Forums

Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

Started by David L. Jones March 30, 2010
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? ---
>But he chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol >did not.
--- So what? It's just like if somebody wrote a book with an ending I didn't like and then I wrote my own ending and posted it. Where's the crime? ---
>So why did he do it?
--- Because, unlike you, he's one of the good guys who wants folks to get the most bang for their buck. JF
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:29:10 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


> >How does DCMA extort money from customers? If you don't like a product >and its price/terms, don't buy it. DCMA prevents you from using a >computer to violate the contract you made with the seller, and from >spreading around copies of his IP. > >If you want to repeal DCMA, write to your Congressman or whatever. Get >rid of the patent office while you're at it. > >John
Innocent until proven guilty,doesn't mean anything to you? By placing software on your computer they are assuming you are going to use it for illegal software. Not only that the software uses resources ,typically is buggy and hardly is 100% right. I have no problem with people getting paid for thier work but sometimes the cure is worse then the disease. Which is most of the copyright protection shit MS uses is just junk causes problems and assumes I'm guilty of something I'm not.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:09:44 -0500, "George Jefferson"
<George@Jefferson.com> wrote:

> > >"Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in >message news:81gnlpFsriU1@mid.individual.net... >> "Phul (of it) Allinson" >> >>>> It's their design, they can market and sell it whatever way they want to >>>> optimise their profits. >>> >>> Obtaining financial benefit by deception is the very definition of >>> criminal fraud. >> >> Fair enough, I agree completely with this statement. >> >> If you pay for a scope they say has 50MHz bandwidth, they deliver a scope >> that has a 50MHz bandwidth? >> >> If you pay for a scope they say has 100MHz bandwidth, they deliver a scope >> that has a 100MHz bandwidth? >> >> Where is the deception? > > >Are you really that ignorant? So I create a 100Mhz scope and sale it for X >dollars as a 100Mhz scope. I then slap a new sticker on the 100Mhz scope and >call it a 50Mhz scope and sale it for Y dollars. > >Now, if my profit margins for the 100Mhz scope was not that high then how >could I make profit on the "new" 50Mhz scope? Either they jacked up the >profit margin significantly to be able to do this trick or they are making >virtually no profit on the 50Mhz scope. > >BUT! If they are making no profit on the 50Mhz scope then why not just >reduce the price of the 100Mhz scope in the first place? > >They are exactly trying to simply get into a market that the 100Mhz scope >can't because of it's higher price. They can lower the price, pretend it's a >crappier version and then increase their market size for three reasons. >Those that can't and never will buy the 100Mhz version but will buy the >50Mhz and those that are lured in by the 50Mhz version and decide "I might >as well get the 100Mhz version since it's just a "little more"". Also those >that buy the 50Mhz version may decide to buy the more powerful one as an >"upgrade"... which in fact there is no real upgrade involved. > >The dishonesty is in the tactics they use and tells you a lot about what >they think of their customers. This, of course, is not a new trick. > >The dishonesty part is equivalent to lying. If you called them and asked >them about it do you really think they will tell you they are exactly the >same hardware with just a firmware change to cripple the cheaper version? > >You can hide behind the cloak of capitalism all you want but this is not >capitalism but outright theft. > >How do we know you are wrong and I'm right? Very easily... call up rigol and >ask them about the difference between the models. If they are honest they >will tell you there is only a firmware difference. If they are dishonest >they will make up something that we already know is false. The street name >for this kinda shit is lying. You may be confused by the big word dishonesty >but maybe one day you'll figure it out. > >Of course this is not necessarily criminal but is walking the fine line. An >ethical company would not implement such practices. I don't know about >you(well, I guess I do) but I'd rather do business with a company that isn't >out to screw me.
I will say this... One (or maybe more than one) contact lens maker got into serious trouble in the US for selling identical lens as different products with different prices. The FTC went after them with a vengence, and hit them with a major fine for doing what (it appears) Rigol is doing with their scopes. I'm not saying that hacking it is right, or selling it as two models is right, just saying that at least in the USA, there are federal regulations that govern this type of situation, and it is likely that Rigol didn't fully investigate their liabiliities in doing what they have been doing.
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. 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 moot. John
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message 
news:mdp6r5186sr4nk4n9910pto3mga49k6d3b@4ax.com...
> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. Jones > has cost Rigel
Rigel 7? Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:15:20 -0400, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:09:44 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><George@Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"Nial Stewart" <nial*REMOVE_THIS*@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote in >>message news:81gnlpFsriU1@mid.individual.net... >>> "Phul (of it) Allinson" >>> >>>>> It's their design, they can market and sell it whatever way they want to >>>>> optimise their profits. >>>> >>>> Obtaining financial benefit by deception is the very definition of >>>> criminal fraud. >>> >>> Fair enough, I agree completely with this statement. >>> >>> If you pay for a scope they say has 50MHz bandwidth, they deliver a scope >>> that has a 50MHz bandwidth? >>> >>> If you pay for a scope they say has 100MHz bandwidth, they deliver a scope >>> that has a 100MHz bandwidth? >>> >>> Where is the deception? >> >> >>Are you really that ignorant? So I create a 100Mhz scope and sale it for X >>dollars as a 100Mhz scope. I then slap a new sticker on the 100Mhz scope and >>call it a 50Mhz scope and sale it for Y dollars. >> >>Now, if my profit margins for the 100Mhz scope was not that high then how >>could I make profit on the "new" 50Mhz scope? Either they jacked up the >>profit margin significantly to be able to do this trick or they are making >>virtually no profit on the 50Mhz scope. >> >>BUT! If they are making no profit on the 50Mhz scope then why not just >>reduce the price of the 100Mhz scope in the first place? >> >>They are exactly trying to simply get into a market that the 100Mhz scope >>can't because of it's higher price. They can lower the price, pretend it's a >>crappier version and then increase their market size for three reasons. >>Those that can't and never will buy the 100Mhz version but will buy the >>50Mhz and those that are lured in by the 50Mhz version and decide "I might >>as well get the 100Mhz version since it's just a "little more"". Also those >>that buy the 50Mhz version may decide to buy the more powerful one as an >>"upgrade"... which in fact there is no real upgrade involved. >> >>The dishonesty is in the tactics they use and tells you a lot about what >>they think of their customers. This, of course, is not a new trick. >> >>The dishonesty part is equivalent to lying. If you called them and asked >>them about it do you really think they will tell you they are exactly the >>same hardware with just a firmware change to cripple the cheaper version? >> >>You can hide behind the cloak of capitalism all you want but this is not >>capitalism but outright theft. >> >>How do we know you are wrong and I'm right? Very easily... call up rigol and >>ask them about the difference between the models. If they are honest they >>will tell you there is only a firmware difference. If they are dishonest >>they will make up something that we already know is false. The street name >>for this kinda shit is lying. You may be confused by the big word dishonesty >>but maybe one day you'll figure it out. >> >>Of course this is not necessarily criminal but is walking the fine line. An >>ethical company would not implement such practices. I don't know about >>you(well, I guess I do) but I'd rather do business with a company that isn't >>out to screw me. > > >I will say this... > >One (or maybe more than one) contact lens maker got into serious >trouble in the US for selling identical lens as different products >with different prices. The FTC went after them with a vengence, and >hit them with a major fine for doing what (it appears) Rigol is doing >with their scopes. > >I'm not saying that hacking it is right, or selling it as two models >is right, just saying that at least in the USA, there are federal >regulations that govern this type of situation, and it is likely that >Rigol didn't fully investigate their liabiliities in doing what they >have been doing.
The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts of things have different specs and functions differentiated by firmware. Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took advantage of it. I still don't know why. John
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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.
Sure? How about buying a whole bread and only being allowed to eat half of it?
>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 don't understand why they make it so easy to upgrade their hardware through software. Tek's logic analyzer modules are also relatively easy to upgrade.
>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.
Sure about that? I'm not so convinced about the effective bit resolution and the sampling jitter on the Rigol scopes. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:08:28 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > >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
I don't have one, but from what John is saying, it may not be a "all the same hardware, just different firmware" but may instead be "all the same firmware, but not all the same hardware!" The 100 MHz version may have different component choices, even if the PCB is the same. When you build out the unit, you enable the correct hardware toggles to match the unit you are installing on... If you have one of both units, you could probably find out! Charlie
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:14:55 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<mdp6r5186sr4nk4n9910pto3mga49k6d3b@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski ><al.borowski@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mar 31, 1:03&#2013266080;pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> What you have done is possibly a criminal act in the USA, using a >>> computer to deprive Rigol of revenue >> >>[...] >> >>>The act is >>> arguably legal theft. It's certainly moral theft. >> >>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. 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. > >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. > >Jones? Why? > >John
Let us all be grateful, as this will a have cumulative effect. Tek will notice that he price for a 100 MHz BW 1Gs scope has come down to 500 $ or so. And that with a color display and nice labels on the buttons on top of that... So it will increase competition, and bring prices down. Those are clearly artificially high. You can turn your argument around too, like: 'the criminals at Rigol ask 400 $ more for the same scope.' I wonder if the board is the same as the one that has the logic analyser connector on front and if adding a connector and making a hole in the front would give it even more features. IRC you ordered one, and now claim you will not upgrade, that sounds a bit idiotic to me. As to the the 'secrets of your designs', some are all over usenet, you posted them or got them from here, complete with pictures of details. That brings me to the point that we could all just as well publish source of firmware and software, the people who have no time will buy your hardware, others will improve your work, everybody benefits, except the billy gates type, but he has enough for coffee anyways so who cares. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but anyways, I recommend people to record that video before it vanishes from youtube, I recorded the sound. Soundtrack has all the info you need. Digital world. I wonder what will happen when somebody finally comes up with a 'replicator' as in startrek.
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:02:13 -0500, "George Jefferson" ><George@Jefferson.com> wrote: > >> >> >><miso@sushi.com> wrote in message >>news:0abfe648-de60-42c3-ab53-0c0bd4dc5497@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >>> 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. >> >>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? At the very least >>they could have added some true functional improvement that made it >>justifiable but simply changing the model number doesn't justify a 40% price >>increase. > >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. > >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?
Look at Microsoft and Wordperfect. These companies became huge because of people copying their software. The same can happen to Rigol. Hobbyists buy their 50MHz scopes to hack them. Their bosses just buy the 100MHz version so the warranty is not voided. This way Rigol sells two scopes instead of zero. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------