Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 13:45 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:45:38 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Nial Stewart wrote: >>> 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? > >In this case Rigol actually went to the trouble to design-in circuitry to >enable this 50MHz "cripple" feature. The front end was clearly designed from >day one to be at least 100MHz bandwidth, and they then decided to dumb it >down to meet a lower end market and price point by adding the cripple >feature. >So George is essentially right, the only effective difference 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.... >> >> ...and access to further functionality that someone's had to be paid >> to develop.... > >The only extra functionality is being able to go to 2ns timebase instead of >5ns, everything else is identical. A couple of lines of code? > >Any extra design effort that has gone into this product all went in to >designing the cripple feature to dumb it down! > >>> 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. > >A completely silly analogy. Not at all. IP costs money to develop and has to be paid for. And there are economies of scale from building one hardware platform and marketing competitive products that have different firmware. Rigol's error was to make the hack too easy. It's like stealing stuff out of cars. People will steal thongs if you don't roll up the windows and lock the doors, so everybody has to roll up the windows and lock the doors. Ditto big steel vaults in banks. It's inefficient because a minority of people will game the rules any way they can, sometimes just because they can. > >Dave. Rigol did the engineering and selected a business model, and you chose to break it based on some moral judgement of your own. They will have to react somehow, which will cost them money one way or another. Why did you do this? Did you feel that Rigol was cheating the public and deserved to be exposed and, additionally, deprived of revenue? John
From: George Herold on 31 Mar 2010 13:57 On Mar 31, 11:53 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold > > > > > > <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 30, 8:29 pm, "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. > > >> -- > >> ================================================ > >> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com > > >Excellent, I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E! The best news is that > >even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is.... (just > >scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.) > > >George H. > > It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70) MHz > bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do the hack > even if it was morally and legally fine. > > This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has loads > of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the price. > > Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Oh I don't plan on hacking it. I just figured that there might be a tick up in sales of the 50MHz version and I should get mine before they sell out. And yeah the pulse response looked nice. (I also like that it's a bit faster than the spec.) I'm not sure about the rattiness of the 100MHz response.. after all the 100MHz TEK pulse looked ratty too and it might have been that Dave was hitting it with a raggy pulse to begin with. (Sorry Dave, I don't mean to dis your bench test skills.) I think Dave likes Rigol and I'm not sure his hack will hurt sales. I would guess it's only a small fraction of users that would want the hack anyway. I would bet.. though I don't know how to prove it.. that Dave has been good for Rigol sales. (He is certainly responsible for my purchase of one.) George H.
From: John Fields on 31 Mar 2010 14:08 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany ><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>> >>>John >> >>What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >>dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >>from a Chinese maker. >> >>Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. >> >>He might have hurt or helped them. > >I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will >buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. --- So now it's _not_ "serious money" like you originally claimed? --- >But he chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol >did not. --- So what? It's just like if somebody wrote a book with an ending I didn't like and then I wrote my own ending and posted it. Where's the crime? --- >So why did he do it? --- Because, unlike you, he's one of the good guys who wants folks to get the most bang for their buck. JF
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 14:19 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:08:45 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:03 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >>>dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >>>from a Chinese maker. >>> >>>Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. >>> >>>He might have hurt or helped them. >> >>I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will >>buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. > >--- >So now it's _not_ "serious money" like you originally claimed? If it's, say, 100 scopes hacked at a loss of $400 each, until Rigol makes the firmware more secure (which will also cost money to do) that's $40K. I don't know if $40K is "serious" money that matters to Rigol, or to you. $40K is fairly serious to me. How would you feel if Jones hacked one of your products and cost you $40K? But I think you don't do firmware, so the question is probably moot. John
From: Tim Williams on 31 Mar 2010 14:21
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:mdp6r5186sr4nk4n9910pto3mga49k6d3b(a)4ax.com... > No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones > has cost Rigel Rigel 7? Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |