Test equipment purchasing and hackability - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 08:57:54 am
content: I have found that in the past three months I've purchased three bits of test equipment from a certain manufacturer, two of which I just would not have bought had it not been for the possibility of hacking, and with the other hackability made it the front runner in my purchase decision. Anyone else?

author: Pasky
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 09:07:12 am
content: It certainly had an influence on the model I chose. Not so much the device I needed as I was going to buy one anyways.

author: Justanotherguy
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 09:07:28 am
content: I would say the potential hack made a purchase viable as I couldn't afford the high ticket price of a better model. Example, Flir E4. The stock resolution is useless for PCB level work. The higher resolution with an extra lens works great.That said, generally I am not interested in hacking a piece of equipment. However, I fully expect to see more "hacking" opportunities as lean manufacturing, six sigma, etc likes to drive variability out of production.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 09:11:11 am
content: I don't really care much about "Hackability" (i.e. changing the fundamental specifications) for test equipment, aside maybe from giving PC-based devices a new hard disk/SSD, a faster CPU and more RAM (but these are pretty standard changes anyways). At the end of the day I want to be able to rely on the specifications provided by the manufacturer and also on the device, and "hacking" potentially introduces a number of issues which can reduce the device's value as reliable test and measurement kit.I can see that for some people with a tight budget "hacking" looks attractive. But for test equipment I rather buy some used device that already comes with the capabilities I want instead of buying a new device that has inferior specs but could be "hacked" to match what I need.Of course this is different if I buy something with the aim to tinker around with it, in which case "hacking" it (if possible) could be interesting. But definitely not for kit I have to rely on.BTW: why is this poll multi-valued? This doesn't make any sense.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 09:30:19 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on January 04, 2015, 09:11:11 amOperator error, and I can't figure out how to fix it without restarting a new poll. (i thought it meant each user could vote up to five times, reflecting multiple purchases, not that they could choose five options, oh well, I learned!)

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 09:44:33 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 04, 2015, 09:30:19 amI ticked the first three options because they are appropriate for three seperate purchases I made last year. I'm not sure if I even would have replied without the multi options.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 10:01:45 am
content: I purchase equipment for both personal and various businesses.- Personal, I bought some Rigol stuff because I thought it would be fun to play and hack. Turns out their crappy/buggy firmware has soured my interest, I will never purchase any instrument from them again. I would also not offer their gear to others, support nightmare... Rigol will take action when Dave finds a bug, but they have consistently ignored personal legitimate issues for years.- Business, would never think of offering a hacked solution to one of my customers.

author: Tom D
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 10:06:47 am
content: I based my Rigol DSA 815-TG purchase decision on the price, which was unheard of at that time for a Spec-An of its capabilty (Sept. 2012), rather than the possible hackability of the unit when I bought it. The first thing that caught my eye when it was delivered was the label on the box, or more concisely, the "RBW10Hz" license option......And I thought:"Hmmm...Sooner or later, someone, somewhere, is gonna bust this sucker wide open," based on what I'd read about the earlier Rigol scope 100 MHz hack.Well,the rest is history now...TomEdit: added image of label

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 11:16:05 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on January 04, 2015, 09:11:11 amYou are contradicting yourself hereChanging a CPU and so could reveal bugs because you are changing the timing of the equipment. I admit the chances are slim but I wouldn't change a CPU for one with more cores.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 02:57:03 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 04, 2015, 11:16:05 amYes, changing the CPU could potentially affect the equipment. One example where this happens (in fact, it's the only time I had problems with a CPU upgrade!) is replacing the CPU in a LeCroy WavePro 7000(A) scope. It comes with a P4 Celeron (single core, single thread) which can easily be replaced with a much faster P4 with supports HyperThreading, but enabling HT in the BIOS which will royally screw up the scope drivers for good (and switching HT off will not get rid of the issues so either a re-install of Windows or a replacement of the HAL is required to fix it). But in reality such problems are rare and pretty obvious. The Windows variants installed on such kit isn't real-time capable anyways, so and things like acquisition systems are connected via standard PCI/PCIe, so CPU timing (as long as the CPU isn't overloaded) should be a non-issue. The problems in the example above are caused by the driver not being adapted to the multiprocessor kernel, which should be pretty rare and only because of the special architecture in that scope (which differs from other scopes).But for example with LeCroy scopes replacing the CPU can speed up a scope tremendously (X-Stream does all calculations in the fast CPU cache, but for some reason LeCroy put low end processors with small caches in some of their high end scopes). And it's not that LeCroy doesn't offer any CPU upgrades themselves, although older generation processors and with a painful price tag attached. Other scopes (i.e. Agilent & Tek high end scopes) do their calculations in RAM but even these scopes usually benefit from a faster CPU if supported.Generally speaking, replacing a CPU with the same category (i.e. same numbers of cores and threads) should be fine. Of course like with all modifications (it's not really a "hack"), thorough testing is imperative to make sure the changes don't have any diametral effects.Of course, replacing the mainboard with a newer one (which usually is required when going from single to multi-core) is a totally different story...

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 03:29:18 pm
content: After Rigol went thru the sales cycle of the DS1052 with a very easy hack, they choose to use the hackability in their marketing. It was like playing 'GO', set up the stones for a future win.In the DS2000 the firmware was in plain text, easy to see Optional code was there ,just needed key. Maybe Cybernet was very smart to unlock before Rigol would have preferred,by 1/2 year . But look now at the posts here . More and more posts on Rigol equipment. ) good value! Even bought before the hack, knowing it would come. Who knows hacker was helped by Rigol. NOT!!

author: markce
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2015, 11:44:41 pm
content: Rigol is a case on its own. It's good value equipment anyway, and keeps its value longer by hacking option and model improvements. This makes it very attractive for private owners.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 02:24:59 am
content: test equipment should work out of the box. if you need to hack it it is flawed.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 02:31:59 am
content: You are missing the intent of "hacking" here free_electron. In this case the hacking is just referring to the free upgrading to a different model or different features. I purchase things on value and getting a scope at $400 that ends up gaining the functions of a $850 scope is a great value added.If anything needs to fixed to get the functions promised, then yes it is broken.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 02:44:20 am
content: ah. ok. the freeloader style hacks. never had the need to do that. i only buy used on ebay and only if it has all options i want. i've maybe bought two pieces of kit brand new in my life.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 03:31:29 am
content: - Personal use (not for profit) yes it's interesting, includes modifying hardware.- Professionally no, pay for what you use.

author: all_repair
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 04:06:34 am
content: My criteria is not inside, buy base on need. If it is a need, I can't take the risk that the uncertainty of "hacking" brings. On the other hand, I have more flexibility for the hot spare of the needed equipment. Most of the time, these hot spare are laying there and some never got used.BUT it maybe a different story if the equipment makers become greedy on expensive consumerable or wanting a subscription fee.

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 04:37:31 am
content: If I buy new, I want/demand highly defined accuracy, accountability for quality of product, service and both hardware and software support. I won't risk that for a hack.If I don't want/need above I go second hand, so much better "bang for buck".

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 09:52:38 am
content: Quote75% of my test equipment is second hand, and that gets used the most. Of those second hand units, only one unit, an oscilloscope, is "in calibration", i.e. within its calibration date, but it doesn't stop me using the other kit, far from it in fact.For my own uses, I don't consider that the additional cost is justified for "highly defined accuracy or accountability" afforded by purchasing new, but I do understand those that need it if you're doing certification or other standards or process based criteria demanded by some contracts.Recently there was a thread briefly discussing the value of a 6 1/2 digit DMM, and someone there said that while there was usually not any intrinsic value in being able to measure that accurately, it fulfilled a contractual obligation.My own view, practically speaking, is that as an engineer, whether your oscilloscope is $50k or $50, you should know when to question the results, i.e., when it feels right and when it does not. Cross checking with other (different) equipment to me has more value than trusting a single unit. For example, if I measure a -3dBm carrier on a spectrum analyser and question it, I might use an RF power meter to reconfirm, but neither will have been calibrated recently. Just because a unit is within calibration dates for example doesn't necessarily make it accurate, and equally there isn't a timer inside the unit to automatically give bogus results.The difference is that on the £50k oscilloscope, the error is slightly more likely that of the operator than the scope itself, and I will admit to a modicum of experience of such a scenario!

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 11:41:55 am
content: Generally speaking, the term "hacked" in my mind would refer to something that has been crudely modified, and I think that we would all agree that the diligence, patience and expertise required to perform such work hardly deserve's to be refered to as crude or dodgy.And for the majority of these "End User Enhancements" all to often the thankless effort's of the few go greatly unappreciated by the many.As a purchaser and end user of test equipment, personally I feel that devices that have been internally evaluated by others appealing, for no other reason than we no longer need to solely rely on manufacturer's or distributor's for product information, repairs or documentation.A Big Thank You to those who "End User Enhance".Muttley

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2015, 01:04:12 pm
content: I bought several Agilent scopes 2000X and 3000X series for my business and clients and got them with the amazingly great offer for the bundle upgrade for one low price. I would never hack a scope for business use, that would not be right. But for personal use, I got a Rigol DSA815TG and the hack worked well for me. This gives me a new way in to HF measurements and learn all about it for a low cost price.