2. A month later the X1/X10 switch on one of the probes (RP2200) failed intermittently. Rigol tech support said this was a known problem, and sent me a new probe. The replacement probe had the same problem. Rigol then sent me another new probe. This probe also had the same problem. I gave up on these probes.
What does everyone think about this?
My Rigol tech support has been excellent.
What does everyone think about this?
What does everyone think about this?
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
This is why I haven't bought a 1054Z yet. Too much software.
Playing necromancer with a few old analogue scopes seems to have a better outcome as a non-professional.
If you're a professional or rely on the thing, I'd snag a new Tek or Keysight unit.
Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.
Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?
Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.
Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.
These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.
Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.
Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?
Yes it mostly does at the moment. It's not about cost, but about process and tooling, neither of which cost solves which is something people seem to avoid. We've had at least a couple of hundred years of engineering development yet the software development industry is very new.
People are still playing with methodologies and technology with virtually no established non-volatile best practices. I've run several large software projects ranging from tightly process controlled military to financial and there is nothing on the table that doesn't produce a turd at some level. It's a log curve on cost vs quality at the moment.
Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.
Applying the Pareto principle, 80% is good enough. For the average person the investment for the remaining 20% might not have the return they expect.
Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.
These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product.
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product. If the product doesn't work, the invoice doesn't get paid.
Pretty much every quality control and manufacturing process has originated this side of 1900. On the other hand, programming and its concepts aren't that new, either, actually they already existed (as theoretical constructs) long before the first computers were made.
Where I work software development works as well as it does for hardware, we use well established concepts and processes to keep quality under control, and that includes testing. At the end there will be a certain amount of minor bugs in the product (bug-free software is an illusion anyways) but if the end result were something even close to a 'turd' then heads would roll, literally, the first one being the person responsible for managing the project.
Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware.
In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.
Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.
Well, bad luck then that Tek support has taken a nose dive as well.
What does everyone think about this?
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product. If the product doesn't work, the invoice doesn't get paid.
Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware.
Definitely. However I suspect that the scale may be somewhat different here. We're talking 5-10 MLoC enterprise behemoths spread across thousands of cores with several tens of terabytes of online data and tens of thousands of concurrent users. This is a big error amplifier.
In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.
Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.
I don't doubt that for a moment - they do occasionally poke you in the eye and indeed I have a couple of parts mules. I haven't paid much for my scopes. I think about £50 for three 465B's so far and about 10 hours' investment of time in total over 3 years.
However for the majority of people, owning a 2016 Mercedes E class (Keysight) isn't an option or at least isn't a sensible one, and a 2016 Kia (Rigol) will be in the garage once a year with electrical problems leaving you nothing to do other than wait around but a 2002 Ford Fiesta (random shitty analogue) gets them around with a bit of smoke coming out but that's not a problem because you're a two car family and you can pick another one up for pocket change if the engine falls out.
Oh and you don't need a laptop, ODB2 cable, thousands of odd shaped tools to fix the Fiesta.
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.Oh, a Keysight fanboi...That was just an example. I am not a Keysight fanboy. For good performance and reliability for an affordable price you might consider GW Instek.
I just wonder why you'd even name particular brands, "You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" would have done the trick.
(and I'm sure I can find threads on here dedicated to Keysight and GW Instek problems if I bother to look for them).
I just wonder why you'd even name particular brands, "You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" would have done the trick.
(and I'm sure I can find threads on here dedicated to Keysight and GW Instek problems if I bother to look for them).
"You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" is exactly it. You can expect all you like, you can rage, rage, against the dying of the light if it helps you feel better. But it's not going to magically make your hacked DS1054z industrial grade. (well, in a certain sense it already is industrial grade, I'll guarantee you they're being used all over China in industrial production settings.
Rather than moaning the there are still bugs in the firmware, a far more productive thing for the community to do would be to amass a really well documented and reproducible bug list and then politely and respectfully keep reminding Rigol NA about it until they get fixed. The forum has clout, we would all just need to pull in the same direction to wield it.
In China you'll find mostly Tektronix and maybe Keysight. I got a few oscilloscope screendumps from China and much to my surprise whey where using Tektronix scopes.
Don't bother because if that would actually work there wouldn't be so many bugs in Rigol (and Siglent) scopes today. The fact is these products are just cheap toys for hobbyists and tinkerers. Sure their scopes can display a signal but there are just too many bugs and checkbox features (functions with no practical use) to be used in any professional setting. If you spend a bit more the number of bugs goes down exponentially and the number of useful features goes up. As Hydrawerk already wrote GW Instek is a major step up from Rigol and Siglent.
Rather than moaning the there are still bugs in the firmware, a far more productive thing for the community to do would be to amass a really well documented and reproducible bug list and then politely and respectfully keep reminding Rigol NA about it until they get fixed. The forum has clout, we would all just need to pull in the same direction to wield it.
There is already a bug list for the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/