3 ms·

This fellow[0] designed a DDR2 interface, but I don't think he ever reported back whether or not it worked. Apparently he did it by hand in Eagle! To address y

by mng2 13y ago

This fellow[0] designed a DDR2 interface, but I don't think he ever reported back whether or not it worked. Apparently he did it by hand in Eagle! To address your point about tools, I think you're right about the value aspect -- good tools cost money. But then again, does the average hobbyist need those kinds of tools? How much demand is there for, say, a 100 MHz open 'scope that costs a bit more than a Rigol? Ham enthusiasts would probably rather trade around old HP/Tek equipment. I do agree in principle that there should be something like the Global Village Construction Set, for electronics. But it would be a monumental undertaking. [0]: http://danstrother.com/2011/01/16/spartan-6-bga-test-board/ http://danstrother.com/2011/01/16/spartan-6-bga-test-board/

cottonseed 13y ago
Yeah, I've seen that. I guessed he didn't report back because it didn't work, but who knows. Good question. I agree, that's probably the first step: a more expensive inferior product, but I'm trying to look beyond that. If the open tools compete in features, and the manufacturers don't have to recoup design investment, shouldn't the open tools be cheaper? I want to live in a world where people have access to tools at the marginal cost of manufacturer. Once the open tools can compete on features, presumably volume would increase, making them competitive. Rigol, like the bigger test equipment manufactures, sell heavily software limited equipment and charge handsomely for upgrades. Dave on the EEVBlog recently did a teardown of the newly released Tek MDO3000 6-in-1 scope. The entry level box costs ~$3,000. It costs about $15K for all the features enabled. Same hardware. Dave estimated the signal analyzer front end costs $40 in raw parts but $2,500 to enable. What's the real costs of the box? I'm not saying open is necessarily cheaper, but I'm not yet convinced it couldn't be.

by mng2 13y ago

cottonseed 13y ago

Yeah, I've seen that. I guessed he didn't report back because it didn't work, but who knows. Good question. I agree, that's probably the first step: a more expensive inferior product, but I'm trying to look beyond that. If the open tools compete in features, and the manufacturers don't have to recoup design investment, shouldn't the open tools be cheaper? I want to live in a world where people have access to tools at the marginal cost of manufacturer. Once the open tools can compete on features, presumably volume would increase, making them competitive. Rigol, like the bigger test equipment manufactures, sell heavily software limited equipment and charge handsomely for upgrades. Dave on the EEVBlog recently did a teardown of the newly released Tek MDO3000 6-in-1 scope. The entry level box costs ~$3,000. It costs about $15K for all the features enabled. Same hardware. Dave estimated the signal analyzer front end costs $40 in raw parts but $2,500 to enable. What's the real costs of the box? I'm not saying open is necessarily cheaper, but I'm not yet convinced it couldn't be.