| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
December 9th 03, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#12
December 9th 03, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ddwyer writes:
CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed. Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not equalled in the digital domain. -- ddwyer Use both every day. The digital scope (Tek DPO style) is great for analysing, but sometimes is it a lot easier to find a problem on the old 500MHz 7904. Once I find the problem signal, I can then set the digital scope to trigger properly and analyse the details. The 7904 is the "stand" for the 3054. Steve. -- Steven D. Swift, , http://www.novatech-instr.com NOVATECH INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 55997 206.301.8986, fax 206.363.4367 Seattle, Washington 98155 USA |
|
#13
December 9th 03, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ddwyer writes:
CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed. Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not equalled in the digital domain. -- ddwyer Use both every day. The digital scope (Tek DPO style) is great for analysing, but sometimes is it a lot easier to find a problem on the old 500MHz 7904. Once I find the problem signal, I can then set the digital scope to trigger properly and analyse the details. The 7904 is the "stand" for the 3054. Steve. -- Steven D. Swift, , http://www.novatech-instr.com NOVATECH INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 55997 206.301.8986, fax 206.363.4367 Seattle, Washington 98155 USA |
|
#15
December 10th 03, 02:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Dec 2003 08:00:52 -0800 (Howard) wrote:
I have used Tektronix instruments for almost 30 years now, and don't know how I could have got along without them. Most of my work has been in commercial radio and television. While I agree with much of what you say, it's only fair to point out that it's the old-timers among us who mostly feel this way. Tek has changed. The manuals are written incredibly well, and I have received assistance from tech support on devices more than 25 years old. Yes, the OLD manuals were wonderful, but have you looked at a manual for a Tek scope sold new in the last 10 years? They have no theory of operation, no parts lists, and no schematics. If you try to call them for tech info on an old scope today, you're pretty likely to be politely turned down. I reflect with fondness on repairing a device like a waveform monitor, more than 20 years old, and finding a small coil of silver solder on the chassis in a place that was designed for it, tucked neatly in its own "home." Tek has used silver solder for decades now...they have always known it makes a better solder joint...and they want their stuff to keep on working, 24/7 for years and years. The special little coils of silver bearing solder WERE neat, but they were intended for use ONLY on the little ceramic terminal strips. The silver content was necessary to prevent delamination of the metalized part of the strip. This was carefully explained in their manual. I don't think they used that solder in any solid state gear, nor did they provide the little rolls in any solid state scopes. And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell more new stuff?! Baloney. Baloney perhaps, but I belive it is still true. I've heard it from people who were there and saw it happen. I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that "you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and accuracy of the products they are complaining about. The scopes you're remembering are the products made decades ago. Those were the scopes that made Tektronix' reputation as exceeding the "state of the art." In recent times Tek has been taken over by the bean counters who have entirely different priorities. It's unfortunate that a giant like this has now stooped to this level, but you really should listen to some of the people here, and elsewhere, who have worked with them, and for them, in recent times. I'm afraid that much the same thing is happening to Hewlett-Packard. The corporate climate that Bill Hewlett and David Packard spent their lives building has now gone the way of corporate acquisition over innovation. Agilent may continue to do well, but Bill & Dave's names have been sacrificed on the alter of profit. Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does 300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently enough. - ----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney Madison, WI 53711 USA ----------------------------------------------- |
|
#16
December 10th 03, 04:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Adney wrote:
. . . [Good comments] . . . Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does 300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently enough. There's another reason. For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs. I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And, yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days, most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy, and useless features are showing up. Get used to it. (*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Tek, 1974-80, 1984-95 |
|
#17
December 10th 03, 04:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Adney wrote:
. . . [Good comments] . . . Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does 300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently enough. There's another reason. For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs. I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And, yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days, most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy, and useless features are showing up. Get used to it. (*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Tek, 1974-80, 1984-95 |
|
#18
December 10th 03, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's another reason.
For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs. I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And, yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days, most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy, and useless features are showing up. Get used to it. (*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP. =================== Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments. What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem to be important in scope development. Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics. Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by nerds for nerds. It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to operate and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does bring in the $$$. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
|
#19
December 10th 03, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There's another reason.
For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs. I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And, yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days, most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy, and useless features are showing up. Get used to it. (*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP. =================== Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments. What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem to be important in scope development. Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics. Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by nerds for nerds. It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to operate and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does bring in the $$$. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
|
#20
December 10th 03, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roy Lewallen wrote:
These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. An un-named source working for H-P/ Agilent totally agrees with that! He also added: "The founder of Tek invented the triggered timebase and offered it to Hewlett-Packard. Bill and Dave saw the value but were committed to doing other things for their near future and suggested he start his own firm, giving him some advice along the way." -- 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book' http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Tektronix 7403N 'scope manual | Boatanchors | |||
| Wanted: Old Tektronix Equipment | Boatanchors | |||
| Tektronix oscilloscope | Antenna | |||
| Tektronix SUCKS!!!!! | Homebrew | |||
| Tektronix DOESN'T suck - | Boatanchors | |||
Linear Mode
