This is a completely different arguement then the one that says we will use the identical front end hardware as our backend backbone. You are correct in identifying one of the problems with this integration business. We do need repeatable solutions rather than customized solutions. The problem is that too many firms take a retail attitude to this problem. They sell 4 receivers, 5 DVD players, 4 projector lines, and on and on. This is nonsense and ultimately they will pay the price in software devleopement and unrelible sysetms. But so long as retail see custom as an other means for moving boxes this will be the paradigm. And don't confuse yourself by thinking that the biggest CI firms do not fashion themselves after these retail salons. They sell the same old expensive crap as do the hybrid organizations.

FACT: no firm in this industry does not subsidize installation and programming with equipment sales. No one will pay the real development costs it takes to make a system work. Thus we need repeatable solutions. That doesn't mean one cannot invest in in a superior GUI as you did with GUIFX or build one yourself.

But it is entirely different argument to suggest that the front end hardware, open to attack and hacks, and loading issues, will be reliable back end for a control system. Just look what can happen when a computer becomes inflicted with adware, spyware or viruses. How slow will it run when burnning a DVD? Segrigate the front from the backend and you have a vary different pardigm. Mr. Roddey has made a successful case for this. But these guys are either snake oil salesman or fast buck artists. Microsoft may be the answer but not with the hardware toplology suggested above.

I can program an Adagio to work faster than it can be installed. I earn a significant portion of my income from programming and I agree programming fees need to come down. You can do that by eliminating programming as in this model but also by selling repeatable systems and provide the illusion of custom progrmming

Alan