It's easy enough to make fun of the TBS 1000 marketing as is, without resorting to ridiculous arguments.
The Rigol comparison is just wrong. It says the Rigol can only save 8K data points. They clearly don't want to know about the 1Meg long memory in the Rigol.
They list 500 MS/s for all channels in that same table. The Rigol can't do 500 MS/s in dual channel mode with 1 M of memory. This is a weakness in its specs, and you can count on competitive comparisons to exploit it. That's how these things work. They're not wrong, just incomplete.
Apparently, one of the big "advantages" of the Tek scopes is that they come in slower more expensive models. You get the option to pay much more for much less - yippee!
They also list a 150 MHz model that the DS1000E series can't match.
It says the Rigol has no Autorange button. I wonder what the "Auto" button on the Rigol does then?
Autoset != autorange. Tek has both. Autorange will leave other settings alone and will continuously adjust the horizontal/vertical scale. Not terribly important, but could come in handy for some measurements that require both hands on the probe/DUT.
Rigol menus can be three deep, whereas the Tek menus ar only two deep - so what? If the depth of menu's is such a problem, why didn't Tek have menus that are only one level deep? Or zero deep - if they had no menus at all, they would be the best DSO on the market according to their logic.
This is a ridiculous argument, especially for an engineer. A larger screen is better, so scopes should incorporate a 30" TFT? Lighter is better, so the device should be lighter than air?
No mention at all of Rigol's 1GByte/S sampling with one channel!
Like I said, a weakness in its specs that competitors will exploit. They don't list sample rates for single channel operation.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
