Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Joel Koltner on 31 Mar 2010 14:58 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:pj47r5dnsih27ikg7blkrg2g4uq3jcdui0(a)4ax.com... > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and > firmware. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call the various operating parameters stored in flash or NVRAM part of the "firmware" -- I consider "firmware" to be the output from an assembler or compiler. > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took advantage > of it. I still don't know why. To save some money? While I support regulation of intelectual property, certainly don't support pirating of software, etc., *in this particular case* I tend to side more with Dave than Rigol: -- They specifically *added circuitry!* to turn their 100MHz scope into a 50MHz scope; this suggests that they set out to build a 100MHz scope in the first place -- there was no additional engineering cost to recover as there might be, if, e.g., they started with a 50MHz scope and then made some design tweaks to turn it into a 100MHz scope. Instead, it's just "pricing to the market." (At least that what I'm guessing -- I fully realize there's no way to know this for certain if one isn't inside of Rigol and familiar with the development.) -- The commands needed to remove the 50MHz limitation are just "regular old commands" -- while they're undocumented by Rigol, they don't contain any, e.g., encryption or checksums or anything at all to suggest that Rigol was trying to control or prevent access to them (...and hence would have a basis for charging Dave with, e.g., circumventing anti-piracy safeguards) Clearly this is a somewhat gray area. But I don't see it as that different from, e.g., years ago with all-analog scopes where the only difference between the 20MHz and 30MHz models was the binning of transistors, with the better ones going into the 30MHz models: Would it have been wrong for someone to buy the 20MHz model and replace the relevant transistors with ones they'd binned themselves to get to 30MHz? Heck, in the case of the Rigol, there are people who are working on replacing 100% of the firmware with one of their own making. Surely it's not wrong for those people to not artificially cripple the hardware capabilities of the device with that replacement firmware? (Look at all the replacement firmwares available for, e.g., wireless routers like the WRT54G family that provide all sorts of new features that were previously only avaialble on much higher-end, more expensive devices...) If someone replaces the firmware in one of your boxes and provides features that you normally charge for, are you going to try to get them to stop via legal means? ---Joel
From: Nico Coesel on 31 Mar 2010 14:58 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:47:27 +0100, Martin Brown ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>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. > >You don't favor copyrights or legal protection for intellectual >property? If you spent years writing a book or a symphony or >developing a product that was mostly firmware, you wouldn't mind if >people copied it and sold cheap knockoffs? As long as we have actors, writers, filmakers, musicians, etc that each make more money in a year than the people lurking this newsgroup make in a lifetime the current system seems to be working just fine for them. If your 'product' is good people are willing to pay for it. If your product sucks and no-one is willing to pay for it then you better find another job. The way I look at it is that people who copy your software would not have bought it in the first place. -- 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 15:01 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:19:09 -0400, JW <none(a)dev.null> wrote: > >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:03:51 -0700 John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in Message id: >><41e5r5lufg6o9dkttqtgjiaarsd18jpjb6(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>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. >> >>Just out of curiosity John, would you think the same thing applies to the >>kids who overclock their processors? After all, Intel makes less money on >>the lower clocked CPU chips - is this depriving Intel from deserved >>revenue? Note that I'm not making any judgment on whether this is right or >>wrong... > >I am aware of no laws against overclocking. Intel most likely bins >production parts for speed, so if you overclock a CPU you degrade >timing margins at your own risk. The Freescale 3.3 volt version of the >MC68332 is guaranteed for 16 MHz. I've verified that they work to 45, >and run them at 20. I don't think that I've broken any laws, and I >doubt that Freescale minds, and I assume the risk. But according to your own logic you keep Freescale from selling you a faster processor and therefore cutting their profits! -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: whit3rd on 31 Mar 2010 15:04 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: > What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA ... > 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. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. IBM tried marketing computers with a similar tactic, shipping two models that were internally identical, but one had twice the memory of the other. If you paid for the 'upgrade' a technician installed a jumper to enable the full memory. Time passes, and instead of lease-only, they sold a few computers. The customers then installed the jumper, and sued (or threatened to sue) IBM when the field service tech wanted to uninstall it. IBM lost. You sell it, the customer can modify at will. DMCA is perhaps gonna change this, but it's unclear how; it may take another decade before it gets a court test. (for the non-US crowd, DMCA "digital millennium copyright act" is a controversial statute that protects/creates/ modifies all intellectual property in unlovely ways)
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 15:07
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:38:34 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote: >On 3/31/2010 12:46 AM, miso(a)sushi.com wrote: >> 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. > > >Destroying a market isn't usually a good way to make money in the long >run. > >And it's easily possible that Rigol saves a boatload of money by having >only one assembly number to design, code, build, and test. Remember >that (as Dave discovered earlier) they're actually overclocking the ADCs >on the 100 MHz model--so one can argue it's really a 50 MHz scope that >Rigol themselves hacked into a 100 MHz one. > >Companies have been selling crippleware forever--the earliest example I >know of was the 6 MHz IBM PC-AT. You changed the crystal and one other >thing that I forget, and suddenly you had a blistering fast 8 MHz AT! >(Cooler than the coolest thing ever, no?) There were similar howls of >outrage over that one. I did that modification, myself, upon buying an IBM PC/AT for, if I recall correctly, $5499! It would work up to about 8.5MHz, by the way. I tried 9, but the I/O bus clocked up with the CPU (at that time) and some of the add-in boards couldn't keep up. However, 8.5MHz worked across the board, quite well. I clocked back to 8.0MHz and lived happily ever after. Not for one split second did I believe I was doing something wrong, here. Not for one moment. I still think it was fine to do. The Kaypro 286i was the first "truly compatible" IBM PC machine built after that and it cost almost $2000 less to buy, new. (There were other attempts, but they failed on a variety of applications at the time and were crippled in one way or another until the Kaypro 286i made it out.) There was a short period (year?) where the ISA (wasn't known as that, at the time, but I'm referring to the 8/16 bit bus that came out with the PC/AT) bus had to be separated better from the CPU clock and thus was born the ability to clock the CPU up higher (10,12,16MHz) without making bus boards fail. That led to Chips&Technology developing their IC to save all those discrete IC parts populating the boards. And that led to Intel deciding (eventually, years later on) to take over that market and develop their own chipset. Etc. But it was morally RIGHT to clock up the system. I still think so and if John L. is on the other side of this question then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. However, he hasn't weighed in on it, so it is hard to know. >The moral question is actually an interesting one, I think, and the >different views seem to hinge on what people think they're buying, and >whether a hardware/software combination is more like hardware (which you >can hack up as you like) or software (which has a license agreement >you're bound by). ><snip> It is an interesting question and made all the more so because different people may fall on different sides here. That's what makes it interesting. If everyone took the same position, it would indeed be dullsville. Jon |