And to help EF out...
Other Limitations of the 1000Z to Consider:1) the 2000 has the ability to trigger on USB packets. It can detect SOP, EOP, etc. and trigger on the desired element. It can not
decode a USB signal, but just being able to capture on selected segments can still be useful.
The 1000Z has no USB capability at all.
2) the 2000A has a CAN option, which not only triggers on CAN messages (and even on specific field contents), but also has a full decode capability, error highlighting, etc. While the 2000 (non-A) currently doesn't, it may in a future firmware update.
The 1000Z has no CAN capability, and likely never will.
3) I just noticed that the claimed capability of the 1000Z to handle HDTV signals is bogus. HDTV is either 720P or 1080i, or 1080p. Yet the 1000Z is limited to 480P or 576P (PAL).
Where Rigol got the idea that EDTV signals were HDTV, I don't know. But the claim is false.
~~
Those, along with the missing Measurement History on the previous page, is all I have. And I still think the 1000Z is an excellent product, loaded with features, at a phenomenal price. Unless someone is sure they'll never need a 3rd channel, or finds one of the functional omissions critical (CAN, for example), I think any beginner (and many pros) working with both digital and analog signals would be better off with the 1000Z than the 2000.
IMO, too much of the earlier comparisons (before your purchase) between the two focused simply on raw performance numbers. Possibly because that was so easy to do. The 1000Z was "less good" because it had "only" 24M
sample memory, since the DS2000 had 56M. In that case, I guess the 2000 must be sub-par, because the DS4000 has 140M!
And the 1000Z is substandard because it can "only" sample at 1 GHz, vs. the 2 GHz of the 2000. Which must suck, because the 4000 can sample at up to 4 GSa/s. (Several posters also denigrated the 250 MSa/s limit on the 1000Z in 4-channel mode, then promptly compared that to the 1 GSa/s speed of the 2000 in 2-channel mode.
Why not compare against the speed of the 2000 in 4-channel mode... which is 0 Sa/s?)
And the 2000 kicks butt on the 1000Z, because its max bandwidth is 200 MHz, vs. only 100 MHz on the 1000Z. But that's nothing compared to the 500 MHz bandwidth on the 4000. So I guess the 2000 must be dog meat.
To avoid any confusion, marmad has never participated in any of the bashing of the 1000Z. I think his objectives are the same as mine, which is to present all the pro's and con's in a clear light, and let everyone choose for themself which makes the most sense for them. And I agree with him that if you don't need, and won't use, more than 2 channels, then the 2000 is definitely the better way to go. Even though you're paying 43% more for half the channels, the performance of the 2000 fully justifies it. His comment that while the 2000 sacrifices raw performance numbers to the 4000, it hasn't stripped functionality, is also apt. (Well, it lost Flexray decode and a VGA out, but by and large, they're pretty close.)
OTOH, if 2-channels may
not be enough for things you expect to be doing some of the time, then the set of compromises that Rigol made in bringing out a feature-packed 4-channel scope, for an exceptionally low price, do not invalidate the usability of the instrument. And many would find the extra channels very useful and time-saving, though they've been getting by with only 2 for so long (due to non-affordability of 4-channel devices) they may not recognize situations where the extra channels would provide meaningful insight, or could reduce diagnostic time. (Or say, "dammit", and do their testing in multiple phases, looking at 2 channels at a time, and taking 3-5 times as long. Been there. Done that.)
In my own experience, I have ~9 'scopes, and use them for different purposes. Three are 2-channel, four are 4-channel, one is 8-channel, and one is 18-channel (a 2+16 MSO). (I also have a collection of logic analyzers, and protocol analyzers as well, from 8-136 channels, and use those when appropriate. But that's a different discussion.) I spend about half of my time using 2-channels (sometimes just 1-channel!!). And the other half using 3 or more channels. But that's just me. Your needs and use cases may vary. There's no "one size fits all".
I can assure you though that going for the best possible performance, in lieu of functionality considerations, is often a mistake. Case in point, the "best" scope I own has a 1 GHz bandwith, samples at 5 GSa/s
on all 4-channels, and uses four 3-GHZ probes that at retail (which I sure as heck didn't pay) cost significantly more than a DS2074. And it's one of my
least used scopes.