Why you should think twice before buying a Rohde & Schwarz gear

[abeyer]

But even more pragmatic might be to simply create a business and ask if the manufacturer can tie your equipment serial numbers to that

I'm pretty sure several posters in the other linked thread about this tried requesting via a legitimate business and still got denied, though without a clear reason why. There was some conjecture that the business being registered with D&B was also necessary, though still not sufficient.

[abeyer]

Are you trying to argue that R&S are not fulfilling their legal responsibilities, or that they just have dumb outdated practices. I would agree with the latter. For the former things get complicated. You may be entitled to bug fixes that correct things that made the product unfit for purpose on day one. That's about all. Even in 2025 a huge number of consumer products give you no more than minor bug fixes without paying more. Even things like TVs, which get a lot of updates from their makers to deal with security and commercial issues, don't get any of the improvements that occur year by year to their software platform, even if you are prepared to pay.

It's certainly complicated when you start asking legal questions, given how much these laws and court attitudes tend to vary from one place to another. But I wouldn't assume R&S was necessarily in the clear here, either. They might not have had an obligation to provide fixes for free... but given that those fixes existed and they did provide access at the time of purchase and then later retracted it, it seems to me like that might be something that could be argued as an issue.

[shabaz]

But even more pragmatic might be to simply create a business and ask if the manufacturer can tie your equipment serial numbers to that

I'm pretty sure several posters in the other linked thread about this tried requesting via a legitimate business and still got denied, though without a clear reason why. There was some conjecture that the business being registered with D&B was also necessary, though still not sufficient.

Hi,

That registration is free (i.e. provided a limited company is formed using the rules of the country/jurisdiction it is formed in, it can get a free D&B registration).

I'm actually surprised OP was able to purchase as consumer. Whoever sold it as a consumer item did him a disservice in this case. Which is rare because usually one wants consumer rights of course.

It might accidentally in reality be a business purchase, simply because some distributors do not sell to consumers. For instance, if I purchase anything from Newark/Farnell as an example distributor, the purchase falls under normal contract law, not consumer legislation (it's in their terms).

To me the biggest unknown is whether, if a private consumer purchaser sold their asset to their firm, if that would be sufficient for the manufacturer to provide the file access. Gut instinct suggests it may work, because to me it doesn't seem plausible the restriction is sales/marketing related, and is more likely a know-your-customer requirement, as people have suggested.

Also, for anyone in this boat (I guess there will not be many that have managed to purchase a new R&S 'scope as a consumer), it shouldn't need to be said, please don't rely on legal or financial advice from a stranger on the Internet, because if one does then sell to their company to make it a business asset, it is up to them to be comfortable with that and be aware of any repercussions (such as ongoing legal, financial, reporting overheads all the time it's an asset).

[edavid]

I'm actually surprised OP was able to purchase as consumer. Whoever sold it as a consumer item did him a disservice in this case. Which is rare because usually one wants consumer rights of course.

When R&S released the RTB2000, they promoted it to hobbyists (here and elsewhere).  That's why it's so irritating that they have now withdrawn support.

[shabaz]

That range has not had a firmware update since Dec 2021, but I imagine there could still be a need occasionally for that last firmware, or the latest docs, or even repair requests.

The only practical thing I can think of in that situation, is to try to make it a corporate asset, to satisfy the requirement that it's a business purchase (as mentioned, I'm not sure that will work, but worth asking the manufacturer if I was in that situation).

For sure it's very frustrating for some existing non-business customers (I hope those customers would already have that last firmware release and copies of the docs, but it's not ideal of course).

[coppercone2]

if they wanted to be world class they would not just ask the 'private customers' making them $1000's for patience. You are talking things like beginner consultants and private agreements that can be wrapped up in some pretty big money. And also employees getting their own stuff to get to the bottom of workplace issues, because they decided that someone not buying them a particular piece of gear because of internal bureaucracy / cheap management is something they can overcome by empowering themselves with better tools. I think its a big lack of equity

Very narrow minded to think that all their private customers are some kind of retired HAM fucking around in a shed. There can't be serious situations that occur differently then they do in my overly regulated workplace.... no... its not possible that some people have serious initiatives.... surely it MUST be under the direct control of a big corporate structure like ours, its the only way things could possibly work!!!111

Its kind of like assuming all the crime is conducted by the mafia and there are no important loose associates that did not take the vow of honor related to the cash flow, even just looking at a single medium+ business lol

[Cyclotron]

I don't know why folks would even consider it to be related to export restrictions. Companies have one goal, money. If you want to a reason for the things a company does, you can track it back to that goal. Technologies that have export restrictions in various place have long had ways to login and download if you aren't in a restricted place.

Companies that want to move to a pure B2B model are intending to reduce cost for direct support, to enable their channel partners to take some of that burden for the money they make off the product, and those same partners want sticky relationships with the customer.  The reason for each of those is money.

Elimination of the secondary market is also a benefit to the company. Hobbiest do not supply a demand sufficient to offset the cost of support. Large percentages of hobbiest do not even buy directly so the best thing for the company that produced that product originally is for it to head to the land fill.

If customers ever start being concerned enough. It may get fixed. Right to repair and so on are real things but folks have to get behind them and push. 
Companies are constantly pushing against them and will never stop.

[edavid]

That range has not had a firmware update since Dec 2021

How would you know that, when you can't access the website 

In fact, it was posted here at EEVblog that they just did a rebranding and released promised new firmware, that includes new features.

[shabaz]

no... its not possible that some people have serious initiatives.... surely it MUST be under the direct control of a big corporate structure like ours, its the only way things could possibly work!!!111

They don't care if it's a one-man band making just $100 revenue. It's not about having a big corporate structure, they simply want to only provide doc/firmware access to businesses for KYC reasons. It's not about how large the org is.

Companies that want to move to a pure B2B model are intending to reduce cost for direct support, to enable their channel partners to take some of that burden for the money they make off the product, and those same partners want sticky relationships with the customer.  The reason for each of those is money.

Sometimes yes, but not always; there can be other reasons other than money. Some reasons were mentioned earlier in the thread. If that wasn't the case, then governments would not restrict consumer legislation benefits to just consumers. Governments restrict it because otherwise some commerce would become impractical.

It's also the case that you can't (at least in most jurisdictions) force people to sell to consumers. Keysight won't sell to consumers either. Nor will some distributors.

In any case, I don't see the relevance; none of this has got anything to do with restricting documentation and firmware, because if money was the reason, then KYC checks alone would be insufficient.

How would you know that, when you can't access the website

I have access (I didn't for a while). I posted in a different thread how that was done (by raising a support case, because the automated request didn't work for weeks; (my R&S instruments are corporate assets).

I didn't see a later firmware release than 2021, but I could be mistaken (I'm not familiar with some of their product ranges). I can check again; does the rebrand have a different model name? I only checked RTB2000.

[edavid]

I didn't see a later firmware release than 2021, but I could be mistaken (I'm not familiar with some of their product ranges). I can check again; does the rebrand have a different model name? I only checked RTB2000.

The new name is "RTB 2":

https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/about/news-press/all-news/rohde-schwarz-presents-the-r-s-rtb-2-a-new-entry-level-oscilloscope-with-class-leading-specifications-press-release-detailpage_229356-1529856.html

New firmware was promised, but a post in the RTB2000 thread says it hasn't been posted yet.  Since you have support access, maybe you can ask R&S when it's coming.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-killer-scope-a-true-game-changer-from-rs-rtb2002-rtb2004/msg5711619/#msg5711619

[coppercone2]

no... its not possible that some people have serious initiatives.... surely it MUST be under the direct control of a big corporate structure like ours, its the only way things could possibly work!!!111

They don't care if it's a one-man band making just $100 revenue. It's not about having a big corporate structure, they simply want to only provide doc/firmware access to businesses for KYC reasons. It's not about how large the org is.

Companies that want to move to a pure B2B model are intending to reduce cost for direct support, to enable their channel partners to take some of that burden for the money they make off the product, and those same partners want sticky relationships with the customer.  The reason for each of those is money.

Sometimes yes, but not always; there can be other reasons other than money. Some reasons were mentioned earlier in the thread. If that wasn't the case, then governments would not restrict consumer legislation benefits to just consumers. Governments restrict it because otherwise some commerce would become impractical.

It's also the case that you can't (at least in most jurisdictions) force people to sell to consumers. Keysight won't sell to consumers either. Nor will some distributors.

In any case, I don't see the relevance; none of this has got anything to do with restricting documentation and firmware, because if money was the reason, then KYC checks alone would be insufficient.

How would you know that, when you can't access the website

I have access (I didn't for a while). I posted in a different thread how that was done (by raising a support case, because the automated request didn't work for weeks; (my R&S instruments are corporate assets).

I didn't see a later firmware release than 2021, but I could be mistaken (I'm not familiar with some of their product ranges). I can check again; does the rebrand have a different model name? I only checked RTB2000.

there could be way more money in it for one man then $100, that is a joke if you can negotiate . college student wont be using this scope

their gonna do loose contract type work for a pizza party lol? maybe thats normal in india. and there is repair work too, in addition to consulting. emergency repair from a trusted expert on the weekend before you start the fires and call a service after 19 meetings

[shabaz]

The new name is "RTB 2":

I don't know how I missed that. I recall when I first saw the RTB2000 at Embedded World; it was highly desirable back then, so it's nice to see a far lower-cost version (although I had hoped to see an MXO 2; maybe that would cost a bit more, though). I've not read the details yet. I hope someone eventually reviews it.

However, there are no firmware downloads available for it yet; maybe only the launch firmware has been released so far (i.e., the default base firmware installed in the 'scope). I see no user manual either, which, from my perspective, is very surprising; in most organizations, that's supposed to be part of the checklist for when the product is released.

All I can see downloadable are the product brochure and spec sheet, and some other bits and pieces of collateral, which are also available when logged out.

For the RTB2000, the latest firmware I can see is release 2.4 (i.e., they have not placed the RTB2 firmware in the RTB2000 space).

I have created a ticket requesting dates for the RTB2 user manual and firmware.

[Cyclotron]

Sometimes yes, but not always; there can be other reasons other than money. Some reasons were mentioned earlier in the thread. If that wasn't the case, then governments would not restrict consumer legislation benefits to just consumers. Governments restrict it because otherwise some commerce would become impractical.

It's also the case that you can't (at least in most jurisdictions) force people to sell to consumers. Keysight won't sell to consumers either. Nor will some distributors.

In any case, I don't see the relevance; none of this has got anything to do with restricting documentation and firmware, because if money was the reason, then KYC checks alone would be insufficient.

Wow, its never sometimes, it is always.  In most of the world publicly traded companies must comply with their fiducial responsibilities. I know most folks aren't educated in such things.  The only time a company can, on any significant basis do something that isn't for the profit of its shareholders is when the company is privately held. It is exceedingly rare then. I am a hobbiest at electronics at best but I work in the industry between OEMs and channel partners world wide. I know why the companies do what they do because I work to enable their goals.  @shabaz, if you have any examples of "Sometimes" please bring them forward. I've only seen sometimes when their was a lawsuit that followed for lack of fiducial responsibility. 

You may live in a country or area where such laws don't apply but I haven't encountered them and I've been doing this for a long time internationally.  I am not privy to the contracts and agreements between R&S and its channel partners but I've seen enough of them to know what they likely say.  I also know that the channel is pushing very hard in the last few years to take over things that make customers "sticky".  You may not know this but there's a huge amount of physiological research in this area.  One of the primary areas that makes a customer "sticky" is where they get help.

If I get help from the OEM I have no obligation to remain sticky with the VAR that may have sold me the product. VARs want this to change and so they are doing professional services, technical support, downloads, knowledge bases and so on and their lawyers are spending large amounts of time negotiating the OEMS do less for their customers.  The OEMs have no choice.  They can remain in channel which most of them want or they can go it alone.  Have you noticed a lot of companies going it alone?

I'll say it outright. R&S made the decision to restrict access due to money.  They almost certainly negotiated with partners for them to do these "services" things so they could gain the "sticky" relationships. As was reported to the initial reporter of this issue. R&S told them the partners would eventually service their needs for knowledge, downloads, and support. Even if some of the restrictions are legal due to various reasons for country to country, they are doing it to avoid fines which goes right back to uh, "money".

The only way to change this is laws in region that require the OEM to support their product direclty like the "Right to Repair" movement in the US.  I can provide you all the legal links you want for many countries if you like. I'd like to the see the references that companies only do things because of money "sometimes".

[shabaz]

Sometimes yes, but not always; there can be other reasons other than money. Some reasons were mentioned earlier in the thread. If that wasn't the case, then governments would not restrict consumer legislation benefits to just consumers. Governments restrict it because otherwise some commerce would become impractical.

It's also the case that you can't (at least in most jurisdictions) force people to sell to consumers. Keysight won't sell to consumers either. Nor will some distributors.

In any case, I don't see the relevance; none of this has got anything to do with restricting documentation and firmware, because if money was the reason, then KYC checks alone would be insufficient.

Wow, its never sometimes, it is always. 

My comment was about the need for the B2B model for sales for certain orgs. As mentioned, it's not all that relevant to the documents/firmware access issue in question, but I'm still willing to discuss it:

I covered some very realistic examples in reply #10 that would apply to at least some organizations providing typical industrial or manufacturing types of modules, components, or equipment.

If that's not clear, then let's take it to the extreme with a more abstract example. It would be ridiculous for a firm to purchase a nuclear reactor and then rely on consumer rights to return it and demand a full refund because the instrument front panel had a scratch on it. I don't know how to make it clearer. It's self-evident that there can be extremely good reasons for consumer rights not to apply to certain purchases.

I'll say it outright. R&S made the decision to restrict access due to money.

That's implausible. If it were true, then how come R&S will provide access to small firms, provided they are registered businesses? There's zero evidence they are examining revenue or profit figures or reading your business plan or investor's deck.

I'd put good money on it (if I were a gambling man, which I'm not) that they would be more than willing to provide documentation/firmware access even if your business had just $10 revenue - provided their checks are passed, which appear to be KYC related.

Even if some of the restrictions are legal due to various reasons for country to country, they are doing it to avoid fines which goes right back to uh, "money".

That's the same as saying organizations try to do things that are, uh, "legal" and hence avoid fines or worse. I can't find anything to extract from that comment that's incompatible with anything I've stated so far.

[Cyclotron]

My comment was about the need for the B2B model for sales for certain orgs. As mentioned, it's not all that relevant to the documents/firmware access issue in question, but I'm still willing to discuss it:

I covered some very realistic examples in reply #10 that would apply to at least some organizations providing typical industrial or manufacturing types of modules, components, or equipment.

If that's not clear, then let's take it to the extreme with a more abstract example. It would be ridiculous for a firm to purchase a nuclear reactor and then rely on consumer rights to return it and demand a full refund because the instrument front panel had a scratch on it. I don't know how to make it clearer. It's self-evident that there can be extremely good reasons for consumer rights not to apply to certain purchases.

A consumer buys a nuclear reactor and they are not protected by law? I don't get your point here.  What is extreme about buying an nuclear reactor that makes it different from buying a bag of uranium or marbles?

Calling it B2B does not change anything about the paradigm of producer and consumer. Producers make a decision about how they bring their goods to market and they have choices. There are lots of examples where the law requires the producer to sell to consumers. But more importantly there's written and implied contract law too. I don't know how this changes or informs an argument that companies only make decisions sometimes due to money. This, was your argument that I responded to. Your examples and statements counter your own statement though so I'm not sure what's going on.

In my profession I've watched OEMs continually add more restrictions to access to knowledge and company resources. They are doing it for reasons I've stated.

That's implausible. If it were true, then how come R&S will provide access to small firms, provided they are registered businesses? There's zero evidence they are examining revenue or profit figures or reading your business plan or investor's deck.

I'd put good money on it (if I were a gambling man, which I'm not) that they would be more than willing to provide documentation/firmware access even if your business had just $10 revenue - provided their checks are passed, which appear to be KYC related.

 

If you were able to talk to an long term professional in the field we are talking about and they told you it's not only plausible but its happening everywhere, why would you argue with them?  The elimination of small company access is happening at lots of OEMs. They are being told to work through the channel with their VAR. It may not have been done at this company but my experience and their statements lead me to believe it will. It is the current market trend no matter your wish to believe it.

Why would a company read my business plan or investor's deck?  What are you talking about? I'm sure they have their own business plans and if you feel they aren't complying with them or evaluating them with all of their decisions then you're simply wrong. A company that just goes about its day bumbling through the world and not doing things in a reasonable and methodical way isn't long to remain in business.

We do have a lack of desire to gamble in common in this thread. Though, I will take money when I know its an easy win.

That's the same as saying organizations try to do things that are, uh, "legal" and hence avoid fines or worse. I can't find anything to extract from that comment that's incompatible with anything I've stated so far.

It is incompatible with your statement that companies do things "Sometimes" because of money.  My point remains, if its compliance, the wish to enhance the VAR/Partner income, or intentions to cut off owners of equipment that the company would prefer entered the landfill its the same. Companies are and will continue to enact less than consumer friendly polices unless those consumers take some sort of action.

I mentioned, because its more likely to be relevant to those on this board, the "Right to Repair" movements because that's more oriented towards individuals. But its not entirely.  R2R is why, in the US, an independent repair shop can access the same materials the OEM provides to their partners and VARs (the car dealerships). 

Did you see how Apple changed their polices on who could access their knowledge, firmware, and tools? No, because they shut it all down 20 some years ago and only recently started allowing it again due to pressure and lawsuits. How many wiring schematics have you seen that aren't for 20 year old gear or more?
See a lot of those coming with your R&S gear do you?  Companies have been on a long road to cutting this stuff off. I am sorry if I'm the bearer of bad news. Its because of control and that is because of money in its simplest form.

[shabaz]

That's a lot of unnecessary content to read.

There are plenty of good examples of organizations that do bad things "just for the money", you don't have to look far. I happen to think you're off the mark regarding the reason behind docs/firmware access in this case however.

Then, when you didn't have anything of further value (most of your comments were irrelevant in the first place and had nothing to do with a good reason why doc/firmware access was restricted to businesses), you went on about how orgs doing things for legal reasons and avoiding fines is just for the uh "money".

I've given a very good reason why your suggestion that R&S are restricting docs/firmware access just for the money demonstrably does not hold water, because (and I hate repeating myself) R&S do not care if a business makes any significant revenue to provide access; there's zero evidence that they will look at your financials before providing document/firmware access.

[edavid]

I've given a very good reason why your suggestion that R&S are restricting docs/firmware access just for the money demonstrably does not hold water, because (and I hate repeating myself) R&S do not care if a business makes any significant revenue to provide access; there's zero evidence that they will look at your financials before providing document/firmware access.

You know, I think it's just a fluke that they gave you access.  They have not responded to my email or the case I opened to even ask if I have a business, let alone how much revenue it has.

[Cyclotron]

That's a lot of unnecessary content to read.

There are plenty of good examples of organizations that do bad things "just for the money", you don't have to look far. I happen to think you're off the mark regarding the reason behind docs/firmware access in this case however.

Then, when you didn't have anything of further value (most of your comments were irrelevant in the first place and had nothing to do with a good reason why doc/firmware access was restricted to businesses), you went on about how orgs doing things for legal reasons and avoiding fines is just for the uh "money".

I've given a very good reason why your suggestion that R&S are restricting docs/firmware access just for the money demonstrably does not hold water, because (and I hate repeating myself) R&S do not care if a business makes any significant revenue to provide access; there's zero evidence that they will look at your financials before providing document/firmware access.

I replied in kind with a wall of text as I was presented with in an effort to determine if there was a real argument for companies only "sometimes" doing this for money.

I believe it has become obvious that there isn't any intention to discuss in good faith.  I suspect an unreasonable self identity association with R&S and so it is taken as a personal attack. Bolding as if to yell statements petulantly is all I need to end my engagement.

I stand with the OP with his warning and my experience as a rep in the oem to channel industry.

[shabaz]

That's a lot of unnecessary content to read.

There are plenty of good examples of organizations that do bad things "just for the money", you don't have to look far. I happen to think you're off the mark regarding the reason behind docs/firmware access in this case however.

Then, when you didn't have anything of further value (most of your comments were irrelevant in the first place and had nothing to do with a good reason why doc/firmware access was restricted to businesses), you went on about how orgs doing things for legal reasons and avoiding fines is just for the uh "money".

I've given a very good reason why your suggestion that R&S are restricting docs/firmware access just for the money demonstrably does not hold water, because (and I hate repeating myself) R&S do not care if a business makes any significant revenue to provide access; there's zero evidence that they will look at your financials before providing document/firmware access.

I replied in kind with a wall of text as I was presented with in an effort to determine if there was a real argument for companies only "sometimes" doing this for money.

I believe it has become obvious that there isn't any intention to discuss in good faith.  I suspect an unreasonable self identity association with R&S and so it is taken as a personal attack. Bolding as if to yell statements petulantly is all I need to end my engagement.

I stand with the OP with his warning and my experience as a rep in the oem to channel industry.

Whoopee, glad you proudly "stand with the OP" as if none of the rest of us do. We all want him to get his access. I notice you have not actually tried to help him find a solution so far, but you just came here to share your "experience as a rep" and yet still haven't found anything of immediate relevance that could possibly help him.

You know, I think it's just a fluke that they gave you access.  They have not responded to my email or the case I opened to even ask if I have a business, let alone how much revenue it has.

All I can help with is explaining what happened for me, in case there's anything here that you can spot was different in your case. Really there's not much I did, but it's worth checking, did you make the request using your business e-mail address, or Gmail/Hotmail etc? (granted, you should still get a response if you use Hotmail/Gmail, but I'm simply trying to spot what might be different in your case versus what happened to me):

(1) Use corporate e-mail address, not Gmail/Hotmail etc to register on the R&S site
(2) On a restricted access page, I requested access (several times)
(3) After about a month, I had heard nothing, and I didn't have access
(4) Raised a request explaining that I had waited a month, and that I wished for it to be expedited.
(5) After a week or two, I received this resolution; slightly more wordy, but condensed to: "validation complete, GLORIS account activated, download area available, sorry for any inconvenience caused".

It may be key that the registration be done using the business details that you wish them to perform their checks against (i.e., if you already had registered with them using your Hotmail/Gmail (like I had), then create a second account).

[chilternview]

I've given a very good reason why your suggestion that R&S are restricting docs/firmware access just for the money demonstrably does not hold water, because (and I hate repeating myself) R&S do not care if a business makes any significant revenue to provide access; there's zero evidence that they will look at your financials before providing document/firmware access.

You know, I think it's just a fluke that they gave you access.  They have not responded to my email or the case I opened to even ask if I have a business, let alone how much revenue it has.

It's not a fluke. I have R&S access and I'm a one man company (and not even VAT registered). Being a registered company was enough for them.

[shabaz]

Regarding the question earlier about RTB2 firmware, I asked "When will a user manual be published? And when is the firmware going to be available?" and got an answer last week, forgot to add it here earlier:

Please have a look into the manual of RTB2000, it is identical to RTB2.
At this moment there is only the FW with which the device was delivered.

[edavid]

Regarding the question earlier about RTB2 firmware, I asked "When will a user manual be published? And when is the firmware going to be available?" and got an answer last week, forgot to add it here earlier:

Please have a look into the manual of RTB2000, it is identical to RTB2.
At this moment there is only the FW with which the device was delivered.

Sorry if I'm belaboring the point, but I hope you realized this is a BS response:

1. The RTB2 release is supposed to have new features over the last RTB2000 release, so obviously these are not documented in the old RTB2000 manual that is available (to the privileged few).  When will the documentation of the new features be available?

2. Yes, we know there is only the initial RTB2 FW release, but when and where can it be downloaded, either to reinstall in an RTB2, or to upgrade an RTB2000?

[shabaz]

I hope you realized this is a BS response:

Hi,

No, it's not an instrument I know anything about. I have no idea if it's a successor with new features, or a drop-in replacement (e.g. cost-reduced, or brought about because of component obsolescence) so I could not tell.

As mentioned earlier, I don't believe any new product ought to be able to be released without certain documentation in place, including the user manual (and at least in the places I've worked, that would be a barrier to actually releasing a product; although if an item is a drop-in replacement perhaps some manufacturers handle it differently, it's not something I'm aware of).

Is the older RTB2000 series supposed to be able to run the firmware from the RTB2 series, or is that an assumption?

In any case, now that it's a bit clearer what questions you were looking to be answered, I can ask them again, it's no trouble at all.

[edavid]

Is the older RTB2000 series supposed to be able to run the firmware from the RTB2 series, or is that an assumption?

We don't know of any hardware differences, and it was stated that there would be unified firmware for both series.

[shabaz]

I've interpreted and submitted it as follows (may take a week for the response):

1. As I understand, the RTB2 user guide is the same as the RTB2000. Does the current RTB2 release have new features compared to the RTB2000? If yes, then they will not be documented in the RTB2000 user guide. In which guide are the feature differences or new features documented?

2. If there are new features in the RTB2 firmware, can the older RTB2000 be upgraded to run the RTB2 firmware, or are they incompatible? Is this allowed (to use the RTB2 firmware on older RTB2000 'scopes), or not supported due to license reasons?

3. When will the RTB2 firmware be available for download (to reinstall on an RTB2)?

4. If there are no new features in the current RTB2 firmware compared to RTB2000, when will the next release of RTB2 firmware be available?