New GW Instek GDS-2000E oscilloscope released

[Hydrawerk]

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E
As usually, there is no fine vertical or horizontal setting AFAIK. I think there is also no Trigger out BNC.
There is no price specified yet.

[Hydrawerk]

 

[Hydrawerk]

Videos made by GW Instek staff. They still use that old VGA camera with 480p lines.

[rf-loop]

Fixed GW advertising image. Added Siglent image in accordance with the way that GW use.
When one reads  Rigol ad...
When one reads  GW ad...
What can I say about Siglent after I read these ads... Siglent have NORMAL noise level and nothing else.
I have no superlatives because Rigol and GW have consumed them to the end without any true reason.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000E looks like a simplified version of GDS-2000A. The logic analyzer, function generator and training signals were removed, but some new features were added.
PROS:
+Standard 10Mpoints per channel and VPO Waveform Display Technology (but unspecified number of colors)
+Waveform Update Rate of 120,000 wfm/s (unspecified conditions, probably one channel at certain time/div)
+FFT with Maximum 1M points to Provide Higher Frequency Domain Resolution Measurement
+Low Background Noise (probably)
+29,000 Sections of Segmented Memory and Waveform Search Functions
+I2C/SPI/UART/CAN/LIN Serial Bus Trigger and Decoding Function as standard probably
+Data Log Function Tracks Signal Changes Up To 100 hours
+Position and trigger knobs are pushable
CONS:
-No auto record length
-No fine vertical or horizontal settings
-No plugin module rear slot, no VGA or DVI monitor output
-Small cooling fan
-No high resolution acquire mode
-No color gradation feature (not a big deal for me)
-Serial decoding event table overlays waveforms
-No Trig Out BNC, therefore no easy way to measure the waveform update rate. This is strange. I think that all scopes with great waveform update rate have the Trigger Output.
 (But there might be another method.)

See the user manual.

[EEVblog]

They really do need a good industrial designer to improve the looks of their scopes. They are just so, bland 

[Hydrawerk]

The front panel is apparently inspired by Tektronix scopes. But I do not like the position of Autoset button on GDS-2000E. I think I would be accidentaly pushing that.

On Tektronix scopes the Autoset button is lower and less likely to be pressed accidentaly.

[JohnnyBerg]

Is this scoop suposed to be a competitor for RIGOL DS1054Z?

[Hydrawerk]

Well, I am not sure what this means.

1GSa/s Real-Time Sampling Rate for Each Channel (2ch model) ; 1GSa/s Maximum Real-Time Sampling Rate (4ch model)

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000E
Probably 4×500MSa/s??
The price is still unknown. I do not think it is suposed to be a competitor for RIGOL DS1054Z. GW Instek is a bit weird, but it is not a hobby brand. The quality and lifespan is probably good, but it is not a bang per buck and not very modern design.

[tautech]

But I do not like the position of Autoset button on GDS-2000E. I think I would be accidentaly pushing that.
On Tektronix scopes the Autoset button is lower and less likely to be pressed accidentaly.

This problem was addressed very well with the Siglent SDS2000 series were they recessed both the Autoset and Default setup buttons.
Very little chance of any activation other than deliberate.

[Hydrawerk]

Here are the prices. http://www.testequity.com/products/24190/
It is a bit more expensive than Rigol DS1000Z. Although the GDS-2000E does not have a  WOW factor and the front panel is boring, I think that it might be a valuable instrument. Probably no other scope in this cathegory has I2C/SPI/UART/CAN/LIN Decoding and Analysis as standard. If you do not need a function generator, logic analyzer or fine vertical settings, this might be the right scope for you.

[dadler]

4 channels+CAN decoding could be quite useful. To get that combination you have to move way up the Rigol line.

[Hydrawerk]

Not a surprise for me but I still wonder why there is no warranty on the LCD. Come on, most LCDs last more than three years. Picture taken from the brochure.
GDS-2000A is the same. Picture

[gildasd]

They really do need a good industrial designer to improve the looks of their scopes. They are just so, bland 

I'm an industrial designer (studying other stuff now, be yes, I am one, did mostly furniture for shops and the shops themselves for over 10 years):
And I think they have a design partner, but the priorities are wrong.
Let me explain:
A scope is a tool; you wire up, do things, mod a setting, do things, repeat Xn times.
For that result, the designer must conceive something that is intuitive, simple, logical.
If a "normal" user has to get the manual out for simple tasks, the designer has lost.
All the while also making sure that:
- Marketing/sales can sell it.
- Is in the budget, can be scaled.
- Engineers can make it happen, even if the designer needs to push them outside their comfort zone.
- Will fit within the tools set for production (injection, fabrication to assembly) - even if by using standard tools in a novel way.
- The form factor, the shape must be an added value, even if it's just a tool. People like nice tools.
- Make sure that it has the big bosses pet peeve sorted so that it gets rubber stamped ASAP.
- etc...
A good designer is an interface between selling, buying, penny counting, aesthetics, usage, industrialisation and decision takers. Not an artist, not an engineer.
So if I analyse this "object", this is what I see:
- The first "error" I see is the lack of contrast: those greys are neat and non offensive, but the eye has to search.
Solution, ditch the medium grey and use black or very dark grey, make the light grey medium.
- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.
- The big fat name on top of the screen. Why? The costumer has bought the scope, does he really need to be reminded of the brand ALL the time? Selling is done, now costumer satisfaction must take over.
Plus that's valuable work space that should be left flat and just the width of masking tape to write stuff (all good mixing desks have this).
Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?
- Lack of reference points on the knobs, even if the pots are 10 turns, put a black dot on them for visual reference FFS!
- Power button MUST BE CONTRASTED, black or red for those "OHFAKOHFAKOHFAK" moments we all have had.
- I don't get the bottom of the scope; it seems to be designed by somebody else.
- Punch the dude who thought it was good idea to put 28% grey text on a 30% grey back ground. Seriously, punch him.
- Why do the vents have to be 1980's IBM bland? It costs the same, and they are as efficient (or more) with shapes lifted from aircraft's or F1 cars.
- An yeah, the side/rear mouldings are not aligned with anything in the front... My 1st boss would have slapped me and made me wash his car for this.
- Could go on and on...

The crux of the problem is that this kind of product MUST be designed with the premise of; "I'm drunk and I've lost my glasses, could I still use this tool? Does it still look good? Or do I want to spew all over it?".

A good designer will solve these issues, while playing the aesthetic chess to stay ahead.
A bad designer will solve these issues, then attempt to "prettify it" at the end. This is how 90% of products are made and why they look like crap or/and are bland.

Rant over.

[Wuerstchenhund]

As someone who's not a designer but has experience in HMI design and Human Factors (and dealing with product designers!) I have to disagree with some of your conclusions:

- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.

No, it's not. Aside from the fact that the individual channel controls are clearly visually separated, the color labels are certainly big enough to be recognizable even when twiddling the knob. In addition, the input connectors are even below the related controls, so in reality there's really very little chance to get confused.

- The big fat name on top of the screen. Why? The costumer has bought the scope, does he really need to be reminded of the brand ALL the time? Selling is done, now costumer satisfaction must take over.

As a product designer you should know that such labeling is critical for brand recognition, which doesn't suddenly stop when the customer has forked over the money for the product. First, you want to remind the customer every time he uses your product (which he probably will do often if he likes it) that it is your brand and not someone else's who made it so that he will consider your brand again for future purchases. Second, you also want others to see who made that product the owner will probably talk positively about, so that your product and your brand show presence in the market space and raise brand awareness with others (which might remember your brand when they shop for a scope themselves). Furthermore, a large market presence also raises the perceived brand status.

That's why everything that's made today is carrying large brand labels, no matter if it's scopes, computers, TVs, industrial machines, clothing whatever.

In addition, for a scope it often helps when the basic parameters like analog bandwidth and sample rate are printed on the device so that occasional users know the primary limitations of the scope without having to check sales brochures or the manual (or finding out after hours of fault finding that the bandwidth was just too low for the task).

Plus that's valuable work space that should be left flat and just the width of masking tape to write stuff (all good mixing desks have this).

Well, the thing is that this is a scope, not a mixing desk, and scopes are rarely used as surfaces to write stuff down.

And frankly, if you really consider the fascia above the display of a scope as "work space" then I'd have to say you have no idea how a scope is actually used.

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

What relevance has what's going on in these meetings for the design and usability aspects of the product? Exactly, nothing.

- Lack of reference points on the knobs, even if the pots are 10 turns, put a black dot on them for visual reference FFS!

Certainly not. Like in most scopes made in the last 25 years or so these knobs are very likely encoders, not pots (again, it's NOT a mixing desk!), and with encoders it's the turning direction and speed that decides how a parameter changes, not the knob position. Putting a position marker on a reference less control is confusing (as it implies referencing where there is none).

Things like that are actually a pretty basic 'Don't!' in UX design and Human Factors.

- Power button MUST BE CONTRASTED, black or red for those "OHFAKOHFAKOHFAK" moments we all have had.

Aside that a bright large round button surrounded by a dark area is pretty well contrasted, there's no reason why the button needs to be colored. In Electronics, red as a color also has certain established associations, i.e. positive voltage input on a DMM. As a product designer you have to be very careful with using colors that have established associations.

The other thing is that accidentally pressing the power button isn't really a 'OMG' moment. Just press it again and the scope will very likely be in the same state as before you pressed the button.

And BTW, that button is already well separated from all the other controls so it's unlikely to cause confusion.

- Punch the dude who thought it was good idea to put 28% grey text on a 30% grey back ground. Seriously, punch him.

I'm not sure what you're up to as based on the image the readability of the labeling seems to be fine.

- Why do the vents have to be 1980's IBM bland? It costs the same, and they are as efficient (or more) with shapes lifted from aircraft's or F1 cars.

And what exactly is the association of a bench top scope with aircraft or F1 race cars? Right, there is none.

And it's not that bland vents stopped IBM from being the largest computer vendor in the 1980's. In fact, what you call "bland" was a pretty clear design language which was instantly recognizable and became somewhat of IBM's trade mark.

Really, I can't see any the problem with the vents on that scope. They are designed in clear lines, which might be a bit boring, but as long as they are sufficient to provide adequate ventilation their shape is a non-issue.

- Could go on and on...

I'm sure you could. But in my opinion some of your comments show what's often wrong with product design, especially those where you showed a complete disregard for basic interface design and HF principles, or product usage (not that you're alone with that amongst product designers). It reminds me on the Simpsons episode where Homer is tasked to design a car, which inevitably ended in an overpriced train wreck.

A good designer will solve these issues, while playing the aesthetic chess to stay ahead.
A bad designer will solve these issues, then attempt to "prettify it" at the end. This is how 90% of products are made and why they look like crap or/and are bland.

A good product designer actually learning how similar products are used and what the established expectations and associations are before starting to design a new product. A good designer knows about the importance of usability and regularly consults with a UX/Human Factor specialist for usability assessments to make sure the new product is not another 'form follows function' debacle that looks great in a design museum but is crap for use. That means a good designer is well aware that aesthetic style should never trump functionality, and that design without a relation to the product (i.e. F1 car vents) is soul-less.

I haven't seen this scope in reality, so all I say is based on the above picture (and of course I haven't seen the UI which still could be horrible), but I'd say that the scope's design, while indeed being bland and boring, is perfectly fine from a functionality point of view. And for T&M kit, the latter is what counts, not some construed association with aircraft or race cars. Could it have been less ugly? Certainly. But it's not a sales stopper for a scope.

[andersm]

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

Doing that would force the UI of the LA and non-LA models to be very different, and that's no good. It would probably also mean significant extra tooling costs.

[gildasd]

 (I won't quote - it would make the darn thing too long)
- About the colour coding:
I think we can agree to disagree, I think what the Instek is well aligned and organised (compared to the Tek above) but I still think in a stress situation, one could get confused. Humans "read" things by contrast colour and shape, little blobs of colour look childish and are insufficient - in my opinion.
- The name thing.
I designed a few things for a big name optics company a few years back, and did this on a product (lens case), and the CEO explained to me that high viz logos are a must for shopfronts, advertising, packaging BUT once the client has the product, it should be more subtle and fade to the second level, Leica does this famously with a single red dot, Canon with a red band on their lenses, Pentax with a Green one, Apple with just an apple. These firms have collectively sunk hundreds of millions making sure of this, so there must be some truth to it.
- The tape thing:
When I was a kid, I visited a few factories with my dad (who worked for Vishay at the time) and noticed that some labs did this (but others did not). I thought it was brilliant and why the hell had I not thought of it before for my tools. In my design career, when I was working with machines, I did it all the time, much faster/more efficient than putting it on a Post-it that's going to fall off and get lost. It was not for writing a novel, but more putting a mark for something. Once again, I just like to give the costumer the option to do so. If they don't use it, that's fine.
- The logo space.
This is not usability related (except getting rid of some visual clutter around the screen). This industry seems to have, more than some others, marketing executives who love having a play space. I'd rather not fight this, and give it to them there BUT ask for the important specs (for marketing AND the client in the lab) to be readable at 150cm by an 8/10 adult. This is how I would do it, your way is also valid.
-Black dot.
You're right, but I like having that, it just gives me more situational awareness. So I'm wrong, but I'd put a small blob of black epoxy on each knob if that scope was mine, it does not mean anything, it's just visual reference.
- Power button.
You're right.
-Grey stuff.
I can't read what's under the vertical position knobs and what's around the trigger. Well, I can, if I put my nose on my screen. I think that you are wrong here. But this is a common design error; it probably is perfectly readable during design both in 2D 3D but is not in real life. I have made this mistake myself.
- Vent shape (and general design).
I totally disagree with you. It costs the same to make something pleasing to the eye as it is to make it ugly.
It should not, of course be all swooshing curves, but subtle touches that make it more desirable and maybe even make it better in the process (venturi cone on the fan inlet would make it more efficient and quiet for example).
- The on and on part.
I don't think we understand each other here; interface design is the CORE of my rant, I love working on physical interaction (oh the arguments I would get into about key slot position and ease of use - and cleaning - work furniture), I'm just thinking of how to do this better - and make the product more aesthetic at the same time, as a BONUS.

In the last part we are in agreement, this is exactly how i would do it. But on top of this, I would do a fact finding mission on equipment with similar interface, BUT a different usage. In this case, I would look at civilian aircraft cockpit of Boeing 777 or later and ask a few pilot if they have problems with the interface. Then take this info and add it into my product IF relevant. I've proposed hinges for massive museum displays cases based on the ones used on Seafury folding wings, it's not stupid to look outside your industry for inspiration - especially where hundreds of millions have all ready been spent. Modesty about maybe not having the best solution is paramount.

I was not your regular product designer, I always thought of everything as a "machine to do", not as something to please my art and/or self promotion. So I'm pretty crap at designing stuff that just meant to please the eye. It's not my thing.
Furthermore, I conceived my position as an "interface", to make something that all departments can agree on, yet make it as aesthetic and saleable as possible.

[gildasd]

Furthermore, the real estate between the power button and the USB is taller, so marketing can put a big arsed logo and lots of wank words that will give them hard ons during hour slong meetings about, er, what do they do in those meetings?

Doing that would force the UI of the LA and non-LA models to be very different, and that's no good. It would probably also mean significant extra tooling costs.

You're right. Point taken. Another solution would need to be found.

[Wuerstchenhund]

- About the colour coding:
I think we can agree to disagree, I think what the Instek is well aligned and organised (compared to the Tek above) but I still think in a stress situation, one could get confused. Humans "read" things by contrast colour and shape, little blobs of colour look childish and are insufficient - in my opinion.

I'm not saying it doesn't look a bit childish (well, the whole scope looks to me like a toy) and couldn't be improved, but usability-wise I think it's fine.

- The name thing.
I designed a few things for a big name optics company a few years back, and did this on a product (lens case), and the CEO explained to me that high viz logos are a must for shopfronts, advertising, packaging BUT once the client has the product, it should be more subtle and fade to the second level, Leica does this famously with a single red dot, Canon with a red band on their lenses, Pentax with a Green one, Apple with just an apple. These firms have collectively sunk hundreds of millions making sure of this, so there must be some truth to it.

Yes, but the difference is that Apple and Leica already have a very strong brand, something they have built up in several decades. But they are an exception, not the norm, which has been clearly shown everytime someone else tried to copy Apple's success. Even when the products are equal in terms of design and performance, they will never sell as well as the Apple equivalent. Leica has a similar reputation in the photography world.

Going back to the scope in question, none of this applies to GW Instek. They are not exactly a young brand but even today many engineers don't know them. You might even find that Rigol and Siglent have a stronger brand awareness than Instek. All three have in common that, unlike Apple and Leica, they can't rely on their logo being widely recognized. Even the big brands (i.e. Agilent/Keysight) can't rely on its logo alone for a product being recognized as an Agilent/Keysight product. In fact, the same is probably true for the majority of brands out there.

As to the "aggressiveness" of the branding itself, it's easy to see why customers of optical products don't want the logo screaming in their face, especially when kit is later on exposed to consumers (i.e. optical gear for a ophthalmologist). For test gear however I want the branding (with model number) to be clearly visible even from a few meters away. Again, the T&M market is different than other markets in these things, also because it's one of the least aesthetics-conscious markets in existence. To be successful in that market, aesthetics are essentially at the bottom end of the list of relevant criteria (as long as certain lines aren't crossed). I'm not saying it doesn't help if the instrument doesn't look like crap, but it's not a market where customers would generally pay extra for nicer aesthetics or choose a product over another because of looks. The main things for success in T&M are performance, usability and price, followed closely by external factors like support.

- The tape thing:
When I was a kid, I visited a few factories with my dad (who worked for Vishay at the time) and noticed that some labs did this (but others did not). I thought it was brilliant and why the hell had I not thought of it before for my tools. In my design career, when I was working with machines, I did it all the time, much faster/more efficient than putting it on a Post-it that's going to fall off and get lost. It was not for writing a novel, but more putting a mark for something. Once again, I just like to give the costumer the option to do so. If they don't use it, that's fine.

I often see (and do myself!) something similar where especially with racked kit where people put tape or stickers on to label connectors et such. But that works perfectly fine without having a large white empty space above the screen. If needed people just tape over the manufacturer's branding. It's essentially a non-issue for more than half a century.

-Black dot.
You're right, but I like having that, it just gives me more situational awareness. So I'm wrong, but I'd put a small blob of black epoxy on each knob if that scope was mine, it does not mean anything, it's just visual reference.

The point (ha!) is that it does not give you a reference to anything. For encoders the knob position is absolutely irrelevant, and putting markers on reference-less controls is a violation of well established UX science.

-Grey stuff.
I can't read what's under the vertical position knobs and what's around the trigger. Well, I can, if I put my nose on my screen. I think that you are wrong here. But this is a common design error; it probably is perfectly readable during design both in 2D 3D but is not in real life. I have made this mistake myself.

I guess photos are always a bit difficult for assessing these things, and again, I'm not suggesting that it can't be improved.

- Vent shape (and general design).
I totally disagree with you. It costs the same to make something pleasing to the eye as it is to make it ugly.
It should not, of course be all swooshing curves, but subtle touches that make it more desirable and maybe even make it better in the process (venturi cone on the fan inlet would make it more efficient and quiet for example).

I'm not against different vents, however changes should always have the usability in mind (i.e. the venturi cone which certainly is a good idea) and not to create a perceived association with other things (like F1 cars). My point is that 'bland' vents aren't necessarily a bad thing.

- The on and on part.
I don't think we understand each other here; interface design is the CORE of my rant, I love working on physical interaction (oh the arguments I would get into about key slot position and ease of use - and cleaning - work furniture), I'm just thinking of how to do this better - and make the product more aesthetic at the same time, as a BONUS.

That's commendable, but my experience is that focus on design alone usually ends up in a bad product. And again, this is T&M kit we're talking about, not desks or photographic gear, and the T&M market has certain expectations that don't exist in other markets. There's nothing wrong with making a product aesthetically pleasing but this must never come at the cost of reduced functionality or usability.

I think a good example of design overdone are Rigol scopes like the DS2000, the sharp edges make the front panel feel very cluttered (even though it's actually well grouped together). For me it's design for design's sake, not because it improves the product.

In the last part we are in agreement, this is exactly how i would do it. But on top of this, I would do a fact finding mission on equipment with similar interface, BUT a different usage. In this case, I would look at civilian aircraft cockpit of Boeing 777 or later and ask a few pilot if they have problems with the interface. Then take this info and add it into my product IF relevant.

Well, as a jock I'd have to tell you that there isn't a lot overlap in the cockpit controls of a modern airliner and T&M kit like the scope in question. The problems in a multi-crew cockpit environment are completely different from the challenges an EE faces when using a scope, aside from the fact that, unlike with scopes, a lot of stuff in an aircraft is standardized.

It's of course always commendable if you brighten your horizon outside the box but don't underestimate the danger of focusing on the wrong priorities or concepts instead of what's actually relevant for the product in question.

[Hydrawerk]

Yes, Rigol scopes have an unique design that is not similar to any other brand. While GW Instek seems to be inspired by Tektronix.

[Loboscope]

I would call the design of the GDS-2000E simple, plain, objective, in an unexcitedly manner reduced to the essentials. Smooth and I would guess easy to use (but I do not know the UI). I like this design and the unobtrusive colouring, by this, the user will not be diverted like he would be perhaps by an overcrowded design. Old-fashioned antiquated may be, but in my eyes correct and good adapted for its purpose: technical use.
Freak out design may be good for trendy gadgets or for fashion, but is not so good for professional tools (also not for mixing-consoles).
In my opinion the Logo is not oversized. And the fact, that the Logo is repeated on the screen, is due to the fact that you want  to know the origin of screenshots.

Greetings, Jürgen

[Josh0027]

Hi everyone! Any news about anyone testing this scope, particularly the Serial and I2C decoding? If it is true that this feature comes as standard then this scope is a very good buy indeed.

[Hydrawerk]

Now available at http://www.newark.com/gw-instek/gds-2072e/oscilloscope-70mhz-2-ch-1gsps/dp/39Y8839?ost=GDS-2072E

[AG6QR]

- Colour coding of the channels, the reminder around the scale buttons is insufficient. If your two hands are at the top making a fine adjustment and you have a instant of confusion (it happens even to highly trained fighter pilots, so it happens to all of us), you need to peek under your hands or take one of the instrument to be sure.
A line that goes from the "Position" to the connector is needed. Or coloured knobs. Something.

No, it's not. Aside from the fact that the individual channel controls are clearly visually separated, the color labels are certainly big enough to be recognizable even when twiddling the knob. In addition, the input connectors are even below the related controls, so in reality there's really very little chance to get confused.

Against my better judgment, I'll jump in and make just one point:  The color coding isn't so much to correlate the knobs with the BNC jacks on the scope; those are already correlated by their position, as you point out.  The color coding is to correlate the knobs with the colored traces on the screen, and sometimes with the colored probe ends (that would only work if you put those colored rings on each end of your scope probes.)  Is the color coding adequate?  Maybe.  Could it be made more prominent?  I think so.

And kudos to the scope maker for providing a separate set of knobs for each channel, rather than one single set which is switched by a mode button!

[Mark_O]

Now available at Newark...

It's also available at TEquipment, at a price that's lower than I've seen anywhere else.  And that's before the EEVBlog discount.