John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:58:10 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) >wrote: > >>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:47:27 +0100, Martin Brown >>><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" >>>>> <altzone@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. >>>> >>>>"Land of the Free" criminalises lots of things. The punters must be >>>>ripped off by corporate excess at every turn - just look at the DMCA as >>>>an example of how your congress critters are in hock to big business. >>> >>>You don't favor copyrights or legal protection for intellectual >>>property? If you spent years writing a book or a symphony or >>>developing a product that was mostly firmware, you wouldn't mind if >>>people copied it and sold cheap knockoffs? >> >>As long as we have actors, writers, filmakers, musicians, etc that >>each make more money in a year than the people lurking this newsgroup >>make in a lifetime the current system seems to be working just fine >>for them. >> >>If your 'product' is good people are willing to pay for it. If your >>product sucks and no-one is willing to pay for it then you better find >>another job. The way I look at it is that people who copy your >>software would not have bought it in the first place. > >Does that mean you are willing to copy software, purchased by yourself >or others, in violation of a license agreement? And that your >willingness depends on your opinion of the quality of the product?Judging the way the world works it doesn't seem to matter. Anyway I don't give out copies of software to others. Although I always use cracked versions because I don't want to be mess around with dongles and license servers. If there is no cracked copy available I don't buy the software package. The availability of a cracked copy is also a measure whether its worth the money or not. Furthermore I try to use open-source software as much as possible (and contribute as a payment). -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
Started by ●March 30, 2010
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:18:30 -0700, Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:45:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:45:38 +1100, "David L. Jones" >><altzone@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Nial Stewart wrote: >>>>> It's also very dishonest and goes to show why humanity will never >>>>> make it very far. People like Larkin are too arrogant to understand >>>>> this. Do you think people would buy their products if they knew that >>>>> the only difference between the low end and high end versions is the >>>>> price.... >>>> >>>> ...and access to extended functionality that someone's had to be paid >>>> to develop? >>> >>>In this case Rigol actually went to the trouble to design-in circuitry to >>>enable this 50MHz "cripple" feature. The front end was clearly designed from >>>day one to be at least 100MHz bandwidth, and they then decided to dumb it >>>down to meet a lower end market and price point by adding the cripple >>>feature. >>>So George is essentially right, the only effective difference is the price. >>> >>>>> At the very least they could have added some true functional >>>>> improvement that made it justifiable but simply changing the model >>>>> number.... >>>> >>>> ...and access to further functionality that someone's had to be paid >>>> to develop.... >>> >>>The only extra functionality is being able to go to 2ns timebase instead of >>>5ns, everything else is identical. A couple of lines of code? >>> >>>Any extra design effort that has gone into this product all went in to >>>designing the cripple feature to dumb it down! >>> >>>>> doesn't justify a 40% price increase. >>>> >>>> By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs >>>> of the DVD when they sell Windows7. >>> >>>A completely silly analogy. >> >>Not at all. IP costs money to develop and has to be paid for. And >>there are economies of scale from building one hardware platform and >>marketing competitive products that have different firmware. Rigol's >>error was to make the hack too easy. >> >>It's like stealing stuff out of cars. People will steal thongs if you >>don't roll up the windows and lock the doors, so everybody has to roll >>up the windows and lock the doors. Ditto big steel vaults in banks. >>It's inefficient because a minority of people will game the rules any >>way they can, sometimes just because they can. > >I don't see it that way, at all, John. I think the >manufacturer took a risk designing as they did and chose to >do so, anyway. They knew it was possible that this may be >uncovered and decided to go for it.They made it too easy to hack. Now they're going to have to rework the firmware to make it harder, which will cost them something.> >When I buy a tool, I am completely free to repurpose it in >any way I want to. When I buy a hammer, it may not get used >as the manufacturer intended. So what. When I buy a Tek >scope, I may decide to gut it and redo some things in it to >improve its use to me. > >Your point hangs entirely on what was in the MIND of those >who fielded this DS1052E. I would have to somehow _know_ in >advance (and although we can assume and are probably right >here, it is still an assumption) that Rigol didn't want me >making these particular modifications but don't mind if I >make other ones I might someday decide to make (such as >hauling out sections and using them with more effort and work >on my part for something entirely different.) In other >words, you are arguing that because _these_ modifications are >simple and other ones more complex, that repurposing in one >direction is wrong and another direction is just fine (I'm >assuming here that you wouldn't mind me dismantling it and >using it for parts, for example.) > >That's a crazy argument. > >If they want to make it difficult, and you have suggested >they may now have to do that, then that is fine, too. There >is nothing wrong with that. But to argue that a buyer is >limited in certain ways and NOT limited in certain other ways >in using a tool they have purchased, merely based upon the >manufacturer's mindset about some of these vs others, is >going too far.I commented that what he did may be a crime under US law. Personally, I class it with vandalism. They always have the option of making it more>difficult, if they are that concerned. But when I buy a some >hardware, it is MINE to use as I see fit.IP is different under law. You can't buy music or videos or software and do whatever you like with it... for instance make and sell copies, or open your own theatre and show movies that aren't licensed. IP is different from physical things. You can buy a brick and make and sell all the copies you like. Including shooting>it with a shotgun, hammering it to pieces, or slipping a wire >from here to there. Period. End of story. I'm not going to >get involved in worrying about whether or not MY behavior is >congruent to THEIR business. I am focused on what is good >for me, they are focused on what is good for them, and that >is a good thing I think you'd agree with considing your other >remarks on other topics. We each look out for ourselves, I >think you'd say. Self-interest is a good thing, I think >you'd say. > >Dave is merely putting information out for end users, freely. >I see no problem with that, either. It's his own decision.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? John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in news:81gj1iFrpU1@mid.individual.net:> > > By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs of > the DVD when they sell Windows7. > >Interesting you mention Microsoft. If I recall correctly, I think the only difference between the Workstation and Server forms of NT was a pair of registry entries. These could only be set correctly upon install, once running in whichever guise, the operating sytem made it impossible to change either one as the opposing pair enabled some algortihm to prevent change. Perhaps this was an urban legend, but it would not surprise me. From http://oreilly.com/news/differences_nt.html Microsoft recently introduced version 4.0 of NT Workstation (NTW) and NT Server (NTS), and claims that there are substantial technical differences between the Workstation and Server products. Microsoft uses this claim to justify an $800 price difference between NTW and NTS, as well as legal limits on web server usage in NTW, both of which have enormous impact on existing NTW users. But what if the supposed technical differences at the heart of NTW and NTS are mythical? We have found that NTS and NTW have identical kernels; in fact, NT is a single operating system with two modes. Only two registry settings are needed to switch between these two modes in NT 4.0, and only one setting in NT 3.51. This is extremely significant, and calls into question the related legal limitations and costly upgrades that currently face NTW users.
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:13 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:30:53 -0700, Jon Kirwan ><jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>><ggherold@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mar 30, 8:29�pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@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. >> >>It's not Dave's job to protect Rigol. > >He sure didn't protect them. He apparently organized an effort to hack >their scopes and cost them money, and went public with it. > >> >>Whether he hurt them or not is a question that isn't clear, >>nor answered yet. If Rigol is forced to make further >>modifications because of Dave, and only because of Dave, then >>you may have a point on that narrow ledge. But it still >>doesn't mean Dave has any responsibility to protect them from >>such actions they may later choose to take. >> >>Besides the issue that Dave is acting as an independent, free >>agent and may choose what is in his own better interests, he >>cannot possibly be expected to consult some personal Ouija >>board about the mind of Rigol about their own business >>interests. Rigol can fend for themselves. And they are >>perfectly able to do so. > >Maybe they have lawyers to help them fend for themselves. > >> >>In any case, I generally prefer a world where knowledge is >>freely shared, education valued, and the consequences lived >>with more than one where knowledge ie metered out. Dave gave >>information, which is fine. You did too when you commented >>about the "clean transient response" and the fact that you >>don't think it is wise to hack it for your own needs. Which >>is good information, as well. Then just let the end user >>decide for themselves what is better for them. As it should >>be. > >Jones still hasn't said why he did it.--- What in the hell is wrong with you, Larkin? He certainly isn't the criminal you make him out to be and he most certainly isn't obligated to dance to your tune. JF
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:> >Jones still hasn't said why he did it. >Probably because it is possible. The reason why there have been so many great inventions :-) -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message news:4BB3A9C7.9010508@electrooptical.net...> These hardware/software gizmos we're surrounded with are in a bit of a grey > area. If you bought an Apple computer, for instance, you'd own the hardware > but only license the pre-installed software. You don't get a right to > hack/rip off/disassemble their software just because you bought their > hardware.Actually I think (in the USA) you do have rights to do a certain amount of hacking and disassembling regardless of what the shrinkwrap license might suggest, but I agree it's largely a grey area. I'm willing to bet you that plenty of the big guys like Agilent, Tek, and LeCroy have completely taken apart, analyzed, and disassembled as much hardware and software as they could manage of their competitors' gear -- and then incorporated any hardware AND SOFTWARE improvements they found into their own kit. (All with one of the company lawyers around to make sure it was done legally, though.)> As I said, it's a good lesson in product designHP/Agilent and Tek have were using simple-minded-but-effective encryption already 20+ years ago to control access to software years in their gear...> and an interesting moral question that is more complicated than most folks > here are willing to see.Agreed. ---Joel
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:u017r512mfbq7gdsq1t5k2r7098f6ht9jl@4ax.com...> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski > <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Apr 1, 12:01 am, John Larkin >><jjlar...@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? > > It may be a felony under DCMA. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. > > JohnFuck the lawyers ! They are the leeches of the world. And although you ain't one, you seem to aspire to be one by your subservient attitude. All this crap about 'software licensing' is lawyer talk. If I buy a product (software or hardware) I own the fucking thing and I can do what I want with it as long as I don't sell it to anyone else. Take a step back from your silly posturing and consider the following... How is anyone going to find out what you have done to your own 'scope in the privacy of your home ? Can you see Rigol getting search warrants to invade their customer's homes ???
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Larkin wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "David L. Jones" > <altzone@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. >So are all the overclockers in the USA in jail for depriving Intel of revenue by not buying a higher grade CPU for more $?
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
George Herold wrote:> On Mar 31, 11:53 am, John Larkin > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >> >> >> >> >> >> <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mar 30, 8:29 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@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. BTW, I did not come up with the solution and expose it, it's been public info on various forums for weeks before I did my video, and was even featured on Hackaday. And I have just heard that Rigol have already fixed the firmware before I did the video. John seems obseesed with "why I did it". Err, in case he missed it, I run an electronics engineering video blog, and have had several episodes on the Rigol, so I and many of my viewers are curious about how Rigol (and others) design and market their products. I originally suggested the possibilty of a mod out of curiosity, so it's a update on what my viewers have discovered and have already shared with the world. There is actually nothing new in my video. I'm not depriving Rigol of anything, my blog is educational, and once again I believe I'm helping promote their products. To think my blog would hinder sales is ridiculous. But given that Rigol are (or were) the 2nd biggest oscilloscope manufacturer in the world (they might be #1 now), my little blog is hardly going to amount to a hill of beans in terms of (I believe positive) sales for them anyway. John needs to get off his ridiculous US DCMA hobby horse. Dave. -- --------------------------------------------- Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:mtq6r5t2e14htcdl9svbr3bt8g95hlpmmc@4ax.com... .....> 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. > > JohnKinda sucks ? Did you watch the eevblog ??? I don't think you have the slightest clue about what fast signals really look like. The higher the bandwidth the messier they look as various resonance effects in the measurement circuit are revealed - use a 1Ghz 'scope and they REALLY suck. The modded Rigol compared very well with a 100Mhz Tektronix TDS 1012.
