for, the color screen, good looks and a good price, but it was not designed for the "CI programmers" but for the basic "CI's" and we are upset. We want a remote that looks like this and at the same price. I do alot of custom graphics for the MX-3000's and when I found out they were going to have a remote at the $399 price that I could do color custom graphics, I was very happy. Got the program and I could not stand it the firat time I tried it.

It is a great idea to free up the programmers for the bigger jobs but the problem is that the database is not 100%. If a basic or entry level "CI" programs the remote and they don't understand why the "prowizard" did not get it exactly right and don't know how to fix it, who has to go out to the jobsite to fix it? The programmer and if they hate the software they won't want to fix it. They will tell there boss that they hate that remote and take a longer time to fix the problem and this make the boss more upset. The boss sees the time both CI's spent on the remote and the trucks. If this happens again and again the boss will put that remote and might even take another look at URC's other remotes to make sure they are not having problems.

The next problem is that URC said there is going to be a consumer remote (R70) that is alot like the MX-810. I do understand that URC has remote that overlap ( rf-20 and MX-350) but there are some real differances in the remotes.


I did not want to ramble but I just feel like we (CI's) wanted a remote like this with the same type of program we are used to. It was just a big let down for use.

I think the MX-980 is what we've all been waiting for.

Gorignak,
I don't know your background, but I don't think you followed the arguement about extremes here based on your response.

I won't purchase another unit. In fact, I think the Harmony "software" solution is better and faster and cheaper.
Not buying is one thing, is there any other criticism of mine where I have erred or do you just not agree. I do not work for URC, but am familiar w/ their product for years now.

Forgive my interpreted "ire," I often post in a hurry, b/c frankly I'm not worried about being perceived as a nice guy on an internet forum. The only time I was irritated was whn I saw they won the Electronic House award and the product was not out yet and the software I had used was aweful. Right now I have come back from dinner and probably look like Hank, so good night.

In order to alter my perceived attitude, I must say you all are very nice fellows. Here's a beer to each of you.

Right now I have come back from dinner and

And just what does that imply?
Are you personally involved with him to where you would know how he looks when he comes back from dinner?

It means I don't mind coming across as a Jackass.
If I am going to be one, there in the above is a clear reason for me to be one, not this garbage where I am being called a hater for bringing forth IMO valid criticism of a new product.

It's classic tear down the messenger to weaken the message.

Focus on what I have said or focus on some guy's gut (he can take it).

Hank would be laughing along with all of us right about now. He's the type of guy that can laugh at himself.

Hey Hank! Long time no speak! I'll have to send you an email one of these days!!!

So, because you can be taken as a jackass, why bring Hank into this? I don't believe I have ever seen him post in this forum.

Don't feed the troll,
"I won't purchase another unit. In fact, I think the Harmony "software" solution is better and faster and cheaper."

That says it all.

I'm not a CI but this is how I'm feeling about this too. I've never had a URC remote, this would be my first, but I don't want a restrictive wizard based software to try to set it up. However, I love the color screen and apparent ergonomics of the 810.

Saying that there are other products to pick from in the URC line-up simply IS NOT TRUE. Please show me the other $400 remote with a nice color screen and ergonomics. The only other possibility in this price range is the 900 which probably functions very well, but I prefer the 810.

And please don't throw the 980 at me. There's a big difference between $400 and $600!

Given the degradation of the nature of the conversation, I'm stepping out of this one. I don't appreciate having personal insults slung at my friends and coworkers, and I think most reasonable people would agree that such comments in no way work towards a constructive goal. Just because someone doesn't mind being seen as a jackass doesn't mean anyone else has to just smile when said jackass starts insulting their friends for no apparent reason.

To those who expressed legitimate concerns, I close with this: the MX-810 and ProWizard were created in direct response to installer requests. If you learn the nuts and bolts of the product and think it doesn't meet your clients' needs, then this product may not be one you want to sell. URC has a finite set of resources. While we cannot produce every possible configuration at every possible price point for every conceivable installer need, we are listening to your requests. You may not have been among the group who wanted a wizard-based editor, but believe me, there is a large group of installers who told us that this is exactly what they wanted.

This round of products may not have produced the precise product you've been waiting for, but we will continue working to balance the needs and wants of installers with the technical and market feasibility of responding to particular market segments. I hope that one of our other products or a future product better serves your needs. However, I still firmly believe that if you let ProWizard do its thing instead of trying to make it be MX-Editor, most installers will be pleasantly surprised at just how powerful and flexible this alternate solution actually is.

Best regards,
Dale

I went to a training class in south Florida last week and saw the 810 and 980. I have been drooling for the 980 to come out. I gave the 810 a chance and after learning the software, I think it is better than what I have read in these forums. I do not see myself selling to many due to the custom programming I choose to do for my customers. I will probably stick with the 900 and step as many customers as possible to the 980 if it is ever released. I have already pre ordered 10 980's. I could probably sell more at this time of year, but I not only do not have the hardware I can't even start programming due to no software. Please get us the 980's so you do not have to hear all the negative of the 810

I agree with Skynyrd. The 810 is not perfect. Far from it, but it does have some positives. I do not like the Wizard and found it cumbersome and ineffective while trying to make my test systems work. I ended up programming the remote by using the universal browser. It is like "MX Editor Light". But for simple systems such as plasma panel, dvd, DirecTV or cable and surround sound system it was fine. It was an easy sale when showing it to my customer. My customer was very happy and liked it, and that is the most important thing.

My gripes with the 810 are few things that I hope can be changed with future downloads.

1. Inability to download existing configuration from remote to PC.
2. Inability to add a dash for ota channels, (9-1)for favorite channels.
3. Inability to add a channel up after channel number for favorite channels. This is needed to access the new HD channels on DirecTV for the DirecTV H-20.
4. Inability to test macros in the universal browser without downloading to remote.

For complex systems with zone2 audio I will still recommend my favorite, MX-900.

Dave T.

TO ADD TO ALL OF THIS THE SOFTWARE HAS ASSOCIATED ITSELF WITH ALL OF MY 850 FILES!

I UN INSTALLED THE WIZARD AND NOW I CANT OPEN ANY 850 FILES.

Open MX-850 editor, do file-open?

You could then use Windows to set the default opening program too.