No fan, no heat, just signals.
Idk. I was expecting better. There's very little information on which digital scopes are actually good. Can I hook my 2230 up to a computer and quickly/easily do any of the math I might want?
On the 2230, it's a matter of seconds between starting the scope, click click click, boom I have the signal onscreen.
Idk. I was expecting better. There's very little information on which digital scopes are actually good. Can I hook my 2230 up to a computer and quickly/easily do any of the math I might want?
I have some hands-on experience with the TBS1000 series. Nothing wrong with it to look at signals. Nice crisp display and it works well. The only problem is that Tektronix should have put a touchscreen on it. In most cases it is reversed, but the UI on the TBS1000 would work better as a touch UI instead of using function buttons / knobs. Having owned the 2230 as well, I'd certainly choose the TBS1000 over the 2230.
No fan, no heat, just signals.Unless those signals are digital and not periodic, then you are screwed.
I have some hands-on experience with the TBS1000 series. Nothing wrong with it to look at signals. Nice crisp display and it works well. The only problem is that Tektronix should have put a touchscreen on it. In most cases it is reversed, but the UI on the TBS1000 would work better as a touch UI instead of using function buttons / knobs. Having owned the 2230 as well, I'd certainly choose the TBS1000 over the 2230.
TBS1000B series have only 2.5kPts. That is very small buffer that makes it very limited.
I have some hands-on experience with the TBS1000 series. Nothing wrong with it to look at signals. Nice crisp display and it works well. The only problem is that Tektronix should have put a touchscreen on it. In most cases it is reversed, but the UI on the TBS1000 would work better as a touch UI instead of using function buttons / knobs. Having owned the 2230 as well, I'd certainly choose the TBS1000 over the 2230.
TBS1000B series have only 2.5kPts. That is very small buffer that makes it very limited.You are right, I was thinking about the TBS2000 series which has way more memory. The TBS1000 series is older.
You got a new tool and could not figure out how to use it in 5 minutes, so the tool must be bad?
You are right, I was thinking about the TBS2000 series which has way more memory. The TBS1000 series is older.
I would like to look at a digital scope where all the functions have their own buttons and knobs, would a surface of half a square meter be enough for a modern scope?
Yes, if you just want to simply look at a signal for some reason, the 2230 will be faster as well as easier if you are used to it. I believe there was an available parallel interface that would allow you to download data in one form or another, but it won't be very much data nor very fast compared to a reasonable modern DSO.
The Analog scope is orders of magnitude faster. I knew the digital scope might be a bit slower, but not to that ridiculous extent. Even the autoset ranging was slower than simply dicking with the buttons. The digital scope was so slow I'm genuinely surprised analog scopes were discontinued in the mid 90s and didn't continue production/development/refinement to this day!
The Analog scope is orders of magnitude faster. I knew the digital scope might be a bit slower, but not to that ridiculous extent. Even the autoset ranging was slower than simply dicking with the buttons. The digital scope was so slow I'm genuinely surprised analog scopes were discontinued in the mid 90s and didn't continue production/development/refinement to this day!Are you maybe at slow time base settings? It may be that the TBS only updates things like vertical settings after a full sweep, so if you have the timebase set to say 100 ms/div, this could add to the perceived latency. The waveform update rate (number of sweeps per second) will likely be a lot slower for this scope than for an analog scope. Although more modern scopes like the Keysight scope are a lot better here, and limiting writing speed of the CRT would also limit the effective waveform update rate on analog scopes.
I'm agnostic on the interfaces, and I understand different paradigms fundamentally work differently, but holy hell sometimes you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when embracing new technologies.
Much of the speed will depend on whether they have competent programmers who use C, or whether they use fairytale programming languages.
No, the whole thing was just slow. Pushing a menu button, it took like 5 seconds to display a menu, changing a menu was decently fast, but that's after 10 seconds of waiting for it to display a menu. Changing the timebase was disastrously slow, whether in the MHz or Hz range. It was almost impossible to find the signal without overshooting first.
This isn't a scope I bought, I was just testing it to make sure it's working for someone and comparing it to my decently calibrated 2230.
I just used a fully digital oscilloscope for the first time [...]
Wow is it a pain in the ass to use compared to my analog/solid state 2230.
No, the whole thing was just slow. Pushing a menu button, it took like 5 seconds to display a menu, changing a menu was decently fast, but that's after 10 seconds of waiting for it to display a menu. Changing the timebase was disastrously slow, whether in the MHz or Hz range. It was almost impossible to find the signal without overshooting first.
This isn't a scope I bought, I was just testing it to make sure it's working for someone and comparing it to my decently calibrated 2230.
I made a video of my TPS2024 booting up and looking at a 1kHz 1V square wave with some basic operations such as channel coupling, cursors, zoom, vertical scale, timebase, FFT and measurements. Is the TBS1072B comparable or slower?
https://youtu.be/toOrmcHtwws
I'm agnostic on the interfaces, and I understand different paradigms fundamentally work differently, but holy hell sometimes you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when embracing new technologies.
It is irritating when people do that. Sometimes it is beneficial to realise that if you know how someone earns their money, you can predict what they will say.
QuoteMuch of the speed will depend on whether they have competent programmers who use C, or whether they use fairytale programming languages.
Both HP and Tektronix made instruments based on Smalltalk, in the late 80s early 90s. Those programmers knew what they were doing.
I'm agnostic on the interfaces, and I understand different paradigms fundamentally work differently, but holy hell sometimes you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when embracing new technologies.
It is irritating when people do that. Sometimes it is beneficial to realise that if you know how someone earns their money, you can predict what they will say.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The Analog scope is orders of magnitude faster. I knew the digital scope might be a bit slower, but not to that ridiculous extent. Even the autoset ranging was slower than simply dicking with the buttons. The digital scope was so slow I'm genuinely surprised analog scopes were discontinued in the mid 90s and didn't continue production/development/refinement to this day!
If I were working in an environment and someone took my 2230 away and gave me something as slow and clunky as that digital scope, I would have revolted.
I'm agnostic on the interfaces, and I understand different paradigms fundamentally work differently, but holy hell sometimes you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when embracing new technologies.
The "gurus" would try to argue that the mess was still a valid, if different type of display, with the inference that we were "dinosaurs".
That was far from the case, as by & large, we were all quite favourably disposed towards doing things digitally.
The important part of that is actually "doing things", which those early DSO's could not!