If that is what you think then you have missed the point. The point is that features on some oscilloscopes may be nothing more than checkbox items with very little practical use.
I haven't missed the point at all.
The point is that you need to assign a value to each of those features for your own personal use.
According to this thread: "FFT" has a value of 10/10 to everybody. That's idiotic.
I'm sorry to have to say this but the only thing that is idiotic is your statement
.
*No-one* in this thread has argued that the DS1000z is a bad scope or not worth buying because its FFT sucks and serial decode is poor, nor has anyone suggested that good FFT is the most important thing in a beginner's scope. Only god knows why the hell you constantly attempt to turn the discussion in a direction as if that was the case. I wonder why this is, I doubt it's a language isse so it looks like there's some kind of agenda here.
The simple point was that FFT on the DS1000z is pretty poor, and while the recent upgrade from 4k to 16k (which in Rigol's term is "High Resolution FFT Deep Memory FFT"
) is nice, it doesn't change the fact that it's still not very useful, something any prospective buyer should be aware of. Does it make the DS1054z a bad scope? Not al all. But it's one (of several) limitations which come from being a very low cost bottom-of-the-barrel scope from a Chinese B-brand. Is that really so hard to understand for you?
For me personally, 4 channels wins.
Right, and because it does so for you it seems you think this must be the same for everyone else, and you already made it clear that you seem to consider any discussion about any of the shortfalls that don't affect you personally as "silly". Talk about a person with blinkers on
You seem have some kind of agenda here (like Mechatrommer), and that doesn't do you any favors to get across any reasonable argument or contribution you might have.
The OP wants a 5 year scope, I reckon he will have a need for 4 channels before any silly FFT. Hard to debug an SPI bus conversation with only 2 channels. Impossible to monitor the power supply, or the CS line at the same time without 4 channels. It is horses for courses. This argument about the FFT is laughable. No one is seriously using an entry level scope as a substitute for a real spectrum analyzer.
The idea that a beginner (probably the biggest audience of these scopes) will not ever want to use the scope's FFT and use a real spectrum analyzer instead is honestly utterly moronic (someone who can't afford more than a $400 scope has the funds for a real SA? Seriously?
). The simple reality is that actually FFT is a very good aid for a beginner as it helps to understand basics i.e. that all non-sine waveforms are actually made up from a set of sine waves. It also helps to identify interference and other issues in your circuits. But for that FFT needs to implemented in a way that's actually useful. Plus having a tool to watch the frequency domain in your scope is often pretty handy, and not all frequency domain measurements are best done with a SA.
As to the four channels, yes its great but it's still a bottom-of-the-barrel scope with a sample rate that drops to 250MSa/s with all four channels enabled, which isn't enough for lots of tasks where four channels would be beneficial.
At the end of the day, it should be remembered that this is not about what we use at home, it's about helping someone else to choose a right scope within his budget that satisfies his requirements, and part of helping is that we talk honest and open about the benefits
*and shortcomings*. So how about we focus on the OP's question instead?
BTW, the OP has $1200 for a scope which means he isn't forced to go for the $400 bottom-of-the-barrel Rigol, so why should he have to live with its shortcomings when he can get something better for his money?