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@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
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 Apr 1, 12:01=A0am, 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? 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
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:00:33 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> 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. > >:)))))) > >According to your logic, CPU overclocking is a crime.In fact it's not. According to my logic, something is a crime if a country has laws that declare it to be 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...Do you think that it doesn't work? And that their firmware was coded by inexperienced programmers? How many oscilloscopes have you designed and manufactured and marketed? 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
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Apr 1, 1:14=A0am, John Larkin <jjlar...@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?>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.> > 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. And I'm sorry to inform you John, but if I owned one of your devices and figured out how to enable an extra feature I needed for free (as long as it wasn't by downloading some hacked firmware, which would be a copyright violation) I'd do so and still sleep at night. Because when I did so, I'd be modifying _my_ box of tricks. You stopped owning the physical item when you sold it to me. If it's a real concern, ask the customer to sign an agreement not to modify the product. Cheers, Al
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
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?> > Cheers > > Phil HobbsVladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:19:09 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:>On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:03:51 -0700 John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in Message id: ><41e5r5lufg6o9dkttqtgjiaarsd18jpjb6@4ax.com>: > >>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. > >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...I am aware of no laws against overclocking. Intel most likely bins production parts for speed, so if you overclock a CPU you degrade timing margins at your own risk. The Freescale 3.3 volt version of the MC68332 is guaranteed for 16 MHz. I've verified that they work to 45, and run them at 20. I don't think that I've broken any laws, and I doubt that Freescale minds, and I assume the risk. Intel may well sell 1.3 GHz parts as 1 GHz parts, especially as their manufacturing yields improve over time. It's their choice as to what they promise and what they charge for it. John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
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. John
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski <al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote:>On Apr 1, 1:14�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...@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
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:47:52 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@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
Reply by ●March 31, 20102010-03-31
John Larkin wrote:> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:00:33 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam@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
