Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 11:14 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 31, 1:03�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue > >[...] > >>The act is >> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. > >If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >padlock in the least. Would you? > No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at least. So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. Jones? Why? John
From: JW on 31 Mar 2010 11:19 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:03:51 -0700 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in Message id: <41e5r5lufg6o9dkttqtgjiaarsd18jpjb6(a)4ax.com>: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" ><altzone(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. Just out of curiosity John, would you think the same thing applies to the kids who overclock their processors? After all, Intel makes less money on the lower clocked CPU chips - is this depriving Intel from deserved revenue? Note that I'm not making any judgment on whether this is right or wrong...
From: Muzaffer Kal on 31 Mar 2010 11:21 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:44:14 +0100, "Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote: >I was going to type out a lengthy reply but you're obviously not open to >reasoned debate. > >Would you accuse AMD of 'outright theft' for selling 4 core processors as >3 core processors? > >http://www.guru3d.com/news/phenom-ii-x3--enable-the-4th-core/ > The difference there is that you don't have access to AMD's verification/test suite which shows some of the functionality on one of the cores as broken so it would be marked as bad and disabled. It is certainly the same die as the 4 core processor but it may not have passed all the tests. If you're upset at paying more for the same die, you don't even have to go as far as different number of cores. Any CPU you buy today (from AMD, Intel or IBM etc.) has different speed versions with different pricing while it's exactly the same die. The only difference is how they're binned (and testing may or may not have shown an issue with lower binned/priced parts.) -- Muzaffer Kal DSPIA INC. ASIC/FPGA Design Services http://www.dspia.com
From: Phil Hobbs on 31 Mar 2010 11:24 On 3/31/2010 11:00 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: > > > John Larkin wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> <altzone(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. > > :)))))) > > According to your logic, CPU overclocking is a crime. > Although that 20 vs 50 MHz nonsense doesn't really make any difference > and probably not worth hassle. > > But, why varicap and that lousy circuit? Looks like Rigol analog > designers don't have a clue... They are probably as unexperienced as > their programmers... > If the 100 MHz scope flunks the speed test and is going to be restricted to 50 MHz (with appropriate sampling rate), why make the customer pay the 3 dB penalty for the wider bandwidth? Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal ElectroOptical Innovations 55 Orchard Rd Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 845-480-2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
From: Al Borowski on 31 Mar 2010 11:31
On Apr 1, 12:01 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > 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. Well, not really. You don't buy the software, you only license it. You have to agree to the EULA for it to install. If you figure out how to use regedit to enable certain features, it isn't illegal to tell people how to do so (of course they may be violating the EULA if they do) > 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. Hang on a second. It's only Rigol's scope until I buy it. When I buy it, it's mine. Not theirs. You don't have to sign an agreement that says you won't modify it. What crime is possibly being committed? To the best of my knowledge, there is no charge of "taking advantage of a companies stupid business decision". > 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? Apples and Oranges. The customer only ever owns the physical copy of the book, or the CD the software came from. The customer does not own the IP itself. The customer CAN modify their property (Eg scribble over pages or smash the CD in half). When you buy a Rigol scope, Rigol may still own the IP to the design, but you own and can modify the scope itself. It's illegal to make copies of the book or software without permission because otherwise there is no real way for programmers or authors to make an income. Rigol were foolish by making their scope so easy to upgrade. Some software mods could have made the job much harder. You can hardly say that without a law to prevent modification to "their" product (which is now owned by the customer) it's impossible for scope manufacturers to make a living. If they HAVE to make a product and cripple it to make a low-end model, they are free to use every trick in the book to prevent it being modified. Rigol didn't bother. I own a car - I do not own the IP associated with that car (an untold number of patents, copyright on the microcontroller firmware etc). I service it myself - you seem to be saying that's unethical. After all, I'm taking business away from my local mechanic. Suppose I find a very easy way to boost the engine output by cutting a certain wire, which fools the ECU into thinking I paid for a better motor. Is it unethical for me to tell people? I don't think so. Al |