Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: keithr on 1 Apr 2010 18:49 David L. Jones wrote: > No, the firmware is identical in both models. They simply enter in whatever > model number at final assembly via serial or USB and the firmware detects > that and switches the I/O line that turns on/off the 50MHz filter. It also > limits the displayed timebase to 5ns instead of 2ns. All other specs are > idential. Has anybody done a bit by it comparison between firmware in the 50MHz unit and the 100MHz unit to confirm this?
From: fritz on 1 Apr 2010 19:12 "keithr" <keith(a)nowhere.com.au> wrote in message news:4bb522d5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > David L. Jones wrote: > >> No, the firmware is identical in both models. They simply enter in >> whatever model number at final assembly via serial or USB and the >> firmware detects that and switches the I/O line that turns on/off the >> 50MHz filter. It also limits the displayed timebase to 5ns instead of >> 2ns. All other specs are idential. > > Has anybody done a bit by it comparison between firmware in the 50MHz unit > and the 100MHz unit to confirm this? Probably not because it is bleedingly obvious that it was IDENTICAL from the simplicity of the hack that has been explained in detail. If you have actually looked at the eevblog and are still asking this question then you are a bit thick. Also, Rigol have apparently reacted and changed the firmware to stop the simple hack. So all roads lead to Rome, so to speak.
From: keithr on 1 Apr 2010 19:16 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:02:13 -0500, "George Jefferson" > <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >> <miso(a)sushi.com> wrote in message >> news:0abfe648-de60-42c3-ab53-0c0bd4dc5497(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >>> 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. >> 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? At the very least >> they could have added some true functional improvement that made it >> justifiable but simply changing the model number doesn't justify a 40% price >> increase. > > People buy the standard and Pro versions of Windows knowing the only > difference is a few flags. Windows consumer versions are brain-damaged > to allow only a small number of network connections at a time, and > cost almost nothing bundled with a PC. Windows Server removes the > limit and costs about $2K. > > I'm sure that all sorts of expensive automotive options are just > firmware these days. All sorts of products differ only in theor > firmware. > > It's Rigol's choice how to price their products and amortize their > engineering. Buying their 50 MHz scope and hacking it, and gleefully > telling the world how to do it, it is essentially vandalism. Legally, > it may be criminal conspiracy to use a computer to commit a crime. Hacking your own property is both legally and morally fine. Telling the world how to do it is more of a grey area but this is only one case of many. Using that information to buy 50MHz units and sell them on as 100MHz one would probably be a crime. Just because the US has draconian laws on the subject doesn't mean that those of us who live in saner parts of the world should have to comply > > Jones is perfectly capable of estimating the considerable economic > damage he is doing to Rigol. I suppose he hates Rigol enough that he's > happy about it. > > If you spent years writing a book or some software, would you be happy > if people copied it and distributed it for free, cutting off your > rotalties? After all, copies cost almost nothing. Now can you justify > charging $20 for a book or $500 for a program when it costs pennies to > manufacture copies? Certainly it may affect the sales of their more expensive unit, but, if they have any sense, they will just drop the 50MHz unit and sell the 100MHz on for the same price or a few dollars more and blitz the market.
From: Phil Allison on 1 Apr 2010 19:33 "Dyna Soar" " Farkin Larkin " >> I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law. > > Dave is an Australian, living in Australia. Why would (or should) he care > about US law? ** His video presentation breaks NO law in either place. >> Personally, >> I class it with vandalism. > > That's bullshit. How can you vandalise something you legally own? ** Precisely. But FJ is alluding to the possible effect on Rigol's sales of their phoney 100MHz version. >> 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? > > Why not? He seems to not be breaking any Australian law. Why does he > have to justify himself to you particularly regarding the laws of another > country? ** His video presentation breaks NO law in either place. FJ's claim to the contrary is entirely RIDICULOUS !! > Your questioning him demonstrates your arrogance towards a law abiding > citizen of another country. ** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of his designs that is close enough to the Rigol case for ** HIM ** to feel very confronted by Dave's video presentation. IOW - a clear case of guilty conscience induced paranoia. IOW - the colossal fool protesteth far too bloody much. ..... Phil
From: keithr on 1 Apr 2010 19:33
John Larkin wrote: > Yes. What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? But that costs a lot to develop. |