Can anyone else here come up with business arguments that would make this move a clear win? Is there something I'm missing, where they will be throwing away something that Rigol considers critical?
All of the features of the Keysight could easily be added to the 1054z.
You could make a software check / dump part of the support / RMA process. 'Put this on USB drive, insert in product, record information on display' type deal. If the check fails to work, then a dump of critical software could be done to determine if the problem was due to 'official' software or not.
(Posting a process to 'un-brick' the 'scope for those who do manage to do so shouldn't be too hard.
It shouldn't be possible to physically damage a 'scope via firmware -- so far as I am aware.)
"What if" .. the modded firmware is so bad that put the scope into infinite loop once booted ?
Assuming they released "all" including the boot code, and the user screwed the initialization code so bad that made the scope just sit there doing nothing in the deadly infinite loop.
When its time to RMA, and as usual, "few" userswill be pretending innocent, and as expected, the
fightdispute between seller and user on RMA ... and so on, you just need a little imagination to think of the next scenes.
"What if" .. the un-brick process only can be done if the initialization code also is not modded, and alas, because of the low cost constraints, design wise, protecting the init code is not possible.
"What if" ... the modded firmware is so shitty, forgot to switch the front end relay to switch to less sensitive input level, while the screen is prompting its ok to plug and pump in high voltage signal ?
... another "what if" ... the over temperature mechanism is triggered, and the ISR for handling shutdown sequences is ignored or buggy ...
Too many "what ifs" ... and back to my previous post, its never about these "what ifs" scenarios anyway, the "fact" is, these scopes are selling like hot cakes, so why bother ?
Rather than sink deep in this fuss and mess, why not focus and concentrate on designing and making another new generation low cost scope, sort of DS1054Z successor, as DS1054Z is considered quite old now, and the new beast is specifically targeted to hit very hard to those new competing products.
The 'un-brick' option.
It's my impression that one of the reasons for the "shitty" firmware is that there's not enough space (memory/cpu-power) to implement all the features in the correct way.
They are strugling with it. Probably, the only way to improve the firmware is to throw out half of the features...
The 'un-brick' option.
If you mean this option is to revert the firmware back to factory's original firmware, are you absolutely sure the "current design" capable of doing that ? Of course, no hardware modding say like soldering headers to do some on board hacking firmware override.
Can someone please break down the :FUNCtion:WREPlay:FEND // :FUNCtion:WRECord:FEND issue for me? I have not used the remote commands and am not sure if I understand correctly what is going on.
To my understanding, setting the frame size should be two different variables for record and play, but both functions seem to be using the same variable. -> or something like that.. Sorry, I did not have the time to dig into what is going on yet.
:FUNC:WREC:ENAB 1
:FUNC:WREC:FEND 20
:FUNC:WREC:OPER RUN
:FUNC:WREP:FST?
1
:FUNC:WREP:FEND?
20
:FUNC:WREP:FMAX?
20
:FUNC:WREP:FEND 10
:FUNC:WREP:FMAX?
10
:FUNC:WREP:FEND 20
:FUNC:WREP:FINT?
5.000000e-01
:FUNC:WREP:OPER PLAY (plays 20 frames)
:FUNC:WREP:FEND 10
:FUNC:WREP:OPER PLAY (plays 10 frames)
:FUNC:WREP:FMAX?
10
:FUNC:WREP:FEND 20
:FUNC:WREP:FMAX?
20
:FUNC:WREP:OPER PLAY (plays 20 frames)
Probably it's a bug in the firmware of the scope that triggers this error in combination with certain USB host controller chipsets.
The reason that this problem occurs on Linux is probably because the kernel developers are more strict with the USB standard.
To give you an example, connect your DS1000Z to a USB port and enter dmesg:Code: [Select][ 569.775078] usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 4 using ehci-pci
[ 569.911485] usb 1-2: config 1 interface 0 altsetting 0 bulk endpoint 0x82 has invalid maxpacket 64
[ 569.911499] usb 1-2: config 1 interface 0 altsetting 0 bulk endpoint 0x3 has invalid maxpacket 64
[ 569.911976] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=1ab1, idProduct=04ce
[ 569.911987] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[ 569.911991] usb 1-2: Product: DS1000Z Series
[ 569.911994] usb 1-2: Manufacturer: Rigol Technologies.
[ 569.911998] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: DS1ZA17040xxxx
[ 569.934523] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbtmc
The scope presents itself as a highspeed USB device but set the maxpacket value for the bulk endpoint to 64 bytes.
The USB standard says that a highspeed USB device MUST set that value to 512 bytes!
I reported this bug to Rigol but no answer so far.
My impression is that they don't care about Linux...
Hello
I recently tried to connect DSRemote via USB (USBTMC) in linux and found this bug. It seems it's NOT a Linux bug. Can it be included in the list?
it is already listed as Bug #8, however I could add more information on this.
All of the features of the Keysight could easily be added to the 1054z.
I believe you make the wrong assumption that the internal system (FPGA/CPU/memory) of the scope allows for that.
It's my impression that one of the reasons for the "shitty" firmware is that there's not enough space (memory/cpu-power) to implement all the features in the correct way.
They are strugling with it. Probably, the only way to improve the firmware is to throw out half of the features...
For example, the big blunder with the USB max packetsize (64 bytes instead of 512), they can't solve it because changing the
usb stack from using 64 byte buffers to 512 byte buffers requires more memory.
So, to experienced folks out there, should I update (...) ?
regarding ""pluses" - did I missed something, but yesterday I updated and see this:
I'm not sure if this post is the best place to ask my question. I'm sorry if it's not!
I have all the non-free options unlocked using a less legit way as described all over the forum here. If I update, will I loose those already unlocked options?