It's with some interest I've read the discussions on the legality/morality of performing this mod. Two thoughts come to mind- First, it's been the practice by many cellphone compamies to sell phones to customers at less than cost, up to 50-70% off the retail price, to attract customers with the expectation that over the course of the contract the'll make thier money back. They protect their investment in gaining customers this way by software locking the phones so that they will only work on the provider's network. Of course it didn't take long for hackers to learn how to un-lock the phone's network restriction leading to the situation where people would sign up for service, get their phone, then cancel the contract, get the phone un-locked & go on a cheaper plan from the original provider's competitor. There was a lot of talk from the providers selling the subsidised phones about the legality of this but to my knowledge the people offering the un-locking service operated openly & none was ever prosecuted, beacuse at the end of the day the phones belonged to the customer. The second thing that come to mind is a few years back suppliers of contact lenses (Boush & Laumb as well as Johnson & Johnson) ended up getting sued because they were selling daily use and long term contact lenses, with the daily use ones of course being significantly cheaper, when in fact both types of the lenses were the exact same product except for the packaging. At the end of the day, unless you'ver signed something specifically legally preventing you from making this mod then it's got to be legal. simply by the fact it isn't illegal. Whether or not it's "moral" is going to depend on the individual's viewpoint. H.
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
F Murtz wrote:> David L. Jones 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. >> > This url does not open on my seamonkey but does on IE6 (with a warning > to update browser)(which I did not do)It has nothing to do with a infections. Youtube has been posting that warning for a while now. They are using/going to use features that are not supported in older browsers.. I had a choice to update to IE8 or FireFox on this older PC here, I went with Firefox. Seems to be ok..
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. > > 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. > > Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP > is expensive. > > Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make > it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both > versions. > > I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital > filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies > than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a > few more. > > John >Is it possible the 50 Mhz models are rejected 100mhz versions that may have not past some test at 100Mhz bw ? Units that wouldn't pass at 100 Mhz and be ok at 50 Mhz, would be waste just through the boards out. Personally, I would get a little upset knowing they would charge an extra $300, with nothing more than a firmware setting change.. I would expect different internals for that much difference. But If it was like I suggested, then maybe some users can be happy with the possible defected operation at 100 mhz
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
Nial Stewart wrote:> I'm afraid I'm not lowering myself to your level Phil. > > > Where does all that frustration come from?Maybe he paid full price for a DS1102E ?> > > >>YOU FUCKWIT POMMY MORON !!! > > > > I don't know where you get that from.
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
terryc wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:30:26 +0100, Nial Stewart wrote: > > >>By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs of >>the DVD when they sell Windows7. > > > Is it worth that much? >I see and understand "Nial Stewarts" point. $0.50 is like a slap in the face for MS.. I would how ever, do the honorable deed and pay $0.75 for it. Jamie.
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message news:4BB3505A.503@electrooptical.net...> On 3/31/2010 12:46 AM, miso@sushi.com wrote: >> On Mar 30, 8:03 pm, John Larkin >> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:29:12 +1100, "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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Products are increasingly IP and less hardware these days, and the IP >>> is expensive. >>> >>> Of course, Rigol made it too easy. They will probably go back and make >>> it harder to do, and that will make the scope cost more in both >>> versions. >>> >>> I recently got a 1052E, and it's a pretty nice scope. The digital >>> filtering is not perfect, but it's sure cute. It has way more goodies >>> than a comparable Tek for under half the price. I'll probably get a >>> few more. >>> >>> John >> >> The design cost is amortized over all the units. [Hey, don't worry >> what the consults charges, it will go to zero as we sell a million >> units.] >> >> Rigol does themselves a disservice by having to maintain two >> products. They should just sell the higher speed scope, bomb the >> market, and then own it. > > > Destroying a market isn't usually a good way to make money in the long > run. > > And it's easily possible that Rigol saves a boatload of money by having > only one assembly number to design, code, build, and test. Remember that > (as Dave discovered earlier) they're actually overclocking the ADCs on the > 100 MHz model--so one can argue it's really a 50 MHz scope that Rigol > themselves hacked into a 100 MHz one. > > Companies have been selling crippleware forever--the earliest example I > know of was the 6 MHz IBM PC-AT. You changed the crystal and one other > thing that I forget, and suddenly you had a blistering fast 8 MHz AT! > (Cooler than the coolest thing ever, no?) There were similar howls of > outrage over that one.**Not even close. The real con was the Intel 486SX. It was a 486 chip, with a deliberately disabled maths co-processor. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:sgh7r5583nq4rmkvd7caen4itfp13uqco4@4ax.com...> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:07:27 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya@microsoft.com> > wrote:...>> >>Fuck 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. > > You generally have a legal right to sell it to someone else, at least > in the US. You may not in europe.I thought it was obvious to anyone that I meant you cannot modify it and falsely represent it for resale. You admit you are not a lawyer, but you still react like one.>>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 ??? >> > > Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol > no economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the > world does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse.Crap. If you have already bought one, the hack is an irrelevant but pleasant bonus. If you haven't bought one already, you will have to act quickly to get an 'old' one as Rigol have already blocked the simple port hack that David repeated. Rigol will probably benefit from all the publicity, despite looking like idiots in the mind of engineers, for leaving themselves so exposed. After all is said and done many more DS1052E's will probably be sold.> > Are you an anarchist or something?What do you mean by anarchist or something ?
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
>>For hardware, I agree entirely. You bought it, you can hack it up any >>way you want. For software, you don't own it, you only license it, and >>that restricts what you can do. > > This last situation is one that _developed_ in the US due to > a law suit (or several) that took place around the time when > VisiCalc was a "big deal" in and around 1980. Prior to this > time, software was bought and sold and the older US laws > regarding rights followed that legal lagacy. If you BUY the > software, you can loan it to others, etc. What happened is > that some software manufacturers (using the term, loosely) > decided that they didn't want that legal legacy and tried > hard to pony up some "new idea." That new idea was selling > licenses to use, not direct ownership. This really didn't > have a lot of legal history to it and there was a debate as > to whether or not one could "sell" a product over the > counter, on a wide spread basis. >It all started with Microsoft. They licensed MS DOS instead of selling it to IBM. This allowed MS to get a fee for every IBM computer sold with MS DOS on it. Initially MS was going to sale DOS to IBM but Gates changed his mind after the fact(not quite sure how it happened) because he did not want to give the source code to IBM. In a perfectly ethical world there would be no such licensing issues. If you wanted the software you brought it outright and would not sale it or modify it to make a profit from other peoples work. Because software is not tangible there is nothing to stop someone from duplicating it and hence it is quite easy to get around having to pay the owner for it. This has nothing to do with software but with the societies ethics. The fact that piracy is widespread simply tells us that our moral standard has drastically changed for the worse. "A hard days work for a hard day's pay" has been replaced with "I'll do anything for money and fuck everyone else!"
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Fields wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:08:45 -0500, John Fields >><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:30:03 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >>>><speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin@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. >>> >>>--- >>>So now it's _not_ "serious money" like you originally claimed? >> >>If it's, say, 100 scopes hacked at a loss of $400 each, until Rigol >>makes the firmware more secure (which will also cost money to do) >>that's $40K. I don't know if $40K is "serious" money that matters to >>Rigol, or to you. $40K is fairly serious to me. > > > --- > Jeez, John, I see you still haven't quit being a cheater... > > 1052E's go for $595 max _retail_, and 1102E's go for $795 max, also > retail, so that's a difference of $200, of which Rigol sees maybe $50. > > Applied to 100 scopes, that's $5K which is probably chump change for the > likes of Rigol. > > Now if I cheated a little and claimed that those 100 scopes would never > have been bought except to be "converted", then I could claim that the > extra sales more than offset any losses (especially since it costs them > the same to build either scope) and that the hack was actually a > blessing in disguise, if not leaked on purpose... > --- > > >>How would you feel if Jones hacked one of your products and cost you >>$40K? But I think you don't do firmware, so the question is probably > > > --- > If he hacked one of my products and wasn't in violation of any IP > restrictions, then I'd be unhappy but that's the way it goes... > > BTW, you think wrong. > > Again. > > I do hardware, firmware, software, AND bleeding edge 555 circuit design. > > So there... > > JF:)
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:26:58 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya@microsoft.com> wrote:> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:oph7r51vibegk37bkncrn8avtiou3p6ssk@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:30:18 +0200, "fritz" <yaputya@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"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. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>>Kinda sucks ? >>>Did you watch the eevblog ??? I don't think you have the slightest clue >>>about >>>what fast signals really look like. >> >> >> How about this one: >> >> ://www.highlandtechnology.com/DhttpSS/T760DS.html >> >> That's a real transformer-isolated 100 volt pulse into 50 ohms. We've >> tweaked it since we took that pic, and rise/fall are now typically >> under 1 ns. >> >> And this is a 1 GHz square wave >> >> http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/T860DS.html >> >> The undershoot is my fault... a trace is a little too long. I'll fix >> it next pass. >> >> 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. >> >> I use a 20 GHz scope, and the calibration and TDR pulses are almost >> perfect. >> >> John > >You claimed the modded Rigol 'kinda sucks'.The step response is pretty ugly. The step response of my unmodded 1052E is very nice.>Why ? What were you expecting from a 100Mhz scope ?A nice Gaussian step?>You also snipped the following... >"The modded Rigol compared very well with a 100Mhz Tektronix TDS 1012." >Care to comment why a TDS 1012 also 'kinda sucks' ? > >Compared to a clean scope, it does. They are made in China too. I don't know if Tek designs them or just rebrands. I also don't know how clean a signal Dave applied. John
