Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Charlie E. on 31 Mar 2010 14:30 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:28 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:00:33 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky >> <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> >>>But, why varicap and that lousy circuit? Looks like Rigol analog >>>designers don't have a clue... They are probably as unexperienced as >>>their programmers... >> >> >> Do you think that it doesn't work? And that their firmware was coded >> by inexperienced programmers? > >There are many small details which indicate that the software was >written by indiots. > >> How many oscilloscopes have you designed >> and manufactured and marketed? > >BTW, one of the things that I design are the analog front ends for >scopes and like. Some with BW to 1 GHz. The idea of using varicap just >doesn't make any sense to me. > >> Looking at the transient response at 100 MHz, which kinda sucks, I >> wonder if the 50 and 100 MHz scopes are indeed identical except for >> firmware. > >"Good - Better - Best" marketing principle is old as a World. > > >Vladimir Vassilevsky >DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant >http://www.abvolt.com I don't have one, but from what John is saying, it may not be a "all the same hardware, just different firmware" but may instead be "all the same firmware, but not all the same hardware!" The 100 MHz version may have different component choices, even if the PCB is the same. When you build out the unit, you enable the correct hardware toggles to match the unit you are installing on... If you have one of both units, you could probably find out! Charlie
From: Jan Panteltje on 31 Mar 2010 14:31 On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:14:55 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <mdp6r5186sr4nk4n9910pto3mga49k6d3b(a)4ax.com>: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski ><al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mar 31, 1:03�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue >> >>[...] >> >>>The act is >>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. >> >>If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >>advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >>padlock in the least. Would you? >> > >No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones >has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is >probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at >least. > >So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the >whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real >revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. > >Jones? Why? > >John Let us all be grateful, as this will a have cumulative effect. Tek will notice that he price for a 100 MHz BW 1Gs scope has come down to 500 $ or so. And that with a color display and nice labels on the buttons on top of that... So it will increase competition, and bring prices down. Those are clearly artificially high. You can turn your argument around too, like: 'the criminals at Rigol ask 400 $ more for the same scope.' I wonder if the board is the same as the one that has the logic analyser connector on front and if adding a connector and making a hole in the front would give it even more features. IRC you ordered one, and now claim you will not upgrade, that sounds a bit idiotic to me. As to the the 'secrets of your designs', some are all over usenet, you posted them or got them from here, complete with pictures of details. That brings me to the point that we could all just as well publish source of firmware and software, the people who have no time will buy your hardware, others will improve your work, everybody benefits, except the billy gates type, but he has enough for coffee anyways so who cares. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but anyways, I recommend people to record that video before it vanishes from youtube, I recorded the sound. Soundtrack has all the info you need. Digital world. I wonder what will happen when somebody finally comes up with a 'replicator' as in startrek.
From: Nico Coesel on 31 Mar 2010 14:29 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. > >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. Sure? How about buying a whole bread and only being allowed to eat half of it? >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 don't understand why they make it so easy to upgrade their hardware through software. Tek's logic analyzer modules are also relatively easy to upgrade. >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. Sure about that? I'm not so convinced about the effective bit resolution and the sampling jitter on the Rigol scopes. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nico Coesel on 31 Mar 2010 14:35 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:02:13 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >> >><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. > >People buy the standard and Pro versions of Windows knowing the only >difference is a few flags. Windows consumer versions are brain-damaged >to allow only a small number of network connections at a time, and >cost almost nothing bundled with a PC. Windows Server removes the >limit and costs about $2K. > >If you spent years writing a book or some software, would you be happy >if people copied it and distributed it for free, cutting off your >rotalties? After all, copies cost almost nothing. Now can you justify >charging $20 for a book or $500 for a program when it costs pennies to >manufacture copies? Look at Microsoft and Wordperfect. These companies became huge because of people copying their software. The same can happen to Rigol. Hobbyists buy their 50MHz scopes to hack them. Their bosses just buy the 100MHz version so the warranty is not voided. This way Rigol sells two scopes instead of zero. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jan Panteltje on 31 Mar 2010 14:46
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:23:38 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <pj47r5dnsih27ikg7blkrg2g4uq3jcdui0(a)4ax.com>: > >The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and >firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts of >things have different specs and functions differentiated by firmware. They are identical! Stop complaining. |