Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:16:11 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<cp77r5ljkbktb5lnhq0sb54r7qc81nsacn@4ax.com>:

>I paid them for a 50 MHz scope. I will not hack their firmware to make
>it into a 100 MHz scope (with rotten step response)
>
>John

You need a brain scan, or check EMI and stay clear of those high Tesla fields :-)
In a resent paper researchers at MIT magnetically stimulated the area behind the right ear,
while asking people questions about subjects where morally right and wrong needed to be evaluated.
They found that by interfering with just that one spot people would give very different
evaluations of right and wrong:
 Researchers were able to alter people's perceptions of right and wrong by
 applying magnetic stimulation to the brain.
 http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/03/12/0914826107.DCSupplemental/pnas.200914826SI.pdf

As to the scope:
I sort of liked the step response.
I also liked that bleak ugly looking BW tek display next to it.
Compare prices.

Would do fine for me.
Here that scope is 500 Euro, exactly 600 $, cannot make one for that that looks so nice.

The usual presumption for different prices is that
different COSTS are involved.
Is it worth it for Rigol to include the supposedly
higher end parts in the lower end models?
Would using the higher end parts in the
"crippleware" versions pay dividends when
it comes to service and repair, repair parts
inventory and one test jig for both models?
How many of the low end scopes do they
sell for each low end one they sell?

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=20
>100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLnhXfVYWYXE
>
>Dave.

Amazing and amusing.  Nice to know.  I think i will get a 1052.  Though i=
=20
probably will not mod it.  There may be other less obvious differences,=20
like selected parts in the input attenuators, and selected diodes in the=20
sampler.  Not all mod results may be so pleasing.  Though it does make=20
me wonder about getting it to go even faster.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:15:35 +1100, John Tserkezis =
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

>Phil Allison wrote:
>
>>> Where is the deception?
>
>> In the FACT that the 100MHz version is  NOT actually a different model=
=20
>> but sells with a very significant price hike -  like 40%.
>
>> If they told buyers  THAT  simple truth they would not have any sales.
>
> Oddly enough, this technique is quite frequent, though, the selling
>technique is more transparent, unlike Rigol who intentionally obscures
>the similarities.
>
>
>
> One that comes to mind are multi-processor mainframe computers that are
>sold fully kitted out, but only enable the number of processors the
>customer pays for.
>
> The idea is, you have the entire box delivered, you *know* it's the
>fully populated box, you call them and say you want x processors
>enabled, and you pay accordingly.  They connect remotely, and using
>complex encrypted communications, your box is reconfigured:  Almost
>instantly you have the performance you paid for.
>
> There is a risk to the vendor, who forks out for the entire box and
>have clients who never pay for all of it.  But it's not all bad, this
>results in possible lock-in (depending on product) guaranteeing further
>income from clients that would have considered moving in the future, AND
>it gets YOUR brand name out there in the market, which is always good =
news.
>
>
>
> Likewise, where I used to work, when questioned about the quite
>significant price difference between our lower-speced and higher-speced
>acoustic products.  We tell the client the control circuitry is
>*exactly* the same, and the difference is in the cost of the microphone,
>and show them the price list in case they were interested.
> If they wanted to upgrade (or downgrade), just swap microphones, make
>relevant adjustments, and re-calibrate the instrument, and that's it.
> The entire process was transparent.
>
>
>
> How is this different from the Rigol situation?  Three points:
>
> Firstly, they have ADDED circuitry to hinder native performance, verses
>include, or enable circuitry (or firmware/software) to improve =
performance.

No, they haven't.  The 20 MHz bandwidth limiter is common to both scopes=20
and is plainly documented; some find it useful.  Using it to produce two=20
models differentiated by bandwidth was perhaps too clever.
>
> Secondly, they've intentionally obscured this fact (exact same hardware
>and firmware), by making it look like two different products.
>
> And lastly, possibly worst of all, they've made it this easy to hack.

This one is the real problem.  A mere password could have stopped this.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The usual presumption for different prices is that
>different COSTS are involved.
>Is it worth it for Rigol to include the supposedly
>higher end parts in the lower end models?
>Would using the higher end parts in the
>"crippleware" versions pay dividends when
>it comes to service and repair, repair parts
>inventory and one test jig for both models?
>How many of the low end scopes do they
>sell for each low end one they sell?

---
I'd guess just about one. ;)

JF 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>
>>Dave.
>
> Rigol did the engineering and selected a business model, and you chose
> to break it based on some moral judgement of your own. They will have
> to react somehow, which will cost them money one way or another.
>
> Why did you do this? Did you feel that Rigol was cheating the public
> and deserved to be exposed and, additionally, deprived of revenue?
>
> John

He exercised his right of free speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

-- 
Andrew 

On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:44:17 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:


>
>** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of his 
>designs that is close enough to the Rigol case  for  ** HIM **   to feel 
>very confronted by Dave's video presentation.

If you mean that I sell products that have different firmware, or
different features enabled, at different prices, yes I do. So does
practically everybody who sells IP-intensive products. Firmware is
expensive to develop and maintain, has value, so commands a price.
More and more products are becoming cookbook uP or FPGA designs whose
real value is the code.

Consider a PCB layout program that's limited as to layer or part count
or functions. Send them lots of money and they email you a key to
remove some of those limits. Their low-cost product is the same as
their high-end, except that they have *added* code to disable
features. Same thing.

John

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:14:44 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I don't intend to hack any of them and I never steal IP. I hope that
>> people won't hack my products and steal my engineering investment.
>
>You never knowingly steal IP. You have no way of telling when the slimy
>fat lawyers from Patent Carpet Baggers Inc will come knocking and demand
>that you pay a huge ransom for infringing their US patent on "whatever".

Autodesk's lawyers did attack us for having illicit copies of Autocad,
and we were obliged to prove that we didn't. It was a nuisance, but I
bet it cost them much, much more than it cost us. We did have one copy
of the student version on premises (left behind by an intern) and they
demanded we do something or other about that. I offered to sell it
back to them.

Of course we never bought another Autodesk product, and never will.

>> 
>> And 50 MHz is a good place for a bench scope, clear of a lot of FM and
>> TV crud. The Rigol looks great at 50 MHz, but noisy and ringy at 100.
>
>But if you happened to want to use it at 100MHz then enabling that
>feature would be useful. In the UK 85MHz bandwidth would be OK.
>
>Waveforms with sharp rise times always look worse at higher bandwidth.

Not on my 11801, at 20 GHz!

John

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message 
news:27f9r5lsbsla2erbfd5jdrvld6rvccicme@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:44:17 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of 
>>his
>>designs that is close enough to the Rigol case  for  ** HIM **   to feel
>>very confronted by Dave's video presentation.
>
> If you mean that I sell products that have different firmware, or
> different features enabled, at different prices, yes I do. So does
> practically everybody who sells IP-intensive products. Firmware is
> expensive to develop and maintain, has value, so commands a price.
> More and more products are becoming cookbook uP or FPGA designs whose
> real value is the code.
>
> Consider a PCB layout program that's limited as to layer or part count
> or functions. Send them lots of money and they email you a key to
> remove some of those limits. Their low-cost product is the same as
> their high-end, except that they have *added* code to disable
> features. Same thing.
>
> John
>

Except with software you agree to a EULA prohibiting you from doing that 
yourself. No such agreement exists when purchasing a scope from eBay, hence 
it is "not illegal" to do so unless you were intending to defraud (you were 
the one who suggested not being illegal trumps the moral argument over 
over-clocking ADCs).

Mark. 

John Tserkezis wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote:
> 
>>> Where is the deception?
> 
>> In the FACT that the 100MHz version is  NOT actually a different model 
>> but sells with a very significant price hike -  like 40%.
> 
>> If they told buyers  THAT  simple truth they would not have any sales.

There is no deception, you pay for a 50MHz unit, you get a 50 MHz unit, 
pay for a 100MHz unit and that is just what you get.

The fact that they are functionally similar doesn't mean that they are 
equivalent. It is entirely possible that Rogol select the 100MHz units 
on the basis of performance. This is common in the semiconductor 
industry where they select the best units to be sold at a premium. They 
usually only expect a certain percentage to pass and stop testing once 
that has been met, so you may get an ordinary product that actually 
performs as a premium one. It may be that Dave was lucky with his, and 
others may not perform as well

>  Oddly enough, this technique is quite frequent, though, the selling
> technique is more transparent, unlike Rigol who intentionally obscures
> the similarities.

I see no reason that they should, you get what you paid for, how they 
achieve that is their own business. If you can get around the system, 
that is your good luck and their bad luck.

>  One that comes to mind are multi-processor mainframe computers that are
> sold fully kitted out, but only enable the number of processors the
> customer pays for.
> 
>  The idea is, you have the entire box delivered, you *know* it's the
> fully populated box, you call them and say you want x processors
> enabled, and you pay accordingly.  They connect remotely, and using
> complex encrypted communications, your box is reconfigured:  Almost
> instantly you have the performance you paid for.
> 
>  There is a risk to the vendor, who forks out for the entire box and
> have clients who never pay for all of it.  But it's not all bad, this
> results in possible lock-in (depending on product) guaranteeing further
> income from clients that would have considered moving in the future, AND
> it gets YOUR brand name out there in the market, which is always good news.

Certainly not uncommon also known to happen with storage units coming 
fully populated with drives.

>  Likewise, where I used to work, when questioned about the quite
> significant price difference between our lower-speced and higher-speced
> acoustic products.  We tell the client the control circuitry is
> *exactly* the same, and the difference is in the cost of the microphone,
> and show them the price list in case they were interested.
>  If they wanted to upgrade (or downgrade), just swap microphones, make
> relevant adjustments, and re-calibrate the instrument, and that's it.
>  The entire process was transparent.
> 
> 
> 
>  How is this different from the Rigol situation?  Three points:
> 
>  Firstly, they have ADDED circuitry to hinder native performance, verses
> include, or enable circuitry (or firmware/software) to improve performance.

That is not that uncommon either. Eons ago I worked for a computer 
company that had a range of 3 machines. All of them were identical 
except for one module, in the fastest model, it was just a straight pass 
through, in the slower models extra gates were added to delay memory 
references. It was a 6 figure upgrade that took 60 seconds to do but the 
point was that the extra expense gave a guarantee that the machine would 
perform at the higher speed.

>  Secondly, they've intentionally obscured this fact (exact same hardware
> and firmware), by making it look like two different products.

In these days when virtually everything has a microcontroller at it's 
heart, I suspect that you could find dozens of similar situations where 
a value stored in the firmware defines the functionality. Look on the 
internet and you'll find similar hacks for everything from disposable 
cameras to region free DVD players.

>  And lastly, possibly worst of all, they've made it this easy to hack.

Thats either laziness or arrogance by the firmware programmers. It is so 
easy to prevent that I see no reason not to do so.