hacked vs not hacked osc

[5282]

the bandwidth limitation is software only ?? or software and hardware  ???
example
dso5102p vs dso5202p =100mhz vs 200mhz
DS2072A vs  DS2302A =70mhz vs 300mhz

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

Having software limitations for bandwidth is very common. It allows us, as manufacturers, to significantly decrease the cost to design & produce an oscilloscope. This means that we can have a lower price the lower bandwidth oscilloscopes, even if the hardware itself is a little more expensive for us. It streamlines designing, testing, and quality assurance. I promise you that if it were cheaper for us to make different hardware for each bandwidth point we would .

The plus side of it is:
1. You get to hack scopes up to higher bandwidth
2. If you are not into hacking, you can always upgrade your bandwidth after the fact without service charges. For our scopes, the cost to buy low bandwidth + upgrade = the cost to buy high bandwidth.

[5282]

thank you very much
but i have a silly question  sorry
why manufacturers allow to us to hack their oscilloscope product  !!!
"they use fpga so can easy securely lock their product"

[james_s]

Well the sensible ones do because it creates a lot more sales, while alleviating them from providing support on the hacked units. The corporate purchasers who can afford the high end product in the first place just buy it instead of hacking, in the end it's win-win.

Lock it down and go after people hacking them and you'd be handing sales to the competitor who doesn't do that.

[janoc]

"they use fpga so can easy securely lock their product"

It is much easier and cheaper to record some codes somewhere in an EEPROM or flash than to have to generate multiple versions of the FPGA bitstream, test each, provide means to upgrade it with only the one appropriate for the model, etc. When done properly, it can be pretty well secure (well, as much as a device you give someone full access to can be - anything can be broken given sufficient time and resources). Rigol's case was more an exception than a rule because someone was either lazy or clueless and screwed up the crypto in a major way.

Also changing the software options is something the user should be able to do without much risk. If anything goes cactus with the FPGA bitstream update the scope could be pretty well bricked - it is a much riskier procedure than just entering few license codes into an EEPROM.

I am not sure that doing it like this would be worth it when compared to the extra development and support costs. Most users don't hack their scopes, especially not the pros that need the warranties/calibration. And messing with the hobbyists is just a lost sale, possible bad publicity and you still have the above  mentioned extra costs ...

[rhb]

There is also the "build it, test it, label it"  approach.  Keysight, Rohde & Schwartz, etc, don't do that but  makers of low end hobby level kit might well.

The only way to know for sure what a hacked product delivers is to have the cal gear to test it.  The most basic test is a fast edge pulse generator such as Leo Bodnar sells.

[janoc]

The only way to know for sure what a hacked product delivers is to have the cal gear to test it.  The most basic test is a fast edge pulse generator such as Leo Bodnar sells.

That applies to bandwidth - but most sw options are for things like additional decoders, extra triggering modes, some measurement types, etc. What kind of "cal gear" do you need to test whether or not you have e.g. a protocol decoder enabled?

OTOH, I agree with your point that hacked gear may or may not deliver and who knows at what spec - so if someone needs to be sure, they will just buy the options and have it guaranteed/calibrated by the manufacturer instead of messing with it. Certainly cheaper than sending a hacked scope to a cal lab.

For a hobbyist who has hacked their scope it rarely matters so much whether the scope is good for 100MHz or 150MHz instead of the locked 50MHz (as e.g. the Rigols seem to be capable of). And when it does, they probably know how to check it already.

[rhb]

Decoders are a different matter entirely.  Even if you paid for them they may or may not work properly :-(

[james_s]

Sometimes it's just fun to hack something. I enabled some completely useless (to me) features on my TDS784C simply because I could.

[Fungus]

Rigol's case was more an exception than a rule because someone was either lazy or clueless and screwed up the crypto in a major way.

Weirdly enough: They were only lazy and clueless on the base model in the range. Their MSO version and models with signal generator can't be unlocked through simple commands. 

I wonder why that is?

[5282]

the adc opamp front end circuit in 50mhz oscilloscope is the same circuit in 100mhz oscilloscope and limitation in software

[Bud]

Rigol's case was more an exception than a rule because someone was either lazy or clueless and screwed up the crypto in a major way.

Weirdly enough: They were only lazy and clueless on the base model in the range. Their MSO version and models with signal generator can't be unlocked through simple commands. 

I wonder why that is?

Maybe because you guys have not tried hard enough. Same (cant be unlocked) was said about the latest  E4 thermal imager untill someone did.

[ps]

why manufacturers allow to us to hack their oscilloscope product  !!!
"they use fpga so can easy securely lock their product"

Usually manufacturers don't care about hobbyist users hacking their 2nd hand test equipment.

And concerning professional use: any company that need their equipment calibrated frequently (to comply with ISO9001 or ISO 16949) would not allow un-authorized modifications, resp. the calibration lab or manufacturer would not accept such a device. Therefore the main customers have to pay the bill.

[glarsson]

Weirdly enough: They were only lazy and clueless on the base model in the range.

Even the more expensive ranges can be unlocked. The 100MHz DS4014 can easily be upgraded to 500MHz. Probably expected by Rigol as they include four expensive 500MHz probes in the box ...

[ebastler]

There is also the "build it, test it, label it"  approach.  Keysight, Rohde & Schwartz, etc, don't do that but  makers of low end hobby level kit might well.

If you can name a single scope model where that has been shown to be the case, I'll begin to consider that hypothesis. Until then, I'll assume it's just about seeding "fear, uncertainty and doubt". Which was a popular strategy e.g. among Siglent advocates, before Signlent had a valid product to compete with the Rigol DS1054Z...

[Fungus]

Rigol's case was more an exception than a rule because someone was either lazy or clueless and screwed up the crypto in a major way.

Weirdly enough: They were only lazy and clueless on the base model in the range. Their MSO version and models with signal generator can't be unlocked through simple commands.

Maybe because you guys have not tried hard enough. Same (cant be unlocked) was said about the latest  E4 thermal imager untill someone did.

Please list all the Rigol models that can be unlocked by simple commands. 

(ie. without opening up the case and using a JTAG programmer)

[janoc]

Rigol's case was more an exception than a rule because someone was either lazy or clueless and screwed up the crypto in a major way.

Weirdly enough: They were only lazy and clueless on the base model in the range. Their MSO version and models with signal generator can't be unlocked through simple commands. 

I wonder why that is?

They had the same problem with the older 1000E series (unlockable using a USB cable by typing a few commands - Dave posted it), 1000Z series doesn't even need a cable, etc. Each time it was because of lazy/incompetent programming.

If you are suggesting that they have actually done this on purpose on the low end models you are really being a little bit too optimistic with such theory. I remember some postings by Rigol people explicitly stating they were pretty pissed about these hacks but couldn't do much about it.

Re MSOs - did you consider the fact that the MSOs have arrived on the market after the 1000Z hacks were published so if the scope was using the same code, they had ample time to rush a fix into production that would patch the hole? They likely couldn't do it on the 1000Z series because the problem was in their implementation of the crypto - and fixing it by a firmware upgrade would have invalidated all the licenses for their paying customers, requiring having to issue new ones. Enormous and costly support headache.

The other (very likely) possibility is that the code between the different series is not really shared and is done by different teams.

[SWR]

Sometimes it's just fun to hack something. I enabled some completely useless (to me) features on my TDS784C simply because I could.

I'll give you a much better reason (I learned this one from my wife):
- If you pay less for something you technically save money.
- If you save money you can use it for something else.

I figured that if it works for shoes and clothes it must be similar for electronic equipment - right?

Example:
I hacked my SSA3021X and saved:
$1100 Price difference between SSA3032X and SSA3021X
$  169 Tracking generator
$  559 EMI option
$  465 Power measurement option
$  429 Reflection measurement option
-------
$2453 Total savings excl. VAT
$3235 Total savings incl. 25% VAT

Using the saved money to pay for a GW Instek MDO-2204EX oscilloscope I still have more than $1000 savings left for other stuff.

Now I'm pretty new to this method and buying the scope shows my limited experience.
All options on the scope are enabled from the factory and I didn't get any new saving from that purchase.
I'm certainly not going to make that rookie mistake again.

I hope my story can help you to avoid these beginners mistakes.