Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 15:18 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:45:21 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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. I don't see it that way, at all, John. I think the manufacturer took a risk designing as they did and chose to do so, anyway. They knew it was possible that this may be uncovered and decided to go for it. When I buy a tool, I am completely free to repurpose it in any way I want to. When I buy a hammer, it may not get used as the manufacturer intended. So what. When I buy a Tek scope, I may decide to gut it and redo some things in it to improve its use to me. Your point hangs entirely on what was in the MIND of those who fielded this DS1052E. I would have to somehow _know_ in advance (and although we can assume and are probably right here, it is still an assumption) that Rigol didn't want me making these particular modifications but don't mind if I make other ones I might someday decide to make (such as hauling out sections and using them with more effort and work on my part for something entirely different.) In other words, you are arguing that because _these_ modifications are simple and other ones more complex, that repurposing in one direction is wrong and another direction is just fine (I'm assuming here that you wouldn't mind me dismantling it and using it for parts, for example.) That's a crazy argument. If they want to make it difficult, and you have suggested they may now have to do that, then that is fine, too. There is nothing wrong with that. But to argue that a buyer is limited in certain ways and NOT limited in certain other ways in using a tool they have purchased, merely based upon the manufacturer's mindset about some of these vs others, is going too far. They always have the option of making it more difficult, if they are that concerned. But when I buy a some hardware, it is MINE to use as I see fit. Including shooting it with a shotgun, hammering it to pieces, or slipping a wire from here to there. Period. End of story. I'm not going to get involved in worrying about whether or not MY behavior is congruent to THEIR business. I am focused on what is good for me, they are focused on what is good for them, and that is a good thing I think you'd agree with considing your other remarks on other topics. We each look out for ourselves, I think you'd say. Self-interest is a good thing, I think you'd say. Dave is merely putting information out for end users, freely. I see no problem with that, either. It's his own decision. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 15:30 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold ><ggherold(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. It's not Dave's job to protect Rigol. Whether he hurt them or not is a question that isn't clear, nor answered yet. If Rigol is forced to make further modifications because of Dave, and only because of Dave, then you may have a point on that narrow ledge. But it still doesn't mean Dave has any responsibility to protect them from such actions they may later choose to take. Besides the issue that Dave is acting as an independent, free agent and may choose what is in his own better interests, he cannot possibly be expected to consult some personal Ouija board about the mind of Rigol about their own business interests. Rigol can fend for themselves. And they are perfectly able to do so. In any case, I generally prefer a world where knowledge is freely shared, education valued, and the consequences lived with more than one where knowledge ie metered out. Dave gave information, which is fine. You did too when you commented about the "clean transient response" and the fact that you don't think it is wise to hack it for your own needs. Which is good information, as well. Then just let the end user decide for themselves what is better for them. As it should be. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 31 Mar 2010 15:46 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:01:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: ><snip> >Jones is perfectly capable of estimating the considerable economic >damage he is doing to Rigol. ><snip> I sincerely doubt that. I doubt even you could. Besides, I think you've made an excellent point that the unit works well as designed and doesn't work for your needs nearly so well, hacked. Other people like you will choose units that meet needs well and Rigol will be just fine. But let me make an argument to the other side, just for grins. Professionals like you will do what is in your own interests and, if you are correct, hacking it doesn't make it much better so they won't bother. Besides, it works great as a 50MHz unit as it should. The niche of people who will modify the unit _rather_ than buy something that really does do 100MHz well will be those who simply cannot afford the higher priced spread, anyway. So they aren't really in the 1102E market to begin with. So Rigol will actually benefit by getting the money that is "on the table" from those who cannot really afford much more but decide __now__ to buy the lower cost Rigol unit because they can hack it for a small now-perceived extra benefit to them. Hobbyists, for the most part, I'd suspect. That might help Rigol, rather than hurt them. Professionals need stuff they can rely upon, anyway, and support when things need repair under warranty. besides, it's not Dave's job to pimp their interests, anyway. Rigol can take care of themselves, just fine. Jon
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 15:59 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:16:26 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gosh, maybe you do have a sense of humor. John
From: Phil Hobbs on 31 Mar 2010 16:00
On 3/31/2010 3:07 PM, Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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 For hardware, I agree entirely. You bought it, you can hack it up any way you want. For software, you don't own it, you only license it, and that restricts what you can do. So far, so well understood. These hardware/software gizmos we're surrounded with are in a bit of a grey area. If you bought an Apple computer, for instance, you'd own the hardware but only license the pre-installed software. You don't get a right to hack/rip off/disassemble their software just because you bought their hardware. I don't like the DMCA in general, and I think it was silly of Rigol to make hacking it this easy--all they needed was a SSH stack, a hardware key, or even an obfuscated command--but that doesn't change the moral position. The hardware is hardware, so you can hack it any way you like. Cutting traces on the PCB to get the extra vertical bandwidth would be perfectly fine. Disassembling the firmware and ripping it off would not be fine. Hacking the firmware as Dave did is a grey area, one that will become more and more important as we go along. As I said, it's a good lesson in product design, and an interesting moral question that is more complicated than most folks here are willing to see. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net |