Why did Tektronix stop making the great scopes?

[EEVblog]

Danaher.

Sad that Fluke is next to suffer this fate. Right?

Every company that gets acquired by Danaher must follow the Danaher Business System:
http://www.danaher.com/our-culture/danaher-business-system

Fluke will continue to get squeezed more and more as Danaher extract every last drop of efficiency over decades until the company dissipates is but a shell of it's former self.
It's what they do, and they are damn good at it. If you want solid performing shares, buy Danaher.

[HighVoltage]

Fluke will continue to get squeezed more and more as Danaher extract every last drop of efficiency over decades until the company dissipates is but a shell of it's former self.
It's what they do, and they are damn good at it. If you want solid performing shares, buy Danaher.

It is kind of scary, when you read the long list of all the companies that belong to Danaher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaher_Corporation

One has to wonder, why they placed Keithley under Tektonix and call it "A Tektronix Company"
May be a sign that Keithley will become Tektronix one day and the name will vanish in to thin air.
All only for shareholder value!

[nctnico]

Oregon is the largest Intel site on the planet.  All of the microprocessor processes were developed here, and every Intel CPU since the 386 saw "first silicon" here in our development fabs in Aloha and now in Hillsboro, Oregon.

I don't think that's true. For example, the original Pentium-M (Banias) saw "first silicon" in intel's Israel R&D fab in Haifa where the processor was also developed. The same is true for the mobile Core 2 (Merom) and Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

The truth is that without the R&D fabs in Israel there's a very good chance that intel would have become irrelevant in the general purpose CPU space.

IMHO it shows good management: don't put all your eggs in one basket and therefore have two seperate teams work on different strategies. The roles of the two team may as well have been reversed.

[Richard Crowley]

Oregon is the largest Intel site on the planet.  All of the microprocessor processes were developed here, and every Intel CPU since the 386 saw "first silicon" here in our development fabs in Aloha and now in Hillsboro, Oregon.

I don't think that's true. For example, the original Pentium-M (Banias) saw "first silicon" in intel's Israel R&D fab in Haifa where the processor was also developed. The same is true for the mobile Core 2 (Merom) and Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

What has been developed in Oregon however is the architecture that was about to kill intel in the mobile/desktop/server CPU market for good: Netburst. The Israeli engineers essentially saved intel at that time from the Netburst disaster and laid the foundation for subsequent processor series (Core, Core 2, Core i) which brought intel back to success.

The truth is that without the R&D fabs in Israel there's a very good chance that intel would have become irrelevant in the general purpose CPU space.

It is true that the low-power designs from the Haifa Design Center probably saved Intel's bacon and we wouldn't be here today without them.
However, the device development and process development has been based in Oregon since the late 1970s when the Logic Technology Development operation moved up from the Silicon Valley. At any given time we have 100s of people from all the high-volume manufacturing fabs all over the planet are here in Oregon to transfer each new process from D1 to their respective factories from Dalian to Leixlip and Kiryat Gat and points in between.  The product development is done by groups in many places (like Haifa) using the design rules we develop for each succeeding process.

The Ronler Acres campus in Hillsboro is the home of all the development fabs: D1C, D1D, and D1X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites

[N2IXK]

It's funny because whenever I see one of their old scopes advertised as e.g. "portable, technician, maintenance, logging", I think... why would you need a scope with your chainsaw?

Tim

Because they are referring to "well logging" in the oil and gas industry, where analog TEK scopes were a well established standard, and are apparently still in demand (even the lousy 900 series stuff):

http://www.logwell.com/tech/oscilloscopes/Tek_T922R.html

[Wuerstchenhund]

I don't think that's true. For example, the original Pentium-M (Banias) saw "first silicon" in intel's Israel R&D fab in Haifa where the processor was also developed. The same is true for the mobile Core 2 (Merom) and Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

The truth is that without the R&D fabs in Israel there's a very good chance that intel would have become irrelevant in the general purpose CPU space.

IMHO it shows good management: don't put all your eggs in one basket and therefore have two seperate teams work on different strategies. The roles of the two team may as well have been reversed.

Yes, if that were the case. The truth is however that there wasn't much forsight. Intel's US teams still clinged to Netburst long after it was clear to world and dog that the architecture was a failure, and only when (despite some overly optimistic marketing campaigns and borderline illegal incentives paid to system vendors) AMD successfuly ate away their market share in processors for notebooks, desktops and especially servers they started to realize what's wrong. The Pentium-M (Banias) was more or less a last-minute design, based on Haifa's experience with the P6 architecture for Timna (another of intels dead-ends).

[Wuerstchenhund]

It is true that the low-power designs from the Haifa Design Center probably saved Intel's bacon and we wouldn't be here today without them.
However, the device development and process development has been based in Oregon since the late 1970s when the Logic Technology Development operation moved up from the Silicon Valley. At any given time we have 100s of people from all the high-volume manufacturing fabs all over the planet are here in Oregon to transfer each new process from D1 to their respective factories from Dalian to Leixlip and Kiryat Gat and points in between.  The product development is done by groups in many places (like Haifa) using the design rules we develop for each succeeding process.

Understandable, considering that general purpose CPUs are only a part of intel who also makes chipsets, network processors and adapters, WiFi controllers, Embedded stuff and much more.

The Netburst/P-M era stuck to my head as intel's processors were of particular relevance for my work at that time. That even included Itanium (another sad story).

[Wuerstchenhund]

Because they are referring to "well logging" in the oil and gas industry, where analog TEK scopes were a well established standard, and are apparently still in demand (even the lousy 900 series stuff):

http://www.logwell.com/tech/oscilloscopes/Tek_T922R.html

It's hard to believe that no-one has come up with a solution based on a modern DSO, which I'm sure would be much more reliable and economical than buying and canibalizing old analog bangers.

[N2IXK]

I don't get it either.  But that industry seems to thrive on obsolescent technologies judging from the rest of the gear discussed on that site. An interesting niche area in electronics that not many are familiar with.

[coppice]

Take a look at AMPEX in the same generation of companies - and a very similar outcome.

Interestingly - both companies had a very large stake in broadcast video equipment (SONY too), and they have all felt the earth move drastically since the mid-90s with the shift to digital technology.

Plenty of people pushed them t respond earlier in the 90s, but by then they were all dropping into the US groove of money-money-money / shareholder returns etc.  Nothing to do with innovation.  Sadly, as much as I loved all three - they got what they deserved.

Ampex is another company that was badly hit by the end of the cold war. Defence companies spent a lot of money on instrumentation tape systems from Ampex and a few others (e.g. Schlumberger and Honeywell), and that business collapsed with the Berlin wall.

[dom0]

Because they are referring to "well logging" in the oil and gas industry, where analog TEK scopes were a well established standard, and are apparently still in demand (even the lousy 900 series stuff):

http://www.logwell.com/tech/oscilloscopes/Tek_T922R.html

It's hard to believe that no-one has come up with a solution based on a modern DSO, which I'm sure would be much more reliable and economical than buying and canibalizing old analog bangers.

What do they use them for? "Well logging" sounds at least to me like a job that a Yokogawa scopecorder is the ideal tool for.


I "grew up" with an analog scope (single channel Hameg from the 60s), liked it, very easy to use, very reliable and solid. Bought another Hameg (2ch 35 MHz) a few years ago, liked it too, machine built in the 2000s. Lot more plastic, but still good mechanical construction. Made the switch to a cheap DSO a while ago, never looked back, never missed anything feature-wise. Sold the 2ch Hameg (no personal connection), kept the 1ch, still use it sometimes to monitor signal generator outputs when DSO is occupied. Still works. Dust everywhere inside, some botchjob inside at the HV PCB (yes, they used all silicon and FR-2-like (Hartpapier) PCBs), no leaked caps, nothing. Never removed the dust in fear of disadjusting one of the great many trimpots in there.

I think, in conclusion, that there are lots more useful analog T&M devices than scopes, which are not overly useful today, except for nostalgia. A nice analog function gen, pulse gen, filter, RMS meter ... (wave analyzer, love my 3581a) has a lot more use today. There are no digital generators, for example, that can match the signal purity of a good LF gen. Even some >30 year old LF gen can achieve less than -80, -90 dB THD. Try that with a 9, 12 ... 14 bit DDS gen...

(If you don't know Hameg, they're a German T&M manufacturer now bought by R&S. They mainly did low-end stuff for small companies and hobbyists. They have quite a reputation in Germany for their good value for money ratio and the robustness of their devices. Most of their stuff is based entirely on off-the-shelf components, so unlike Tek and HP devices you'll seldom run into issues with replacement parts availability — no custom chips, elaborate hybrids etc etc. But to be fair, their stuff, especially their scopes, have much much lower specs than what Tek did back in the day.)

[Wuerstchenhund]

What do they use them for?

I guess this is it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_logging

Seems like a pretty standard logging task that could easily be done with any decent logger, DSO or acquisition card.

"Well logging" sounds at least to me like a job that a Yokogawa scopecorder is the ideal tool for.

You're right, Yokogawa is probably one of the names that would come to mind for tasks like these.

It seems the main issue is that the scope has to be somewhat rugged as it is mounted in a truck, but that should be doable with a modern scope (which should be a lot less sensible to vibration than the old Tek bangers they seem to use).

I think, in conclusion, that there are lots more useful analog T&M devices than scopes, which are not overly useful today, except for nostalgia.

I fully agree. It's certainly nice to get an analog scope for nostalgia, especially if it is free or really cheap. But in this day and age I think it's silly to invest serious money in an analog boatanchor or buy one as primary scope.

A nice analog function gen, pulse gen, filter, RMS meter ... (wave analyzer, love my 3581a) has a lot more use today.

Yes, because (as you state correctly) an analog function generator can still offer some serious advantages over a digital one. The same can't be said for analog scopes, which lack in performance and capabilities compared with modern DSOs.

(If you don't know Hameg

I know Hameg quite well, the first scopes I ever used were Hameg analog scopes (HM203, HM205 and such).

They mainly did low-end stuff for small companies and hobbyists. They have quite a reputation in Germany for their good value for money ratio and the robustness of their devices. Most of their stuff is based entirely on off-the-shelf components, so unlike Tek and HP devices you'll seldom run into issues with replacement parts availability — no custom chips, elaborate hybrids etc etc. But to be fair, their stuff, especially their scopes, have much much lower specs than what Tek did back in the day.)

Their reputation wasn't limited to Germany, they're known pretty much throughout Europe.

Hameg's reliance on standard parts was indeed a big plus and made them easy to repair. I wouldn't say they were lower specs than comparable Tek scopes, it's just that Hameg stayed within the lower bandwidths while Tek also made high-end scopes. But a 100MHz Hameg could hold its own very well against a comparable Tek or HP scope.

[dom0]

Hameg's reliance on standard parts was indeed a big plus and made them easy to repair. I wouldn't say they were lower specs than comparable Tek scopes, it's just that Hameg stayed within the lower bandwidths while Tek also made high-end scopes. But a 100MHz Hameg could hold its own very well against a comparable Tek or HP scope.

Indeed, I did mean this and not that a Hameg scope is worse than a comparable Tek

[Rupunzell]

The death of CRT O'scopes is directly related to the rise of DSP and computing in general. As the electronics world became more and more data centric and digital, the need and understanding of all that analog stuff fell by the way side along with the appreciation of what analog CRT based O'scopes do best.

For most users, interpreting the CRT display can be tiresome with much hassle and futzing. If one is dealign with repetitive pulses, what matters most is on-off, time, amplitude and at time maybe spikes, glitches and noise. For the analog folks, that CRT display can contain a host of extremely important information that can tell much about what is actually happening.

One of the core and key technologies for tek was their CRT expertise and vertical integration allowing them to build everything from the ground up. This worked against them as low cost and "cheap" instruments began to flood the market. To this day, I'm not fond of these low cost alternatives for a host of reasons. This along with the rise of DSO and digital and being purchased by Danaher Corporation has turned tek into a zombie company. All that has happened is a reflection of how the electronics industry has changed over the years.

Most every company purchased, run by Danaher Corporation has become second-rate. They are much about profit for their share holders and little about actual product.

[Hydrawerk]

Does ANY modern equipment still use CRT technology?

It depends on what you call modern. http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productmcategory.aspx?pid=3&&mid=

[Ecklar]

The death of CRT O'scopes is directly related to the rise of DSP and computing in general. As the electronics world became more and more data centric and digital, the need and understanding of all that analog stuff fell by the way side along with the appreciation of what analog CRT based O'scopes do best.

For most users, interpreting the CRT display can be tiresome with much hassle and futzing. If one is dealign with repetitive pulses, what matters most is on-off, time, amplitude and at time maybe spikes, glitches and noise. For the analog folks, that CRT display can contain a host of extremely important information that can tell much about what is actually happening.

One of the core and key technologies for tek was their CRT expertise and vertical integration allowing them to build everything from the ground up. This worked against them as low cost and "cheap" instruments began to flood the market. To this day, I'm not fond of these low cost alternatives for a host of reasons. This along with the rise of DSO and digital and being purchased by Danaher Corporation has turned tek into a zombie company. All that has happened is a reflection of how the electronics industry has changed over the years.

Most every company purchased, run by Danaher Corporation has become second-rate. They are much about profit for their share holders and little about actual product.

Thank You for all the great answers to my query on the why behind Tek's slow slide and why the change in product focus.  As someone with very little experience but a great deal of interest and curiosity in the subject, I'll speak up and say what may be old news and obvious to many of you, is totally new and informative to most of us.  Also, I believe if I learn a little about as to how and why technology has changed over time; it will give be a better understanding and appreciation of the modern digital scopes I buy and use today. 

Eck

[Rupunzell]

If possible purchase a classic tek O'scope like a 547 or even a 465, get a tek service manual then proceed to cal or repair it. These classic tek scopes are excellent teaching tools. There is MUCH that can be learned by working of these classic tek instruments.
The circuit design, mechanical design and overall consideration for serviceability and longevity was second to none. Back then tek built stuff to last, to be easily repaired and to stay in cal, in service for a very, very long time. Much of this is no longer true today for a host of reasons.

The price one pays for smaller, lighter, portable and all that (modern DSO) comes with a cost and it is not initially apparent.

If you're really curious spend some time at the on-line tek museum photo and video gallery as there are quite a number of historically significant films available there.
http://www.vintagetek.org/video-gallery/

I'm still using a tek 7104 at work, there is nothing modern that can replace it for the work I'm doing.


Bernice


[/quote]

Thank You for all the great answers to my query on the why behind Tek's slow slide and why the change in product focus.  As someone with very little experience but a great deal of interest and curiosity in the subject, I'll speak up and say what may be old news and obvious to many of you, is totally new and informative to most of us.  Also, I believe if I learn a little about as to how and why technology has changed over time; it will give be a better understanding and appreciation of the modern digital scopes I buy and use today. 

Eck
[/quote]

[Howardlong]

Does ANY modern equipment still use CRT technology?

It depends on what you call modern. http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productmcategory.aspx?pid=3&&mid=

Have you seen the prices on those CRT scopes?!? Shocked.  I am sure they are still sold though.

[Alex Eisenhut]

I have a theory about the mass:information ratio.

[don]

This is an interesting thread.  The topic is "why did Tek stop making great scopes".  Great scopes in what category? True that Tek is not leading in the $300k tier.  But at the low end,  the MDO3000 is very hard to beat.  I would say class leading in it's tier, especially with it's integrated  SA (3GHz capture BW!)    More so when 3GHz SA was free with last promotion.

I have dozens of scopes to choose from for my day job.  Typically 1GHz is more than needed.   My everyday scope is an MDO4000.  If I was greedy and were to  pick from our lab  I'd choose  a lecory 8zi first.  Though I do not need high bw for day to day so would likely pass to get a simpler probing solution.  Next I would choose a tek 7000/4000 or mdo3000, followed by an agilent (4000/6000/7000/9000/90000).  So from my perspective, Tek scopes are still very competitive and I see they are preferred by a very large percentage of my peers at the low to mid end.  They need to beef up their high end scopes but low end is looking very good, mid range is still meeting needs. 

[Wuerstchenhund]

If possible purchase a classic tek O'scope like a 547 or even a 465, get a tek service manual then proceed to cal or repair it. These classic tek scopes are excellent teaching tools. There is MUCH that can be learned by working of these classic tek instruments.
The circuit design, mechanical design and overall consideration for serviceability and longevity was second to none. Back then tek built stuff to last, to be easily repaired and to stay in cal, in service for a very, very long time. Much of this is no longer true today for a host of reasons.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lot of tosh. A 547, really? Don't get me wrong, this was a great scope in 1968, and it's still a nice collectible for someone interested in vintage T&M gear, but no sane person can reasonably suggest that this is a great every-day scope or techning tool half a century later. You must be kidding, right?

For example, your claim that "the circuit design, mechanical design and overall consideration for serviceability and longevity was second to none" which is bogus. The epoxy HV transformers in these scopes was a pretty poor design which attracted moisture, which over time killed (if I remember right, it's been a very long time since I had one) the oscillator driver valve. The valves in these scopes also didn't appreciate short operating cycles, it took forever to stabilize, and the overall MTBF was pretty low, which is one of the main reason why Tek went from valves to transistors. The 465 runs circles around the 500 Series in terms of reliability, which is still worse than what can be expected even from older DSOs.

Your claim that these scopes were designed "to stay in cal, in service for a very, very long time" is tosh as well. Despite the low bandwidth of these scopes they actually needed regular re-adjustment because of the aging (which was accelerated by the heat pumped out by all the valves) of many components. The 500 Series was pretty bad, later scopes built on transistors and ICs where much more long-term stable as they didn't produce a similar amount of heat and thermal stress. The 465 is much better than the 500 Series, but still has many analog components that age and shift the calibration over time, which is much less of a problem for any newer DSO because they automatically compensate for the shift of the few analog components they have.

And as a teching tool, serious? Unless you want to train museum curators the idea of using a 547 or 465 for teching EEs is bonkers. These scopes tech them very little that is relevance to a job as EE in 2015, these boat anchors are useless dealing with any of the complex signals modern technology works with. Using them as teaching tools would be a huge dis-service to your students because the time wasted on teaching how life was in the 60's could have been used for actually useful stuff like how digital scopes work, what their limits are and how to employ them for signal analysis. It may be nice for a short demo on how life was back then but that's about it.

The price one pays for smaller, lighter, portable and all that (modern DSO) comes with a cost and it is not initially apparent.

What price? Not buring 1kW for a primitive 50MHz scope which takes 20mins to stabilize to become usable? Not having mechanical switches which corrode and fail over time? Not having to re-adjust tons of analog trimmers and potentiometers to compensate for the shift due to aging (something modern DSOs compensate for automatically through self-adjustment)? Not needing to hunt for obsolete components which are out of production for decades? Not having to guess what the signal parameters are because the modern scopes can actually analyze it?

I'm honeslty curious, what is this non-apparent price one pays for modern scopes you're talking about?

I'm still using a tek 7104 at work, there is nothing modern that can replace it for the work I'm doing.

No offense, but unless your work is fixing vintage scopes or doing some simple analog audio work this says much more about you being stuck in the past than about the qualities of the 7000 Series.

[Wuerstchenhund]

This is an interesting thread.  The topic is "why did Tek stop making great scopes".  Great scopes in what category? True that Tek is not leading in the $300k tier.  But at the low end,  the MDO3000 is very hard to beat.  I would say class leading in it's tier, especially with it's integrated  SA (3GHz capture BW!)    More so when 3GHz SA was free with last promotion.

The MDO3k are interesting scopes, at least on paper. But they are apparently still pretty buggy (I know two labs who bought a few of them). The standard 100MHz SA bandwidth however is pathetic, and the 3GHz option is pretty expensive. It's also only useful if you don't need to use scope and SA at the same time.

I have dozens of scopes to choose from for my day job.  Typically 1GHz is more than needed.   My everyday scope is an MDO4000.  If I was greedy and were to  pick from our lab  I'd choose  a lecory 8zi first.  Though I do not need high bw for day to day so would likely pass to get a simpler probing solution.  Next I would choose a tek 7000/4000 or mdo3000, followed by an agilent (4000/6000/7000/9000/90000).

Sometimes I can choose what to buy, sometimes not (depending on where I work), but if I have to choose then for an entry level scope I'd probably go for a Keysight DSOX2k/3k or a Hameg HMO3000. The 4 channel Rigols (DS1000z, DS4000) are just too buggy and Rigol's support is still questionable. The Tek TBS1000 is a bad joke, and the MSO/DPO2k is slow and buggy.

For everything above that I'd just go with LeCroy. Their bought-in low end scopes (WaveAce, WaveJet) are pretty pathetic but the WaveSurfer and higher scopes are LeCroy developed, and these scopes are usually the best that's available in that class. And not to forget that for some stuff LeCroy is the only game in town anyways. Keysight makes great scopes but their UI is horrible (I've worked with all the Agilent scopes up to the 90k Series), they lack many of the capabilities I can get with LeCroy, and they are regularly more expensive than LeCroy. In addition, LeCroy supports all their scopes for 7 years after end of production, and on a "best effort" basis long after that (they still repair the 9300 Series which was EOL'd in 1998). With Agilent we had issues in the past with kit which was only a bit over 4 years old.

Tek I would not even consider. I agree that the MDO3k is a pretty unique scope, but the rest of the offerings are pretty poor. Tek's low-end is a joke, and the high end is stuck at a level where the competition was around 2009. Processing on the 7k and 70k scopes is pretty slow as well, which is embarrassing in that class and price range. And they are still more expensive than LeCroy.

So from my perspective, Tek scopes are still very competitive and I see they are preferred by a very large percentage of my peers at the low to mid end.  They need to beef up their high end scopes but low end is looking very good, mid range is still meeting needs.

I can't agree. As said above, the MDO3k is nice but the limitations in that scope make it attractive to very few customers only. The Tek low end is pathetic, and aside from the idea to stick a spectrum analyzer into a scope they haven't come up with something remarkable for a very long time. It also doesn't help that (according to some customers who were long-term Tek buyers) their support has followed the "Danaher Business System" (i.e. it's cut down) and their sales staff now remind me to used car salesmen.

There's very little that Tek does in scopes that others don't do better. In fact, the whole scope line seems to be a re-hash of old technology. But that's signature Danaher.

[HighVoltage]

Many places I go in Germany in to large factories and laboratories and I find that they have all upgraded to Keysight scopes in the last few years and not Tektronix. One of the reasons behind this is a terrible Tektronix customer service in Germany and on the other hand an excellent customer service by Keysight (Agilent) 

[Wuerstchenhund]

Many places I go in Germany in to large factories and laboratories and I find that they have all upgraded to Keysight scopes in the last few years and not Tektronix. One of the reasons behind this is a terrible Tektronix customer service in Germany and on the other hand an excellent customer service by Keysight (Agilent)

That mirrors what I'm seeing in the UK (and some other countries I visit through work). In the rare case I see a newer Tek scope in a lab I'm usually told that this has been bought because of management or a corporate buyer with no clue thought "buying Tek is like buying IBM - it won't get you fired". I yet have to meet an EE who actually wants a modern Tek, or prefers it to scopes from other manufacturers.

[LabSpokane]

What specifically do the high end Lecroy scopes offer that is unique?  (I don't know the brand at all.)