Is it by design that the resistance measurement in auto range is quite slow?
At times it is pretty annoying to wait for the read out.
In this or any other meter, I don't use auto range unless I have absolutely no idea what range the expected value is in. I set the range to what my expectations are. If it goes out of range, I revert to auto range. If one is debugging something - there is not such a thing as autorange that is fast enough though some are faster than others. ALSO - if you are measuring without a really good contact on what you are testing (this is what the sharp plated probes are for) OR there are charges in capacitors or the circuit is energized in some way, then it could autorange forever because the circuit is changing. That's why oscilloscopes are useful. Keep in mind that for any number of reasons, the meter might be seeing different values from moment to moment.
So you're saying if you had a meter that could auto range nearly instantly, you still wouldn't use it that way? I find that hard to believe. It's going to be slower to have to constantly cycle through the ranges especially if there is only one button to do so.
You state that the meter could see different values. Isn't that the entire point of having the auto range feature? It seems like you are hurting your argument. Auto ranging was a great advancement along with DMMs.
Please stop defending this slow firmware , everybody ( including Dave ) knows that it must be improved .
People don't buy a pretty expensive meter to use it in manual range ... this is a bad joke . You can use it as you want but keep your precious advices for yourself .
Here is an idea - please stop going on and on making the same point over and over and over - without anything actually useful. If you stop why would anyone respond to your junk if you are not writing it? Everybody does not know it must be improved - so don't write what actually is false. It's not "pretty expensive". It's actually about average. It's not a bad joke - your posts are. Practice What you preach except your "advices" are not precious, useful or wanted - so keep them to yourself.
I don't condone his constant pointing out of the slowness either, because we can watch any number of Youtube videos and see some other meters that are "slow" as well. But when you suggest that we use manual ranges as a fix I can see why it would get a reaction. I just ran a test in manual range of a 6800uF capacitor and the 121GW takes 9 seconds to display the value, the ESR70 was 5.5 seconds, the BM235 was 5 seconds and a capacitance meter my grandfather (rest in peace) designed and built from scratch 30 years ago can do it in under 1.5 seconds, and that includes powering it on.
I'm going to assume that after all this time if the speed of the 121GW could be drastically improved, they would have done it already. There are hints of this being the case in some other forum posts I found. Maybe someone could make an official statement and clear the air...