The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE.
No, they were actually unexpectedly good. Mind you, I was capturing a signal way beyond the scope's claimed specs.
The point of showing that capture was only to demonstrate that the digital backend was capable of visualizing signals of that high a frequency, and if one would wish to modify the input low-pass filter on one of the channels to make it a special high-frequency input, then it would not be pointless at all.
I have no reason to expect that the SDS800X HD will not show an equally terrible, or good (if not better), result in the same test scenario. Might even be much better (because of a higher sampling rate), but it would equally require a modification of the input filter to make it practically useful.
Your comments on the number of channels and effective bandwidth sound somewhat apocalyptic. No, it's nowhere near that in reality.
It's true that the front page specs are somewhat misleading. If we consider DHO924, then the claimed bandwidth (250 MHz) is only usable in single channel mode, and just barely hits it in dual channel. Does it render the scope useless? Of course it doesn't. Is Rigol DHO800/900 worse than the respective Siglent for multi-channel high-frequency measurements (simultaneously)? Yes, apparently so. Is it worse in every other aspect? No it's not. Siglent also has a significant number of things that can be more or less annoying.
It's good to know the instrument's limitations (and bugs/weird design choices), and that's where the forum comes to help, as we can test things to see what practical implications their limitations may create.