I see that used msc-400 are sold at less price than mrf-350.

am i missing anything? i think msc-400 is far superior for CC. just that never used them and have no idea. are they supposed to be old and not compatible with remotes?

They are compatible with all ccp remotes and can do much more than a 350. Most people don't know how to program them. Maybe that is why they are cheaper. They are only compatible with 32bit windows. That may be another reason.

I made the jump last year...bought two of them cheap on ebay. One is a spare. I use Vbox to run XP and programming is fine. They have been rock solid and have simplified my configs greatly. I do the change once on the 400 and it works for all the remotes...

is it not CCP to program the msc-400? or separate software like the old remotes which had individual softwares.

It is programmable by ccp. They used to have the msc400 stand alone editor as well.

I also just switched, but from an MRF-300 w/RFX-250, to an MSC-400 (found a new one for $299). I'm not sure about the effectiveness of the MRF-300 and RFX-250 combination now that I've switched. It seems commands with the old stuff only got processed by my components somewhere between 90-95% of the time, however, since switching to the MSC-400, I'm getting very near 100% reliability.

The MRF-300 originally came with an RFX-150. I switched to the RFX-250, when it came out, to take advantage of the narrow band technology. They worked together but now I wonder if I might have been better off to have just bought an MRF-350 originally to get the narrow band technology. I wonder if the combination of the MRF-300 and RFX-250 was somehow less than that of an MRF-350 and RFX-250? Or maybe one of my pieces was just partially defective? Don't really know. I do know this had nothing to do with interference as I very rarely saw any evidence of that on the RFX-250.

Bottom line is I'm very happy with the MSC-400 despite needing to have an old computer with a 32-bit version of Windows available for downloads to it.