Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: George Jefferson on 31 Mar 2010 04:02 <miso(a)sushi.com> wrote in message news:0abfe648-de60-42c3-ab53-0c0bd4dc5497(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 30, 8:03 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >> >100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >> >> >Dave. >> >> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to >> perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. >> >> I have some sympathy for Rigol here. Many of our products have an >> option that can be enabled in firmware, and that we charge for. We put >> a lot of engineering effort into the firmware, and need to be paid for >> it. If buyers of my gear can order the cheaper one and make it into >> the expensive one, by copying an EPROM maybe, or setting a bit in >> flash somewhere, I can't recover the cost of the feature. The act is >> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. >> >> Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP >> is expensive. >> >> Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make >> it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both >> versions. >> >> I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital >> filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies >> than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a >> few more. >> >> John > > The design cost is amortized over all the units. [Hey, don't worry > what the consults charges, it will go to zero as we sell a million > units.] > > Rigol does themselves a disservice by having to maintain two > products. They should just sell the higher speed scope, bomb the > market, and then own it. It's also very dishonest and goes to show why humanity will never make it very far. People like Larkin are too arrogant to understand this. Do you think people would buy their products if they knew that the only difference between the low end and high end versions is the price? At the very least they could have added some true functional improvement that made it justifiable but simply changing the model number doesn't justify a 40% price increase.
From: oopere on 31 Mar 2010 04:44 David L. Jones wrote: > For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a > 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE > > Dave. > You can also upgrade high end Agilent scopes buying the "feature" you want, which turns out to be just a string of characters to be typed somewhere. It is funny to know that you already own the required hardware to go several GHz further! Now _that_ would be interesting to post! Pere
From: Martin Brown on 31 Mar 2010 04:47 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" > <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it into a >> 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >> >> Dave. > > What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a > computer to deprive Rigol of revenue. In the US, "using a computer" to > perform an act can be a much more severe crime than the act itself. "Land of the Free" criminalises lots of things. The punters must be ripped off by corporate excess at every turn - just look at the DMCA as an example of how your congress critters are in hock to big business. The Sony BMG CD rootkit fiasco in 2005 was a particularly nasty example of this with the boot on the other foot. > > I have some sympathy for Rigol here. Many of our products have an > option that can be enabled in firmware, and that we charge for. We put > a lot of engineering effort into the firmware, and need to be paid for > it. If buyers of my gear can order the cheaper one and make it into > the expensive one, by copying an EPROM maybe, or setting a bit in > flash somewhere, I can't recover the cost of the feature. The act is > arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. Even as an originator of IP I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Rigol here when they clearly made no effort to cover their tracks in the firmware. It would only have taken an MD5 or CRC of the serial number XORred with a bit pattern known only to them to prevent hackers. If you can upgrade it by sending it a new model number then why not? They won't easily stop hardware mods though. Engineers tweaking commercially available products by swapping out weak components to improve or make them more reliable has been going on since the year dot. > > Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP > is expensive. Indeed. And that is why you should not make it trivial to hack. > Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make > it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both > versions. However, it does make the Rigol DS1052E a very attractive proposition for the moment. UK/Oz attitudes to hacking kit are somewhat more relaxed than in the US. Almost all DVD players here are available in MultiRegion hacked form and even NASA brings its DVD kit to London to be doctored. Region locked players do not sell particularly well to UK film buffs. > > I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital > filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies > than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a > few more. You may as well patch them for 100MHz bandwidth then. Send Rigol the price difference or whatever you think it is worth if your conscience bothers you. Regards, Martin Brown
From: terryc on 31 Mar 2010 05:25 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:02:13 -0500, George Jefferson wrote: > It's also very dishonest Fill me in one that please. (I do not waste bandwidth on youtube). In this country, if I outrightly own item A and item B, what I do with them is my business (legal restictions aside). Where was the dishonest part? Was their an agreement signed prohibiting use of some part on one of the items > Do > you think people would buy their products if they knew that the only > difference between the low end and high end versions is the price? Well, the only difference with Casio calculators over the entire range was the number of wires brought out from under the blob, but they still sell like hot cakes.
From: Nial Stewart on 31 Mar 2010 05:30
> It's also very dishonest and goes to show why humanity will never make it very far. People like > Larkin are too arrogant to understand this. Do you think people would buy their products if they > knew that the only difference between the low end and high end versions is the price.... ....and access to extended functionality that someone's had to be paid to develop? Yes. > At the very least they could have added some true functional improvement that made it justifiable > but simply changing the model number.... ....and access to further functionality that someone's had to be paid to develop.... > doesn't justify a 40% price increase. By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs of the DVD when they sell Windows7. Nial |