Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 12:01 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 1, 1:14�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >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. > >Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- >produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the >4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, >and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the >3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of >the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing >4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less >money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones >Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut >costs, and their children go hungry. > >Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story? > It's too hypothetical. Each extra room costs real money to build and has real value on the market. IP costs real money to develop, has market value, but costs nothing to reproduce. That's why an EDA vendor can charge you $60K for each copy of a DVD, and why the law protects their right to do so. There's a clear legal distinction between physical property and intellectual property. > >>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. > >I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what >the crime was. Under US law, I belive it's criminal conspiracy to use a computer to hack software for profit. Which I think is illegal. > >> >> 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. > >Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. Well, I do. Especially telling the world how to do it, which will cost Rigel serious revenue. John
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 12:02 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:47:52 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 3/31/2010 11:00 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> >>> 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? > >Quite often, the things are getting tossed into the different bins not >because of a difference in quality, but for marketing, legal, inventory >reduction or whatever non-technical reasons. There are many examples of >that. But the question is not about moral/legal implications. > >The idea of using varicap in the scope analog front end doesn't make >much sense to me. What do you think? I think it makes sense if it works, as it seems to do. John
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 31 Mar 2010 12:08 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:00:33 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >>John Larkin wrote: >> >> >>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... > > > Do you think that it doesn't work? And that their firmware was coded > by inexperienced programmers? There are many small details which indicate that the software was written by indiots. > How many oscilloscopes have you designed > and manufactured and marketed? BTW, one of the things that I design are the analog front ends for scopes and like. Some with BW to 1 GHz. The idea of using varicap just doesn't make any sense to me. > Looking at the transient response at 100 MHz, which kinda sucks, I > wonder if the 50 and 100 MHz scopes are indeed identical except for > firmware. "Good - Better - Best" marketing principle is old as a World. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: Spehro Pefhany on 31 Mar 2010 12:19 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. > >John What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope from a Chinese maker. Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. He might have hurt or helped them.
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 12:30
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >>Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >> >>John > >What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >from a Chinese maker. > >Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. > >He might have hurt or helped them. I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. But he chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol did not. So why did he do it? John |