The reality is that a 'scope with 3% error is just a scope with 30% error (ie. gaussian filter) that's been derated, has a software filter applied internally, and a different label stuck on the front.
Incidentally I didn't "massively underrate" the bandwidth that is printed on the front, in fact I specifically stated "The oscilloscope can (and probably will) continue to display signals way above the quoted bandwidth."
Seems like you're not sure which side you're one.
nb. Even a Rigol DS1054Z will display something up to about 300mHz. It'll be very very attenuated but it will be there.
BTW my background was largely in RF, and I'm offering this emoji to the assertion that filtering needs to be done in software
That's not what I said at all.
Gaussian filtering obviously doesn't need software - we spend a lot of time and money trying to eliminate it in our hardware.
Brick-wall filtering? If you know how to make a nice brick-wall filter in hardware then I'm sure Tek., et., al. will be very interested.
It seems you are becoming increasingly desperate to "win" an argument and are now resorting to pretending that people have said something, then argued against it. Bizarre! For the record it was actually YOU who said that "a 'scope with 3% error is just a scope with 30% error (ie. gaussian filter) that's been derated". I have maintained all along that an oscilloscope will measure well beyond its bandwidth and am well aware of conventional filtering.
It seems very clear that you have never been a professional in this field. I only mention all this as it appears the forum has quite a few people new to the field, and the concept of bandwidth, rise time, and various other oscilloscope functions is something that seems a little confusing for somebody buying their first oscilloscope. I would strongly suggest they be guided by manufacturer's documents in this regard, and I feel the documents I linked to explain the concepts very well. There are many other documents also on the internet, mainly from EEE sources.
As far as using 4 probes, all set to something different and then swapping them around as required, that would have to be the most stupid thing I've heard in a long time. What Dr Google seems to have forgotten is the trigger will be on the wrong channel when you swap probes. So the assertion is that you'll put one probe down, pick up another, change the trigger, do the measurement, move to the next point, pick up the third probe, change the trigger again, etc etc etc. If you're going to change the trigger source, then why not just change the coupling and use the one probe
Too funny!
When working through a board or even a single IC fault finding you'll be swapping input parameters around all the time, and being able to flick between basic functions is essential for any oscilloscope. For those buying an oscilloscope and doing this type of work I think it would be an important thing to check that you're happy with the interface before buying (or just use an old analogue 'scope
). For those doing more development work where the parameters are more fixed, a multi-input oscilloscope would probably be more suitable. I made that point pages ago, as I came from the former camp where speed is king.
I agree that I'm not a huge fan of touch screens, but have become more used to them over the years. They simply replace buttons in any case, and whether the multi-function button is on the screen or a button next to it really doesn't make much difference in my opinion. Anything that is multi-function will require more key strokes to obtain that function when compared to a dedicated switch, but that's just the nature of the beast I'm afraid.