Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: keithr on 2 Apr 2010 03:03 On 2/04/2010 10:12 AM, fritz wrote: > > "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. It certainly isn't bleedin' obvious unless it has been done. All that has been proved it that the hack appears to give similar results. > If you have actually looked at the eevblog and are still asking this question then you are a bit thick. If you take things at face value without proper checking then you are a bit stupid. > Also, Rigol have apparently reacted and changed the firmware to stop > the simple hack. Of course they have, it still doesn't prove that the firmwares are identical. > So all roads lead to Rome, so to speak. I can see both ends of the road that I live in, but Rome doesn't appear to be at either of them.
From: David L. Jones on 2 Apr 2010 05:23 For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and 100MHz models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and firmware, I've been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this to an irate customer who contacted them about the issue. Partial Quote from Rigol : "The firmware of the instruments is made to enable capability based on the version purchased just like any software licensed product you would buy." Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed a few weeks ago. Dave. -- --------------------------------------------- Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
From: Jon Kirwan on 2 Apr 2010 05:38 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and 100MHz >models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and firmware, I've >been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this to an irate customer who >contacted them about the issue. > >Partial Quote from Rigol : > "The firmware of the instruments is made to enable capability > based on the version purchased just like any software > licensed product you would buy." > >Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed a few >weeks ago. > >Dave. I'm surprised they wrote that, at all. One thing I find interesting is that if the same hardware is used for 100MHz and 50Mhz versions, either the 50MHz system is a bargain because it includes 100MHz capable hardware (implying it performs better than it would otherwise) or else the 100MHz version really isn't up to snuff. Jon
From: JosephKK on 2 Apr 2010 11:32 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:51:32 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:01:03 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Glenn Gundlach wrote: >>> On Mar 31, 11:23 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> <snip > >>> > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and >>> > firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts >>> of >>> > things have different specs and functions differentiated by >>> firmware. >>> > >>> > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took >>> advantage >>> > of it. I still don't know why. >>> > >>> > John >>> >>> I pretty much agree with you but has anybody verified that the >>> hardware is indeed identical? They don't install a faster processor or >>> A-D or better grade amps? >> >>By all accounts, no, the 100MHz unit is an identical board. People who tried >>to examine the hardware front ends (and other parts) could not find any >>differences between the two models. That's what originally prompted me to >>suggest there was just a component value difference in the models, but of >>course as it turns out it's much simpler than that, they are identical. If >>they weren't identical, then there would be no need for the software logic >>switch to set the 50MHz limit, they'd simply do it with BOM changes. >> >>The sample rate and all other performance features are the same between >>units, so there is no need for better or faster ADC's or processor in the >>100MHz model. > >I thought the 100MHz scope has another timebase setting, so the firmware would >have to know about the BOM change. The component still could have different >ratings. It likely is the same, though. A mere jumper would do the job. Jumper in 100 MHz, jumper out 50 MHz. Have the firmware read the jumper at startup. Or a different resistor value like they do for fancy (HP/Tek) scope probes.
From: JosephKK on 2 Apr 2010 11:40
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. Excuse me, don't both models have a 20 MHz limited bandwidth mode using that same circuit? In that case what extra parts? Just a few lines of code more. >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. > >Dave. |