There are two different types of surveillance DVRs –
those that run on a Windows operating system, and those that run on a Linux
operating system. Years ago, the Linux
DVRs were more reliable due to weaknesses in the Microsoft ME operating
system. However, due to the stability of
Windows XP, both types of products are now equally as reliable when it comes to
the core operating system. However, due
to large inadequacies that exists in the hardware construction and DVR software
design of Linux type DVRs, Windows DVRs have become the clear choice for most
surveillance applications.
So…. what exactly is a “stand-alone? surveillance DVR? Frankly, we don’t know who coined the
term. However, we do know that it is
highly misused and misunderstood. The
fact of the matter is that both Windows and Linux style DVRs are similar in
hardware design. Both style DVRs require
a main board (motherboard), processor, RAM, a graphics card, video processing
chip, network adapter, and storage hard drive.
However, a main, and very critical, difference is that most all Linux
DVRs put all required hardware on a single board. This creates a situation whereby once a
single component on the main board fails, that the product is commonly rendered
useless. And since the main selling
point of Linux DVRs is their low price-point, they are very commonly
constructed as economically as possible typically using below-par unskilled
labor and manufacturing techniques.
Unlike Linux style DVRs, Windows DVRs are almost always constructed of
mainstream hardware components. These
components are most always of higher quality than those found in Linux
DVRs. Perhaps even more importantly,
they are also readily available from most any computer or consumer electronics
store. Therefore, if a hardware failure
is recognized in a Windows DVR, it should be relatively easy to quickly find an
inexpensive replacement part to repair the problem. The only exception would be the actual
multi-capture PCI card.
Hardware Bottom Line… Windows DVRs typically utilize higher quality
hardware components that are readily available in the event of failure. In the event of component failure in a Linux
style DVR, the entire unit typically has to be sent back to either mainland
China, Taiwan, or South Korea for repair (if still under warranty).
Software design, reliability, usability, and overall practicality
differences between Windows DVRs and Linux DVRs are also greatly
different. Although there are many
grades of surveillance software that drives Windows-based DVRs, overall, even
moderately well designed Windows DVR software will almost always out perform
that found in Linux-based DVRs. Simply,
it’s a matter or usability as most all Linux DVRs operate off of deep
menu-driven controls rather than being point & clickable with a PC
mouse. Although low level controls like
start, stop, play, etc can typically be easily controlled via the front panel
on a Linux DVR, other important functions like camera set-up, record
scheduling, motion detection control, video searching, and so on are typically
controlled via difficult to use menus.
Even worse, many features like advanced motion detection zoning and
automatic user notification via phone, fax, or beeper when motion is detected
are not even available on most all Linux DVRs.
Perhaps even of greater concern is that most Linux DVRs use open source
surveillance software that is not properly tested for commercial surveillance
applications.
Software Bottom Line… Windows-based DVRs are easier to use and offer
greater features than Linux style DVRs.
So, when is a Linux style DVR a better choice? Given that the hardware is typically
manufactured on a single board and the Linux operating system being free of
charge, Linux DVRs do typically cost considerably less than Windows DVRs. Provided that cost is a greater issue than
system reliability, ease of use, and features, Linux DVRs are a very viable
option. Although Linux DVRs have their
shortcomings when compared to Windows DVRs, the fact remains that they are
typically by far a better and more viable option than any Analog CCTV system
(time lapse vcr, multiplexer, etc).