Rigol scam. Says Rigol DG1022 outside however it's not... Buyer beware.... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 11:22:36 pm
content: Well here is an interesting story about Rigol....I recently acquired a DG1022, one of the function gen Rigol currently sells on their website. I noticed a bug in the software where it would not keep "Use External Time Source" after a reboot. I requested the firmware update for the DG1022 and they promptly sent it to me.I begin to follow the instructions to apply the firmware, and my DG1022 would not go into programming/firmware update mode. I requested assistance from Rigol, and after they gathered a bit more info from my DG1022, they informed me, my DG1022 could not be updated because its an older DG1022 and they do not support my DG1022 (which they still sell by this same name please remember) any longer and do not have firmware updates for it.How is a Rigol buyer able to know really what they are getting?? When it says Rigol on the outside, you may be buying something else.... Do I expect a company to support a product forever? No. But if they sell a product called DG1022, then I do expect all of them to operate the same. If not at least change the product number, or add hardware version info to the cases, some way for a customer to know what they are really buying.If you buy an iPhone 7, don't you expect all of them to work the same???Just sharing my experience with this company. If you buy a Rigol product, they may change the insides, keep the same product name on the outside and drop support.<Full email chain below, it's a quick read>Stephen,Although Released firmware is designed to either correct or enhanced various features of an instrument there is always the possibility of the unexpected or that the "Correction" has changed how the instrument works in a particular application or situation. Without a known limitation or identified issue, firmware upgrades are not always recommended.The instrument system information may refer to firmware as software.Release NotesThe upgraded Firmware for a DG1022 and DG1022A Generator can be downloaded from hereDG1022 with current firmware revisions > 00.03.00.08.00.02.08:DG1022 FW UpdateDG1022A:DG1022A FW UpdateThe instructions for getting this new firmware into the DG1022 or DG1022A can be downloaded fromDG1022 DG1022A Firmware Upgrade Instructions.pdfThanks for using Rigol.RegardsJason ChonkoRigol Technologies USA, Inc.Applications Engineer4402324488jason_chonko@rigoltech.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To Jason ?Hello,According to the instructions I need to hold the help button until the MOD indicator illuminates correct? I tried this and it seems nothing happens after holding the help button for 30 seconds.Thank you---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To me ?Steve,Send me your extended version number from page 1 of the instructions and I will double check.Regards,Chris ArmstrongDirector of Product Marketing & SW ApplicationsRigol Technologies10200 SW Allen Blvd.Suite CBeaverton, OR 97005office/fax: 877-4-RIGOL-1 x110mobile: 440-781-4982email: chris_armstrong@rigol.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To Chris_Armstrong ?00.01.00.04.00.02.01---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To meSteve,I believe that instrument is too old to update. That has pre-VISA hardware. I think you should leave that one at it's current status.I see that you registered it recently. May I ask where you purchased it?Regards,Chris ArmstrongDirector of Product Marketing & SW ApplicationsRigol Technologies10200 SW Allen Blvd.Suite CBeaverton, OR 97005office/fax: 877-4-RIGOL-1 x110mobile: 440-781-4982email: chris_armstrong@rigol.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------??To Chris_Armstrong ?Purchased from a business who was well, going out of business.The issue Im having is this unit will not keep the "use external reference" setting past reboots. What can be done to correct this?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To meHi,Unfortunately I don't think there is any way for us to assist. That wasn't changed until a hardware revision from that version.Regards,Chris ArmstrongDirector of Product Marketing & SW ApplicationsRigol Technologies10200 SW Allen Blvd.Suite CBeaverton, OR 97005office/fax: 877-4-RIGOL-1 x110mobile: 440-781-4982email: chris_armstrong@rigol.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To Chris_Armstrong ?If a customer purchases a product (DG1022), which you still sell (DG1022), has an issue, the response is this?Sorry you have a MFR defective DG1022, which we fixed in later versions, and the version you have is abandoned, unsupported and no longer supported even though it says DG1022 on the outside we are not going treat it as such because it's not a current DG1022 but it's something else.Meaning, Customers cannot trust what they buy when the Rigol name is on it, because no one really knows whats inside and if it's normal or considered junked by the MFR, who dropped support and did not change the product name?Just looking to get my Rigol labeled DG1022, working like all the other DG1022 you currently sell.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To me ?Steve,I understand your position, but that unit has been out of warranty support for about 5 years. There is no way for us to improve the operation of that unit at this time.Regards,Chris ArmstrongDirector of Product Marketing & SW ApplicationsRigol Technologies10200 SW Allen Blvd.Suite CBeaverton, OR 97005office/fax: 877-4-RIGOL-1 x110mobile: 440-781-4982email: chris_armstrong@rigol.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To Chris ?I am not asking for warranty work or "repair" in the classical use of the word. Im asking that my Rigol DG1022 has bugs fixed, and to operate like other rigol DG1022s.When a customer buys a DG1022 (Which is still a current model listed on Rigols site) what is the customers expectations for features and function? If the DG1022 I own, does not operate as a current DG1022 then one of these production runs should have had a different name or some way to distinguish between them so the public is not misled.What would you expect if you purchased an item from another company? If you buy an iPhone 7, would it not be reasonable to expect your iPhone7 to be the same as other models, obtain the same updates from the mfr etc?If you cannot help, I will take the time to address the "Rigol ModelX on the outside does not mean rigol ModelX on the inside" with my cohorts, on eevblog, youtube, facebook, linkedIn, edaboard, allaboutcircuits, eham, electronic point etc.I would hope you can see this from my view point. I bought a Rigol DG1022 however it seems it is not a Rigol DG1022 but something else and it's not a pleasant taste for others to enjoy.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To me ?Steve,I understand your point and we try to improve our instruments continuously so the newest ones always work a little better from the previous year's firmware and we can't always keep 100% backward compatibility to older hardware versions.I discussed it here and I can offer you a new DG1022 for $249. That is a $50 trade in credit on the old one you have. If that is something that interests you please let me know.Regards,Chris ArmstrongDirector of Product Marketing & SW ApplicationsRigol Technologies10200 SW Allen Blvd.Suite CBeaverton, OR 97005office/fax: 877-4-RIGOL-1 x110mobile: 440-781-4982email: chris_armstrong@rigol.com---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To Chris ?Chris,I'll have to pass on this offer, I already own a DG1022.. or something.Thank you for the open correspondence.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The End.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 11:39:55 pm
content: It's unfortunate for you that this has come as a surprise, but this situation seems pretty normal to me.This is why Rigol have that page where you have to upload your serial number - so they can provide the correct firmware if there are multiple hardware revisions.It's not Rigol - I have two HP 34401A multimeters which have incompatible hardware.

author: LokiChaos
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:10:06 am
content: This is a far cry from a scam. Hardware vendors make revisions all the time, some are more open about it than others.One example I can recall is with wireless adapters. It was not uncommon a decade ago for the wireless chipset to change from revision to revision of the exact same "model". Not so much an issue with the vendor providing drivers, but made reliably acquiring a Linux-compatible wifi-adapter a huge pain. You'd have to get the exact HW revision to get the chipset you wanted, made it a gamble to order them online and I remember visiting multiple Microcenters and other brick and mortar stores checking boxes for serial numbers to determine the production run. A few times I had to resort to buy, try, exchange until I got one of the right chipset.If the hardware doesn't support the new features, it doesn't: Rigol cannot magically change that. If you are buying firesale-clearance I would not expect it to be fresh stock.

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:26:08 am
content: If the MFR changes the hardware and stops supporting them, they need to add a hardware version identification or change the product number in some manner and publish the information. Is this situation "common" no, does it happen, sure and we can site similar cases.If you buy a product, Model X, then it should perform the same function as all others. If the MFR wants to change the product and drop support, thats fine, but they should not call it the same product.If all DG1022's "performed" the same, I would not have this gripe. The issue is consumers should not be treated like this, and it's important for MFR's to know we are watching them.

author: Mr.B
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:44:04 am
content: I feel for your plight.Unfortunately this type of thing is not uncommon.It happens with all sorts of stuff:5 years ago I designed a device that uses the Roving Networks (now Microchip) RN-171 WiFi module.I purchased 50 modules from Mouser because of pricing, even though I was only building about 20 of them a year.3 odd years later I come to build another batch of 20 and order another 50RN-171modules.None of my production run worked!After hours of debugging it turns out that the new firmware in the device had a completely different command and response structure and no backwards compatibility.I had the same argument with Microchip - Why not change the model number and simply phase out the RN-171.I ended up re-writing my code for the new module and am now forced to support two versions of my MCU code...

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:59:39 am
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 02:26:08 amThe highlighted section is the key.Many instruments of most brands have undergone revisions over the years but most are done with some small change to the model # to indicate it's an updated version of the same model. This how it should be done, it's accepted practice and creates little confusion. For instance Tek has had 3 versions of what's essentially the same model with later models bearing B and C indicators of revision. Simple you'd think, right ?Apparently not so for Rigol.2 simple examples where each revision is plainly distinguishable and identifiable in the model #.Tek TDS2000 series, B series, C series.Siglent SDS1000CM series, CML series, CML+ seriesThere are many, many more.BTW Spwhite, welcome to the forum.

author: DaJMasta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 03:08:34 am
content: My Siglent SDG2082X has the same quirk... never wants to default to using the external source even though I almost always have one connected...Anyways, while it's surprising that they'd drop support for just that hardware revision without making some sort of new SKU, it's certainly very common to have many hardware revisions for a single product.There's a number of them for many of their scopes, but to my knowledge, they all have updated firmware together - even if different firmwares are not compatible between "identical" models, the changes at least all are at the same state instead of some with the same number being discontinued.I had thought that with the E variants and such in their naming schemes, that they'd make a difference between supported and unsupported hardware revisions. Pre-VISA hardware is rather old, I can see the point where it may not still be supported, but as you have, I would have expected a different model number or suffix to it to indicate some incompatibility.At least the issue you want to try to solve is only an annoyance. If there were firmware revisions beyond your current one available, maybe someone else with the older model unit has a firmware stored somewhere that you can try updating to.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:03:14 am
content: I think this whole discussion comes down to:Why can't I upgrade to SatNav, & anti-lock brakes on my 1977 Volkswagen Golf ? Doesn't Volkswagen still make the Golf ?

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:34:25 am
content: I have been wanting to upgrade my function generator to something a bit more flash for a while and the Rigol DG1022 was on the list in addition to quite a number of others, this thread is a good example and reminder to people to ask the seller prior to purchase the age and ideally the current hardware, firmware and warranty status of the equipment in question and if they aren't willing provide these details then they do not deserve your money.There are a number of threads on the forum relating to the earlier DG1022 firmware compatibility and even a mention that some units may require calibration after conducting a firmware upgrade so defiantly something to watch out for. I bought a Fluke 289 last year from an online seller which was listed as new but when it turned up it was in fact five years old, I was just lucky that it came with the IR USB cable so I could update the firmware to the current version, he also had another "new" 289 and I requested a detailed picture which revealed that the Fluke View software was an earlier version and could not be renewed so I passed on it.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:03:29 am
content: Quote from: DaJMasta on January 13, 2017, 03:08:34 amAfter some quick forum search I can't see where else you have mentioned this.Do you have the latest firmware installed, P22R5 ?The changelog of which lists one of the things fixed since the previous version as :Can not save the last state after the update.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:22:35 am
content: Quote from: boffin on January 13, 2017, 04:03:14 amOh man , please read fine.The guy bought a DG1022 on RIGOL website, and they sold him an old version that they had stored(without they said him nothing.)When the guy tested the oscilloscope found a trouble with ext trigger and he contacted with RIGOL for resolving the trouble.Then , He discovered that they sold him an old version hardware oscilloscope. The other hand , the support couldn't resolve because the new upgrades are incompatibles with the old hardwares.On resume , they sold a oscilloscope like new version and compatable with new firmwares ,but they delivered an old oscilloscope and incompatible with recently upgrades.My opinion, that the seller believed very clever and like he didn't known to do with the old version they didn't sell to corpotations. They sold by internet to hobbyist with the hope that the hobbyist realized of the scam.Now that is the worst that they can do, because they loose the confiance of the consumers. Do anybody go to drink the water bottle on a pub when have constancy that there is a poisoned water bottle?

author: Muttley Snickers
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:38:51 am
content: He never once stated that he had purchased it from Rigol only that it looked the same as their current model, he did in fact declare that it was purchased from a business that was going under, due diligence and research may have avoided this eventuality. If the price was right I would probably still be satisfied with a non-upgradable model but it would have to be super cheap otherwise my preference would be for something still covered under warranty, like a new unit from a recognised distributor.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 07:29:57 am
content: Quote from: vodka on January 13, 2017, 06:22:35 amI guess that comment backfired.Please re-read the OP's posts and try again.

author: H.O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 08:51:09 am
content: QuoteOh, man, yes please do "read fine". Little bit too much of the stuff in your nick perhaps ;-)He did not buy it from Rigol, it's not an oscilloscope and the problem has nothing to do with any trigger....The car analogy works fine for me. I have a 2012 Audi A3, do I expect it to be the same design as the 2002 Audi A3, running the same firmware and using the same parts? No. The manufacturer is still Audi (Rigol) and the model is still A3 (DG1022) (which they're still selling). No where on the outside of the car does it say anything about which "revision" the hardware and/or software is and what parts may or may not be compatible with any newer and/or older versions.Myguessis that one could derive some further information about HW revision etc from the serial number sticker but another guess is that it doesn't really matter because you wouldn't look there and/or do the needed research when you're getting a deal too good to pass.I'm sorry you (the OP) feel you've been burned but no, this is far from a scam IMO (and if you should be pointing fingers at anyone it should be at the company that sold you the instrument). Rigols offer to sell you a new version at a discount seems more than fair to me.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 01:29:33 pm
content: Quote from: vodka on January 13, 2017, 06:22:35 amNo if you read his correspondence with RIGOL tech support, he says that he bought it form "purchased from a business who was well, going out of business. "He didn't buy it from RIGOL directly..So no, RIGOL doesn't have to magically make GOLF II into GOLF VII ...But they made a mistake, if they made significantly different product they should have made an addendum to the name to make it CLEAR it was Mk II or 3 or whatever...Like Fluke 77 /II and III, Like FLuke 87/V, like GOLF II and IIIThat would make these kinds of misunderstandings nonexistent....

author: pascal_sweden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 01:51:30 pm
content: Whether the OP bought a new revision or an old revision of the Rigol DG1022, he made a mistake anyhow.He should have bought a Siglent SDG1025 in the first place. Much better output specs and a colour display!

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:10:57 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 02:26:08 amThis happens all the time in all sorts of equipment, not just test equipment. Just because YOU want it to be so doesn't mean that it HAS to be so. Just within test equipment, Fluke has done it (there are dozens of hardware revisions for the 87V, some of which have issuesth at the others dont), HP has done it (look at the venerable 34401A), loads of other companies have done it. Similarly, in my field of science, instruments models are sold for a decade or more, with iterative revisions ocurring for a variety of reasons. You get updates that state only for models with serial numbers from X to Y or Z to A. Reality just doesn't match your ideal. You purchased a used device and this is one of the major caveats of purchasing a vintage or used device.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:15:54 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on January 13, 2017, 04:03:14 amCar and test equipment makers typically number their versions to set them apart. Also different car versions tend to look radically different.It seems Rigol doesn't do that so appearantly it is tricky to buy used Rigol gear because you don't know whether the instrument you get can be updated to a firmware version with less bugs.

author: pascal_sweden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 02:19:28 pm
content: Volkswagen Das Auto ... Rigol Das Oszilloskop

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 03:20:52 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 13, 2017, 03:17:16 amIm 100% on board with it being an out of warranty unit, I understand MFRs have the right to drop support and change whatever they desire. Warranty and my eligibility for updates is not the point of interest.The issue I have is there is no visible way for a customer to "Identifyexactly" what they are purchasing. It says "DG1022" on it, looksexactlylike all other DG1022, one would expect it to operate like other DG1022.My case is a single unit, when you consider a school lab, company test line or similar situation where there may be multiple units deployed, obtaining "sameness" is important. If they simply add V1,V2,V3 etc to the back of the case or change the product number etc, it would help alleviate any "WTF" moments the customer may encounter.Rigol sells a DG1022/A and an DG1022/Z so the concept of various models of DG1022 are not lost on them, they did not make an addendum to the name in this case and it only raises concerns from a buyers vantage point.The version of DG1022 I have is not VISA compatible, however in all literature I are able to find, the DG1022 is listed as VISA compatible, however this one is not. A versioning difference in the product and they chose to ignore adding identification of such.Just a buyer beware notice. If it say Rigol on the outside, you may not be sure of whats inside.I do not care if the hardware changes internally, but the operating manual and specs should match up to the unit and you have an expectation of consistent behavior and performance regardless of which DG1022 is in front of you.

author: iaeen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 03:34:36 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on January 13, 2017, 04:03:14 amThis analogy is weak. Car manufacturers may not stamp the model year on the badge, but in every other context (including the title of ownership), cars are identified by make+model+year. The OPs complaint is that Rigol does not do this.For the record: I'm not claiming that the OP is justified. Firmware updates are obscure enough that I think one could argue this isn't big enough to require a model or revision change.I think what happened here is the OP bought some equipment second hand and out of warranty. When he found something he didn't like, he was given a glimmer of hope that it could be fixed. That didn't pan out, so now he's mad. I wonder if support had initially came back with "sorry, the firmware is non upgradable" or "yes, that is a known issue that will be fixed in the next revision", would the OP still be as upset as he is now?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:36:47 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 03:20:52 pmThat's how you wouldlikethe industry to work, but it does not work like that. As stated early on in this thread by others, other T&M manufacturers do the same thing. In fact, I think it is pretty common to see different board versions sold in the very same instrument model over the years. Manufacturers will aim to keep these functionally identical from the customer's perspective, but that may not always be possible, e.g. when addressing issues in the early models.Going back to the car analogy: A Golf 1 vs. Golf 7 do indeed have different model designations and can easily be told apart. But car manufacturers do also make under-the-hood improvements sometimes -- and if you buy a 6 year old used car and then approach the manufacturer demanding it to be retrofitted, they might not be inclined to accommodate you.I am afraid you will have to live with this fact. I hope you at least got a good price for the old unit you bought, so it is a decent deal even given the functional limitation you found. (Which is a relatively minor inconvenience in my view.)

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:09:02 pm
content: Working with the car analogy. If you buy a 6 year old car, and inspect it, to find it has a 3 cylinder engine from the factory, and the MFR says it comes with a 4 cylinder (except the first few built) and they changed it in later cars, did not change the documentation, did not change the model numbers, did not make notes in public forum etc, It would seem the Car MFR is being disingenuous and hiding the issue.Im not expressing discontent when an MFR builds a product, and changes it later on.Im stating, when an MFR builds a product, and then changes features or functions of the product, they need to make a distinguishable indication of rev version or Mk level so the customer can have an indication of what they have/buy/use or sell. Just put a Version2 on the back and consumers can then go see what the different functions are. Follow?Yes, we can all point to cases where this is type of behavior is not unique. However, that does not absolve them from bad behavior, and as consumers/customers it should not be allowed to be ignored.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:24:25 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:09:02 pmMaybe they did... Is there a screen that shows all the system data? Perhaps FW or SW revisions? Given this information, is it possible to determine whether it can be updated? As it turns out, there is a way to get the serial number from the unit. Although I might not immediately tumble to the idea of asking the manufacturer about the unit with a given serial number, I have to acknowledge that it is possible.Or, ask around the Test Equipment forum here on EEVblog. Somebody will know.If the unit said Version 2 on the back, would you even know that the current model is Version 154? If you did know, would you actually know the difference? Even if they put a Z on the new version, would it really make you suspect the non-Z version? None of this would help! About the best you can do is ask around on the forum but, even then, you need a serial number or firmware version to ask a question.In every datasheet I have ever read, there is a disclaimer that the manufacturer reserves the right to make changes to the device without notice. This same disclaimer is onPage 1of the DG1022 User Manual:http://pmaweb.caltech.edu/~phy003/DG1022_UserGuide_EN.pdfI'm not going to quote it because the 5th notice precludes copying.You buy used stuff, you get what you got. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:31:37 pm
content: Rstofer,Are you advocating for the MFR's vagueness and lack of product identification?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:32:23 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:09:02 pmYes, and I already followed you nicely based on your earlier posts.Again: This is how you wouldlikethe T&M industry to work, but this is not how it works in real life. Active sustaining and improvement of existing products is actually a good thing. On the other hand, manufacturers don't want to confuse their customers with an ever-changing series of model numbers or sub-versions, they want to enable their dealers to sell off stock of the older revision even after a new rev has been implemented, etc.. So they donotindicate each internal change outside on the box. Please face reality and live with it.This would be a good time for you to edit your initial post and remove the word "scam" from the title, by the way.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:44:40 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:09:02 pmMy trouble (and I suspect others) is with the title of the original post. This is far from a scam and that is the conclusion I think you reached with your sentence above. It is not a "naked eye" or "cosmetic" change but instead an internal one that could be perceived as bad behaviour for not highlighting this in the product name (or another more visible way). I agree with the fact that, although they are entitled to change their product in any way they want, it would be ideal if these were reflected in a more visible way.However, we don't live in an ideal world. From a manufacturer's standpoint the release of a new product has to be different enough to be justifiable all the expenses with marketing and promotion, literature, re-certification, stocking, phase out of the previous model, etc. The definition of "different enough" is entirely subjective.All in all, the only reaction that can be done is to be annoyed, warn others of this situation via this medium and remember to use the questions raised by Muttley whenever you are buying a used product.

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:55:14 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 13, 2017, 05:32:23 pmAre you asking that theTitle of the Post, be anaccurate representation to the contents within?(However your point is not lost with me, the word scam is a trigger and exaggerated at a minimum)

author: iaeen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:09:02 pmWhat specific feature/function do you feel Rigol advertised and didn't deliver on? Can you provide a source?From what I can tell, you bought an out of warranty instrument, found a (minor but annoying) bug in the firmware, and are now going off the rails because you have discovered that current production firmware doesn't have this bug and you can't upgrade.Youclaimthat you are OK with manufacturers making minor revisions of a product, but you are insisting that it's not OK in your case. Youclaimthat Rigol doesn't put revision numbers on their products even though others have pointed out they do exactly that through firmware version menus. Youclaimthat you don't expect warranty support for out-of-warranty secondhand equipment even though youdemandthat they update your firmware.You're not anywhere close to convincing us you have been wronged here. Never mind your outright slanderous claim that Rigol is intentionally scamming consumers.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:18:57 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:31:37 pmI am saying that things change and it is not possible to provide notice. Firmware users could check the ChangeLog, I suppose, but they won't.How many times do you open something up and the PCB is version 103(a). You have to wonder what happened to the other 102 versions and, indeed, what was wrong with version 103 that an (a) suffix was required?But it really is impossible to provide backward notice. Who would you send it to and what could they do with the information? And, if the original owner received the information, would he be compelled to send it forward? Or just 'full disclosure' at the moment of the transaction? It is forced to happen for real estate but I don't see it happening for used test equipment.I am saying that the manufacturers reserve the right to make changes and it's incumbent on the customers to keep up. They can't expect backward notice.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:19:11 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 05:55:14 pmIndeed, it's mainly the word "scam" in the title which I find highly inappropriate.But the claim that "it says DG1022 outside however it's not" also seems hyperbolic.How about: "Attention - Rigol DG1022s with same model number may have different internal revisions"?

author: Spwhite
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:20:44 pm
content: Yes, It's old, out of warranty and not supported by Rigol. I'm completely alright with that point and posture and hold them harmless on these points.I do not feel Rigol should support every product forever, nor support every customers complaint infinitum.The issue is, a consumer cannot identify the version of this product hardware/support/fix maximum level.This point holds true if someone buys a new DG1022 today, yesterday or last year, direct from rigol. You do not know the version you receive, nor do they have a documented path describing the version changes or timeline.Yes there is a menu, where you can obtain a version number. Mine is 00:01:00:04:00:02:01, Im not sure how this indicates any level of lifecycle or expected features or function as rigol does not offer this information in a lookup table etc, to consumers. They do however have this info internally.The "specific feature or function" I feel rigol did not deliver on is simply this. An owner of a DG1022 does not have the ability to know what revision level of DG1022 is in front of them and therefor cannot reasonably identify what to expect or ascertain as normal or other. I have a DG1022, which does not match the product definitions published by rigol.If they simply placed v1/rev1/mk1 whatever on the units, and then offered the foot notes indicating the limits, faults, differences or enhancements to their customers this would not be a conversation. Follow?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:25:06 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 13, 2017, 06:19:11 pmTo which I would say: "Yes, so...".

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:31:06 pm
content: It is ONE thing for a manufacturer to make HW changes to an existing model in a way that DOESN'T alter its operation or software/firmware requirements. This might be better componentry as a result of customer feedback or in the case of long running production models, different componentry from another source say. Product Documentation for the model should indicate from which SN# the changes apply and it should also be reflected as a different HW revision in the System screen page in the UI.When HW is changed to an extent where the SW is different then it should be indicated by a model change easily distinguishable to any buyer. To do otherwise is just laziness.I shouldn't have to open a car bonnet to see what motor is in it.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 13, 2017, 06:25:06 pmIndeed, it's not quite the attention-grabber...

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 08:15:04 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on January 13, 2017, 01:29:33 pmMy apologies to boffinYou can ensure that i cost to find the sentence. I read 5 times the correspondence and i always confused with the last header ,i didn't see and didn't read.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 08:58:29 pm
content: Quote from: Spwhite on January 13, 2017, 06:20:44 pmNo you don't know, but if you bought it new or factory refurbished, and tried to upgrade and it failed you have right to support.The problem is you bought a used item that comes with no support or guarantees.If you buy new, and are paranoid, you can look at the SN on the back and it will show "DG1D114..." assuming you can decipher their code, you can tell how old it is.BTW we sell a "Model X" unit, and have been for 5+ years. Over this time there are many changes inside, so if you want to install the latest parts or software it may be necessary to purchase parts to support that. If you take the serial number, and call in to support, they will tell you what to do. If you happen to have bought a used unit, your call would be charged, and the software upgrade would be as well (even if the software you currently have has a small bug like the one mentioned). Imagine the backlash if rigol were to do this.

author: barry14
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 12:54:41 am
content: This is certainly not a new phenomenon. An old example is the Tektronix 453 Oscilloscope. The original version used nuvistors. Later models used FETs. All are designated as Model 453 with no modifiers.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 03:21:09 am
content: Quote from: barry14 on January 14, 2017, 12:54:41 amGranted, it isn't, but that was many decades ago and since then Tek has been pretty good about identifying HW changes in more recent times.But in those days, long before any uP controlled TE, HW changes didn't have the impact like they might today.Similarity yes, that's all.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 04:35:28 am
content: Firmware updatable hardware exists for the convenience of the manufacturer, not yours.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 04:46:29 am
content: Quote from: DimitriP on January 14, 2017, 04:35:28 amHmmm.That's a two way street, would you consider buying any new equipment if it couldn't be upgraded or in some rare cases have further functionality added at a later date. There's post-sale purchasable options too that need be considered as well. That they might work in one HW version but not another HW revision of the same model =

author: djnz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 06:42:57 am
content: I think a page on the manufacturer website where you enter your instrument model and serial number, and the manufacturer shows all details - hardware revision, limitations if any etc. would help buyers make a good, informed decision. On the other hand, what exactly would a manufacturer's incentive be for providing all such information?

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:28:49 am
content: Believe all participants of this discussion are familiar or at least aware this sentence ->"Product information in this document subject to update without notice."So, just leave the discussion on how the hardware was bought/purchased from the beginning, as above statements, the manufacturer is protected legally by above fine print.Another simple question, on different perspective, once the hardware's warranty is expired, and no running maintenance contract what so ever.Does the manufacturer in term of legal, still owe the owner for any notification, upgrade, fixes and etc ?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:51:47 am
content: Quote from: djnz on January 14, 2017, 06:42:57 amQuoteTo preserve/enhance their reputation.Much of the above info could be found about equipment if you had the right contacts to get the in-house documentation much of which was in paper form. There's little excuse for it not to be available online these days, or is it......top secret.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 05:08:24 pm
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 14, 2017, 07:28:49 amIn my view, no... Unfortunately, it may be a little more complicated than that. What if the device in-hand didn't meet the published specifications? There were bugs. One would hope that, before support expired, all the bugs would be fixed and the unit would meet all specifications. That will never be the case. So then the issues is, how far back should a manufacturer go? Especially for a low-end, disposable, piece of equipment. There are going to be PCB changes over the life cycle and some of them will preclude certain upgrades. Change the model number with every PCB upgrade? Not going to happen!Maybe one of the discriminators between high end and low end equipment is how much support you can expect over time.As to Model Number: Simpson Electric is still making the 260 V-O-M that it first produced during WW II. There are sub-model numbers, of course, but they aren't prominent on the meter (AFAICT). A 260 is a 260. Except that the internals have changed considerably over the years. Features are different as well. That doesn't even count the safety upgrades. But it's still a 260. You pick it up and you already know how to drive it.

author: iaeen
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 05:53:20 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 14, 2017, 04:46:29 amYes, I would and do. Everyone does. You buy products based on what they do now. Not based on what youhopethey might someday do.A (rare) exception is when a manufacturer explicitly advertises a feature as "coming soon" via an update, and even then weighing the probability that the manufacturer will deliver as promised is a smart thing to do.The vast majority of electronics sold today are not upgradable, and that doesn't stop anyone from buying them.

author: Mattjd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:30:02 pm
content: Has anyone experienced issues like this with the Rigol DG1022A?I am looking to buy this model.Thanks

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:56:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mattjd on January 14, 2017, 07:30:02 pmWhy are you looking at the A model when there is a newer Z model for $1 more?You can search this site for DG1022A or DG1022 or even DG1022Z and find out what other people think.It remains an exercise for the buyer to compare the specs of the A vs Z models. I'm pretty sure I would go for the latest and greatest. New, of course...The Z model was announced in Nov '16 while the A model was around in 2013 and the latest firmware for the A model is Feb 24, 2014.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:04:13 pm
content: I'm sitting back and waiting for someone to complain that Rigol hastoo manymodel variants of the DG1022 out there, and that releasing "A", "Z" and "plain" versions is confusing and unprofessional behavior from Rigol...

author: gnavigator1007
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:21:15 pm
content: Sorry to bring up the ITT Tech auction again, but I'm pretty sure it is the reason for the interest in the 1022A and quite likely the original source of the OP's 1022. Everybody is bargain hunting, but results may vary

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:40:05 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 14, 2017, 08:04:13 pmI'm pretty sure there is a U model as well. But, hey, they're marked!I would expect support to be available for the Z model for a few years longer than for the 1022 or 1022A models. Latest and greatest!

author: Mattjd
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:41:05 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on January 14, 2017, 07:56:52 pmah, well the A model is a best seller on Tequipment, with reviews. I honestly dont remember seeing the Z model in my original search.thanks for pointing this out.edit: im not sure what its like for testing equipment, but im not big on newest means better (as in always). prime example of this is the samsung note 7, newer than the seven edge but i think we would all agree the seven edge is a far better phone. Or we can compare the sandybridge vs ivybridge core i intel processors. The ivybridge was newer but because they used some kind paste as opposed to soldering the heatsink. Therefore, the ivybridge had worse thermal conductivity and had less overclocking capabilities than its predecessor(sandybridge).food for thought.