Picoscope- yay or nay?

[Shock]

Really what you need is a working CRT. In low light conditions the Tek 576 takes amazing photos (better than this). The Picoscope is just adding more complexity, and I feel you're making compromises in the wrong direction.



(image is embedded link - not copied)

[David Aurora]

Really what you need is a working CRT. In low light conditions the Tek 576 takes amazing photos (better than this). The Picoscope is just adding more complexity, and I feel you're making compromises in the wrong direction.



(image is embedded link - not copied)

No shit 

I'm not doing this because I'd prefer it to having a working 576, I'm doing this because right now I have one with no display and fuck all chance of finding a replacement any time soon. That said, I'd like to be able to digitise the plots, but right now the priority is just to be able to use the curve tracer at all. The Picoscope appeared to fit the bill in that it's small, cheap, has a 10x10 grid and lets you create custom probes which would help with scaling. It should have been a no brainer.

[bdunham7]

Nope, not even close buddy. Pulling clean traces off a curve tracer is a piece of cake, I do it all the time with a standalone curve tracer I already had as well as various octopus testers I've had/made over the years. The issue isn't that it isn't displaying correctly or something, the issue is that XY mode is greyed out on Macs, and the Windows version doesn't work on modern Macs in apps like Parallels. None of this stuff is mentioned on their compatibility page, so unless you do a deep dive before purchase you find out the hard way.

OK, I've not tried this with that specific device.  If the Tek 576 doesn't use blanking or for whatever reason the capture works well without any Z-axis input and the record length and speed is manageable--as in it works with most other DSOs--then your Picoscope may do just fine with an actual Windows PC.  Perhaps it is sloppy or worse of them to claim Mac compatibility, but they're probably still trying to recover from the Motorola to Intel switch.  But you don't need a 'deep dive' to realize this is a possibility--there's a LOT of stuff out there the just doesn't work with Macs.  If you absolutely insist on not polluting your existence with the presence of Wintel, then the Analog Discovery might be for you--it does work on Mac, at least on a MacBook Pro old enough to have actual Type A USB ports--so it should at least work on your Mac Mini.  Not sure about M1 yet, probably still emulation.

It should have been a no brainer.

Well, IMO, it is! 

[RoGeorge]

I literally said in my post that I did that, it doesn't work in Windows on an M1 Mac, full stop 

You literally said?  Where?
So which one you did you tried, VirtualBox or VMware?  And what exactly didn't work?

[tv84]

You literally said?  Where?

Here: 

So which one you did you tried, VirtualBox or VMware?  And what exactly didn't work?

Probably he also literally said that VirtualBox and/or VMware don't work in a M1 Mac.

[RoGeorge]

OK, my bad for recommending something not possible, sorry.

Later Edit:
Googled out of curiosity (I don't have an M1 Mac) and found this:
https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2021/09/fusion-for-m1-public-tech-preview-now-available.html
Looks like it might be a chance for VMware to run, though not clear to me if it does x86 emulation or not.  Anyway, says free to try/use until the end of 2022.

[2N3055]

The PicoScope 6 GUI works pretty well for me on Windows, so yay. That said, their software API  (PicoSDK) feels like it's straight out of the 90s and was a fair pain to use.

The scopes are great for portable debugging (e.g., automotive tech), and to some extent automated testing. However, I still like the physical knobs of a bench oscilloscope.

The only other comparable product I've used is the Digilent Analog Discovery 2. The PicoScope has better hardware, but the AD2's GUI is more comfortable to use.

Yeah I'm real tempted to try the AD2 instead, it seems a whole lot more professional overall

AD2 has more features built in software... But it is not more professional.
Picoscopes have proper scope front ends and construction and are used professionally by many thousands of professionals in industry.

AD2 is educational tool, it doesn't even have BNC connectors built in, you have to buy a breakout board.
Also it has only 2 input attenuation ranges. It has 16K SMps buffer which is very small that limits what it can do.
OTOH, it has 14 bit ADC/DACs and nice integration between the tools.
It is very useful tool nevertheless, if limitations don't bother you.
Fact that signals are connected to pin row connector might even be advantage if you want to integrate it into some "contraption" where you need more permanent connection, can assure signal levels are in optimum range and such..

I own Digital Discovery and use it all the time when I need pattern generation and logic analyser capability at the same time, for instance.. Unique tool for that. From specs:
Algorithmic pattern generator (no buffers used)
Counter and custom bus outputs
ROM logic for implementing user-defined Boolean functions and State Machines
Cross-triggering between Logic Analyzer, Pattern Generator, or external trigger

But limited too. To interface it to anything other than 3.3V logic you need to make voltage translators for instance...  So useful but far from pro grade logic analyser/pattern gen with all kinds of interface options etc.

I would call Picoscope (both products and company) VERY professional. What they specify works as promised and better (longevity of support and products that last for decades). If you call them they WILL tell you up straight that MAC software is limited and that in order to use Pico you need to use Windows. You may not like it but they will tell you the truth. In 20 years of being their customer they never, ever, were anything but honest about what they products can and what they cannot do.
I call that professional above all.

[David Aurora]

Nope, not even close buddy. Pulling clean traces off a curve tracer is a piece of cake, I do it all the time with a standalone curve tracer I already had as well as various octopus testers I've had/made over the years. The issue isn't that it isn't displaying correctly or something, the issue is that XY mode is greyed out on Macs, and the Windows version doesn't work on modern Macs in apps like Parallels. None of this stuff is mentioned on their compatibility page, so unless you do a deep dive before purchase you find out the hard way.

OK, I've not tried this with that specific device.  If the Tek 576 doesn't use blanking or for whatever reason the capture works well without any Z-axis input and the record length and speed is manageable--as in it works with most other DSOs--then your Picoscope may do just fine with an actual Windows PC.  Perhaps it is sloppy or worse of them to claim Mac compatibility, but they're probably still trying to recover from the Motorola to Intel switch.  But you don't need a 'deep dive' to realize this is a possibility--there's a LOT of stuff out there the just doesn't work with Macs.  If you absolutely insist on not polluting your existence with the presence of Wintel, then the Analog Discovery might be for you--it does work on Mac, at least on a MacBook Pro old enough to have actual Type A USB ports--so it should at least work on your Mac Mini.  Not sure about M1 yet, probably still emulation.

It should have been a no brainer.

Well, IMO, it is! 

Huh? They haven't caught up with the switch that happened 15 years ago? Are you joking?

Yes, correct, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't work with Macs, you nailed it. Except for the fact that I bought it based on a claim that it works on Mac, hence the deep dive through their forum to find the zillions of complaints about bugs and compatibility issues. But sure, go off.

[bdunham7]

Huh? They haven't caught up with the switch that happened 15 years ago? Are you joking?

Sadly, I'm not.  Does their interface look like 2022 or 2002?  I don't know whether their software actually did work with PowerPC Macs, but if it did, throwing away and redoing the whole package for a very small segment of their market probably wasn't a priority.  I recently sold my G4, which was still in demand just because there still is software out there that people want to run that didn't get redone (or redone properly) for the Intel Macs.

Yes, correct, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't work with Macs, you nailed it. Except for the fact that I bought it based on a claim that it works on Mac, hence the deep dive through their forum to find the zillions of complaints about bugs and compatibility issues. But sure, go off.

Well I really am trying to be helpful, not just grind your gears.  But I'm telling you what I think and that is that you need a Windows machine.  I've needed to maintain hardware and software compatibility with lots of things over the years and I've learned that the only truly reliable way to do that is to keep native machines around.  Virtual machines and cross-platform software are great when they work and are supported, but sometimes they just don't work properly, or if they do they require a lot of work to set up and then they are 'fragile', as in you can never update the software or the machine at all--the computer has to be dedicated and locked down.

So yeah, shame on Picoscope for their marketing wankers listing them as Mac compatible.  But you should know better than to believe them. 

You mentioned that it was easy to digitize the traces from a curve tracer--how were you doing that before?  Is that workable with the 576?  I saw this video on a method that looks quite useful, but there's not so much explanation as to exactly how and he has part of the screen blocked off so you can't see some information.

[David Aurora]

Update- sent the piece of shit back and got an Analog Discovery 2. Absolutely no comparison software wise, it works as expected first go. No weird hidden features or mislabelled functions etc, you can jump straight from a real workbench onto it without wanting to launch it into the sun. Having probes on an exposed breakout board kind of sucks, but with that said this probably won't get used as a plain oscilloscope often anyway so I can live with that.

[derree]

Update- sent the piece of shit back and got an Analog Discovery 2. Absolutely no comparison software wise, it works as expected first go. No weird hidden features or mislabelled functions etc, you can jump straight from a real workbench onto it without wanting to launch it into the sun. Having probes on an exposed breakout board kind of sucks, but with that said this probably won't get used as a plain oscilloscope often anyway so I can live with that.

Hi, I am using the AD2 regularly as a portable scope, and think about getting one of the community-designed cases printed out:

https://www.printables.com/model/104931-digilent-analog-discovery-2-bnc-adapter-case

The exposed bnc-board is not a sturdy construction, and an AD2 equipped with a proper case at least looks much more robust.

[David Aurora]

Update- sent the piece of shit back and got an Analog Discovery 2. Absolutely no comparison software wise, it works as expected first go. No weird hidden features or mislabelled functions etc, you can jump straight from a real workbench onto it without wanting to launch it into the sun. Having probes on an exposed breakout board kind of sucks, but with that said this probably won't get used as a plain oscilloscope often anyway so I can live with that.

Hi, I am using the AD2 regularly as a portable scope, and think about getting one of the community-designed cases printed out:

https://www.printables.com/model/104931-digilent-analog-discovery-2-bnc-adapter-case

The exposed bnc-board is not a sturdy construction, and an AD2 equipped with a proper case at least looks much more rubust.

These things are looking pretty good to me- http://softone.a.la9.jp/english/FrontBox/FrontBox1.htm

[derree]

Update- sent the piece of shit back and got an Analog Discovery 2. Absolutely no comparison software wise, it works as expected first go. No weird hidden features or mislabelled functions etc, you can jump straight from a real workbench onto it without wanting to launch it into the sun. Having probes on an exposed breakout board kind of sucks, but with that said this probably won't get used as a plain oscilloscope often anyway so I can live with that.

Hi, I am using the AD2 regularly as a portable scope, and think about getting one of the community-designed cases printed out:

https://www.printables.com/model/104931-digilent-analog-discovery-2-bnc-adapter-case

The exposed bnc-board is not a sturdy construction, and an AD2 equipped with a proper case at least looks much more rubust.

These things are looking pretty good to me- http://softone.a.la9.jp/english/FrontBox/FrontBox1.htm

Yes, this kit looks very good, and it is reasonably priced at 70 Euros without shipping. I will definetely consider this kit. Thank you very much! 

[jasonRF]

Hi, I am using the AD2 regularly as a portable scope, and think about getting one of the community-designed cases printed out:

https://www.printables.com/model/104931-digilent-analog-discovery-2-bnc-adapter-case

The exposed bnc-board is not a sturdy construction, and an AD2 equipped with a proper case at least looks much more robust.

That does look nice, but under the “performance” section at the bottom of the page they show that not all x10 probes can be properly compensated with the frontbox attached.  Whether that matters to someone of course depends on the probes they are using, what they are trying to measure and why. 

EDIT: I quoted the wrong link.  Oops!  The performance info is at

http://softone.a.la9.jp/english/FrontBox/FrontBox1.htm


Jason

[David Aurora]

Hi, I am using the AD2 regularly as a portable scope, and think about getting one of the community-designed cases printed out:

https://www.printables.com/model/104931-digilent-analog-discovery-2-bnc-adapter-case

The exposed bnc-board is not a sturdy construction, and an AD2 equipped with a proper case at least looks much more robust.

That does look nice, but under the “performance” section at the bottom of the page they show that not all x10 probes can be properly compensated with the frontbox attached.  Whether that matters to someone of course depends on the probes they are using, what they are trying to measure and why. 

EDIT: I quoted the wrong link.  Oops!  The performance info is at

http://softone.a.la9.jp/english/FrontBox/FrontBox1.htm


Jason

Good catch! Definitely something to keep in mind, I can't really imagine NOT attenuating going into a USB scope for the work I do

[JPortici]

 
I've been using a picoscope for years (at least six)
I am not using PICO 7 as when i tried the beta it looked to me a huge step backwards since 6 (Sure, some things were fixed but on the whole it was a pretty but useless interface. The TWO color schemes available were... oof)
I like the really complex math (though it doesn't like when your locale isn't UK English, making confusion with dot and comma, last i checked it WASN'T fixed in 7 beta) the fact that i can overlay traces over traces and have multiple views, tons of protocols and i could probably write my own decoder with the SDK, all things i can do on much much much much more expensive bench scopes.

Sure, what i miss from the bench scope is the wfm/s, sample memory and triggering from decoders but when i need i reach out to the bench scope.
Most of my work is in front of a PC, board i'm writing firmware for or debugging is in front of me or just on the side, picoscope is usually more convenient to use
My pico has been abused several times, i had to change the BNC and a couple of components but it was due to mechanical stress, i haven't managed to destroy the front end yet

[Lomax]

I know this is a pretty old thread, but want to add my $0.02 for the benefit of anyone considering a PicoScope. I've used a PicoScope 2206B MSO (2+16 50MHz, 500MS/s) since 2017, which I bought mainly for its portability. I build interactive exhibits for public exhibitions, and travel a lot between different museums, mostly by public transport and often by air, so size & weight are critical parameters. I also sideline in marine electronics and electrical installations, which again is usually done "on site". So it doesn't matter what fancy kit I have in my workshop, all that matters is what I have with me. I used to have an HP 54645D MSO in my workshop which I loved, but was forced to sell it (along with most of my other T&M gear) as I lost my income during the pandemic - but I kept the PicoScope. That it's a PC based scope is not much of an issue since I always have to bring my laptop (Thinkpad X230 i7 w. 16Gb RAM) anyway. I'm exclusively on Linux, so the fact that their software runs natively on Linux weighed heavily in favour of the PicoScope compared to the competition, though to be honest I find the performance to be better in a Windows virtual machine. I probably use the digital inputs more than the two analogue channels, though being able to look at signals in 12-bit resolution has been a real life saver more than once. The built in signal generator is also incredibly useful sometimes. Being able to record arbitrarily long captures is brilliant when working with software that interacts with the outside world - I often hook it up to the GPIO lines I'm using while I'm working on the software for more complicated exhibits and just let it run, which lets me go back and check timing and functionality without having to breadboard anything. Being able to capture serial comms and exporting it for processing and analysis has solved many tricky situations; I often use second-hand industrial gear in my exhibits for which documentation can be poor or non existent - reverse engineering becomes so much easier when you have a reliable way to capture and look at the actual data and signals. The same goes for marine electronics which often uses RS-232/422/485 or CAN-bus. The ability to work "floating" (w. laptop on battery) is great when you're worried about damaging voltages.

Pros:

• Portable
• Linux compatible
• 16 digital channels
• Signal generator
• Floating operation
• Data capture & decoding
• Arbitrary sample length
• Not made in China

Cons:

• Poor Linux performance
• Less responsive than traditional scope
• No warm fuzzy feeling
• Relatively expensive

[SiliconWizard]

As I get it, the OP's question is not with Picoscope gear per se - I think many of us can confirm that these work fine - but with Picoscope gear on MacOS. The OP may have wanted to add this in the thread title to avoid useless posts. I personally have no experience with Pico on MacOS, but have used their products on various Windows versions and Linux with little pain. I can second the performance issues on Linux though. Compared to Windows, on Linux their software has very high CPU usage.

As to their new v7 software, I have tried it a while ago, and I personally think the new UI is pure garbage.

[Lomax]

Ah

[JPortici]

As to their new v7 software, I have tried it a while ago, and I personally think the new UI is pure garbage.

complete and utter garbage.
It's no wonder they're still updating 6
and i think none of the bugs i submitted since the first betas were solved

[mendip_discovery]

I like pico as the temp logger just works.

I quite like the form factor of a 56k modem and it's very light, small and robust. Of the service engineers I talk to it is the one thing they all keep in the laptop bag as it saves them time when they are trouble shooting onsite with a customer looking about.

Going back to the issue the OP had, the Mac support is crap, but it is supported which is better than most.

[David Aurora]

As I get it, the OP's question is not with Picoscope gear per se - I think many of us can confirm that these work fine - but with Picoscope gear on MacOS. The OP may have wanted to add this in the thread title to avoid useless posts. I personally have no experience with Pico on MacOS, but have used their products on various Windows versions and Linux with little pain. I can second the performance issues on Linux though. Compared to Windows, on Linux their software has very high CPU usage.

As to their new v7 software, I have tried it a while ago, and I personally think the new UI is pure garbage.

Yes and no. The OS question was part of it, but it was what it said on the box- a yay or nay question about Picoscope. And after briefly owning one, it's a hard nay from me. OS issues aside (although they are important given that the sales pitch is that it's cross platform, it's not like I was trying to hack the damn thing to work on Mac), they seem like a pretty shitty operation overall. V6 is clunky and half baked at best IMO, and V7 appears to be vapourware. It's apparently been coming forever based on threads I found at the time (plus I've got an email from May last year when I owned one claiming "... we're confident that we'll release the PicoScope 7 T&M stable version in the September / October timeframe."), but I'm guessing by the time it arrives it'll feel about 20 years old like like V6 does.

On top of that, their attitude to tonnes of legitimate bug reports/feature requests/suggestions I read on their forum at the time was very much the classic Principal Skinner "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong". Oh, and they even said in the same email I quoted above "I'm sorry if that sounds like we're asking you to act as a beta tester. (In a way, we are!)".

Fuck that. This isn't a Kickstarter campaign or a friends startup, it's supposed to be a finished T&M product.

I really, reeeeeeeally wanted to like the thing. It would have been so handy if it was properly developed, but it isn't. As mentioned in other posts on this thread I ended up getting an AD2 for the task and there's absolutely no comparison in either the software or support. The Picoscope obviously wins as far as form factor (the header without any BNC thing on the AD2 is just plain weird, and the adaptor is a pain), but at the end of the day for a computer based scope the software is the most crucial bit.

If pigs fly and they ever actually get their shit together I'd love to chuck one in my callout bag. But based on what I saw of both V6 and V7 I suspect that as convenient as the hardware is the software is always going to suck compared to other options.

[2N3055]

David, you are just bitter that it doesn't support Mac.   

Software works just fine, and has many capabilities no other scope has.
It is a specific product though. Not a good match to people that expect digital CRT emulation.
It is very good for decoding, and for those writing their own software or pulling data for analysis.
And prices are a mixed bag. Pico has 16bit scope that is unique, and their 8ch 12 bit scope is very good price for the capabilities.
But their product are not for everybody.

AD2 is really a toy, although I like some features of software.

[David Aurora]

David, you are just bitter that it doesn't support Mac.   

Software works just fine, and has many capabilities no other scope has.
It is a specific product though. Not a good match to people that expect digital CRT emulation.
It is very good for decoding, and for those writing their own software or pulling data for analysis.
And prices are a mixed bag. Pico has 16bit scope that is unique, and their 8ch 12 bit scope is very good price for the capabilities.
But their product are not for everybody.

AD2 is really a toy, although I like some features of software.

Have you read even a single word I have said in this thread?

Rhetorical question, clearly not, but lets pick through these points anyway:

- Yeah, I was pissed off that it doesn't support Mac given that the manufacturer claims it works on Mac. Again, I wasn't trying to do anything special, just wanted to use a tool I bought that was supposedly Mac compatible.
- No, the software does NOT work fine, that's the whole point here. It apparently works fine on some Windows setups, fantastic news for those users. But it's marketed to work on a wider range of OS than that and it fails miserably there. Lockups, missing features and all sorts of quirks. This isn't just my opinion, it's backed up by the many complaints on their forum.
- It's not even remotely a "specific product", it's a USB scope/AWG. You call it expecting "digital CRT emulation", I call it "working XY functionality". My other digital scopes handle it just fine, the Picoscope was the only one that didn't.
- OK cool, if I need it for decoding I'll keep that in mind. But the decoder is a bonus feature on that, the core of it is supposed to be a scope/AWG.
- I don't care about its price or the 8 channel thing you keep bringing up, neither of these points are relevant. The price of the Picoscopes would be absolutely fine if it worked as advertised. Any price is too much when it doesn't.
- No, they're not for everybody. They're mainly supposed to be for people who want a cross platform USB scope with AWG, and I was one of those people.

Fanboy as much as you want over Picoscope gear, but at the end of the day all I care about is whether a tool works properly or not. This isn't a hobby for me, I use test gear to make my living. The AD2 worked great from day 1, met its marketing claims and has well and truly earned its place amongst the rest of my test gear. Given that the AD2 has remained in my setup alongside stacks of Tektronix/HP/Fluke/etc gear and the Picoscope got shitcanned in less than a week I definitely can't agree with your premise that the AD2 is a toy and the Picoscope is a professional tool. Maybe all you do is decode data on a Windows box and it works great for you, but over here in the real world it doesn't meet the manufacturers claims of being a usable cross platform USB scope. End of story.

[2N3055]

I'm not a fanboy of anything.
Emulations and virtual machines are not supported on many a device that need windows.
They don't advertise that Linux and Mac version have parity.
X-Y mode not only works fine, but works even with math channels which no other scope (in normal price range) supports.
It works perfectly as advertised. You wanted to use it way you expect it to be. Your problem.
They are not primarily used as "cross platform USB scopes" but way I explained..

Fact that AD2 that is literally a didactic toy, works great for you is great. I'm glad for you.
You seem to have very specific requirements you happen to address with AD2. Great.
That doesn't make Pico bad in any way. Just not for you...
No need to use rude and abrasive language if you don't like something.

I, on the other hand, have no use for AD2 (too limited in every single aspect of it's capabilities), but have and use 3 Picos in everyday work for many years. And they are worth every penny..