Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 15:09 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:58:27 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"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; It also does the standard bandwidth limit function, so it would have been there anyhow. Since the ADCs are overclocked, it may be that Rigol selects the best scopes to be the 100 MHz versions. John
From: miso on 31 Mar 2010 15:12 On Mar 31, 2:25 am, terryc <newsninespam-s...(a)woa.com.au> wrote: > 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. I agree with you regarding youtube. This would be one simple webpage. I'm really annoyed that google is including youtube video in google searches. It takes so much work to see if the youtube "document" is what you need.
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 15:14 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:58:10 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >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. Does that mean you are willing to copy software, purchased by yourself or others, in violation of a license agreement? And that your willingness depends on your opinion of the quality of the product? John
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 15:16 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:31:12 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. I paid them for a 50 MHz scope. I will not hack their firmware to make it into a 100 MHz scope (with rotten step response) John
From: John Fields on 31 Mar 2010 15:16
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. --- Jeez, John, I see you still haven't quit being a cheater... 1052E's go for $595 max _retail_, and 1102E's go for $795 max, also retail, so that's a difference of $200, of which Rigol sees maybe $50. Applied to 100 scopes, that's $5K which is probably chump change for the likes of Rigol. Now if I cheated a little and claimed that those 100 scopes would never have been bought except to be "converted", then I could claim that the extra sales more than offset any losses (especially since it costs them the same to build either scope) and that the hack was actually a blessing in disguise, if not leaked on purpose... --- >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 --- If he hacked one of my products and wasn't in violation of any IP restrictions, then I'd be unhappy but that's the way it goes... BTW, you think wrong. Again. I do hardware, firmware, software, AND bleeding edge 555 circuit design. So there... JF |