Oscilloscope Recommendation

[blacksheeplogic]

No, I have both the 1102G and a 3000T, the 1102G is NOT the same performance and/or specs. Yes it shares the same now OLD ASIC but the FW on the 1102G cripples it severely. It's not a competitive low-cost value scope.

How is the performance crippled?

Oh? How about waveform updates/s, available triggers, available decoding options, available math, memory depth, zone triggering etc. The so-called 'toy' scopes offer many of these (often at no additional cost).

Just pursue the datasheet, it's a long list. As I said in my original post, it's a nice scope but nothing special. IMHO not worth the additional cost especially with the feature gap compared to other cheaper scopes. Of course it's got the name if that's worth the extra $ to you...

It in no way compares to my 3000T, the fact it shares the same ASIC is irrelevant.

[Mr. Scram]

Oh? How about waveform updates/s, available triggers, available decoding options, available math, memory depth, zone triggering etc. The so-called 'toy' scopes offer many of these (often at no additional cost).

Just pursue the datasheet, it's a long list. As I said in my original post, it's a nice scope but nothing special. IMHO not worth the additional cost especially with the feature gap compared to other cheaper scopes. Of course it's got the name if that's worth the extra $ to you...

It in no way compares to my 3000T, the fact it shares the same ASIC is irrelevant.

Except for the waveform updates those aren't really about performance and more about features, which is why I was a bit confused. Keysight obviously differentiates its models but explicitly mentions the differences so there shouldn't be many surprises there. Bar the artificially limited waveform updates per second the actual performance seems to be on par with the other models that share the ASIC which is the main attraction. If it didn't have its ASIC with the associated perks you would indeed just be paying for the name.

[Someone]

Oh? How about waveform updates/s, available triggers, available decoding options, available math, memory depth, zone triggering etc. The so-called 'toy' scopes offer many of these (often at no additional cost).

Just pursue the datasheet, it's a long list. As I said in my original post, it's a nice scope but nothing special. IMHO not worth the additional cost especially with the feature gap compared to other cheaper scopes. Of course it's got the name if that's worth the extra $ to you...

It in no way compares to my 3000T, the fact it shares the same ASIC is irrelevant.

Except for the waveform updates those aren't really about performance and more about features, which is why I was a bit confused. Keysight obviously differentiates its models but explicitly mentions the differences so there shouldn't be many surprises there. Bar the artificially limited waveform updates per second the actual performance seems to be on par with the other models that share the ASIC which is the main attraction. If it didn't have its ASIC with the associated perks you would indeed just be paying for the name.

The artificial limitations just seem to get the goat of certain people. Back in the real world the "limited" update rates are only at the peak end and don't actually affect most use cases, or actually enhanced more typical applications:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso4000-and-ds4000-tests-bugs-firmware-questions-etc/msg973064/#msg973064

[blacksheeplogic]

The artificial limitations just seem to get the goat of certain people. Back in the real world the "limited" update rates are only at the peak end and don't actually affect most use cases, or actually enhanced more

No, you've internationally taken my perspective out of context.

Consider a budget AMD PC which is $200.00 cheaper verses a budget Intel PC where the AMD PC is better configured. Do I look at that high end Intel workstation sitting beside it with an Intel Processor and conclude that the budget Intel PC has got to be better because the high end work station has an Intel processor in it?    If you are one of those that prefer the Intel Brand just 'cause it will impress your mates that you bought Intel, by all means go for it.

Others will look at the AMD PC and conclude that it meets there needs and be happy with it even if if it does not impress your mates.

[Mr. Scram]

No, you've internationally taken my perspective out of context.

Consider a budget AMD PC which is $200.00 cheaper verses a budget Intel PC where the AMD PC is better configured. Do I look at that high end Intel workstation sitting beside it with an Intel Processor and conclude that the budget Intel PC has got to be better because the high end work station has an Intel processor in it?    If you are one of those that prefer the Intel Brand just 'cause it will impress your mates that you bought Intel, by all means go for it.

Others will look at the AMD PC and conclude that it meets there needs and be happy with it even if if it does not impress your mates.

We're not talking about features but about performance as we know the features have been differentiated. The performance should be the same though. The point of the ASIC is that it can crunch through numbers without penalty, update the display with minimum delay and you're able to turn on and off features without bogging down the device and as far as I'm aware this holds true in the 1000X series. The ASIC is the reason many people consider the Keysight oscilloscopes livable and you get that in the 1000X series. It's not just about having a name on the sticker but having real world benefits. Of course you could argue the more limited feature set makes alternatives more interesting but that's another discussion.

[2N3055]

No, you've internationally taken my perspective out of context.

Consider a budget AMD PC which is $200.00 cheaper verses a budget Intel PC where the AMD PC is better configured. Do I look at that high end Intel workstation sitting beside it with an Intel Processor and conclude that the budget Intel PC has got to be better because the high end work station has an Intel processor in it?    If you are one of those that prefer the Intel Brand just 'cause it will impress your mates that you bought Intel, by all means go for it.

Others will look at the AMD PC and conclude that it meets there needs and be happy with it even if if it does not impress your mates.

We're not talking about features but about performance as we know the features have been differentiated. The performance should be the same though. The point of the ASIC is that it can crunch through numbers without penalty, update the display with minimum delay and you're able to turn on and off features without bogging down the device and as far as I'm aware this holds true in the 1000X series. The ASIC is the reason many people consider the Keysight oscilloscopes livable and you get that in the 1000X series. It's not just about having a name on the sticker but having real world benefits. Of course you could argue the more limited feature set makes alternatives more interesting but that's another discussion.

Well, sorry, but ASIC situation  is not the same in 1000/2000 as in 3000...
Difference is that 3000 has 2 ASIC chips, and those ASIC-s are kind of custom scope customized FPGA-s. They are partially reconfigurable.

1000 and 2000 have only 1 MZ ASIC, and they are configured differently.
This is exactly type of marketing that big companies use, to make you think your low end car is equally awesome as their top end model because they use same spark plugs.

KS scopes have great user experience. They are designed to give you responsiveness, so when you twiddle buttons on them, they make you feel like analog scopes.  That is great, and in 3000 series you get great responsiveness, tons of measurements and protocols, and few compromises that might not be a problem for you. Memory is marginally small, but for most uses you get by. If you want to decode long protocol sequences, not a scope for that.  But 80-90 % of the time fantastic machine.

1000 and 2000 series have very limited math, protocols and memory compared to 3000 series. So basically even more compromises and none of the good stuff. Only fast UI feeling is left, not much else.
If you want digital replacement for analog scope, they are great. Compared to analog scope they are advanced. And they are fast to operate, like analog scope. If that is your thing they are great. There is none better at that than them.

If you want to buy inexpensive  digital scope that is supposed to be digital scope with corresponding workflow, they are completely wrong choice. 

[Mr. Scram]

Well, sorry, but ASIC situation  is not the same in 1000/2000 as in 3000...
Difference is that 3000 has 2 ASIC chips, and those ASIC-s are kind of custom scope customized FPGA-s. They are partially reconfigurable.

1000 and 2000 have only 1 MZ ASIC, and they are configured differently.
This is exactly type of marketing that big companies use, to make you think your low end car is equally awesome as their top end model because they use same spark plugs.

KS scopes have great user experience. They are designed to give you responsiveness, so when you twiddle buttons on them, they make you feel like analog scopes.  That is great, and in 3000 series you get great responsiveness, tons of measurements and protocols, and few compromises that might not be a problem for you. Memory is marginally small, but for most uses you get by. If you want to decode long protocol sequences, not a scope for that.  But 80-90 % of the time fantastic machine.

1000 and 2000 series have very limited math, protocols and memory compared to 3000 series. So basically even more compromises and none of the good stuff. Only fast UI feeling is left, not much else.
If you want digital replacement for analog scope, they are great. Compared to analog scope they are advanced. And they are fast to operate, like analog scope. If that is your thing they are great. There is none better at that than them.

If you want to buy inexpensive  digital scope that is supposed to be digital scope with corresponding workflow, they are completely wrong choice.

We're back to talking features again instead of talking performance. Although the differences between the hardware of the 2000X and 3000X and 3000T series you describe are accurate I'm not sure the practical difference is described accurately. The math listed for the 2000X is "Math waveforms: add, subtract, multiply, FFT, d/dt, integrate, square root, Ax+B, square, absolute value, common logarithm, natural logarithm, exponential, base 10 exponential, low pass filter, high pass filter, magnify" The math listed for the 3000X is "Math waveforms: add, subtract, multiply, FFT, d/dt, integrate, and square root. With the DSOX3ADVMATH option, you get these additional math waveforms: Ax+B, square, absolute value, common logarithm, natural logarithm, exponential, base 10 exponential, low pass filter, high pass filter, magnify, measurement trend, chart logic bus timing, and chart logic bus state." The 3000X offers more features but not by a mile. The difference is measurement trend, chart logic bus timing, and chart logic bus state. The differences in decoding are bit a bit more significant but something like triggering offers almost exactly the same options. A 1000X isn't a 2000X which in turn isn't a 3000T. That should be obvious but all carry the benefits of the ASIC which still offers best in class performance. As I stated in my previous post "Of course you could argue the more limited feature set makes alternatives more interesting but that's another discussion."

[2N3055]

Well, sorry, but ASIC situation  is not the same in 1000/2000 as in 3000...
Difference is that 3000 has 2 ASIC chips, and those ASIC-s are kind of custom scope customized FPGA-s. They are partially reconfigurable.

1000 and 2000 have only 1 MZ ASIC, and they are configured differently.
This is exactly type of marketing that big companies use, to make you think your low end car is equally awesome as their top end model because they use same spark plugs.

KS scopes have great user experience. They are designed to give you responsiveness, so when you twiddle buttons on them, they make you feel like analog scopes.  That is great, and in 3000 series you get great responsiveness, tons of measurements and protocols, and few compromises that might not be a problem for you. Memory is marginally small, but for most uses you get by. If you want to decode long protocol sequences, not a scope for that.  But 80-90 % of the time fantastic machine.

1000 and 2000 series have very limited math, protocols and memory compared to 3000 series. So basically even more compromises and none of the good stuff. Only fast UI feeling is left, not much else.
If you want digital replacement for analog scope, they are great. Compared to analog scope they are advanced. And they are fast to operate, like analog scope. If that is your thing they are great. There is none better at that than them.

If you want to buy inexpensive  digital scope that is supposed to be digital scope with corresponding workflow, they are completely wrong choice.

We're back to talking features again instead of talking performance. Although the differences between the hardware of the 2000X and 3000X and 3000T series you describe are accurate I'm not sure the practical difference is described accurately. The math listed for the 2000X is "Math waveforms: add, subtract, multiply, FFT, d/dt, integrate, square root, Ax+B, square, absolute value, common logarithm, natural logarithm, exponential, base 10 exponential, low pass filter, high pass filter, magnify" The math listed for the 3000X is "Math waveforms: add, subtract, multiply, FFT, d/dt, integrate, and square root. With the DSOX3ADVMATH option, you get these additional math waveforms: Ax+B, square, absolute value, common logarithm, natural logarithm, exponential, base 10 exponential, low pass filter, high pass filter, magnify, measurement trend, chart logic bus timing, and chart logic bus state." The 3000X offers more features but not by a mile. The difference is measurement trend, chart logic bus timing, and chart logic bus state. The differences in decoding are bit a bit more significant but something like triggering offers almost exactly the same options. A 1000X isn't a 2000X which in turn isn't a 3000T. That should be obvious but all carry the benefits of the ASIC which still offers best in class performance. As I stated in my previous post "Of course you could argue the more limited feature set makes alternatives more interesting but that's another discussion."

3000T also has touch screen (big usability help), zone triggers (great!), math on math, vastly enhanced FFT etc. ADVMATH is not longer an option but comes with the scope, so that is basic math on it.
I tried all three of them, and decided that I have to give more money for 3000T, for what I do.

Again, many people still use scope pretty much like the old analog one and don't use any of the new digital scope enabled workflow helpers. And for those I recommend to try 1000 and 2000 Keysight. They are usually very happy with them.

And, no, I will never concede to anyone that GUI performance is more important than features. It is not. If a slow scope has a measurement you need but you have to wait 10 seconds for calculation, it is still better than the one that doesn't have it, if you need that measurement, that is.
Comparing performance makes sense only if comparing apples and apples.

If you want BASIC scope that is very fast then 1000 and 2000 KS make sense.

If you want capable instrument, Rigol MSO5000 is superior in every aspect to KS 1000 and 2000. Every. The fact is that is still very new and it is not debugged yet. Also, fact that you can buy 350MHZ 4ch Siglent SDS5000X for the price of nicely optioned KS 2000X should make you think. There is no way you can tell me you really think DSOX2024A is better scope than SDS5034X, by any metric...
Not to mention some nice GW Instek , or R&S etc..

That is my opinion, based on my preferences, research, testing of dozens of instruments etc. etc. You have yours.

[Mr. Scram]

3000T also has touch screen (big usability help), zone triggers (great!), math on math, vastly enhanced FFT etc. ADVMATH is not longer an option but comes with the scope, so that is basic math on it.
I tried all three of them, and decided that I have to give more money for 3000T, for what I do.

Again, many people still use scope pretty much like the old analog one and don't use any of the new digital scope enabled workflow helpers. And for those I recommend to try 1000 and 2000 Keysight. They are usually very happy with them.

And, no, I will never concede to anyone that GUI performance is more important than features. It is not. If a slow scope has a measurement you need but you have to wait 10 seconds for calculation, it is still better than the one that doesn't have it, if you need that measurement, that is.
Comparing performance makes sense only if comparing apples and apples.

If you want BASIC scope that is very fast then 1000 and 2000 KS make sense.

If you want capable instrument, Rigol MSO5000 is superior in every aspect to KS 1000 and 2000. Every. The fact is that is still very new and it is not debugged yet. Also, fact that you can buy 350MHZ 4ch Siglent SDS5000X for the price of nicely optioned KS 2000X should make you think. There is no way you can tell me you really think DSOX2024A is better scope than SDS5034X, by any metric...
Not to mention some nice GW Instek , or R&S etc..

That is my opinion, based on my preferences, research, testing of dozens of instruments etc. etc. You have yours.

What "new digital scope enabled workflow helpers" do you miss on the 2000X series? It's all about getting the job done efficiently. If there are features missing which preclude you getting the job done then that's an issue indeed. It's all about the device not getting in the way of answering your question. Convenience and not having to battle a sluggish device are part of that. Better workflows lead to better results. Something like zone trigger is a nice feature but if you really can't answer your question without it you may be asking the wrong questions. Or maybe you'd better upgrade to a UXR1104A for fear of missing that one feature. Although I'm not entirely sure why we're debating a different class of instruments than OP is interested in. We're here to help him after all.

[BillB]

timwolf, please let us know what you end up purchasing. 

It will be interesting to see if the forum was once again able to up-sell a beginner scope purchaser into a UXR1104A. 

[Mr. Scram]

timwolf, please let us know what you end up purchasing. 

It will be interesting to see if the forum was once again able to up-sell a beginner scope purchaser into a UXR1104A. 

Don't you know? It's the new DS1054Z! 

[2N3055]

timwolf, please let us know what you end up purchasing. 

It will be interesting to see if the forum was once again able to up-sell a beginner scope purchaser into a UXR1104A. 

Don't you know? It's the new DS1054Z! 

It is you who trolled it up to 3000 USD scopes from sds 1104X-E, which I claim is actually more capable scope that DSOX2014A, and all that just because you claim some mythical "performance" that is purely subjective... 
On the same token, I dare you to show any workflow enhancement or feature that will justify giving 2000USD more for Keysight than Siglent...
There is none. DSOX2000A is horribly overpriced for what it is. I just tried to make a point that it's bad deal. 3000T is worth every penny. 2000 should be 800USD or less. With decodes. Then I would say it's a good deal.
 

[Mr. Scram]

It is you who trolled it up to 3000 USD scopes from sds 1104X-E, which I claim is actually more capable scope that DSOX2014A, and all that just because you claim some mythical "performance" that is purely subjective... 
On the same token, I dare you to show any workflow enhancement or feature that will justify giving 2000USD more for Keysight than Siglent...
There is none. DSOX2000A is horribly overpriced for what it is. I just tried to make a point that it's bad deal. 3000T is worth every penny. 2000 should be 800USD or less. With decodes. Then I would say it's a good deal.

It's tiring people call anyone who doesn't agree with them a troll. This discussion departed with the 1000X being a worthwhile alternative which is where the ASIC discussion came from. You then brought up the 2000X. But I can understand the need for justifying spending the money on a 3000T instead of a 2000X if you bought a 3000T. You'd have made the wrong choice and would have spent a whole lot of money for nothing if you weren't able to justify the extra cost.

[nfmax]

Speaking as someone who has just upgraded from a maxed-out MSOX-2024A to a maxed-out MSOX3104T, you should be aware that the X2000 received a mid-life kicker last year, which boosted the WFM/s from 50,000 (ish) to 200,000 (also ish); added most of the advanced math functions; and added some advanced triggers. This is included with all new X2000's, and is available as a £250 upgrade for existing models. This helped to differentiate it from the 4-channel X1000 models, introduced about that time.

The X3000T does a lot more - though its input are limited to 135V instead of the 300V of the X2000, and have a slightly higher capacitance in 1Mohm mode

There is a regular feature progression through the 3 ranges, as you would expect. What doesn't change is the speed & general butteer-smoothness of the UI. And it DOES matter!

[nctnico]

timwolf, please let us know what you end up purchasing. 

It will be interesting to see if the forum was once again able to up-sell a beginner scope purchaser into a UXR1104A. 

Don't you know? It's the new DS1054Z! 

It is you who trolled it up to 3000 USD scopes from sds 1104X-E, which I claim is actually more capable scope that DSOX2014A, and all that just because you claim some mythical "performance" that is purely subjective... 
On the same token, I dare you to show any workflow enhancement or feature that will justify giving 2000USD more for Keysight than Siglent...
There is none. DSOX2000A is horribly overpriced for what it is. I just tried to make a point that it's bad deal. 3000T is worth every penny. 2000 should be 800USD or less. With decodes. Then I would say it's a good deal.

I agree. An ASIC alone doesn't make a scope good. There are lots of other oscilloscopes out there with unique features the DSOX2000A doesn't have and which can be very useful. Take the bode plot function on Siglent scopes or the free-form math & input signal filtering on GW Instek scopes for example. There is no perfect scope and thus there is not one which is the best buy for every person.

[2N3055]

It is you who trolled it up to 3000 USD scopes from sds 1104X-E, which I claim is actually more capable scope that DSOX2014A, and all that just because you claim some mythical "performance" that is purely subjective... 
On the same token, I dare you to show any workflow enhancement or feature that will justify giving 2000USD more for Keysight than Siglent...
There is none. DSOX2000A is horribly overpriced for what it is. I just tried to make a point that it's bad deal. 3000T is worth every penny. 2000 should be 800USD or less. With decodes. Then I would say it's a good deal.

It's tiring people call anyone who doesn't agree with them a troll. This discussion departed with the 1000X being a worthwhile alternative which is where the ASIC discussion came from. You then brought up the 2000X. But I can understand the need for justifying spending the money on a 3000T instead of a 2000X if you bought a 3000T. You'd have made the wrong choice and would have spent a whole lot of money for nothing if you weren't able to justify the extra cost.

OK, I did overreact a bit with name calling. Sorry. Truce?

I don't think 1000x is worth the extra money, compared to 500 USD Siglent it will be 3x the price equally configured, for no real difference in capabilities..

I tried SDS1000X-E and while there is difference compared to my 3000T, it wasn't something that would bother me.
Heck, even DS1000Z isn't slow most of the time, most annoying is horizontal scrolling, but because of bad acceleration (either too slow or too fast). But I understand that 1000Z would be annoying to someone to the point on not buying it because of that.

But fact that you could spot speed differences between KS1000X and SDS1000X-E doesn't mean Siglent is unusable. It's fast enough not to get in a way. For me difference is not worth the money.

I had to go with 3000T because of other reasons, bandwidth, 50 OHm, active probes, 16ch MSO, etc etc. That is why I said that compared to what 2000A costs, 3000T is a good deal. If you need to go with Keysight, I would go with 1000X or 3000T. 2000A is just bad deal.

[Mr. Scram]

OK, I did overreact a bit with name calling. Sorry. Truce?

I don't think 1000x is worth the extra money, compared to 500 USD Siglent it will be 3x the price equally configured, for no real difference in capabilities..

I tried SDS1000X-E and while there is difference compared to my 3000T, it wasn't something that would bother me.
Heck, even DS1000Z isn't slow most of the time, most annoying is horizontal scrolling, but because of bad acceleration (either too slow or too fast). But I understand that 1000Z would be annoying to someone to the point on not buying it because of that.

But fact that you could spot speed differences between KS1000X and SDS1000X-E doesn't mean Siglent is unusable. It's fast enough not to get in a way. For me difference is not worth the money.

I had to go with 3000T because of other reasons, bandwidth, 50 OHm, active probes, 16ch MSO, etc etc. That is why I said that compared to what 2000A costs, 3000T is a good deal. If you need to go with Keysight, I would go with 1000X or 3000T. 2000A is just bad deal.

As always it really rather depends on what the end user wants to do. If you need an MSO option the 1000X won't cut the mustard. If you need more than 8 channels the 2000X won't do. Do you want the maximum amount of features for your money or a daily driver that is a pleasure to use? Do you need a high bandwidth or does a big number just please your inner nerd? Do you want physical controls for each channel or a built-in signal generator? As nctnico says there's always cons and pros and it depends on your requirements which is best suited. Unfortunately we're pretty bad at establishing our actual requirements which further complicates things. 

[Fungus]

I don't think 1000x is worth the extra money, compared to 500 USD Siglent it will be 3x the price equally configured, for no real difference in capabilities..

Umm... they're hackable to enable all features and the base 1000x isn't much more than the Siglent.

I don't know how you define "capabilities" but most people will say the Keysight is significantly better/nicer to use.

Heck, even DS1000Z isn't slow most of the time, most annoying is horizontal scrolling, but because of bad acceleration (either too slow or too fast). But I understand that 1000Z would be annoying to someone to the point on not buying it because of that.

If that's the criteria then the Keysight is definitely worth the extra. It has way more processing power and better UI than the Siglents.

Not to mention much more comprehensive firmware.

[2N3055]

I don't think 1000x is worth the extra money, compared to 500 USD Siglent it will be 3x the price equally configured, for no real difference in capabilities..

Umm... they're hackable to enable all features and the base 1000x isn't much more than the Siglent.

I don't know how you define "capabilities" but most people will say the Keysight is significantly better/nicer to use.

Heck, even DS1000Z isn't slow most of the time, most annoying is horizontal scrolling, but because of bad acceleration (either too slow or too fast). But I understand that 1000Z would be annoying to someone to the point on not buying it because of that.

If that's the criteria then the Keysight is definitely worth the extra. It has way more processing power and better UI than the Siglents.

Not to mention much more comprehensive firmware.

There is a hack for  DSOX1204A ??

100 MHz version with protocols cost 1500 € + VAT.
That is roughly 3x  the SDS1104X-E. 
Seriously, show me example of work that is possible with DSOX1204A and not possible with SDS1104X-E..
More so, if you need really long captures, or more than 50 segments, or detailed FFT there are things that Siglent can do and KS cannot.

I don't dispute KS scopes are nice to use. I have one. It's great. But other scopes are perfectly USABLE, and cost a lot less.

If you are making money with it, you get one that saves you time. Or at least you can make that argument.
For a hobby, 1000€ more is a lot of money for something just "nicer".

By all means I understand that for you it's worth the extra money.

[rsjsouza]

As always it really rather depends on what the end user wants to do. If you need an MSO option the 1000X won't cut the mustard. If you need more than 8 channels the 2000X won't do. Do you want the maximum amount of features for your money or a daily driver that is a pleasure to use? Do you need a high bandwidth or does a big number just please your inner nerd? Do you want physical controls for each channel or a built-in signal generator? As nctnico says there's always cons and pros and it depends on your requirements which is best suited. Unfortunately we're pretty bad at establishing our actual requirements which further complicates things. 

Yes, if it is difficult for an experienced user to separate between the subjective (usability) from the objective (features/specs), it is an almost impossible task for a beginner without external help.

How much smoothness is enough for someone? It certainly has a lot to do with one's past experiences: if you have never used an (analog) or a modern DSO Keysight oscilloscope, there is a chance the slower UI could be an annoyance or intolerable.

On the other hand, given that a hobbyist or a beginner is either: (1) strapped by cash; (2) may not know exactly what he/she needs; (3) is naturally more cautious spending on an unknown equipment; the preponderant factor becomes the feature comparison on the datasheet. On this, Keysight and the other A-brands lose by a mile, especially when factoring the options.
 

[Fungus]

There is a hack for  DSOX1204A ??

Yes.

Options/bandwidth are set by a couple of resistors on the PCB. Dave hacked one by swapping them:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-978-keysight-1000x-hacking/

Nowadays there's a modified firmware that changes the startup code to enable everything, see posts towards the end of that thread for details.

How does that change the value proposition for Keysight vs, Siglent? Which would you go for...? 

[2N3055]

There is a hack for  DSOX1204A ??

Yes.

Options/bandwidth are set by a couple of resistors on the PCB. Dave hacked one by swapping them:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-978-keysight-1000x-hacking/

Nowadays there's a modified firmware that changes the startup code to enable everything, see posts towards the end of that thread for details.

How does that change the value proposition for Keysight vs, Siglent? Which would you go for...? 

Again: DSOX1204A ?   4 ch linux based one ?   Black one?

[Someone]

The X3000T does a lot more - though its input are limited to 135V instead of the 300V of the X2000, and have a slightly higher capacitance in 1Mohm mode

Datasheets for the 2000A 3000A 3000T and 4000A all show the same input voltage limits and measurement category. Probing is the usual limiting factor.

[Fungus]

Which would you go for...? 

Again: DSOX1204A ?   4 ch linux based one ?   Black one?

In the sub-$700 category?

ie. The "Less that twice the price of a Rigol DS1054Z and still applicable to most people who start these threads".

[2N3055]

Which would you go for...? 

Again: DSOX1204A ?   4 ch linux based one ?   Black one?

In the sub-$700 category?

ie. The "Less that twice the price of a Rigol DS1054Z and still applicable to most people who start these threads".

No, it's misunderstanding. I owersaw that question. To answer that question, I would go with  SDS1104X-E nowadays.

I was asking if that one is hackable. Is DSOX1204A hackable?  All the hacks I could find are for 2 ch version. And those include opening scopes and soldering on mainboard.. Not for everybody.

That is why I'm asking that questions. OP asked about choice between DS1054Z and SDS1104X-E, booth 4ch scopes for very little money.
And then suddenly 2ch scopes are better than that because they're "nicer"... Apples with apples. Cheapest 4ch scope KS has is DSOX1204A. And that is twice the $700 budget without hacking.

In that category (sub $700 and 4 channels), it's DS1054Z and SDS1104X-E, small GW-Instek 1000, and Micsig tablet scope. Those are the ones that work well and are worth the money. There are other scopes from other manufacturers, but these 4 are well known and generally accepted to be OK.

If you want 2ch, then there are other scopes. Also for more money there are zillions of other scopes with.