Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 6 Apr 2010 10:04 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:02:55 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:10:09 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>> news:1pg9r5tes24ml91m59jag6jna6rctpmvg0(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>>> Except with software you agree to a EULA prohibiting you from doing that >>>>> yourself. No such agreement exists when purchasing a scope from eBay, >>>>> hence >>>>> it is "not illegal" to do so unless you were intending to defraud (you >>>>> were >>>>> the one who suggested not being illegal trumps the moral argument over >>>>> over-clocking ADCs). >>>>> >>>>> Mark. >>>>> >>>> Lawyers certainly do attack software users for misuse of their >>>> products, wherever they purchased them. Autodesk did it to us; >>>> fortunately we had done nothing wrong and their lawyer was stupid to >>>> boot. When instruments become software-driven, they may well be >>>> subject to the legal provisions that protect software. > >>> Only if you signed an agreemnt to that effect during purchase. >> >> I signed no agreements with Autodesk. Because they copyrighted their >> software, they exercize control over it whether I agree or not. Bith >> copyrights and patents give the owner rights over their IP. > >I think you will find that somewhere in the small print it says that you >agree to all their draconian terms and conditions by opening the shrink >wrap packaging and clicking on OK or "I accept" during the installation >where a long screed you are supposed to read is typically displayed. > >I am amazed that they were quite so heavy handed though! >I take it that they had a warrant to enter and search your premises. No. A disgruntled ex-employee (that's another story) called several software companies and told them we were cheating on licenses. PADS called us and asked about it, we explained (two paid licenses, one layout person) and they said OK. They must be used to disgruntled layout people. Autocad hired a law firm, or at least sicced one of their hired guns on us. Their doofus lawyer sent many nasty letters accusing us of things and demanding stuff. I wasted a *lot* of their time, just for fun and to make sure it cost Autodesk a bunch, and eventually sent them the stuff they demanded, basically xeroxes of the UPC tags on all of the Autodesk stuff we had. That was, like, 7 things, including one student copy of Autocad, which I offered to sell back to them. They didn't want it. John
From: John Larkin on 6 Apr 2010 10:06 On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:33:42 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > >"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 > > > > This is a discussion group, and I furnish material to discuss. You'd be happier posting to one of the cursing groups. John
From: John Larkin on 6 Apr 2010 10:20 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:05:24 +0200, oopere <me(a)somewhere.net> wrote: > > >David L. Jones 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. >> >As I mentioned before, this is routinely done by, for instance, Agilent. >You can buy some extra GHz by entering the license code. This is _not_ >new nor hidden! > >Pere Right. Rigol just didn't lock it down hard enough. John
From: Joel Koltner on 6 Apr 2010 12:04 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:s2gmr5d4iaf5b6pekp0r8cfn09inch0co8(a)4ax.com... > If I spend, say, $5K coding a BIST routine (BIST is awful to program) > why shouldn't I charge customers who want BIST? And not charge the > people who don't want it? I would think that a BIST routine would more than pay for itself just based on reduced warranty costs alone? But I certainly don't see anything wrong with providing a "pay for" option for BIST if you want to.
From: John Larkin on 6 Apr 2010 12:42
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:30:16 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >George Herold wrote: >> On Mar 31, 11:53 am, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <ggher...(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. >>> >>> John- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> Oh I don't plan on hacking it. I just figured that there might be a >> tick up in sales of the 50MHz version and I should get mine before >> they sell out. And yeah the pulse response looked nice. (I also like >> that it's a bit faster than the spec.) I'm not sure about the >> rattiness of the 100MHz response.. after all the 100MHz TEK pulse >> looked ratty too and it might have been that Dave was hitting it with >> a raggy pulse to begin with. (Sorry Dave, I don't mean to dis your >> bench test skills.) >> >> I think Dave likes Rigol and I'm not sure his hack will hurt sales. I >> would guess it's only a small fraction of users that would want the >> hack anyway. I would bet.. though I don't know how to prove it.. that >> Dave has been good for Rigol sales. (He is certainly responsible for >> my purchase of one.) > >I know for a fact that my (positive) review and pushing of the Rigol scope >on my blog and other places has directly resulted in at least several >hundred sales (people email me and thank me for it almost daily). My review >of the Rigol has been viewed over 15,000 times, so I'd be surprised if I'm >not responsible for sales in the thousands, directly or indirectly. I'm >probably Rigol's biggest independent public supporter. Didn't you also do a blog about Rigol "overclocking" their ADCs? You've made a minor career out of trashing their scopes. I like my 1052 so far. John |