Tektronix has lost their minds

[John Larkin]

They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
your password is insufficiently strong.

No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
stuff.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.
>

It can be worse. Have you tried the ST site lately? The only way to find
the SPICE model for a part was via a web search engine, theirs did not
find their own (!) part. Then there is usps.gov. Yesterday I had an
outgoing overseas letter of 1.4oz, so more than the usual 1oz worth of
postage. Under rates ... nothing, except useless stuff like lists of
things you can't send. Then they have a "calculator". No matter how
often I clicked, it came back with a postage of $18.20 and sometimes "no
product was selected". So I just doubled the usual postage and crossed
my fingers that it's enough.

Oh, and if Tek is somehow dear to your heart write to the CEO. That is
usually the one and only way to find someone who will listen. At one
large semi mfg where I did that this triggered a midsize earthquake, and
change happened prontissimo.

The rapidly rising level of incompetence found among web site
programmers is mind-boggling.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:22:24 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>
>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>> stuff.
>>
>
>It can be worse. Have you tried the ST site lately? The only way to find
>the SPICE model for a part was via a web search engine, theirs did not
>find their own (!) part. Then there is usps.gov. Yesterday I had an
>outgoing overseas letter of 1.4oz, so more than the usual 1oz worth of
>postage. Under rates ... nothing, except useless stuff like lists of
>things you can't send. Then they have a "calculator". No matter how
>often I clicked, it came back with a postage of $18.20 and sometimes "no
>product was selected".

You must be doing something seriously wrong-- I get $1.92 with just a
few clicks (assuming a more-or-less normal letter envelope).

http://ircalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=0&o=2

> So I just doubled the usual postage and crossed
>my fingers that it's enough.

Maybe you tried to put a decimal in the weight field? I don't think I
would ever try that.. probably wouldn't work.. just round it up to
the next ounce.

[Joerg]

It would have been the smart thing for the web site to tell me that :-)

[rickman]

This is not likely anything to do with the programmers. They just do
what they are told. All these things at Tek are most likely management
decisions.

Rick

[rickman]

Now that might be a programmer issue. Silly to not let a user include
fractions of an ounce. Expecting a user to know that this value has to
be rounded and giving an error like, "no product was selected" is total
crap!

Rick

[Joerg]

In the case of Tek, yes. Although if I were a programmer and someone
told me to do such stuff I'd consider that writing on the wall. Time to
look around. In the case of USPS stating "No product selected" while one
was selected is clearly a programmer error. And no such excuse as "Oh,
that only works on IE" :-)

[Rich Webb]

I suspect s/might be/probably is/. Same issue with telephone numbers,
credit cards, etc. The *machine* should be able to accept any reasonable
format from the user and convert that to its own internal format. Lazy
"web developers" more interested in appearances than functionality and
the damned kids won't stay off my lawn! ;-)

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:42 -0500, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds more like a design and specification issue. If it's a
programmer issue, then it's also a (lack of) testing issue.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:43:06 -0800, John Larkin
<jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>your password is insufficiently strong.
>
>No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>stuff.

I ran into something like that with an equipment manufacturer that
sells through distributors, reps, and dealers. They demanded that the
manufacturer take down its web site and refer all prospective sales to
the dealers. The compromise was that the manufacturer would setup a
login system, that would record contact information, and forward them
as leads to a designated dealer by territory. My guess(tm), is that
something like this might be happening with Tek.

The next step is possibly to refer all documentation, support, and
repair issues to the dealers, which will effectively destroy service.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:19:46 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:43:06 -0800, John Larkin
><jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>>They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>>stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>>your password is insufficiently strong.
>>
>>No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>>stuff.
>
>I ran into something like that with an equipment manufacturer that
>sells through distributors, reps, and dealers. They demanded that the
>manufacturer take down its web site and refer all prospective sales to
>the dealers. The compromise was that the manufacturer would setup a
>login system, that would record contact information, and forward them
>as leads to a designated dealer by territory. My guess(tm), is that
>something like this might be happening with Tek.

Yeah, last time I got info from Tek I subsequently received a
telephone call from the local distributor referring to the products in
question specifically.. unfortunately for them, I had to tell them
that I had already ordered and received the scopes from an outfit in
California weeks before, and their service and price was considerably
better, so don't bother darkening my virtual doorway again.

[Tim Wescott]

That's 'cause they knew you were checking from Toronto, and therefor
couldn't immediately put the knowledge to good use.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

[mike]

On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.
>
>

If password strength is the worst thing in your life today, you live
a charmed existence.
Put your favorite password in twice or however many times it takes
and move on.

[Cydrome Leader]

John Larkin <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.

bullshit registration stuff is obnoxious. They're just going to spam you,
so there's no reason to pretend security is key.

[Cydrome Leader]

The best thing to do is give your money to another company.

[John Larkin]

My DPO2024 is OK, but it takes forever to boot up. "Force Trig" seems
to do nothing. And it has a weird pseudo-persistance thing that can't
be turned off, and makes scope photos ugly.

Time to move on.

Our 1 GHz 4-channel Rigol is a fabulous scope. I'm thinking about
getting a 5-GHz class digital scope, and it will probably be Agilent.

[Don Lancaster]

The last decent Agilent scope was the 130C.
It has been steadily downhill from there.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 14, 4:43 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.

Of course Tek scopes used to be better than Agilent's (not to mention
Rigol's) and easier to use, so you may be condemning yourself and you
employees to years of inconvenience to save a minute of work on a web-
site, but that's your choice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Bill Sloman]

But not if the other company's products aren't as good.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Spehro Pefhany]

No they didn't, I was pretending to be in Fremont, CA. ;-)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Roberto Waltman]

John Larkin wrote:
>Our 1 GHz 4-channel Rigol is a fabulous scope. I'm thinking about
>getting a 5-GHz class digital scope, and it will probably be Agilent.

You do know that many Agilent scopes are re-labeled Rigol's, don't
you?
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]

[Nico Coesel]

John Larkin <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:53:37 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
><pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>
>>John Larkin <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>>
>>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>>> stuff.
>>
>>bullshit registration stuff is obnoxious. They're just going to spam you,
>>so there's no reason to pretend security is key.

You are right about the spamming. Recently I looked something up on a
TDS700 series scope and a few days later I got a call from the local
Tektronix distributor asking whether I found what I was looking for...

>My DPO2024 is OK, but it takes forever to boot up. "Force Trig" seems
>to do nothing. And it has a weird pseudo-persistance thing that can't
>be turned off, and makes scope photos ugly.

My TDS510A also has that pseudo persistance (the previous trace in
grey). For some measurements its a nice feature. Hitting one of the
channel buttons makes the grey trace dissapear. Maybe it works on much
newers scopes as well... I know it does on the TDS220.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

[Nico Coesel]

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Nov 14, 4:43=A0am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>

Thats a weird statement. Agilent, Rigol and Tektronix have been in
business long enough to figure out what their customers want in a
scope and how it should work. I've used scopes from Agilent and
Tektronix and I didn't find either difficult to use. Some are better
than others though. For instance I wouldn't want to have a Tek TDS200,
TDS1000 or TDS2000 series scope because of their ridiculously short
memory.

[Bill Sloman]

On Nov 14, 1:05 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

> Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 14, 4:43=A0am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
> >wrote:
> >> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> >> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> >> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> >> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> >> stuff.
>
> >Of course Tek scopes used to be better than Agilent's (not to mention
> >Rigol's) and easier to use, so you may be condemning yourself and you
> >employees to years of inconvenience to save a minute of work on a web-
> >site, but that's your choice.
>
> Thats a weird statement. Agilent, Rigol and Tektronix have been in
> business long enough to figure out what their customers want in a
> scope and how it should work.

You could have said that about Tektronix and Agilent (then called HP)
back in the late 1980's when we have to choose between a top end HP
scope and it's Tektronix equivalent. the specifications were pretty
much the same, but the Tek scope triggered lot more reliably on the
signal edge that we actually wanted to look at. Both Tek and HP wanted
the sale so we have both for trial periods of a couple of weeks.
Nobody voted for the HP machine.

> I've used scopes from Agilent and
> Tektronix and I didn't find either difficult to use. Some are better
> than others though. For instance I wouldn't want to have a Tek TDS200,
> TDS1000 or TDS2000 series scope because of their ridiculously short
> memory.

I've not used any of them ... in subsequent jobs, the choice always
went for something cheap, but with a deep digital memory so that you
could grab a couple of seconds worth of transient and look at it
repeatedly in detail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Martin Riddle]

"John Larkin" <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message
news:cd15a8dt7fo094lqt...@4ax.com...

>
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.
>

Agilent doesn't. Oh wait I think some of the software downloads require
an account. But I have yet to be spammed by them.


Cheers

[mpm]

I have found with USPS regulations that once you know them all, it starts to make a lot more sense. I guess this is true with most things in life. I was forced in an earlier life to review their regs for a reply postage permit.

That said, their site (heck, any site), could always be better.

At the moment, my personal favorites are sites that crash and burn (i.e., won't even open) in IE, but work just fine in Chrome, Firefox or Mozilla. I know IE is crap, or so I've heard - but it can't be that bad to code for IE.

I try to keep a few junk email accounts for web (managers, programmers, etc..) that insist on knowing data they really don't need to have, in exchange for stuff I'm surfing for. I strive to fill in the blanks for them when appropriate.

-mpm

[George Herold]

On Nov 13, 5:49 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 1:56 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> >>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> >>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> >>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> >>> stuff.
>
> >> If password strength is the worst thing in your life today, you live
> >> a charmed existence.
> >> Put your favorite password in twice or however many times it takes
> >> and move on.
>
> > The best thing to do is give your money to another company.
>
> The last decent Agilent scope was the 130C.
> It has been steadily downhill from there.
>

There's some new 'software upgradable' Agilent 'scopes that look
pretty nice.

Big display, and built in function generator (IIRC)

George H.

> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml  email: d...@tinaja.com
>

> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Martin Riddle]

"Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:agfpgn...@mid.individual.net...

I think Tek is loosing market share, that's why they are being more
aggressive in obtaining sales contacts.
Why let the customer go thru a dealer that has better deals than going
direct to Tek ;)

Cheers

[P E Schoen]

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
news:tp95a8tekapeedtah...@4ax.com...

> You must be doing something seriously wrong-- I get $1.92 with just a
> few clicks (assuming a more-or-less normal letter envelope).

> http://ircalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=0&o=2

> Maybe you tried to put a decimal in the weight field? I don't think I
> would ever try that.. probably wouldn't work.. just round it up to
> the next ounce.

I tried it with 1.5 ounces and 0.95 ounces, and I got $1.92 and $1.05. The
only web page problem I encountered was that you must select one of the
choices on this page for the pounds and ounces edit boxes to appear:
http://ircalc.usps.com/Default.aspx?country=10063

Maybe they read this and fixed it?

The weight information is sent to the last page and cost is calculated by a
separate script:

<a href='CustomsFormsCalculator.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=0&o=0.95'
target='_blank'>Customs Form Indicator</a>

Paul

[P E Schoen]

If you like, you can just edit the URL and bypass the intermediate forms. So
for 1 pound and 2.95 ounces:

http://ircalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=1&o=2.95

Paul

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:01:51 -0500, Roberto Waltman
<use...@rwaltman.com> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>>Our 1 GHz 4-channel Rigol is a fabulous scope. I'm thinking about
>>getting a 5-GHz class digital scope, and it will probably be Agilent.
>
>You do know that many Agilent scopes are re-labeled Rigol's, don't
>you?

Their low-end scope, the $995 one was, but I think, not 100% sure,
that they aren't any more. Rigol is getting to be a serious competitor
in scopes and spectrum analyzers and arbs.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Robert Baer]

Joerg wrote:
> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:22:24 -0800, Joerg<inv...@invalid.invalid>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>>>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>>>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>>>
>>>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>>>> stuff.
>>>>
>>> It can be worse. Have you tried the ST site lately? The only way to find
>>> the SPICE model for a part was via a web search engine, theirs did not
>>> find their own (!) part. Then there is usps.gov. Yesterday I had an
>>> outgoing overseas letter of 1.4oz, so more than the usual 1oz worth of
>>> postage. Under rates ... nothing, except useless stuff like lists of
>>> things you can't send. Then they have a "calculator". No matter how
>>> often I clicked, it came back with a postage of $18.20 and sometimes "no
>>> product was selected".
>>

>> You must be doing something seriously wrong-- I get $1.92 with just a
>> few clicks (assuming a more-or-less normal letter envelope).
>>
>> http://ircalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=0&o=2
>>

>>> So I just doubled the usual postage and crossed
>>> my fingers that it's enough.
>>

>> Maybe you tried to put a decimal in the weight field? I don't think I
>> would ever try that.. probably wouldn't work.. just round it up to
>> the next ounce.
>>
>

> It would have been the smart thing for the web site to tell me that :-)
>
Probably did; "not more than" is the wording.

[Robert Baer]

Then program an error exception for the lawn..

[k...@att.bizzz]

Your describing a death spiral.

[jmi...@pop.net]

Use a DSO6000-series scope and you will change your mind in a hurry
about that.

-- john

[k...@att.bizzz]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:55:58 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<ghe...@teachspin.com> wrote:

>On Nov 13, 5:49�pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 1:56 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> >> On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> >>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>> >>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>> >>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>
>> >>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>> >>> stuff.
>>
>> >> If password strength is the worst thing in your life today, you live
>> >> a charmed existence.
>> >> Put your favorite password in twice or however many times it takes
>> >> and move on.
>>
>> > The best thing to do is give your money to another company.
>>
>> The last decent Agilent scope was the 130C.
>> It has been steadily downhill from there.
>>
>
>There's some new 'software upgradable' Agilent 'scopes that look
>pretty nice.

I have an MSO-X-3104 at work that's pretty nice.

>Big display, and built in function generator (IIRC)

Didn't see a need for a big display on the scope when you can just
plug in a monitor. The function generator is nice but the serial
analyzer is kinda weak. The I2S analyzer is really limited, though I
don't see much on the market in this area that looks any better (maybe
LeCroy, but that ain't happenin').

[miso]

On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.
>
> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
> stuff.
>
>

It has been that way for a while.

Here are some plans of attack, other than just telling Tek to fuckoff.

www.bugmenot.com
Maybe somebody already registered a fake email address there.

http://www.mailinator.com/
The drop down gun of the internet. Let them eat spam.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher/
If you look like a search engine, websites get so excited that they drop
their drawers for you. It doesn't always work, though it nearly always
gets through newspaper paywalls.

Incidentally, you can surf the internet as a pathetic Iphone 3 and the
websites may switch to a less cluttered page without flash adverts.

[miso]

I have a Tek bench ball buster, but I got a Rigol for portable and lab
use. I can't say I'm impressed with their software. I guess China is the
land of 32 bit XP PCs. It wasn't exactly trivial to get Ultrascope
working on win7 64 bit. I don't recall all the details since I did it
some time ago, but it did involve finding 32 bit dlls to add to win7.
And the software uses ActiveX. It was certainly a few hours of my time.

The scope itself is fine as a stand alone, just PC control is not so good.

[JW]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:49:36 -0800 Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in
Message id: <agg146...@mid.individual.net>:

>On 11/13/2012 1:56 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>>>> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>>>> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>>>
>>>> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>>>> stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If password strength is the worst thing in your life today, you live
>>> a charmed existence.
>>> Put your favorite password in twice or however many times it takes
>>> and move on.
>>
>> The best thing to do is give your money to another company.
>>
>>
>
>
>The last decent Agilent scope was the 130C.
>It has been steadily downhill from there.

Opinions vary. I love my 54831B. The equivalent Teks from that era I
dislike.

[George Herold]

> LeCroy, but that ain't happenin').  - Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I was at a meeting last summer and got to play a bit with a new (low
end) Agilent.
It's update rate (how long till a new screen appears) seemed to be
much faster than the Rigol.

George H.

[Tim Williams]

"JW" <no...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:h8v6a8d01hao4j7v7...@4ax.com...

>>The last decent Agilent scope was the 130C.
>>It has been steadily downhill from there.
>
> Opinions vary. I love my 54831B. The equivalent Teks from that era I
> dislike.

I've found the 546xx series are capable. I've got a -00 at work and have
used the -22B back at school. The -00 *knows* it's a DSO, and doesn't try
to hide it, it makes full use of the fact that all it does is read
numbers. None of that DPO bullcrap that just slows things down, and the
menus are easy to navigate.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

[Spehro Pefhany]

The Agilent DSO6014A is a nice 'scope. I imagine the perspective of a
used equipment dealer would be a bit different from that of engineers-
nobody wants to part with the nice stuff unless it's _really_ old.

[Martin Riddle]

Does sound like it. When I looked at a Tek scope in the $2k-3k range,
There were plenty of alternatives, Rigol Instek, which I would not
personally purchase. I have used the Instek, It's ok but not as
refined as the Tek. But Price conscious buyers would go for it.
I found the Agilent to be a better bang for the buck for the same
class of scope.

Cheers

[Joerg]

My experience is different. I bought an Instek about five years ago. Ok,
the user menues and other things are not very refined ... but:

a. It cost >30% less.

b. It had 25k sample memory which allows pulse-echo, whereas the more
expensive Tek had 4k which is pathetic and insufficient for such work.

c. The remote control SW and such was free and they had the whole
command set laid open in a big freely downloadable programmers manual.

d. The Instek showed a much more quiet EMI footprint which is very
important in analog. A client got majorly dinged by a Tek scope there,
until I arrived and found out that the oscillation they thought they had
in their prototype was really EMI spewing out the probe grounds, from
the Tek scope's backlight inverter.

For me "b" and "d" were the clinchers.

[Joerg]

They used to have simple lists on there where you could look up the
price category for a country, then look up the postage in a table. Took
3-4 seconds. But I guess that method was too simple and too fast, they
had to invent one that slows people down, big time.

IMO such "calculator" are often stupid ideas. They should stick to what
really works and most of all does not require some scripting to run.
Because there are companies that will not allow that.

> At the moment, my personal favorites are sites that crash and burn
> (i.e., won't even open) in IE, but work just fine in Chrome, Firefox
> or Mozilla. I know IE is crap, or so I've heard - but it can't be
> that bad to code for IE.
>
> I try to keep a few junk email accounts for web (managers,
> programmers, etc..) that insist on knowing data they really don't
> need to have, in exchange for stuff I'm surfing for. I strive to
> fill in the blanks for them when appropriate.
>

I have one "disposable" email for that. But mostly if sites want to know
details they don't need I just move on.

[Cydrome Leader]

Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 8:56?am, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>> mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

>> > On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> >> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
>> >> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
>> >> your password is insufficiently strong.
>>
>> >> No more Tek! I'm buying Agilent and Rigol, who actually want to sell
>> >> stuff.
>>

>> > If password strength is the worst thing in your life today, you live
>> > a charmed existence.
>> > Put your favorite password in twice or however many times it takes
>> > and move on.
>>
>> The best thing to do is give your money to another company.
>

> But not if the other company's products aren't as good.

the best product with no or poor support is worthless.

[John S]

I have enjoyed the same experiences from my GDS-2204 (I am not
associated with them in any way. I just like the scope).

However, be warned that the battery option is crap. The batteries die
frequently no matter what you do.

JohnS

[Joerg]

That's the scope I have. Did you ever do the firmware upgrade? Is it
worth it?

I never bought the battery option. But this scope has a huge space for
batteries so I guess one could hack in their own solution. Although I
never saw a need for me to have batteries and if I ever did I'd use my
"li'l suitcase" battery pack plus inverter. That could then also power
some other stuff.

[rickman]

Yes, the typical cryptic governmental stuff. I consider that still to
be a web site design failure. If you have something to say, say it in
clear, concise language. Better, deal with anything reasonable that you
are given, like a decimal ounce.

Rick

[rickman]

On 11/13/2012 9:55 PM, mpm wrote:
>
> I have found with USPS regulations that once you know them all, it starts to make a lot more sense. I guess this is true with most things in life. I was forced in an earlier life to review their regs for a reply postage permit.
>
> That said, their site (heck, any site), could always be better.
>
> At the moment, my personal favorites are sites that crash and burn (i.e., won't even open) in IE, but work just fine in Chrome, Firefox or Mozilla. I know IE is crap, or so I've heard - but it can't be that bad to code for IE.

A friend is an web developer and tells me some of the stories of how
hard it can be to write code that works for all the browsers and all the
versions they have to support. This is not for the public, but for
internal use in a medical testing lab. Even then they have to support
everything across the board for a number of versions back. They all
have bugs and they change across the versions. Not easy stuff to do.
So I have a lot more sympathy for web developers than most people.

> I try to keep a few junk email accounts for web (managers, programmers, etc..) that insist on knowing data they really don't need to have, in exchange for stuff I'm surfing for. I strive to fill in the blanks for them when appropriate.

I do the same. I have a number of yahoo.com accounts for the ones I
really don't want to hear from more than once and a single email account
with a huge number of address aliases that are specific to who I am
giving them to... xilinx.com@arius..., altera.com@arius..., You might
be surprised at how many vendors share your email address.

Rick

[Jon Elson]

I was just in Japan for 11 days, and used some Iwatsu storage/scan-converter
scopes there. The controls took a little while to figure out, but they were
actually pretty nice scopes. They are true analog scopes, so they have all
the limitations of a Tek 465 or similar, such as it can only capture one
trace per sweep (without chop), no looking back in time further than the
delay lines permit, etc. but, they gave astoundingly good display of fast,
single events. Tek also made a scan-converter scope a long time ago, I
think it was a 7000-series with standard plug-ins.

Anyway, I wasn't aware that anybody was still making scan-converter scopes.
At that lab, these seemed to be the scope of choice, they had many of them.

Jon

[Martin Riddle]

"Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:agibuq...@mid.individual.net...

At work we have the 2204 (I think). They were prompt in fixing a
measurement bug.
Just put the image on a the sdcard and boot the scope up.
( we had the one with the SD card, the newer ones have a USB port).

Cheers

[Joerg]

Mine only has USB ports, but lots. They didn't mention the boot-up
method of updating the firmware, just via PC. Maybe I should update it.

[mpm]

It's not that hard to invent a totally false persona.

You can start by co-opting the the porn stage name idea...

Method 1. Take your middle name and the name of your first pet. Put them together for your porn star name.

Method 2. Substitute your first pet's name with the name of the street you grew up with.

Method 3. and usually the best one, take your first pet's name and the street you grew up on

I wonder if the whiz kids programming these sites have any notion that probably better than 70% of the replies are totally bogus to begin with? Why bother?

And don't even get me started on phone IVR systems.
One place I call regularly has had the same lame announcement for over a year now - but... "Please listen carefully as some of our menu options have changed."

Really? Which ones.

I swear the whole I.T. work effort is the janitorial work of real engineering.
With apologies to those few IT professionals who have a clue.

-mpm

[tm]

"mpm" <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:468aec9e-d9ac-4521...@googlegroups.com...

The one that really irks me is the music-on-hold. The codecs used in
cellular phone systems do not pass music well at all. And who uses a
landline anymore.

[Rich Webb]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:07:08 -0800, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Martin Riddle wrote:
>> At work we have the 2204 (I think). They were prompt in fixing a
>> measurement bug.
>> Just put the image on a the sdcard and boot the scope up.
>> ( we had the one with the SD card, the newer ones have a USB port).
>>
>
>Mine only has USB ports, but lots. They didn't mention the boot-up
>method of updating the firmware, just via PC. Maybe I should update it.

Where did you find the firmware? Mine at home has V 1.04 on it but the
one at the office is 1.(something later; .09 maybe?)

On the newer, the trigger menu rolls auto/normal/single while this one
on the home bench has the annoying (but occasionally useful) auto-level
between stuck between single and auto. I'd love to be able to update it
(and even to back-up the baseline firmware). No links to updates at the
GWInstek website and searches for "GDS-2204 firmware" lead nowhere.

Belay my last! Found what purports to be a firmware image at
<http://www.nagyitok.hu/en/category/details/id/350034/thumbnail/3>
Does APP111-Official.UPG look possible? I'd hate to brick it.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:13:37 -0600, Jon Elson <jme...@wustl.edu>
wrote:

The Tek scan converter scope was a French InSnec scope rebranded. My
friend Bernard Riondet still makes them. I assume he has a stock of
NOS tubes.

http://www.greenfieldtechnology.com/-Data-aquisition-system-.html


(His company name and logo and product line are remarkably similar to
mine. He did add the seagulls.)



--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Phil Hobbs]

I've been using my newish TDS694C to wring out an ultrasensitive preamp
board, and it really is a thing of great beauty. Nice snappy control
response, 2 MB of sample memory, 10 Gs/s simultaneously on 4 channels,
125 ps rise times with beautiful Gaussian-looking edges.

I have a sentimental attachment to the Tektronix name, from long
acquaintance and from reading Jim Williams since I was knee-high to a
lab bench. (Figuratively speaking.) I don't buy a whole lot of new
equipment, as y'all know, but decently-aged Teks are pretty nice.

BTW if you buy the demo model from the disty, it'll have most of the
firmware options turned on, more or less for free. (I had Newark in a
couple of months ago to demo the MDO4000 series scope/spectrum
analyzers, which is where I found that out.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Michael A. Terrell]

tm wrote:
>
> The one that really irks me is the music-on-hold. The codecs used in
> cellular phone systems do not pass music well at all. And who uses a
> landline anymore.

Me. I don't use a cellphone, except for parts. I have one real
landline & one 'Magic Jack Plus'.

[tm]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5f6dneFvO_bFYjnN...@earthlink.com...

I have one of the old magic jack units but never use it. Quality is way too
poor. How well does the new one work?

We now have Fios and cell phones. The Fios has TV, Internet, and phone in a
package.

[Martin Riddle]

We had received the firmware from instekamerica. We went thru the
local dealer. But contact the sales guys at www.instekamerica.com
If that does not work then I can see if the contact I had is willing
to help.

BTW, we have a GDS-1102A FW rev 1.13

Cheers

[Michael A. Terrell]

tm wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5f6dneFvO_bFYjnN...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > tm wrote:
> >>
> >> The one that really irks me is the music-on-hold. The codecs used in
> >> cellular phone systems do not pass music well at all. And who uses a
> >> landline anymore.
> >
> >
> > Me. I don't use a cellphone, except for parts. I have one real
> > landline & one 'Magic Jack Plus'.
>
> I have one of the old magic jack units but never use it. Quality is way too
> poor. How well does the new one work?

it's excellent, unless I'm talking to somome on a cheap cell phone.
It has an ethernet interface and is plugged into my broadband router.
Much higher quality that the USB only version.

> We now have Fios and cell phones. The Fios has TV, Internet, and phone in a
> package.

You can use the Magic Jack with that to give you a local number in
another part of the country. Like where retired relatives live, so it's
a local call for them.

[tm]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:3qSdnbrBHbRAuTjN...@earthlink.com...

Thanks for the info. I might give one another try. I can see where the
Ethernet version would be the better than the USB unit.

When they came out, I picked up a bunch to give out for X-mas presents. I
suspect they were used just for making long distance calls.

[Rich Webb]

Let me ping around a little first. The current 'scope and firmware is
working okay other than the annoying auto-level but there must have been
*some* additional purpose in the updates, so it's worth rooting around a
bit more.

[Michael A. Terrell]

It only takes a few calls to use upi the $60 first year cost for the
M-J-Plus. :)


My reason for buying it is that if I'm going to be somewhere all day,
or for a few days I can take my local number with me. They would have
been great when I was building broadcast stations in other cities. I
could have still got all my business calls, and called all over the
country to find parts.

[Les Cargill]

It shouldn't matter.

> When they came out, I picked up a bunch to give out for X-mas presents.
> I suspect they were used just for making long distance calls.
>
>

Meh. They're all but unnecessary - Skype and things like Yahoo Voice
work a treat. I say that - I always have a mic and speakers connected
to my PC, so the whole "use a handset" thing doesn't enter into my
calculations.

My eldest worked for a highly international foundation, and got
them on Skype, saving a bunche of money.

--
Les Cargill

[rickman]

> landline& one 'Magic Jack Plus'.

I still have a land line for the business... but I find the cord just
doesn't reach as far as I want and gets tangled in the steering wheel.
Using it does get me around the hands-free cell phone law in Maryland... lol

Rick

[SMS]

On 11/13/2012 9:43 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> They require membership and passwords and logins to see even basic
> stuff like scope specs. And if you do try to register, they whine that
> your password is insufficiently strong.

Surely you have a fake name, disposable e-mail address, and a bogus
phone number to use for these situations.

[mpm]

Which - if you think about it - makes the password LESS SECURE!
With so many rules, you basically have to write it down someplace.
At least 1 upper case, 1 lower case, 1 number, 1 special character, no obvious consecutive strings, etc... Aargh. By that measure alone, my ATM PIN is much more secure, even at only 4 numeric characters. I need not worry that someone will one day come across that file or slip of paper storing all my passwords.

The IT drones think their approach is more secure, but I doubt it.

Then again, maybe they have a different type of security in mind?
I'll bet the help desks stay plenty busy with folks who can't remember their passwords, or where they scribbled them down!!

-mpm

[Michael A. Terrell]

Really? The USB version transmits or receives, no duplex operation.
It's latency is about a half second longer that the Ethernet version.

> > When they came out, I picked up a bunch to give out for X-mas presents.
> > I suspect they were used just for making long distance calls.
> >
> >
>
> Meh. They're all but unnecessary - Skype and things like Yahoo Voice
> work a treat. I say that - I always have a mic and speakers connected
> to my PC, so the whole "use a handset" thing doesn't enter into my
> calculations.
>
> My eldest worked for a highly international foundation, and got

> them on Skype, saving a bunch of money.


Let's see you use Skype or Yahoo Voice without a computer powered up
and the software installed. All I need is a corded or cordless phone to
answer or make calls. The other party doesn't need a computer or a
Magic Jack. It connects to any landline or cell phone in the US.

You'll use a hell of a lot more than $20 a year in electricity if you
have to leave the computer on just to make & receive calls. Also, Magic
Jack can be registered with 911. Your half assed, free VOIP services
can't.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Good for you. Only an idiot talks & drives at the same time. Even
'Jethro' discovered that wired phones make piss poor mobile phones.

[Les Cargill]

A *HALF a *SECOND*???? Holy cow. I had no idea. Okay, that's
not verging on unusable, that is unusable. At that latency you have to
say "over" when you are done talking.

>>> When they came out, I picked up a bunch to give out for X-mas presents.
>>> I suspect they were used just for making long distance calls.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Meh. They're all but unnecessary - Skype and things like Yahoo Voice
>> work a treat. I say that - I always have a mic and speakers connected
>> to my PC, so the whole "use a handset" thing doesn't enter into my
>> calculations.
>>
>> My eldest worked for a highly international foundation, and got
>> them on Skype, saving a bunch of money.
>
>
> Let's see you use Skype or Yahoo Voice without a computer powered up
> and the software installed.

Well, yeah.

> All I need is a corded or cordless phone to
> answer or make calls. The other party doesn't need a computer or a
> Magic Jack. It connects to any landline or cell phone in the US.
>

So does Yahoo Voice if you pay to get it routed through a gateway in
New Mexico.

> You'll use a hell of a lot more than $20 a year in electricity if you
> have to leave the computer on just to make & receive calls. Also, Magic
> Jack can be registered with 911. Your half assed, free VOIP services
> can't.
>

That's what the cell phone is for....

--
Les Cargill

[Michael A. Terrell]

Do you get that service for $20 a year?

[Les Cargill]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
<snip>

>>
>> That's what the cell phone is for....
>
>
> Do you get that service for $20 a year?
>

No... I get it because She Who Must be Obeyed told me to
take the ruddy thing :)

--
Les Cargill

[Michael A. Terrell]

Les Cargill wrote:
>
> No... I get it because She Who Must be Obeyed told me to
> take the ruddy thing :)

How about when the cell site is overloaded, or out of reliable range?

[Les Cargill]

Then it fails. We now have VoIP built into the cable modem; yahoo voice
was relevant when I was working remote contract and we'd need a line
for longer calls. We might coordinate a landline call over
the cel phone, though.

I am very glad that MagicJack works well for you. It's a great service
and I have no idea how they do it at that price.

--
Les Cargill

[JW]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:06:51 -0500 Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in Message id:
<QdydnRG5qepWUTnN...@supernews.com>:

>I've been using my newish TDS694C to wring out an ultrasensitive preamp
>board, and it really is a thing of great beauty. Nice snappy control
>response, 2 MB of sample memory, 10 Gs/s simultaneously on 4 channels,
>125 ps rise times with beautiful Gaussian-looking edges.

OK, you made me look. The only memory option on the 694C was 1M which is
120K points. There was no option 2M for any 6XX scope, and option 1M was
only offered on the 694C.

[Phil Hobbs]

Right y'are, gov. Option 2M is on the TDS 5xxD and 7xxD (8M samples).

Being pretty much an analogue guy, 120k points per channel is way more
than I usually need.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

[josephkk]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:24:42 -0500, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> You must be doing something seriously wrong-- I get $1.92 with just a
>> few clicks (assuming a more-or-less normal letter envelope).
>>
>> http://ircalc.usps.com/MailServices.aspx?country=10063&m=1&p=0&o=2

>>
>>> So I just doubled the usual postage and crossed
>>> my fingers that it's enough.
>>

>> Maybe you tried to put a decimal in the weight field? I don't think I
>> would ever try that.. probably wouldn't work.. just round it up to
>> the next ounce.
>
>Now that might be a programmer issue. Silly to not let a user include
>fractions of an ounce. Expecting a user to know that this value has to
>be rounded and giving an error like, "no product was selected" is total
>crap!

Garbage error messages is a long standing problem, but it has become very
pervasive of late.

?-)