Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 16:04 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:30:53 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >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. He sure didn't protect them. He apparently organized an effort to hack their scopes and cost them money, and went public with it. > >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. Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves. > >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. Jones still hasn't said why he did it. John
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 16:14 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:18:30 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >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. They made it too easy to hack. Now they're going to have to rework the firmware to make it harder, which will cost them something. > >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. I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law. Personally, I class it with vandalism. 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. IP is different under law. You can't buy music or videos or software and do whatever you like with it... for instance make and sell copies, or open your own theatre and show movies that aren't licensed. IP is different from physical things. You can buy a brick and make and sell all the copies you like. 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. Obviously. But I'm curious as to why he did it, and especially why he went to the touble to make a video and post it on youtube. Why, Dave? John
From: Ray on 31 Mar 2010 16:29 "Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in news:81gj1iFrpU1(a)mid.individual.net: > > > By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs of > the DVD when they sell Windows7. > > Interesting you mention Microsoft. If I recall correctly, I think the only difference between the Workstation and Server forms of NT was a pair of registry entries. These could only be set correctly upon install, once running in whichever guise, the operating sytem made it impossible to change either one as the opposing pair enabled some algortihm to prevent change. Perhaps this was an urban legend, but it would not surprise me. From http://oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html Microsoft recently introduced version 4.0 of NT Workstation (NTW) and NT Server (NTS), and claims that there are substantial technical differences between the Workstation and Server products. Microsoft uses this claim to justify an $800 price difference between NTW and NTS, as well as legal limits on web server usage in NTW, both of which have enormous impact on existing NTW users. But what if the supposed technical differences at the heart of NTW and NTS are mythical? We have found that NTS and NTW have identical kernels; in fact, NT is a single operating system with two modes. Only two registry settings are needed to switch between these two modes in NT 4.0, and only one setting in NT 3.51. This is extremely significant, and calls into question the related legal limitations and costly upgrades that currently face NTW users.
From: John Fields on 31 Mar 2010 16:30 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:13 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:30:53 -0700, Jon Kirwan ><jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > >>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. > >He sure didn't protect them. He apparently organized an effort to hack >their scopes and cost them money, and went public with it. > >> >>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. > >Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves. > >> >>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. > >Jones still hasn't said why he did it. --- What in the hell is wrong with you, Larkin? He certainly isn't the criminal you make him out to be and he most certainly isn't obligated to dance to your tune. JF
From: Nico Coesel on 31 Mar 2010 16:44
John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >Jones still hasn't said why he did it. > Probably because it is possible. The reason why there have been so many great inventions :-) -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) -------------------------------------------------------------- |