Again, I think this is somewhat old news. I'm not saying the 1054z is a strong signal analysis tool, but the FFT with Memory mode on is a great deal better than it was back when Dave tested it.
Mmm... The firmware update came out like June '15 and Dave's comparison was done in Jan 2016. I wonder why he was testing with the outdated firmware. In any case, one guy in the #845 thread showed the improvement with the new firmware at 1kHz and the results looked similar to the GW Instek. However, Dave's tests were done at 1 MHz. Will the new firmware match the performance of the GW Instek at 1 MHz?
I'm interested to know because I too am in the position to buy an entry level scope soon. My choices are between the GW Instek 1000B (or 2000E) series and the 1054z. What put me off about the Rigol are the slow UI performance (like the lag between moving the vertical knob to when the trace moves), some of the weird bugs (I know most of them have been fixed except the rms bug, but the nature of the bugs kinda make me think the software isn't well design or implemented), and the fft. Is the UI lag fixed and the fft performance matches the GW Instek?
I mostly gonna use the scope for software engineering, with occasionally hardware tinkering, so I think most, if not all, of the "bells and whistles", including the fft, of the Rigol are not important to me. I have never used nor do I ever feel the need to use the decode feature. I can see it would come handy if you're trying to reverse engineer something though. But they're still good to have maybe I'll use them more once I have a chance to try them
But anyhow, is the GW Intek more robust than the Rigol? I know the Rigol has the best value, but if I have to question my tool from time to time, then I rather spend a little more money on something that's more robust. Nothing is worst than having to troubleshoot your tool in the middle of troubleshooting if you know what I mean.