It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.
Yes you can stop and after then zoom out and look if there is...It is difficult to understand how some believe they get more if this upper part of image is hidden and exchanged with some nearly nonsense horizontal bargraph. Or I just have to learn to see the emperor’s new clothes and know how to praise them.
It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.Not having a Siglent/LeCroy/Pico, I can't comment on the practicality aspects between Zoom In and Zoom Out, but this latest skirmish highlights Siglent's decision to not change the behaviour of their Mem Depth setting from "Maximum usable memory" to "User set memory" - IMHO a non-catastrophic bug, but still a bug.
It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.Not having a Siglent/LeCroy/Pico, I can't comment on the practicality aspects between Zoom In and Zoom Out, but this latest skirmish highlights Siglent's decision to not change the behaviour of their Mem Depth setting from "Maximum usable memory" to "User set memory" - IMHO a non-catastrophic bug, but still a bug.No it's a design decision and for good reason and common to all 3 brands.
Any change to current behaviour could impact on specifications optimised by the current design philosophy.
It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.Not having a Siglent/LeCroy/Pico, I can't comment on the practicality aspects between Zoom In and Zoom Out, but this latest skirmish highlights Siglent's decision to not change the behaviour of their Mem Depth setting from "Maximum usable memory" to "User set memory" - IMHO a non-catastrophic bug, but still a bug.No it's a design decision and for good reason and common to all 3 brands.
Any change to current behaviour could impact on specifications optimised by the current design philosophy.No, it doesn't (and not only on Siglent but also for Lecroy and Picoscope scopes). That is the real kicker! So quit the marketing BS. Nobody is buying it. You can't even explain what the benefit is of this so called 'design choice' is anyway.
The reason I know that there are no downsides to adding 'zoom out' is because I have designed & build oscilloscope (like) data acquisition systems.
No it's a design decision and for good reason and common to all 3 brands.
Any change to current behaviour could impact on specifications optimised by the current design philosophy.
It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.Not having a Siglent/LeCroy/Pico, I can't comment on the practicality aspects between Zoom In and Zoom Out, but this latest skirmish highlights Siglent's decision to not change the behaviour of their Mem Depth setting from "Maximum usable memory" to "User set memory" - IMHO a non-catastrophic bug, but still a bug.No it's a design decision and for good reason and common to all 3 brands.
Any change to current behaviour could impact on specifications optimised by the current design philosophy.No, it doesn't (and not only on Siglent but also for Lecroy and Picoscope scopes). That is the real kicker! So quit the marketing BS. Nobody is buying it. You can't even explain what the benefit is of this so called 'design choice' is anyway.
The reason I know that there are no downsides to adding 'zoom out' is because I have designed & build oscilloscope (like) data acquisition systems.
Well, it is a design philosophy, by choice, which defines architecture. And you cannot know how easy is to add something to already released product, unless it is you who designed it or have privileged knowledge.
It is not a design philosophy. Remember that zoom mode can be used to force use of all the memory while the oscilloscope still works the same. All Siglent needs to do is add a flag to the software which causes the memory length to be what the user selected and hide the zoom window.
It is not a design philosophy. Remember that zoom mode can be used to force use of all the memory while the oscilloscope still works the same. All Siglent needs to do is add a flag to the software which causes the memory length to be what the user selected and hide the zoom window. All the lower level logic is already present in the hardware and software. It is a UI change only. If Siglent makes this simple modification then they have a nearly ideal scope.
And for sure you can go raving on about other features but please read back to my 'wide turning circle car' example. Different people have different needs. I rarely (close to never) use search so for me this is not a deal breaker. However I'm not going to ridicule you for 'search on protocol decoding' to be a deal breaker for you. I respect your needs so please respect mine.
That is actually a big compliment, coming from you, as a user with vast experience and who is sometimes very particular about details.
It's been a long standing implementation of capture strategy by LeCroy, Pico scope and Siglent all of which are respected brands in their respective fields.
It allows more power to the user other than in corner use cases.
AFAIK it's still on a low priority list for Siglent to modify to suit those that can't/won't adapt to a different way of reaching the same result.Not having a Siglent/LeCroy/Pico, I can't comment on the practicality aspects between Zoom In and Zoom Out, but this latest skirmish highlights Siglent's decision to not change the behaviour of their Mem Depth setting from "Maximum usable memory" to "User set memory" - IMHO a non-catastrophic bug, but still a bug.No it's a design decision and for good reason and common to all 3 brands.
Any change to current behaviour could impact on specifications optimised by the current design philosophy.No, it doesn't (and not only on Siglent but also for Lecroy and Picoscope scopes). That is the real kicker! So quit the marketing BS. Nobody is buying it. You can't even explain what the benefit is of this so called 'design choice' is anyway.
The reason I know that there are no downsides to adding 'zoom out' is because I have designed & build oscilloscope (like) data acquisition systems.
Well, it is a design philosophy, by choice, which defines architecture. And you cannot know how easy is to add something to already released product, unless it is you who designed it or have privileged knowledge.It is not a design philosophy. Remember that zoom mode can be used to force use of all the memory while the oscilloscope still works the same. All Siglent needs to do is add a flag to the software which causes the memory length to be what the user selected and hide the zoom window.
Boy, that escalated fast.
At any rate, thanks Sinisa and tautech for the additional insights. I still am on the camp of "bug", but I guess that is how I roll... In my DS4014 I can set the full 140Mpts and leave it at that throughout the horizontal range (from 1ns/div to 1000ks/div) and take the penalty on the wfm.
I guess the benefit to Siglent of making this change, is that potential customers that are used to Agilent / Keysight products would no longer miss this feature.
I guess the benefit to Siglent of making this change, is that potential customers that are used to Agilent / Keysight products would no longer miss this feature.It is not just Agilent / Keysight; every other oscilloscope manufacturer out there has zoom-out on their DSOs! Siglent and Lecroy are the outliers who don't have it.
So, Rigol has it too?
It seems to me that it might be a problem to implement it in a responsive way without the magic of the Megazoom tech?
I guess the benefit to Siglent of making this change, is that potential customers that are used to Agilent / Keysight products would no longer miss this feature.It is not just Agilent / Keysight; every other oscilloscope manufacturer out there has zoom-out on their DSOs! Siglent and Lecroy are the outliers who don't have it.
So, Rigol has it too?
But I would presume that changing fundamental features how timebase and acquisitions work, would need massive testing if all the rest of the scope still works as it should.
But I would presume that changing fundamental features how timebase and acquisitions work, would need massive testing if all the rest of the scope still works as it should.
I guess the benefit to Siglent of making this change, is that potential customers that are used to Agilent / Keysight products would no longer miss this feature.It is not just Agilent / Keysight; every other oscilloscope manufacturer out there has zoom-out on their DSOs! Siglent and Lecroy are the outliers who don't have it.
But I would presume that changing fundamental features how timebase and acquisitions work, would need massive testing if all the rest of the scope still works as it should.That's the thing: it is not a big change. Only a some UI changes. All the necessary logic to support zoom-out is allready there. Go sit behind a DSO and enable zoom-mode. You can scroll left/right / change the timebase of the main window without any problem. Now imagine doing the same with the zoom window hidden. What is functionally different? You keep thinking it is a major overhaul and months of work but it isn't. Most of the work is likely for someone at Siglent to change his/her mind and to realise that zoom-out is a standard feature on every DSO of their competitors.
But I would presume that changing fundamental features how timebase and acquisitions work, would need massive testing if all the rest of the scope still works as it should.That's the thing: it is not a big change. Only a some UI changes. All the necessary logic to support zoom-out is allready there. Go sit behind a DSO and enable zoom-mode. You can scroll left/right / change the timebase of the main window without any problem. Now imagine doing the same with the zoom window hidden. What is functionally different? You keep thinking it is a major overhaul and months of work but it isn't. Most of the work is likely for someone at Siglent to change his/her mind and to realise that zoom-out is a standard feature on every DSO of their competitors.
If I remember correctly, you are the person that actually said that you prefer fact that R&S releases software so rarely because it is a sign that they are testing properly. You said it was a sign of quality, and that Chinese manufacturers should test better. I don't know how big overhaul this would be, as I know how software is written. But I do think it is MAJOR change in the core of the system (what is scope of data for measurement? Zoom, gates, full buffer ?) If they do change this ( and I hope they DO ), I would WANT them to do it right and to test the crap out of it...
But I would presume that changing fundamental features how timebase and acquisitions work, would need massive testing if all the rest of the scope still works as it should.That's the thing: it is not a big change. Only a some UI changes. All the necessary logic to support zoom-out is allready there. Go sit behind a DSO and enable zoom-mode. You can scroll left/right / change the timebase of the main window without any problem. Now imagine doing the same with the zoom window hidden. What is functionally different? You keep thinking it is a major overhaul and months of work but it isn't. Most of the work is likely for someone at Siglent to change his/her mind and to realise that zoom-out is a standard feature on every DSO of their competitors.
If I remember correctly, you are the person that actually said that you prefer fact that R&S releases software so rarely because it is a sign that they are testing properly. You said it was a sign of quality, and that Chinese manufacturers should test better. I don't know how big overhaul this would be, as I know how software is written. But I do think it is MAJOR change in the core of the system (what is scope of data for measurement? Zoom, gates, full buffer ?) If they do change this ( and I hope they DO ), I would WANT them to do it right and to test the crap out of it...Sorry but this isn't the subject at all. I claim it is simple to add and now you jump to testing??? It makes no sense at all. 'Zoom out' is simple to add so it is simple to test. You keep grasping straws to justify 'zoom out' is difficult to add. With my software engineering hat on and knowledge about oscilloscope memory management I say it isn't difficult to add because I KNOW it isn't.