Full datasheet:
http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/2236537.pdf
Highlights:
1.25Gs/s with 4 channels on
10" 1280x800 touch screen
70, 100, 200 and 300 MHz (but no 50 Ohm input mode so 300MHz is quite useless)
300MHz with passive probes works. And 50R through-terminators are hardly a big deal
Protocol decoding and digital inputs optional
<sigh> Such a shame that scope manufacturers continue to think that protocol decode is optional. Especially when less useful things like FFT are typically standard.
mike:
I do understand arguments for and against this model. For instance, with the Tek USB3 spectrum analyzer, they sell an extremely powerful device and "give away" their software with the 17 basic measurements such a device can make. Then all of the fancier options and decodes cost money feature-by-feature until you're many thousands above the original price. Fine.
I understand. Some of those features are downright awesome, and they are probably very difficult to implement properly.
But we're talking about protocol decoding. This is not rocket surgery. If I gave
this oscilloscope, a pair of headphones, and a 12-pack of red bull to a 2nd or 3rd undergraduate computer science student they could knock out these protocol features in a weekend. The
only reason that such features are still able to be sold as options is because the hardware is locked out against end-user programming.
If someone made one of these oscilloscopes with an API, not only would protocol decode (and probably many other features) be available to everyone for free in the first week, by a month it would probably be capable of tons of other cool things that the manufacturer hasn't yet even imagined.
There is still a huge disconnect with the
FOSS and the electronics hardware and test equipment sectors. FOSS isn't perfect, and it's not for everyone. But it's exactly the markets like hobbyists, semi-professionals, enthusiasts which have benefitted and contributed the most to projects in this sector. And it's exactly the same people who would stand to benefit here.
It's a bit of a shame none of the test equipment manufacturers have the inclination to stand up and innovate in this sector. It's not like this would lead to more effective reverse engineering of the hardware either. There is literally nothing to lose. Almost none of the IP that these companies have implemented in product are totally in the software domain.