Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 20:03 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:41:13 -0500, "George Jefferson" <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> You can't know what their manufacturing procedures are. They may >> select the better scopes to be the 100 MHz versions. >> >> John > >AND you can't be sure that they don't do anything more than just twiddle a >bit, can you? You are sticking up for them as if you are 100% sure they did >absolutely nothing wrong when all the evidence supports the opposite case. >IMO they should have to prove they did nothing wrong which is quite simple. >e.g., if you made inherently different performance versions of your product >surely you can prove that they perform different? > >Your justifications only show that you fit in the same group as Rigol. I >won't be buying anything from you and I hope your customers will find >someone else to give their money to. > My customers understand they they have to pay for firmware, because it costs us money to develop. And they pay for extended temperature range boards, and they pay for extended warranty, and they pay for BIST. We offer them different things at different prices, and they have the option to buy from anyone who makes them a better offer. I do expect them to not hack my boards to steal our investment in firmware development. They are professionals with ethics, and they don't. I wouldn't sell to you, because you would. John
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 20:38 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:26i7r5t2l5ji2cra7k6r6cl0guvi5h2u0q(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:25:04 GMT, Swanny <swanny(a)nospam.org> 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. >>> >> >>So are all the overclockers in the USA in jail for depriving Intel of >>revenue by not buying a higher grade CPU for more $? > > No. Overclocking is not illegal. > > John > But neither is hacking your own bought 50MHz scope. I can't see how your views are consistent here. Mark.
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 20:43 <...> > 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. > And this is where John's logic really does break down as said in another post. By John's logic Rigol have deprived the ADC makers of revenue by buying lower specified ADCs and clocking them faster than they are rated. John argues that this is OK because it's not illegal. But the thrust of his argument is that somehow hacking a 50MHz scope 'deprives' Rigol of revenue, and since hacking per se is not illegal this simply amounts to a moral argument that it is somehow wrong. If that is the case then so is overclocking ADCs. If it is OK to overclock an ADC, why is it not OK for a user who has bought a 50MHz version to privately 'overclock' it to 100MHz by making a firmware tweek or hardware mod? In both cases the results are not guaranteed anyway. Mark.
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 20:44 "John Tserkezis" <jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bb3df51$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > John Larkin wrote: > >> Since the ADCs are overclocked, > > That's only done to cut costs. If component selection *was* an issue, > it would have been locked in hardware. A jumper perhaps, a bridge on a > track, something. > >> it may be that Rigol selects the best scopes to be the 100 MHz versions. > > I don't think so. The testing would have occurred during the board > construction phase, before it has been programmed with firmware and fit > into a case. Not necessarily. They may use the firmware itself to test a parameter such as the bandwidth of a particular amplifier stage. This might require a high tolerance for the 100MHz version and a lower tolerance for the 50MHz version. Unless they are using some fancy and expensive ATE tester that could do this it might be far easier and cheaper to use the firmware itself. > > It appears the ONLY difference between the 50/100Mhz version is one > character in the serial number, via unencrypted, keyboard-capable RS232 > communications, on a port that's user accessible. Oh, and the sticky > label. We don't know that this is the only difference, as you say it *appears* to be the only difference. > > Call it what you want, it's sloppy, they *have* been caught with their > pants down. Sloppy it is. Unencrypted serial comms and a simple hardware mod to bypass firmware settings is asking for this to happen. Mark.
From: markp on 31 Mar 2010 20:45
"David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7REsn.21709$iu2.15075(a)newsfe15.iad... > 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. They could as has been pointed out do sampling, some may fall below the 100MHz threshold and are destined to become 50MHz versions. There is no real guarantee that a 50MHz scope when hacked will perform as well as a bought 100MHz scope. But that's the risk the end user takes in carrying out the mod. > >>> 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. > > Dave. |