Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Andrew on 5 Apr 2010 22:05 "JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ci4lr5p8s2pak1fn1g696jbmlgkacm831b(a)4ax.com... On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:46:48 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Greegor" <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:58f64e6b-2884-4b4c-bbea-60f45949dfba(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > >> The usual presumption for different prices is that >> different COSTS are involved. > >Wrong. >Supply - demand + goverment intervention. >Nothing more, nothing less. = Dreamer. You should use less wild and crazy drugs though, too much = wild hallucination. Haven't you noticed "government intervention part" mentioned above? Point being "cost" does not make any difference. After the product is manufactured "cost" is a lost money anyway. All you can do is to attempt to sell for as much compensation as you can. "Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the particular products. = Show me a true Adam Smith style market. There hasn't been one in the = USA for over a century and a half. There has not been one ever, AFAIK. However it does not matter. -- Andrew
From: krw on 5 Apr 2010 22:42 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:37:04 -0500, "George Jefferson" <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > > ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:o70lr5529ba6b1k3kj0r6o5h6ed609dmoi(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:53:51 -0500, "George Jefferson" >> <George(a)Jefferson.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones" >>>> <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple >>>>>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and >>>>>> the compromises it forces. >>>>> >>>>>I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and >>>>>also >>>>>continued it ad nauseam. >>>> >>>> Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the >>>> interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices >>>> things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to manufacture. >>>> Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for such >>>> things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong and >>>> provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is like >>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone >>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it. >>> >>>They did nothing wrong. They had identical products(or all intents and >>>purposes) but slapped two different labels on them and charged different >>>prices for generating revenue. >>> >>>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US? You think that's ethical. >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising >> >> Nothing "false" about giving people more than they paid for, even if you >> don't >> tell them. >> > >LOL! Good one! > >Your a liberal right? Only a liberal could come up with something like that! No, I wouldn't own a liberal if they were free. You're stupid, right? >Your not dense but an outright imbecile. In no way intelligent way can one >justify that what Rigol did was give more product for what they paid for. >What your claiming is that Rigol gave people a 50Mhz scope that was actually >a 100Mhz but didn't tell them. They didn't "give" their customers anything. They *sold* them a 50MHz scope advertised as a 50MHz scope. It may (or not) perform better than advertised, but that's not fraud by any stretch of a sane person's mind. You're stupid, right? >It would be like if you went to buy a used car but they gave you a Ferrari >except it doesn't look like a Ferrari, doesn't perform like a Ferrari, >doesn't get the chicks and is nothing like a Ferrari except that both are >classified as vehicles. Yet in your world you believe that person got more >than they paid for. I didn't pay for a Ferrari, I wouldn't expect a Ferrari. You're proving my point, here. You're stupid, right? >Either you are the car salesman, from WeFuckYouInEveryWholeOnEverySale >Autos, or your the buyer that buys from them. You're stupid, right?
From: krw on 5 Apr 2010 22:49 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:23:24 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:53:51 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones" >>> <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple >>>>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and >>>>> the compromises it forces. >>>> >>>>I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and also >>>>continued it ad nauseam. >>> >>> Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the >>> interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices >>> things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to manufacture. >>> Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for such >>> things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong and >>> provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is like >>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone >>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it. >> >>They did nothing wrong. They had identical products(or all intents and >>purposes) but slapped two different labels on them and charged different >>prices for generating revenue. >> >>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US? You think that's ethical. >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising > >What did Riogol do that was false advertising? As far as I know, both >scopes deliver more bandwidth than promised and both are excellent >values. Their features blow away the low-end Tek scopes that cost 2x >or 3x as much. > >I sell versions of products that differ only in enabled features. So >does practically anybody who sells products whose performance depends >on firmware and other IP that was expensive to develop. As do we. Our upper end base unit does have a couple of bucks worth of op-amps that the less expensive model doesn't have but the mobile units are identical except for the firmware. There are more protections to prevent upgrading than Riogol used, however. This was mentioned before, but I worked on the crypto stuff that IBM used in their mainframes to enable processors based on customer payments. If they needed more compute power for year-end statement processing (or whatever) they'd pay for more CPUs and the key to use those computers, for the time of the payment, was sent to the crypto unit to unlock the processors. A complete complement of processors was shipped in every box and only the software configuration determined how many the customer could use (two to ten). As a bonus, if one processor fell over another would pick up where it left off with no additional payment required. I guess that was fraud, too.
From: John Larkin on 5 Apr 2010 23:00 On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:58:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... > >> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >> >> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand it >> and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do you like >> that for rip-off-ness? > > >Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a lot of >people will buy Rigol instead. Depends on your definition of "hard earned." Agilent, like Keithley and most of the appliance sellers in this country, is cashing in on their name by grossly marking up Chinese products. I don't know if Tek's scopes are really Tek-designed, but most are made in China these days. When we don't make anything any more, we can survive by selling one another insurance, or working for the government. John
From: John Larkin on 5 Apr 2010 23:03
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:23:44 -0500, "George Jefferson" <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: > > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:50:36 -0500, "George Jefferson" >> <George(a)Jefferson.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:deakr5h76s5efoquco0lemv840qg4154od(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >>>> <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>>message >>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> Rigol is like >>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone >>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it. >>>>> >>>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom >>>>>house >>>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one >>>>>day >>>>>you >>>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home. >>>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. >>>>>Your >>>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of >>>>>his >>>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... >>>>>having >>>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the >>>>>couch in >>>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that >>>>>door? >>>>> >>>>>:-) >>>> >>>> Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs >>>> nothing to enable IP. Both have market value. >>> >>>And you believe that ripping people off is IP and has market value. That >>>is >>>the difference between you and me. >>> >>> >> >> Who got ripped off buying a Rigol 50 MHz scope? Or buying the 100 Mhz >> version? Are you saying that either didn't meet advertised specs, or >> that neither was a good value? >> >> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >> >> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand it >> and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do you like >> that for rip-off-ness? >> >> What kind of scope did you last buy? I got a Rigol 1052, and I'll >> probably buy a few more. >> >> John >> >> > >None of this is relevant. We are discussing the ethics involved. There is a >reason you don't get it. Probably because I'm very happy with my 1052 and think it's an amazing 50 MHz scope for the money. What kind of scope did you last buy? John |