Does the fact that lots of people buy and use the scope happily mean it's a bad design?
Does the fact that lots of people buy and use the scope happily mean it's a bad design?
No, the fact that many functions are broken and Rigol is deceptive and lies about its capabilities makes it a bad design.
You even quoted me yourself:QuoteSure, the Rigol software often appears to be a set of "kludges" that were cobbled together by a committee of junior programmers who have never actually used an oscilloscope... but who remember playing with those complicated Chinese puzzle boxes as kids.
What I -have- done is explain how many of the problems people have reported are user-related, often due to not RTFM or not understanding how a particular control actually works.
Funny... I am often criticised by certain individuals as being a Rigol-basher, and now I'm accused of being a fanboy. Make up your minds, people! If you don't like the scope, DON'T USE IT -- unless of course you absolutely need to use a scope and it's the only one handy --- or affordable. And by all means... RTFM !!!
Well tooki, here's the way I look at it. I've got one and other than the quirks we all talk about, it's perfectly acceptable for my ham radio/electronics hobby needs and that's what many people use it for. I ain't trying to fix the Superconducting Super Collider with it. I, like alsetalokin4017, have used some of the best test equipment made when I was working (I'm retired now). I know what a piece of total junk is like to work with. This thing is really perfectly acceptable for the price and performance.
The thing is, look at the forum stats. This thread is in the Top Ten forum thread list by relies AND by views. This thread is 139 pages now! If this scope was a total piece of s*** the talk would have long since stopped after a few pages of reviews and replies, and the scope would not be selling like it is. It's a tantalizing situation, in that it's very good for the price, and what a lot of people think is how a few more hours of work by Rigol on the thing would make it better, but they don't seem to want to go that last mile, for whatever reason. OK, well, they probably think that since it's selling so well and recommended so much, why do it. I don't know - I don't run the company. But again, the thing is it's so good for the price it's been examined down to a gnat's ass and that's what all the posts are about - people using it for all sorts of tasks and exposing the last few irritating bugs.
But what do I know?
I don't see how that quote supports any argument you're making.
You've done nothing but disagree with everyone who complains about this bad UI.
We're 139 pages into this thread, I had hoped we would have moved on from this point by now. Is there an emergency stop button anywhere around here?
You may be the expert you claim to be, but I find your language and your approach to this discussion offensive. Do you talk to people like that when you are face-to-face with them?
QuoteI don't see how that quote supports any argument you're making.
That is right, you don't see. Do you see this:QuoteYou've done nothing but disagree with everyone who complains about this bad UI.
The quote to which you refer directly contradicts your statement and proves that you are wrong about me.
Do you actually own a DS1054z? One wonders why you bother with this thread at all.
For one, price has little correlation with the quality of usability.
Many very expensive products have terrible user interfaces.
(For example, the first generation of BMW's iDrive became famous for how terrible a UI it was.)
If anything, you often see the opposite, that expensive (i.e. non-mass-market) products have terrible UIs because they're made in such small numbers that the manufacturer can't invest in big UX projects.
While there's no question that the DS1054Z's user interface has problems, exactly what would be the justification for Rigol to spend the extra money on people who know how to design solid user interfaces, given their target market and general market strategy? How would you expect them to recover their increased costs as a result?
Yes, I do own it, and the measurements drive me nuts. So yeah, I'm personally invested in this.
Absolutely, when my patience has run out. I feel no obligation to pussyfoot around someone who's been nothing but a pain in the ass to people attempting to have a real discussion about a real problem that bothers them. I tried to reason with you, it didn't work.
i'm pretty sure the first pages would be flooded by yours "it's only 400$" comments.
While there's no question that the DS1054Z's user interface has problems, exactly what would be the justification for Rigol to spend the extra money on people who know how to design solid user interfaces, given their target market and general market strategy? How would you expect them to recover their increased costs as a result?
If you are experiencing a "failure to communicate"... maybe you should look to your style of communication as being at least part of the problem.
I wonder how many of the "complainers" bought their scopes, as I did, because of our kind host's rave reviews, and then found out about the various bugs and UI problems, which weren't mentioned at all in his reviews.
For one, price has little correlation with the quality of usability.
Really?
What inexpensive items can you think of that nevertheless have excellent usability and aren't clear derivatives of more expensive items of the same type?
People who know what they're doing cost money, period. If you want a good user interface in a commercial product, you have to get it designed by someone who knows what they're doing when it comes to user interfaces, and that costs more than having it designed by someone whose expertise lies with some other area that is necessary for the project. More precisely, it is not uncommon for software, especially, to have its user interface designed by the same people who designed and implemented the rest of the software, since the necessary expertise to design and code the software is much more fundamental to the success of the software than is user interface expertise. While someone who doesn't know a whole lot about user interfaces can put together a poor but functional one, someone who doesn't know a whole lot about coding can't design and code a functional piece of software at all.
Indeed, as regards user interfaces, it's even worse than that. A good user interface not only adheres to general usability principles, it's designed so that the target users can properly use it. That means that the usability expert has to not only have expertise in user interfaces, he must also have expertise in the domain the product is intended to target. As regards oscilloscopes, it means the user interface expert must understand the features of the oscilloscope and how they are to be used. Merely being good at designing user interfaces isn't enough.QuoteMany very expensive products have terrible user interfaces.
Yes. But that alone doesn't break the correlation. While many very expensive products have terrible user interfaces, few inexpensive products have good user interfaces (but see below, as there are clear exceptions to that). Good user interfaces are more easily found in expensive products than in inexpensive ones. Look at Linux and Windows, in contrast with Mac OS, for an excellent example. Apple products command a premium in part because Apple spent the money up-front on usability, and focused so much on it that usability became their signature trait.Quote(For example, the first generation of BMW's iDrive became famous for how terrible a UI it was.)
Yes. How long did it continue to have a terrible UI? The first generation of anything isn't necessarily a good metric to use for determining whether there's a correlation between expense and quality of the UI.QuoteIf anything, you often see the opposite, that expensive (i.e. non-mass-market) products have terrible UIs because they're made in such small numbers that the manufacturer can't invest in big UX projects.
Then how is it that Windows, a mass market product with many more seats than Mac OS, has a much worse UI than Mac OS?
There are products that are relatively inexpensive which have solid user interfaces, but those tend to be mainstream products for which a poor user interface would be a major competitive disadvantage, or which are heavily regulated (e.g., avionics), or which have to be competently implemented because a screwup on the part of the operator could cost lives (e.g., cars, for which the controls for the major systems are almost always well-designed).
In the end, it comes down to the ability and willingness of the manufacturer to spend the needed extra money on user interface design. That money will increase the cost, so the expenditure has to be justifiable somehow.
While there's no question that the DS1054Z's user interface has problems, exactly what would be the justification for Rigol to spend the extra money on people who know how to design solid user interfaces, given their target market and general market strategy? How would you expect them to recover their increased costs as a result?
It desperately needs a competitor.
Perhaps people here can Gang up on Daniel and have him drop Keysight prices?
for what it's worth i find the new keysight to be an excellent competitor, for a fraction of keysight's cost you get a real keysight. i am willing to put aside every ""shortcoming"" one could find and get something that on paper might be less, but in facts is actually more.
Perhaps people here can Gang up on Daniel and have him drop Keysight prices?
I don't think Daniel has that power.
I wonder how many of the "complainers" bought their scopes, as I did, because of our kind host's rave reviews, and then found out about the various bugs and UI problems, which weren't mentioned at all in his reviews.
It desperately needs a competitor.Yep.