# Proprietary systems are better than all other systems including DCC ??



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You heard it here second.

On another forum, a G scale company executive said (defending their proprietary system and taking more shots at DCC):

1. "Also, the fact is that only the signal itself is standard in DCC, but the equipment is different from vendor to vendor as they all manipulate to compete with each other. "

2. "We have heard that after a few years the boards need to be replaced and there are always issues about compatibility based on new codes for new features."

sigh.... in my opinion (and watering down my words) ... doublespeak and misleading... but how can you miss the obvious? Maybe it is true that mixing that magic powder with water makes you believe anything.


There are some *major *things *right *about non-proprietary systems, and one is interoperability. (Ok everyone that makes a proprietary system, relax, you do have your place, and this is not a Greg E. vs. Tony W. vs. Del T. thread... so how about not going off here?

*This is about why "open systems" are helpful.*

I have a lot of different locos. Not all DCC decoders from NCE do what I want, nor is the QSI always the best choice, nor a Zimo, or a Digitrax, nor an ESU, nor a Massoth, nor a Soundtraxx....

BUT, I have the ability to *make up my own mind and make my own decision* of what I want to use on my DCC system. 


*And if some day I switch from NCE to Zimo or another system, guess what, all my locomotives will still work fine with no reprogramming or hardware changes.*

Now the statement #1 above is misleading... the decoders in the locos all meet the standard, and the electronics to put it to the rails also do so. Saying equipment is different from vendor to vendor is misleading. This is like saying: even though all cars run on streets of the same width, and have white headlights and red taillights, they are bad because not all the parts are interchangeable, you cannot put a ford ashtray in a chevy.

Statement #2 is basically the pot calling the kettle black. Of all the companies that make nothing backwards compatible, this particular one has many different versions that do not work with each other and they all are called by the same name.

The statement is also a LIE, DCC boards do not need to be replaced after a few years. Where does this come from? I have never heard this, and certainly DCC has existed much longer than any ONE incarnation of that company's R/C system.


Sorry, this is blatently untrue, and no one with an IQ over room temperature should believe this.

My DCC system will run DCC stuff made years ago, and there are systems that even will run all the non-standard varients like MTS and the Motorola protocol, and those systems can be purchased today.

Maybe the technique is to accuse other systems of this company's OWN SHORTCOMINGS?


It surely seems to fit the bill.

So, I don't want to hear about Aristo bashing any more, unless you want to admit that DCC bashing is fine. Why should we embrace this kind of misdirection and blatant untruths? It's ok to try to kill off all the smaller DCC companies? Everyone is happy that Soundtraxx no longer makes a large scale sound system, that they don't have the finances to bring out the Large Scale Tsunami?

This is a big company trying to throw it's weight around by BASHING and telling untruths. *Why cannot their product just be advertised on it's own merits?* Think about that, and you may come up with the right answer.

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Gee Whizz Greg. 
Don't drag me into this. 

The BELTROL and Rail Boss systems are definitely *NOT* PROPRIETARY. 
They both use the standard Digital Proportional signal provided by the 2.4 Ghz stick radios and provide features neither DCC nor the "above and beyond DCC" REVOLUTION can. 
The Digital Proportional signal standard to make servos work has been around longer even than DCC.

However I do agree with you about Bull S*** advertising. It should simply cease.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Tony your response is appreciated, did not want to get into the debate over which system is better, or that "everything that is not DCC is bad"... neither of which I believe or espouse... 

This kind of advertising I am describing/quoting is false representation and is bad for the hobby, but even crazier, standards and open systems are normally good for the consumer... 

Now where is that 75 MHz TE? (oh it's obsoleted) and why doesn't my Revo run my 27 MHz on board system (thats also be obsoleted), and why does not my orange TE handheld (obsoledted) work with my 27 MHz trackside? The black ones do. 

There's factual data, none of that stuff works together. But I could run my 9 year old LGB track cleaning loco on DCC... hmm... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

The boards have to be replaced after a few years? Ridiculous comments like that would turn me off to buying anything from those guys.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

That kind of blatant misinformation is definitely very frustrating. Politicians do it all the time--throw things out there have no element of truth in them at all, just hoping some of it will stick. 

You're doing the only thing we can do against it, Greg, and that's to educate people so they can learn to discriminate the s&*t from the putty. Thanks for pointing this latest episode out. 

Keith


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

I try to avoid proprietary systems when possible. 
This is an important consideration in this day and age when companies are here today and gone tomorrow. 

Unfortunately, "Snake Oil" is the norm in todays world, and not the exception. 
Ralph


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I would also have to take exceptions to those statements. I for one would also tend to shy away from folks that make untrue statements. Later RJD


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Hey, MY proprietary systems are better than your dcc! 

Out here in the pouring freaking rain with ballast splashed all over the rails........ 

Quit pickin' on louieeeeeeee. 

Geez, you'll get the mindless drivel over here complaining (with printed directions, no less!).


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

"We have heard that after a few years the boards need to be replaced Sounds like my TE's in the old days. One lasted a month and the other lasted ONE DAY! 

I'll give credit to Tony. His RCS was my first live steam R/C install many years ago and it's still working just like it always did. Good robust system!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree Ralph, but this is worse, where it's an established company, and still new stuff is re-inventing the wheel every time. To have the gall to accuse DCC of basically not being backwards compatible and having to be replaced every couple of years, where it's the accuser who is guilty of this... great chicanery. 

I worked with a person who always accused people of the things HE had done... it was a scary situation, the action had actually happened, and people were often pulled in... eventually the truth did come out, but it was pretty awful. The funny thing is how many people were fooled. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Many many years ago in my very first job working in a big department store I was accused of stealing and fired. 
Turns out it was the accuser who was stealing and he eventually got caught. 
I was offered my job back but I told them to stick it you know where. 
Ever since I have sought out BS and Hyperbole and exposed them wherever and whenever I can. 

A certain person in this industry is well known for knocking off other peoples ideas and promoting them as his own. Let alone blatantly copying other LS products. Twice now at least. I am not scared of saying that because I can prove two of the instances I have cited. The latest instance has been exposed right here on MLS.


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

....and despite all that Tony, people still go and drink from the fountain...I just don't get it....


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Sometimes people are just thirsty.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Oh!! I get it alright. 
It is called full colur full page advertising. 
I can remember phrases like "sips power".


----------



## stanman (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 16 Oct 2009 11:36 PM 
I can remember phrases like "sips power". Sounds like they were sipping something else.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

HMMMMMMMMM..... hanging with Lewis and Navin, who were as always, their jovial selves. Hmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)




----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

H Greg,

Without getting into the specifics of the quotations you mentioned but instead referring to the title of the topic "Proprietary systems are better than all other systems including DCC ??" I would tend to have a few thoughts:

1. Does not just about every manufacturer to some extend distort and misrepresent the facts when it comes to advertising and promoting their products? If we listen to what they say or watch what they write it is (in my opinion) an exception rather than normal to find anything that comes close to "truth in advertising."

Heck, I expect a manufacturer to only give me a very myopic view of their products and it is my challenge to differentiate facts from fiction. Why would we expect anything different from a manufacturer in this hobby?

2. As a retired factory sales rep I can appreciate the purpose behind proprietary systems because after all, why on earth would a manufacturer of anything devote a lot of their limited funds and resources to develop a new product if every other manufacturer could jump on the band wagon and offer compatible products without the need to spend their money and resources on research and development when all they need is a generic low cost substitute?

Generic translates into "I can sell you the same as the other guy and I can sell it to you cheaper."

3. If offering a generic product only a manufacturer with more money than sense would be wiling and able to afford the expense of large scale advertising and promoting a generic product.

4. I suspect that whether we admit it or not we tend to like proprietary systems because it gives us one stop shopping. A brand A loco with brand A electronics running on brand A track with a brand A power supply means that if and when we have a problem we can hopefully hold brand A's feet to the fire to fix any problem we have by avoiding brand A from saying "we never tested our product for compatibility with brands B, C, D etc. so we are not responsible for problems you have when you mix and match brands."

Apple came out with proprietary computers.
IBM came out with generic computers.
Anyone buy an IBM brand personal computer lately?

*I am not disagreeing with anything you said.*

As a consumer I love generic products (but not all generic products are created equal - such as the decoders you mentioned).

On the other hand if I was one of the larger manufacturers I would be trying my best to avoid offering generic products.

Even within DCC there is such a wide variety of products with a great range of features that there is (or seems to me to be) no easy way to compare all the various products available from the different manufacturers with each other. It seems to me that decoders are like other computers in that you may need today's version to get the newest and bestest features.

Since a decoder is not much different from a computer we also have to face the differences between things like older decoders with mechanical relays vs new decoders with electronic switching, then the voltage differences that are not even universal within G Gauge much less than within all gauges and the programming of the decoders which is often brand specific.

My personal experience has been that in my opinion DCC decoders are very proprietary. 

Perhaps to some extent the term "proprietary" can translate to "plug and play" in that whether a LGB MTS decoder equipped locomotive or an Aristo-Craft loco with the Revolution they are both proprietary but they are also both plug and play.

In my case I am now putting some Revolutions into old FA/B-1s that do not have a DCC/Revolution interface. I will only wire the Revolution between where the track leads come from the rails and then go to the loco with perhaps a bell and horn. For me the difference is not a comparison between DCC and the Revolution but rather track signal DCC vs radio control Revolution. To be honest there may be other systems that are better and maybe even cheaper but in fairness I have never even looked at them because the proprietary nature of the Revolution was such that it answered what I was not even looking for but that made my decision to buy it easy to make.

Often it is not features of the system that we buy but rather the brand of the manufacturer that determines what we buy.

If I was "educated" on DCC I (and others in our club) may have chosen something different but the "open the box, plug it in, close the box, play with it" is what sold us on the Revolution. This may drive DCC fans crazy but perhaps it explains the real world of us who don't want to ever read a manual about anything if we can avoid it.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

I haven't bought an IBM branded computer lately. But I have bought an IBM compatible computer.
Even Apple now runs a "generic" IBM design, with a special boot loader. Good for you Apple users, as you can now buy parts for the late model Macs from vendors other than Apple.


Myself, I'd rather not have all my eggs in one manufacturer's basket. The LGB saga should have taught everyone that.

Ralph


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewis' post was odd. What was he looking for? To tell people that their decision NOT to use the REVO was silly? I took it as a question, and responded over there with a post that explained the "so what" from my perspective. It boils down to hundreds of dollars worth of soon to be useless 75 mhz gear.


It seems to me that the best analogy here is the one Ralph is on to--Apple vs Wintel. I've been an apple user since 1985. Sometimes it's been great, and sometimes I've been "jobbed" when Apple made decisions that left me no choice but to buy new equipment. Overall, the tradeoffs have been worth it, but by now, there is hardly any difference betqeen the two, except for the lack of viruses and malware in the Apple world. 


DCC, it turns out, isn't that hard. Originally it was like learning the command line interface on an IBM. Now it's more like Windows, or maybe more like Linux. It's not hard for a novice to get started. I know, I was a total novice in DCC. it took a bit of maual reading, but not all that much. The RVO is maybe more like Apple was--really easy straight out. But I ddn't want to be stuck with one company again


The non-proprietary nature of DCC standardss means that more people can develop more products--it gives you more options and more designers doing more things. I think Aristo will sell a lot of units--and they deaerve to, it looks like a retty good system. But in the long run it's going to be obsoleted by the advantages of DCC, I suspect. Maybe not--maybe there are a bunch of new capabilities for the REVO we haven't seen yet.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

IBM came out with generic computers.
Anyone buy an IBM brand personal computer lately? 
The answer is no.

However, the reason is mainly because IBM corporate took over what those 'renegade upstart guys' in Melbourne, Fla. had done, and went back to their proprietary ways. The result was the IBM/PS2, which was pretty much rejected by the market place, and IBM was out of the microcomputer business.

That same IBM proprietary mind set was a major reason that IBM Token-ring LAN failed and Ethernet won out.

Further, if the big wigs at Xerox had actually 'got it' re: what their engineers had accomplished at Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) then they could've owned the microcomputer world, but they didn't. On the other hand Jobs fully understood the importance of what he had been shown at PARC.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 18 Oct 2009 10:26 AM 
H Greg,

...

1. Does not just about every manufacturer to some extend distort and misrepresent the facts when it comes to advertising and promoting their products? ...

2. As a retired factory sales rep I can appreciate the purpose behind proprietary systems because after all, why on earth would a manufacturer of anything devote a lot of their limited funds and resources to develop a new product if every other manufacturer could jump on the band wagon and offer compatible products without the need to spend their money and resources on research and development when all they need is a generic low cost substitute?

3. If offering a generic product only a manufacturer with more money than sense would be wiling and able to afford the expense of large scale advertising and promoting a generic product.

4. I suspect that whether we admit it or not we tend to like proprietary systems because it gives us one stop shopping. A brand A loco with brand A electronics running on brand A track with a brand A power supply means that if and when we have a problem we can hopefully hold brand A's feet to the fire to fix any problem we have by avoiding brand A from saying "we never tested our product for compatibility with brands B, C, D etc. so we are not responsible for problems you have when you mix and match brands."

(5)Apple came out with proprietary computers.
IBM came out with generic computers.
Anyone buy an IBM brand personal computer lately?

(6)Since a decoder is not much different from a computer we also have to face the differences between things like older decoders with mechanical relays vs new decoders with electronic switching, then the voltage differences that are not even universal within G Gauge much less than within all gauges and the programming of the decoders which is often brand specific.

(7)My personal experience has been that in my opinion DCC decoders are very proprietary. 

... Regards,

Jerry

Jerry, I have deleted out parts of your reply, because I just want to respond at the "high level" to some of your comments. I hope you feel that what I deleted does not change the meaning of your post...

1. You said to "some extent".... sure, to some extent. Telling a blatant lie, and extreme misrepresentation is what I object to. You can take some of the earliest DCC decoders made, come over my house and we could program them and use them. Will they be state of the art? No, will they work? OF COURSE. The misrepresentation is that you have to buy new decoders every couple of years. The only manufacturer who seems to have this obsolescense is Aristo from my experience. I strongly object to this extreme misrepresentation with no basis at all in fact. This is WAY beyond exaggeration. 


2. The standard is open, the OPTIONAL features can be proprietary. The point is the standard allows ANY DCC system to control ANY DCC decoder. Do they all work the same way in extended features? No, but there is still a standard for the BASIC functions of addressing, speed, direction, function numbers. You are taking proprietary vs. standards way out... QSI, NCE, Zimo, Digitrax, Lenz, ALL have proprietary features, but the ALL WORK to the same standard. They can also patent their features, and patent their unique implementations AND STILL meet the STANDARD. Your argument in #2 basically says if you meet the standard, everyone can clone what you are doing... that is simply not true int this hobby or other arenas. 


3. These are not "generic" producst, i.e. identical in every way, as explained earlier. This is not about a tablet of generic aspirin, it's like computers, you can load Windows on HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. Do they all meet the STANDARD basic hardware requirements? Yes, are they generic clones of each other with nothing different? NO.

4. I cannot see the one stop shopping being better on a proprietary system. You can buy decoders and control systems from many DCC manufacturers. You could have an all NCE system or an all LGB system, or an all Digitrax system, or an all Lenz system, or an all Zimo system. So there is no advantage I see here for the proprietary system. But, for the people who have bought a standard system, they have the additional flexibility to buy different components from different manufacturers and have not problems. You yourself was able to buy some DCC decoders for a very cheap price from a different manufacturer, and they worked with your LGB MTS system.

5. You have aimed a gun at your foot here Jerry! Apple had to give up their proprietary hardware and adopt the "standard" Intel hardware platform. They still maintain their "distinction" by having different features, but they are using a modification of a STANDARD operating system also. You have provided a powerful argument for standardization and open systems here....

6. I cannot quite figure out what you are saying here, except that older decoders have relays and newer ones have solid state. Does this mean that if you have an older car with a distributor, it will no longer function on today's roads? You indeed have several MRC AD322 decoders with relays, and while not of the highest quality, they work. I have 10 of them installed, and while not feature rich, they work. Yes, G scale manufacturers do not all handle the NMRA STANDARD max voltage of 24 volts to the rails, 27 volts to be handled by the decoder, but THE STANDARD EXISTS.... it's still a young market for G scale, but not fully meeting the standard is the exception, rather than the rule... the only decoders that suck in this respect is the ill-fated Quasinami by Bachmann, never to be repeated.

7. I understand your "experience", but I object to your interpretation of "proprietary", so you have some decoders from LGB that need the function button pressed twice instead of using function 2. (LGB did not follow the standard), but you are telling me that the dozens of G scale DCC decoders, whose basic functions ALL work with ALL DCC systems are MORE proprietary than, for example Aristo Train Engineer hardware?

That is seriously out of whack... There is no interchangeability in those systems, NONE with other manufacturers, and basically NONE even with other Aristo Train Engineer hardware.


Sorry Jerry, I just cannot agree that your interpretation of the facts can come to the conclusions you have come to reasonably.

I am using an open, non-proprietary system, and I can basically buy whatever I want and select from a number of different throttles and hardware to suit my feature requirements, budget, number of locos, type of power... you CANNOT do that with a proprietary system.

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 18 Oct 2009 02:24 PM 
3. it's like computers, you can load Windows on HP, Dell, Gateway, etc. Do they all meet the STANDARD basic hardware requirements? Yes, are they generic clones of each other with nothing different? NO.

4. I cannot see the one stop shopping being better on a proprietary system. You can buy decoders and control systems from many DCC manufacturers. You could have an all NCE system or an all LGB system, or an all Digitrax system, You yourself was able to buy some DCC decoders for a very cheap price from a different manufacturer, and they worked with your LGB MTS system.

5. You have aimed a gun at your foot here Jerry! Apple had to give up their proprietary hardware and adopt the "standard" Intel hardware platform. They still maintain their "distinction" by having different features, but they are using a modification of a STANDARD operating system also. You have provided a powerful argument for standardization and open systems here....

I am using an open, non-proprietary system, and I can basically buy whatever I want and select from a number of different throttles and hardware to suit my feature requirements, budget, number of locos, type of power... you CANNOT do that with a proprietary system.

Regards, Greg 


Hi Greg,


I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and specifically I was not trying to defend any particular manufacturer.

My computer days go back to the Commodore C64 and IBM PC/XT. In my experience I have never found any personal computer since that was as frustrating as the C64 (the PC Jr was close) but I also never opened an "IBM Compatible" computer that seemed to me to come close to the visible quality of those early IBM PCs. I still consider the IBM PC to have had the best touch of any keyboard I've ever used.

Back then everyone bought Sub-Logic's (now Microsoft) Flight Simulator to test new computers to see just how IBM compatible they really were (most failed the Sub-Logic test).

Rather than shooting myself in the foot my point is simply that when we get into decoders we are getting into mini-computers and I have yet to discover a truly user friendly computer. Over the years I have (personally) bought more computers than I can remember (well over 20) and spent more on them (and on software) than I have on my layouts. Of all those computers I never owned (or own) a single one that has been trouble free. The same is true of software. Now even the thought of reading how to program something is a total turnoff for me - for everyone else they are welcome to do as they please with my best wishes.

Actually all I was saying is that for someone who wants more than a throttle, bell and whistle they can probably find far more options with DCC but I suspect that most buyers really don't want to have to learn how to play with their new toy - they just want to make it go without reading any manuals.

Someone accurately described MTS as a dumbed down DCC but in reality LGB managed to dumb down it well enough that I still like it. Unfortunately there is only one decoder I am aware of (Massoth L) that will directly interchange with the MTS socket made for the LGB 55020/21 decoder so interchangeability is more complicated than plug and play. 

My experiences with the various brands of decoders convinced me that I would rather trust a manufacturer to make compatibility decisions than for me to try to figure out which key makes what happen and whether a decoder I am considering has the right voltage and amperage tolerances. Whatever I buy must be compatible with my LGB MTS equipment so that significantly limits my choices.

My comments were intended more as a potential reason why many people continue to buy proprietary systems rather than to investigate generic systems. 

One stop shopping may or may not be better (thats for each of us to decide for ourselves) but it should be recognized as the buying motivation that it is.

Since I'm not selling or promoting anything it is not particularly important whether others share my viewpoint or not. It is not a permanent condition as I have no idea what I may buy tomorrow or why.

As I said, I am not disagreeing with your original comments but rather I was offering a different viewpoint regarding proprietary systems. 

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 18 Oct 2009 01:42 PM the reason is mainly because IBM corporate took over what those 'renegade upstart guys' in Melbourne, Fla. had done, and went back to their proprietary ways. The result was the IBM/PS2, which was pretty much rejected by the market place, and IBM was out of the microcomputer business.

That same IBM proprietary mind set was a major reason that IBM Token-ring LAN failed and Ethernet won out.

Further, if the big wigs at Xerox had actually 'got it' re: what their engineers had accomplished at Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) then they could've owned the microcomputer world, but they didn't. On the other hand Jobs fully understood the importance of what he had been shown at PARC.








Actually I agree.

I bought a couple of P80s and while I liked them I would have liked them more if they were not PS2s. A replacement motherboard was $2,500 and my annual service contract (to protect against paying for that motherboard) was $500.

Actually I think IBM was predestined to lose the microcomputer business because once the generic manufacturing moved to Asia I don't think there was any way possible that IBM could have maintained their corporate profit structure competing with low cost generic imports.

One of the things I remember best about IBM was that they opened their local offices (free) for the members of our local IBM Club. Back then there was no iternet - just a few text only BBSs.

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I had a Xerox Star system (the great thing they developed at PARC), and they indeed did not know what they had. But the founders of Apple saw it, as a simplified and a graphical approach rather than command line driven. .. This was before Windows existed. Windows took a while to catch up to the Apple's graphical interface, and took a different tack, had more functionality but more complexity. 

Jerry, I'm not selling anything either, in fact just got done doing some more extensive testing of the Revo system and updated my Revo page on my site. 

But the point of the thread is open systems vs. proprietary systems, and the lame slams at DCC, when the accusations of replacing DCC equipment every couple of years is on the proprietary side, not the DCC side, a gross and irresponsible untruth. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

In regards to closed systems. The Amiga was a GREAT lower cost alternative to the MAC but it never caught on. 
LAO


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Lewsi just posted that DCC is slower than RC. I'm not sure what he is talking about, and I'm not sure he knows either. Can someone explain this?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I'll start a new thread... let's keep this thread on track please. Look for a thread on "Aristo RC speed faster than DCC?" 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Update: 

Aristo-Craft just apologized: (from the Aristo forum) 

"If I was wrong about DCC boards obsoleting themselves it's due to reading DCC forums and if I read incorrectly, I apologize. The discourse between system users and comments are lengthy and diverse. Perhaps I took away a false impression and I'm not a DCC expert." 

My advice: Do *NOT *make such statements as needing to buy new hardware every 2 years if you are *NOT *a DCC expert. (attacking a primary and proven benefit of compatibility in DCC by saying it is not so). 

If you want to take the entire DCC market head on, you* BETTER* be a DCC expert. 

There's thousands of happy users, so attacking it every chance you get just to promote your product just will not fly if you look at facts.





Sell your product on it's benefits and true, factual advantages. It has a lot going for it. I've recommended it to many people. It has it's place. It is just not always better than everything else.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Ltotis on 18 Oct 2009 05:46 PM 
In regards to closed systems. The Amiga was a GREAT lower cost alternative to the MAC but it never caught on. 
LAO 
Yes indeed! I was on the Amiga bandwagon for 3 or 4 years, but alas, I went to the PC. The Amiga was fantastic compared to PCs at the time. It seems I always found the great computer systems with unusual hardware, but apparently, the rest of the world didn't see it. I progressed from the Radio Shack TRS-80 to the Zenith 2000? ( I can't remember for sure, but it had two processeors that ran both CPM and DOS), then a couple of Amiga's, then finally PCs ... NO MACS at this house! MACs wouldn't even exist to this day, had they not gotten in bed with the school systems. As many innovative products as Apple has produced, I still won't buy them. (Probably my loss).


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...MACs wouldn't even exist to this day, had they not gotten in bed with the school systems. ... 
But it was Mac's intuitive GUI that made it appeal to the schools, hence its success. I graduated in '89, and through high school used everything from HP mainframes to PCs (running MS/DOS) and Macs. Teachers liked the Macs because you did not have to be a computer teacher to use the things. They were designed for the computer illiterate. We didn't use the Macs to learn computing or programming. That's what the PCs and mainframes were for, and they served that purpose very well. The Macs were used for teaching subjects--math, science, drafting, things of that nature. They were easy-to-use tools more than they were "computers." The schools had PCs, but the intuitive educational software wasn't there the way it was for Mac. Apple certainly owes a great deal of their success to their ability to tap into the education systems' needs, but I'm not sure characterizing it as getting "in bed" with them is necessarily the best description. They had a product that filled a niche. 

Amiga's problem was they were too niche. They targeted themselves almost exclusively to the graphics/video market. They were a great box for that purpose, but the "everyday" programs just weren't there to bolster its functionality. We had one for its graphics capabilities--which were quite advanced--but other software (word processors, spreadsheets, games, etc.) just weren't being developed. It's not that they were overly proprietary, it's just that their product was marketed more as a task-specific machine rather than an "all around" computer. There were "plenty" of such programs for the C64, but few made the leap to the Amiga platform. On the other hand, my college TV station used an Amiga-based "Video Toaster" up until the late 90s when a flood finally killed it. 

Are proprietary systems "better?" Depends on what you want to accomplish. If a proprietary system can meet all your needs, then maybe it is "better" in that you know all the elements will work together. I know if I buy an Apple router to network my Macs, it will work flawlessly. PC software is a bit more prone to being sensitive to particular processors or platforms. (i.e, some software specify a particular brand of processor is needed.) On the other hand, you can buy a ton and a half more software for your PC, and the percentage of software that will give you issues is fairly low. If you need that universality, then open source is "better." For my purposes, the proprietary stuff adequately meets my needs. It's a "system," and I can work within its confines and still do everything I want to do. Still, my "wants" for a system change over time, hence my going from dad's home-brewed R/C system to RCS, his migration to Airwire, and mine to Aristo's system. One of these days, I may want more functionality, and I'll look at the systems available then to see which can best meet my needs. Maybe it will be open source, maybe not. If it means I can push a button on the transmitter and have the train do what I want it to do, I don't care. 

Later, 

K


----------

