Fluke 289 - yet a good investment nowadays?

[jchw4]

Outdated is of little importance for products that still perform their original function.

Simpson 260 still performs its original function. Is is an outdated meter? How many users would agree to swap their current digital meters with Simpson 260 today?

I am pretty sure that majoity of users would disagree with your statement. Users needs and users expectations is what metters.

Also, price and value are two very distinct things. A common mistake is to restrict features to tangible aspects and assume they are the only aggregator of value. Features of a product, especially on the B2B sector which where most of the T&M players are, can also be reliability, track record, documentation, warranty and serviceability (which indeed these meters barely have but that is not exclusive to Fluke).

I am not a B2B. I am just an engeneer looking at what some companies offer and at what price.

If I really need legal papers required for licences, insurance, etc. I might have to buy that meter at the price they want.

But it won't change the fact that it is 20+ years old design. It performs well to the specs of a lawyer and their dog. And they are happy. I will probably just feel robbed.

Why does this make 289 a modern meter? Why do their thermal imagers make 289 any better? Maybe It could be used as a souvenir to remind somebody that they also make good thermal imagers. 

Again, I am not discussing if the 289 is modern or not. I am talking about their strategy for portable meters.

This thread was specifically about 289. Company strategy is probably irrelevant to whether a particular product is outdated.

Promoting a 20+ years old electronic design as a top product is a shame.

We can discuss why they are still doing that. But at the end the answer would be "because they can". It's still irrelevant to a particular model.

[bdunham7]

This thread was specifically about 289. Company strategy is probably irrelevant to whether a particular product is outdated.

Promoting a 20+ years old electronic design as a top product is a shame.

We can discuss why they are still doing that. But at the end the answer would be "because they can". It's still irrelevant to a particular model.

In what way do you feel that the 289 does not measure up as as 'top product' when it comes to handheld DMMs and what competitive products do you think are better? 

As for why they are still producing the same product, do you think every product needs to be continuously updated and every customer wants "the latest" as opposed to the tried and true?  How about the tree trimmer getting a new Stihl chainsaw to replace his 20-year old model that has been overhauled 3X.  Do you think he wants a "new and better" model that he is unfamiliar with? 

Company strategy is not irrelevant.  Very long product cycles are a Fluke feature, not a cynical ploy to avoid paying engineers.  They did respin the main PCBA on the 289 without changing the model number.  They may have to revalidate the product when they change suppliers for certain parts and over a time period like 20 years parts availability becomes an issue.  Keeping a 20+ year old design in production isn't all that easy when you play by the rules. 

[JoeRoy]

It's all down to the price/condition, which is still a secret.

Would I buy a 289 for full price? Never.

Would I buy a 289 for $350? Nope.

Would I buy a 289 for $250? I'd think about it, but probably not because I know I wouldn't use it much.

Would I buy a 289 for $100? Yes, but only if it's not too beat up and dirty. I know I won't use it much so it has to look pretty at least.

YMMV.

Who cares about your price range?!  There is a 0.0001% probability of finding an excellent Fluke 289 for $100 and your "good heart" needs to rape someone naive that doesn't know the correct price.

I have 2 Flukes 289 and 3 Flukes 189 (which I'm selling), the Fluke 289 is one the best DMMs, and is Superior to the Fluke 189 in Everything, the only disadvantage is the screen for the outdoors, but it works fine indoors in a proper lighting lab.  The 189 also consumes a lot of battery, isn't more efficient than 289.

Using a Fluke 289 in Electronics projects, tests, troubleshooting, etc is an excellent choice.  The Return on Investment can be paid quickly, mostly if the work requires several logging measures.

If logging is not so important, I really recommend the Agilent U1272/3A, U1282A, or Brymen 869s.

People who choose tools, mostly based on low price is because can't earn enough to justify the purchase, this happens in ALL Fields: computing, photos, mechanics, chemistry, automobile, music, etc.

https://lygte-info.dk/review/DMMFluke%20289%20UK.html

[JoeRoy]

Myne is 1.16. As Fluke states, it can't receive the newer version of firmware.
Thanks!

When I wrote to Fluke about these firmware versions, they said the difference between 1.16 and 1.41 was just because they changed the PCB. And they guarantee that the Accuracy and everything are the Same on 1.16 and 1.41.

I also bought another 289 1-year ago and I realized they changed the Display, I wrote to Fluke and they confirmed that the new Flukes 289 comes with this new display.

[JoeRoy]

Lo Ohms sounds good but I don't think I get the accuracy being only 2 wire ohm measurement.

I tested measuring 1, 2, and 10 mOhm and matched with my LCR. I use Low Ohms (up to 55R) a lot, very useful.

[jchw4]

This thread was specifically about 289. Company strategy is probably irrelevant to whether a particular product is outdated.

Promoting a 20+ years old electronic design as a top product is a shame.

We can discuss why they are still doing that. But at the end the answer would be "because they can". It's still irrelevant to a particular model.

In what way do you feel that the 289 does not measure up as as 'top product' when it comes to handheld DMMs and what competitive products do you think are better? 

You do not need working alternatives to see that an item is old.

We need  an example. Say we see a horse-drawn railway. I would say that it's clearly outdated. Does it have a direct alternative? No locomotives of a specific gauge, not enough money to totally wipe it and rebuild, a local authority requires a certified cab to work on hay, "This is our strategy!", etc. A zillion issues!

Does it make it modern? No. It's an old stinky unreliable transport. Literally stinky. You know that because you drive your car. You are aware of internal combustion engines and other railroads. Your nose smells the poop.

Getting back to 289. A graphical multimeter. Just look at your phone.

Businesses want their employees to work faster. Slow boot? Not welcome. Slow auto-range? Never. Basic functions require pressing several buttons? It could be a bad joke.
A "fast" 20 years ago just became slow.

Oil companies do not care? Government? Military? They are all slow, but they do care.

As for why they are still producing the same product, do you think every product needs to be continuously updated and every customer wants "the latest" as opposed to the tried and true?  How about the tree trimmer getting a new Stihl chainsaw to replace his 20-year old model that has been overhauled 3X.  Do you think he wants a "new and better" model that he is unfamiliar with? 

He does. His customers want him to use an electric trimmer. The old stinky saw is not welcome anymore in any neighborhood.

Company strategy is not irrelevant.  Very long product cycles are a Fluke feature, not a cynical ploy to avoid paying engineers.  They did respin the main PCBA on the 289 without changing the model number.  They may have to revalidate the product when they change suppliers for certain parts and over a time period like 20 years parts availability becomes an issue.  Keeping a 20+ year old design in production isn't all that easy when you play by the rules.

Should I pay $900 for a multimeter because their strategy suggests that they will make a beautiful IR camera next year? The product is already there. The warranty and support is what matters. It's all in the product papers, not in the strategy. Strategy is for investors. Customers only have terms of contract.

If their own rules prevent them from offering modern products I have bad feelings about their future. But it’s also irrelevant to a particular model.

[JoeRoy]

Businesses want their employees to work faster. Slow boot? Not welcome. Slow auto-range? Never. Basic functions require pressing several buttons? It could be a bad joke.

Fluke, Keysight, Tek, R&S, and many other good-brand instruments, like Scopes, SA, AWG, and even PSUs have a "slow" boot because they have software to be loaded and (maybe) re-calibrated.

My xineze stuff just turns on immediately.  Should companies throw away those good brands to avoid losing 10 seconds per day? (I turn my instruments just once a day, and most go to standby if not used)

I never complained about 289 boot time (which is faster now, since 2022 when they released a new version).  When I turn it on, I use it for a long time.

[BeBuLamar]

I do have something I don't like about the 289 but not because it's old. Slow boot? I feel it's slow 20 years ago. But I do think it's a good meter.

[coromonadalix]

When you see the 187 and 189  going for more than some 287 289   it's getting ridiculous    lolll      Not totally bashing the 289  "slowness" of "bulky size"

If i have to use it   i'll use it  loll

[TELCO]

I own the 117, 87V and 289 from Fluke. My daily basic measurements DMM is the 117, when I go out in the field, I take the trusted 87V and the 289 it is mostly for electronics lab work. IMHO, I think that each DMM has its position in the workplace and Fluke has that statement 100% covered. I.E., if you are an HVAC person there is a specific meter for you, if you work industrial environment then the 87V is your flavor. Every meter from Fluke has been adapted for the specific tasks at hand. As far as other brands of DMM I have tried the OWON DMM/Oscilloscope combo and they are OK, I am currently thinking of buying a UNI-T UT181A. But in the end if you value reliability, accuracy, stability, and accountability of measurement Fluke is the way to go. Not to mention that if you value metrology calibration equipment everyone from here to the moon will calibrate Fluke gear, I am not so sure about the other brands. Then there is the factor of "flavors" you consume what you like: Coca Cola or Pepsi, Ford or Chevy, Toyota, or Nissan? for me personally I trust Fluke. I hope my opinion helps a bit, best regards to all.  

[BeBuLamar]

When you see the 187 and 189  going for more than some 287 289   it's getting ridiculous    lolll      Not totally bashing the 289  "slowness" of "bulky size"

If i have to use it   i'll use it  loll

I don't know if that is going to happen but I was a little pissed off back in 2004 when I just bought the 189. Fluke came to see me and asked me for opinion on their up coming 289. They showed me their simulator on a laptop. It looked good and I felt bad for not waiting for the 289. Now that I had the 289 for a few years now I think the 189 is my favorite.

[JoeRoy]

Fluke came to see me and asked me for opinion on their up coming 289. They showed me their simulator on a laptop. It looked good and I felt bad for not waiting for the 289.

I guess the Fluke 189 II was released way before the 289.  What do they ask for you that they didn't already know?

[BeBuLamar]

Perhaps it was the 189II. It was early in 2004 or so. I didn't remember the model number. They did the research on customer's opinions. They asked me for 1 hour interview and gave me a $100 gift card for my time. They knew I just bought the 189. They asked some questions like do I want to see the temperature in both C and F at the same time. I said no. I would like the choice but don't want to see them both. The simulator on the laptop looked good. It didn't show the problem of poor contrast LCD of the real meter nor the long boot up time. Besides I couldn't tell how big the meter was going to be. The meter is too big as handheld DMM and obviously not a bench top unit.

[jchw4]

Businesses want their employees to work faster. Slow boot? Not welcome. Slow auto-range? Never. Basic functions require pressing several buttons? It could be a bad joke.

Fluke, Keysight, Tek, R&S, and many other good-brand instruments, like Scopes, SA, AWG, and even PSUs have a "slow" boot because they have software to be loaded and (maybe) re-calibrated.

My xineze stuff just turns on immediately.  Should companies throw away those good brands to avoid losing 10 seconds per day? (I turn my instruments just once a day, and most go to standby if not used)

This is not how it works. I see a lot more Rigols around me than KS, Tek, R&S.
Why? Because if a software engineer needs to check whether there is a signal on a the test point once a month they have two options:

• Take their test stuff to the lab 30 feet away (OK, 100ft and there is a distracting coffee machine on the way) to the $ $ $ $ lab scope and poke around waiting for it to become free.
• Get a 1054 on their bench. Maybe 1202 these days.

For $300 it's a no-brainer. Fits the limit on your corporate credit card? Just buy it and don't disturb lab people doing serious staff!

You need something more serious? Rigol 7000 fits your credit card limit? Go for it. Amazon will deliver it next day.
Alternatively you can go ask for a PO and persuade some n-level up boss that you really need it. And wait. And wait.

Would your boss prefer spending your work time working or waiting?

They really do care about time.

[arturmariojr]

As I told before, after working a bit with Fluke 289, I must give the credit to it! Fast and reliable. Some itens I blammed Fluke as outdated, maybe a question of energy saving, like display. LCD consummes less than the always backlighted colored Tft. If you need long periods of logging, this is the way.
Comparing It to Extech GX900, it is superior, although Extech presents a beautifull colored display. ACtually, it seems like a copy with some improvements. But has no events on dataloging, only timed register.
Well, at least it has a newer display and bluetooth connections ready to use.

Fluke has some new meters with bluetooth connection. So, a good improvement would make Fluke 289+ FC. The rest, I can't say if there is a newer processor (the datasheet of MSP430F488 dates from 2002  its user guide is only 990 pages!) with faster ADCs. Probably yes.

Maybe, the last version of 289 already has some hardware improvements (I believe they may had used the MSP430F489, with 20K more memory) - who knows?
As many here stated, improvements are not the focus of Fluke, as their main client seems to be a heavy navy which does not change its way faster too. I hope this keeps as is for many years for Fluke healthy.

[BeBuLamar]

I have the IR3000FC adapter. When you attach it to the 289 (or even the 189) IR serial port it can connect the Fluke Connect App.

[arturmariojr]

This adapter is the dream! But it is so expensive!

Yesterday I was trying 289 with Uni-t bluetooth adapter. But the distance between diodes is bigger.

For USB, the Agilent U5481B IR to USB worked very well with Fluke 289.

[rsjsouza]

Users needs and users expectations is what metters.

Exactly. You are assuming that all users needs and expectations must meet your expectations and desires for new features, updates and bling. Otherwise a product rots, stinks, is outdated/obsolete, the company that manufactures them must have malicious intent, etc. Oh well, your frustration with the success of a company/product that does not fit your wishful dreams is duly noted.

[RolandK]

For me it is clearly visible, that the Fluke 187 and 189 came first with a very good usability:
 + only one button press to get to the secound function, e.g. set to DCV and press the blue button: VDC + VAC in 2nd display.
 + Quick Autorange in Ohm-mode

Then came the 289 and there were some very handsome improvements:
 + 2nd to 4th display with 60000 counts like the 1st display, not only 6000 (eg. DCV + ACV or min/max/avg dto. with peak)
 + better DC A, AC V and AC A accuracy
 + new 50 Ohm range with 0.001 Ohm resolution
 + new 100 Hz , 0.1 ms, 1 ms, 10 ms ranges, duty cycle 1 % to 99.00 % (was 10% to 90%)
 + new LoZ ACV 1000V range with 3,2 kOhm input inpedance against ghost signals.
 + 1kHz low pass filter for AC V + frequency
 + storage from 995 intervalls (707 can be event-driven) to 15000 events (only in the technical data, not in the specification of the user-manual)

Others remained or are only a bit different:
 o same ranges for AC +  DC V + A
 o same burden voltage in A ranges.
 o same or nearly same resolution and accuracy for DCV, resistance, capacitance, diode, frequency
 (-) AC crest factor from 3-6 (full / half range) down to 3-5
 + but you can measure the crest factor in the AC ranges
 
 (+) frequency counter sensitivity for AC A defined (but may be the same for 189)
 + frequency counter ranges doubled at same resolution (eg. from 50.000 kHz to 99.999 kHz)
 (-) frequency counter accuracy is worse (from 0.005% + 1 digit to 0.005% + 5 digit)

 (+) Max Capacitance increase from 50mF to 100mF

 (+) VDC: CMRR from 90 dB to 120 dB,
 - VDC: Normal Mode Rejection from 90 dB to 60 dB
 - VAC: CMRR from 90 dB to 60 dB

 - bigger size with 6 instead of 4 AA batteries
 - display reading angle is as with most LCD display not good. Illumination is good for dark, but eats battery.
 - weight from 528 g to 871 g
 (-) size from 20x10x5 cm to 22x10x6 cm

  and they introduced a menu with 4 function and 4 arrow keys and all that modern things.
  This had some side-effects, which everybody who is using them dislikes:
  slow boot
  instead of one button for 2nd function
      you must press the menu button and
      select what you want with the arrow keys and
      then press "save"
      min. 3 Buttons and you have to look where you are.
  The worse for me is the autorange: Autorange is microcontroller-software, slow like hell, eg. measurement of resistance or voltages in a circuit is annoying.

 So while the measurement technology improved nearly everywhere from the 189 to the 289, the addition of the menu-driven microcontroller with software-realized menu and autorange is a pain in the ass.

I think it went this way:
  Marketing: We need graphical display and modern menu driven user-interface 
  Development: Ah what you mean? 
  Controller: We take a cheap youngster from university and let him make the software. 

Greenhorn with no experience in multimeter-usage or embedded software programming makes the software. 
Use cases and "design follows function" were unknown, software was probably not modular, sparcely documented and when it works it was shipped. 
This was the standard with the introduction of GUIs in embedded realtime systems in the 80's, not fluke specific. 

  Nobody got ever the standing or money to improve it. 

So one of the handheld mutimeters with best features, accuracy and resolution has at the same time one of the worse user interface and autorange speed.

The reality is: there is no "best", everything has pros and cons. Therefore some multimeters with some aspects (here only hp and fluke, others have other aspects) :
fluke:
12 (size)
45 (2nd display)
179 (speed, easy to use)
87 V (field, if 12 to small)
189 (range, accuracy, autorange speed)
289 (features, range, accuracy, 2nd display DC + AC)
8060 (audio, 1 GOhm Rin)
8800 (20 V range with > 1 GOhm input resistance (std is max 10V with 1GOhm), nixie, just for fun)

hp:
3480a with 3484a (20ms autorange speed in ohm / DCV mode, nixie, just for fun)
34401a (accuracy, resolution, no fan)
34411a (accuracy, resolution, autorange / measurement speed, con: fan, price)
3446xa (accuracy, resolution, user interface, con: price, boot time, the 289 is fast boot against that, Windows CE, buildin µC flash ECC error for white front)
3457a (ranges, resolution, no fan, con: slow)
3458a (accuracy, resolution, con: size, price).

[BeBuLamar]

Of the Fluke you listed I am glad I have most of them.
I don't have the 179, 8060 or the 8800. I think I will pass on the 179 which I gain about nothing as compared with the 87V. Also the 8800 as this is a bit too exotic for me as well as cost. I think i would get the 8060 as I found I like the bench top 8050 a lot.

[rsjsouza]

Interestingly, I disliked the 8050 back in the day but loved (and still love) the 8060. Regarding more modern models, the 179 is incredibly well built and very sturdy - I had one but sold it as it was very limited for electronics. The 87V is of the same breed as the 179: incredibly well built. I have one as it is a bit better for mixed use (electronics and electrical systems). I have an 189 and, despite excellent for electronics, it has a lacklustre display (too much empty space with small digits) and it does not feel as sturdy as the other two (which also have excellent displays IMO).

Despite all that, my most complete and favourite meter is the Agilent U1273A - on the shop due for an OLED replacement, though (its Achilles' heel).

[J-R]

Although perhaps not always the case, a singular, niche aspect of a product could be the difference between loving it or hating it.  Or keeping it vs. getting rid of it.