Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: markp on 6 Apr 2010 14:27 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:k89lr5d4qateqpdvgiqkc9qlna9erq32a4(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:49:41 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>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. >> > > I think the cut here is that amateurs, who penny-pinch on gear, are > outraged by Rigol's actions, and professionals, who design and buy and > sell electronic instruments, think they are being perfectly ethical > and reasonable. > > The amateurs mostly don't need a 100 MHz scope anyhow, and should be > (and aren't) grateful that Rigol sells the 1052 for around $500. I > bought the 50 MHz version to use in my office because that's fine for > most uses. > > John I happen to agree with you John, I am a professional design engineer (and a director of an electronics company) and I see nothing wrong whatsoever in the way Rigol market these scopes. If they want to give you hardware that is capable of 100MHz operation but reduce it's capability and sell it as a 50MHz scope then they are quite entitled to do so, after all what you've paid for is a scope that's guaranteed to 50MHz. However, if they take that road and are stupid enough to allow someone to make a simple mod to recover the additional performance (or at least maybe some of it) then they take the consequences, people will do it! But Rigol may well have not been as silly as we think. After all this has opened up a discussion about Rigol scopes to people who would maybe wouldn't have looked at them in detail. The general impression (overclocking ADCs aside) is that they are extremely good value for money in terms of price/performance. I for one have been looking closely at their combined scope/logic analyzers and am tempted to buy one, and that was on the basis of seeing this thread! Proof though will be if Rigol complain to Youtube to have the video removed. I strongly suspect they won't bother (at least not yet), as that model may well be upgraded and that particular problem negated. In the meantime they get lots of publicity. Mark.
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 18:14 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:45:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:28:29 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>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. >>>You should have kept this information to yourself. >> >>Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here (s.e.d). >> >>For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog scopes, >>they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is still reasonably >>available, for about the price of a modest car. > >Tek 7103s and 7104s, 1 GHz analog scopes with microchannel plate CRTs, >are fairly cheap on the used market. Got a good source for decent probes? A set of probes often costs more than the (used) scope, which seem always to be missing their probes. >An 11801 sampler with a 12 GHz head can be had for under $2K. Nice >scopes. > >John
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 18:16 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:51:32 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:43:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:31:28 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >>>news:ffnkr5p2em11l7p3icre6fesqva8n3s930(a)4ax.com... >>>> Nah, nail the door shut and throw the lazy bum out. He won't be a liberal >>>> Democrat long. >>> >>>Sure he will, he needs to keep all those entitlements coming in so that he >>>doesn't have to work any time soon. :-) >> >>Nope. White males from middle class families don't get entitlements. > >That was then, this is now. Still true. The brats are now to leach off mom and dad's insurance until age 26.
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 18:25 On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 21:28:44 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:vcclr59t6ctjghjbl2mqvi6j8m7c236h9c(a)4ax.com... >> There's a rather major announcement/demonstration coming at NAB next week. > >Great, I'll "watch" for it. > >> It's "only" firmware, but it's really cute. Did you notice that our partner >> was bought out? ...a little scary. > >No, I hadn't -- just tracked down the announcement now. That is intriguing! >Sounds like the new owners might be more focused on all this wireless stuff >than the old ones, though, which could be beneficial. Might be beneficial. Fortunately we have a pretty good toe-hold in the market now. A year ago, not so much. >The new guys provided >the wireless intercom systems that I used some twenty-some-odd years ago as >McDonalds burger flipper; they must be doing something right to still be >around, I expect. That line is in direct competition with the low end of our other intercom product line. It's not bad stuff, but rather stripped. >> I don't like the opposite either; no specs - wing it. Whatever happens it's >> then the engineer's fault for having a defective Ouija board. > >Yes... you need a spec so that it's easy to document why the project schedule >is slipping. "See, you changed the project spec last Monday, and the Tuesday >before that, and then again yesterday afternoon, and..." :-) "Why doesn't it support ____? I said we needed ____. Didn't you read my email? No, I don't keep copies of all my emails." Me: "I do."
From: krw on 6 Apr 2010 18:27
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:04:00 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"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? Depends. If the customer superficially requests BIST, they pay for it. It may be useful in production also. ;-) >But I certainly don't see anything wrong with providing a "pay for" option for >BIST if you want to. BIST is no different than any other option. |