Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E

What did Riogol do that was false advertising? As far as I know, both
scopes deliver more bandwidth than promised and both are excellent
values. Their features blow away the low-end Tek scopes that cost 2x
or 3x as much.

I sell versions of products that differ only in enabled features. So
does practically anybody who sells products whose performance depends
on firmware and other IP that was expensive to develop.

As do we. Our upper end base unit does have a couple of bucks worth of
op-amps that the less expensive model doesn't have but the mobile units are
identical except for the firmware. There are more protections to prevent
upgrading than Riogol used, however.

This was mentioned before, but I worked on the crypto stuff that IBM used in
their mainframes to enable processors based on customer payments. If they
needed more compute power for year-end statement processing (or whatever)
they'd pay for more CPUs and the key to use those computers, for the time of
the payment, was sent to the crypto unit to unlock the processors. A complete
complement of processors was shipped in every box and only the software
configuration determined how many the customer could use (two to ten). As a
bonus, if one processor fell over another would pick up where it left off with
no additional payment required. I guess that was fraud, too.
 
K

keithr

With so many insults being hurled around here , can't we compliment
each other once in a while?

OK then, Phil is a warm caring human being with a deep respect for his
fellow man - except when he isn't. Unfortunately that is most of the
time, especially when some-one disagrees with him.
 
...and I'm guessing that when you plug a mobile unit into a PC via the
mini-USB connector, at least you guys used your own vendor/product ID so that
even if you are just using, e.g., an FTDI chip in there, Windows doesn't
"conveniently" install the serial port driver for you!

Sure. Didn't you try it? The TI DSP runs the USB port.
(We do that on our products, not because we have anything to protect, but just
because it's a lot easier when troubleshooting with customers to tell them to
look at "XYZ Corp USB Widget" rather than a generic "FTDI serial port" or
whatever and we know exactly which version of the drivers our "XYZ Corp"
install disk is using whereas Windows tries to be smart and updates them from
time to time, which on occasion can cause problems.)
We have a multi-slot charger that has the ability to send programming
parameters, update firmware, etc. to a unit in any one of the slots, but we
officially only support programming in slot #1 (and the slikscreen even says,
"programming, this slot only" on it) -- this happened after a long internal
debate over whether or not end-users were, um, "sophiticated" enough to get
some benefit out of being able to program in any slot vs. the extra support
calls from those who were telling the software to program a unit in, say, slot
#6 when they'd actually inserted their unit into slot #3 and couldn't figure
out why they kept getting error messages.

Never foolproof anything. All you do is create bigger fools.
The "this could be a whole lot of extra support problem" argument eventually
won out.

There is, however, a magic phrase you can type to "unlock" the ability to
program through any slot -- all the hardware and software to make this happen
was done by the time the internal discussion had been settled. The
manufacturing guys use this so that they can just load up all the slots with
units, they start loading new firmware, and by the time they finish loading
the last slot, it's usually been long enough that they can go back and remove
the first on and keep going.

Good idea. It also kicks the decision whether to support all slots down the
road as far as possible. I don't like painting myself into a corner either.
That's a pretty good model.

It solved a *lot* of problems. The development team referred to it as
"Dial-A-MIP". ;-)
 
D

David L. Jones

keithr said:
The question is not whether the internet should be censored or not,
but whether censorship per se is acceptable. If you accept censorship
of books, movies, TV programs, video games, etc, then Conroy is
correct "What makes the internet special".

Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
products you buy on the shelf.
The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
Conroy doesn't get this because he's thick as a plank.
Personally, I am against any censorship, but, if you accept it in some
cases, it is hard to argue that it shouldn't be applied to all case.

Nope, it's real easy in the case of the Internet, it's an entirely different
beast with a whole set of different rules and repercussions.
FWIT, I'm against censorship in almost every form as well.

Dave.
 
No. We had them for a long enough time that we could have, but had a rather
rushed evaluation as we'd just let them sit around for a few days and then got
an unexpected call from the place that had loaned them to us... telling us we
had them return them in the next day or two, as they had an Actual Paying
Customer who needed them for a show. Hence our evaluation was confined to
playing with the base station and belt packs; we didn't plug a computer into
either of them.

Still, in that limited period of time lots of nice things were said about
them-- in general they work quite well, certainly; they're a huge improvement
over the old wired "party line" style intercom system I used in stage crew
some decades back!

There's a rather major announcement/demonstration coming at NAB next week.
It's "only" firmware, but it's really cute. Did you notice that our partner
was bought out? ...a little scary.
Yep, agreed. I've known programmers and designers who get way too hung up on,
"I have to know exactly EVERY LAST BIT of a spec before I can do ANYTHING,"
and they're just no fun to work with -- especially given how I've never worked
on a project of any significant complexity where there weren't various spec
changes between the beginning and end of the project anyway.

I don't like the opposite either; no specs - wing it. Whatever happens it's
then the engineer's fault for having a defective Ouija board.
 
J

JosephKK

= Dreamer. You should use less wild and crazy drugs though, too much
= wild hallucination.


Haven't you noticed "government intervention part" mentioned above?

Point being "cost" does not make any difference. After the product is
manufactured "cost" is a lost money anyway. All you can do is to attemptto
sell for as much compensation as you can.

"Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the
particular products.

= Show me a true Adam Smith style market. There hasn't been one in the
= USA for over a century and a half.

There has not been one ever, AFAIK. However it does not matter.

Bog, have you never heard of per unit costs? Part of which is called BOM?
 
J

JosephKK

Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.

But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
this *is* a cheap scope.

John

Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development did
not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method.
 
J

JosephKK

Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a lot of
people will buy Rigol instead.
You should have kept this information to yourself.

Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here (s.e.d).

For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog scopes,
they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is still reasonably
available, for about the price of a modest car.
 
K

keithr

Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
products you buy on the shelf.
The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.
Conroy doesn't get this because he's thick as a plank.


Nope, it's real easy in the case of the Internet, it's an entirely different
beast with a whole set of different rules and repercussions.

I am not sure that I agree with you there, I see it as just another
information dissemination medium, albeit a much more egalitarian one,
which brings it's own problems,
 
A

atec7 7

Copacetic said:
Is there anybody in the entire world that doesn't rub the burr under
your saddle the wrong way?
I expect there are many who would willingly flatten that burr if philthy
was available
 
D

David L. Jones

keithr said:
I am not sure that I agree with you there, I see it as just another
information dissemination medium

Sure, on the face of it. But the problem is that wholesale filtering of the
Internet has a whole host of technical issues and repercussions that you
don't get when you ban some product from the shelves etc. So the same rules
cannot just be arbitrarily applied.
Ban a book and no legit distributor would touch it, so that makes it fairly
easy to sucessfully ban something with essentially no repercussions on the
system, the distribution medium, or readers of other books.
But try filtering high bandwidth services like Youtube, Facebook, or
Twitter, and it would grind the service to a halt. The goverments own
comissioned report admits this, so the idiots just try and back-peddle
instead of admitting that the whole thing is pointless and unworkable.

, albeit a much more egalitarian one,
which brings it's own problems,

I see that as a benefit!

Dave.
 
G

George Jefferson

John Larkin said:
I think the cut here is that amateurs, who penny-pinch on gear, are
outraged by Rigol's actions, and professionals, who design and buy and
sell electronic instruments, think they are being perfectly ethical
and reasonable.

The amateurs mostly don't need a 100 MHz scope anyhow, and should be
(and aren't) grateful that Rigol sells the 1052 for around $500. I
bought the 50 MHz version to use in my office because that's fine for
most uses.

More justification. It's simple.. you do, as you have said in another post
exactly what rigol does. Hence you can't say or even believe they are wrong
because then you would be wrong.

Your right though in that "professionals" like yourself are scum. You do
this type of behavior because you believe that since everyone else does it
then it must make it ok. You have no principles or morals. Rather than go
out of business because you refuse to screw over your customers you choose
to be a bitch to the mighty dollar.

So I suppose your firmware has some code like:

double Performance_factor = 0.1;

switch (upgrade)
{
case expensive :
Performance_factor = 0.3;
break;
case RealExpensive :
Performance_factor = 0.5;
break;
case
So_Expensive_That_The_Costs_Will_Be_Passed_Down_To_The_Poor_Working_Imbecile_That_Is_too_Stupid_And_Deserves_To_Be_Fucked
:
Performance_factor = 0.52;
break;
}

SetBandwidth(Performance_factor*10^9);


and you'll call that having to set the upgrade type as "programming" which
requires a professional as yourself which is quite expensive.


I'm sure you get a hard on every time the last case statement is called.

You and your buddies that do this shit(krw and Joseph) have made it clear
why you have stood up for rigol from the very first post and tried to
justify it from every angle.

Of course it is impossible to make you understand your follies when so much
decay exists already. Just keep it up and we'll let evolution take care of
the problem.
 
O

oopere

David said:
For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and 100MHz
models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and firmware, I've
been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this to an irate customer who
contacted them about the issue.

Partial Quote from Rigol :
"The firmware of the instruments is made
to enable capability based on the version purchased just like any software
licensed product you would buy."

Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed a few
weeks ago.

Dave.
As I mentioned before, this is routinely done by, for instance, Agilent.
You can buy some extra GHz by entering the license code. This is _not_
new nor hidden!

Pere
 
K

keithr

David said:
Sure, on the face of it. But the problem is that wholesale filtering of the
Internet has a whole host of technical issues and repercussions that you
don't get when you ban some product from the shelves etc. So the same rules
cannot just be arbitrarily applied.
Ban a book and no legit distributor would touch it, so that makes it fairly
easy to sucessfully ban something with essentially no repercussions on the
system, the distribution medium, or readers of other books.
But try filtering high bandwidth services like Youtube, Facebook, or
Twitter, and it would grind the service to a halt. The goverments own
comissioned report admits this, so the idiots just try and back-peddle
instead of admitting that the whole thing is pointless and unworkable.

I didn't think that they were going to filter down to that level of
granularity, just ban whole web sites. The most objectionable part is
that the banned list is secret.
, albeit a much more egalitarian one,

I see that as a benefit!

Its a double edged sword, a lot of good stuff is available to anybody
free, but so is a huge volume of crap. Sorting this out can be
challenging. Once upon a time, you paid several grand for a major
encyclopaedia, now Wikipedia is free, but previously your money did buy
you some degree of authority on the subject. Obviously, your podcast
would be impossible without it though.
 
M

Martin Brown

John said:
I signed no agreements with Autodesk. Because they copyrighted their
software, they exercize control over it whether I agree or not. Bith
copyrights and patents give the owner rights over their IP.

I think you will find that somewhere in the small print it says that you
agree to all their draconian terms and conditions by opening the shrink
wrap packaging and clicking on OK or "I accept" during the installation
where a long screed you are supposed to read is typically displayed.

I am amazed that they were quite so heavy handed though!
I take it that they had a warrant to enter and search your premises.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
A

Andrew

keithr said:
Its a double edged sword, a lot of good stuff is available to anybody
free, but so is a huge volume of crap. Sorting this out can be
challenging. Once upon a time, you paid several grand for a major
encyclopaedia, now Wikipedia is free, but previously your money did buy
you some degree of authority on the subject. Obviously, your podcast would
be impossible without it though.

There is no benefit in censorship of any kind because of one simple
question: "Who will decide what to censor?"
 
A

Andrew

= Dreamer. You should use less wild and crazy drugs though, too much
= wild hallucination.


Haven't you noticed "government intervention part" mentioned above?

Point being "cost" does not make any difference. After the product is
manufactured "cost" is a lost money anyway. All you can do is to attempt to
sell for as much compensation as you can.

"Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the
particular products.

= Show me a true Adam Smith style market. There hasn't been one in the
= USA for over a century and a half.

There has not been one ever, AFAIK. However it does not matter.


== Bog, have you never heard of per unit costs? Part of which is called
BOM?

See above, i can repeat it one more time.

"Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the
particular products."

Price is the result of negiotiation between the seller and the buyer, ant
not the pure function of cost.
You will sell with a huge profit if you can or with a huge loss if it is the
only way to recover at least some of the cost.
 
D

David Segall

David L. Jones said:
Conroy is totally wrong. The Internet is an entirely different beast to
products you buy on the shelf.
The act of banning a book or video game for instance does not affect
anything else in any other way the way filtering the Internet can.

I note you used "can" not "does" in that sentence. The Internet filter
is a simple list of banned web sites that delays your download by a
few microseconds. In contrast, submitting a film or book to the
censors delays its release by days or even weeks.
I don't believe you. Would you really allow the screening of sadism or
bestiality in the 3:30pm to 6:00pm time slot on free to air TV?
 
F

fritz

keithr said:
I didn't think that they were going to filter down to that level of
granularity, just ban whole web sites. The most objectionable part is that
the banned list is secret.

It is not just objectionable, it is totally unacceptable to have
unaccountable
secret police deciding what I am allowed to view.
Its a double edged sword, a lot of good stuff is available to anybody
free, but so is a huge volume of crap. Sorting this out can be
challenging. Once upon a time, you paid several grand for a major
encyclopaedia, now Wikipedia is free, but previously your money did buy
you some degree of authority on the subject. Obviously, your podcast would
be impossible without it though.

You are far too easy on fools like Conroy. Stand up and be counted !
I insist on the right to determine what is crap or not - I certainly don't
want
religious fruitcakes like Conroy deciding for me, censorship tends to be
driven
by religious fruitcakes and should be vigorously opposed if you value
freedom.

Anyway, the promoters of censorship are always at the dumb end of the
food chain (e.g. Conroy) and will be outsmarted. But free access to
information
should be defended as a matter of principle.
If the Nazi methods of One-Way Conroy are pissing you off, just go here...
https://www.ultravpn.fr/
 
Top