Picoscope- yay or nay?

[David Aurora]

I threw one of these in my element 14 order the other day as a bit of an experiment (long story short- I just bought a Tektronix 576 and it arrived with a smashed CRT, so I've been using various scopes to probe the CRT driver section and test the unit without the CRT. Then I saw that Picoscope lets you do custom probe scaling and has a 10x10 grid like the original CRT and figured this may be a decent temporary solution to get a roughly calibrated approximation of the 576 display)

And yeah, it's been a goddamn train wreck. I'm using an M1 MacBook Pro and it works fine on that side as far as hardware connection, but only with beta software. The catch of course is that it seems like ALL the Mac software they've ever released has been labelled beta, so I suspect there's no proper version coming. And the beta version doesn't do XY, amongst other quirks, so it's useless to me.

Fired up Parallels, no go there (from what I gather the issue is x86 emulation stuff so probably not Picos fault? I don't know, I use a Mac so I'm used to things just working without having to screw around under the hood).

Checked their forum and it's basically just tumbleweeds, lot's of similar questions but no answers.

So yeah, I'm just wondering if people are actually successfully using their stuff without having to write their own software, or if these boxes are more gimmicks for kids that enjoy writing code?

[Marco]

or if these boxes are more gimmicks for kids that enjoy writing code?

That's being a bit harsh on M1 Macbooks.

[moore]

We had a couple that worked fine at my last workplace, 10 years ago.  They are pretty good if you are going to transfer the waveforms anyway in my opinion, or if you have to do something with a laptop for whatever reason.  Software worked fine on PCs.  Macs are frankly always doomed and have been since about 1993 for interfacing to engineering type hardware.  They kept changing the processor, buses interface and OS abstraction layers and all the hardware companies (like NI - LabVIEW started on Mac for pete's sake) just gave up.   Wasn't worth it for 10% market share.  I can get a PC today with RS232 still, piece of cake....

Anyway, point being a new Pico plugged into a Windows laptop I'm sure would work fine out of the box.  We also traded emails with Pico's people and they were helpful, but took a couple of days typically (UK, so overnight from Americas/Asia at least).

[jasonRF]

I’ve used one under Windows for a half dozen years, with several different computers, and the picoscope 6 software works great.  The new picoscope 7 software that is under development works okay too, but I don’t like it as much so haven’t used much at all.

Perhaps they don’t support other operating systems very well?

[David Aurora]

Set it up on another machine (an Intel Mac Mini running boot camp).

Can confirm this thing is hot garbage. Ugh. The clunkiness is straight out of 2003.

Like, OK, sure, you could probably probe an Arduino blink program and see a pulse, cool. Dunno what else you could do with this without wanting to stab someone though.

[boB]

We have something like 3 of the 8 channel 20 MHz Picoscopes for analyzing power electronics.

Not the fastest scopes but we just needed at least 8 channels and could often use more than 8.

Couldn't find anything this inexpensive that did that number of channels.  They work for most things especially where we need to look at lots of gate drive signals etc.  Also has communications decoding that comes in handy some times along with the switching signal displays.

For higher speed, we use regular 4 channel scopes.

Yes, there are features that are desired like being able to annotate the scope screen and name the channels.  If you are color blind, you probably would not want to use one of these scopes.

Just tried to buy another one but looks like Pico Tech is out of parts.

boB

[David Aurora]

...

Yes, there are features that are desired like being able to annotate the scope screen and name the channels.  If you are color blind, you probably would not want to use one of these scopes.

...

"Picoscope- all the hassle of computers, with none of the convenience! Get yours today!"

[edtyler]

I've had a MSO 3206 since 2013. It works quite well and has decent bandwidth plus the ability to capture *very* long record lengths on the digital channels.

At the time 200 MHz, 512 Million sample memory, 1Gs/S sampling, 2 analog, 16 digital channels and an ARB waveform generator was a good deal. It decoded lots of bus protocols.

I still have it and use it occasionally because it is far less bulky than a dedicated scope. I wanted to run it on Linux, and it kind of worked, but the latest code and features were always Windows based (and I hate using Windows). The Linux software worked well enough for what I needed, most of the time.

Overall, I'd recommend their products. As with every tool, you need to understand what you want. This is one of the better PC based scopes. I have other scopes, including a 1GHz Tek 7014 and a 500 Mhz digital scope. Each has a use that it excels at and each has disadvantages in some situations.

[David Aurora]

...

As with every tool, you need to understand what you want.

...

Literally all I wanted to do was plug it into a modern computer and look at signals in XY mode, I didn't think that was a huge ask 

[_Wim_]

I have been using Pico-scopes since more than 20 years (started with an ADC-212 with a parallel port interface). In those early days they were very powerful for their cost and had lots of features vs regular scopes in similar price categories.

Nowadays I do find their software more & more lacking features. If only they had spent there effort on Pico7 to develop new features on Pico6... In my opinion their software should be more like the "Waveforms" software from analog discovery, a bit like a swiss army knive where you know their must be a feature for it, you just have to find it.

Picoscopes are for sure not bad (still like em), but regular scopes of similar price have catched up (and exceeded) in features and don't need a laptop. Like said above, there good if you need a compact portable system or do a lot of postprocessing on the PC. They also have niche products like very high resolution scopes or fully differential inputs scopes which are much harder to find in the regular form factor. Upgrades in software are free, so hopefully when they are finished with porting to Pico7, new features will start to reappear again.

[RoGeorge]

I don't know about Picoscope, but if the beta software for Mac is the only problem, then install Ubuntu, or openSUSE, or maybe Windows, whatever you prefer, as a virtual machine (created with VirtualBox, or maybe with WMware, both free and both doing the same thing, don't know which one would be better for Mac).

Then, install and run the Picoscope software inside the Linux virtual machine you have just created.

Another advantage for using a virtual machine is that you can isolate the VM from Internet, so no risk for broken software caused by unwanted updates.  Virtual machines can also be moved or duplicated on a different computer even with a different OS, offers snapshots for the case you want to mess with the VM OS, etc.

VMs are the best choice for something that is needed to just run, today or in 10 years from now, without messing with updates and without messing your current Mac install.  Unless you run them, VMs are just files.  When you run a VM, you have simultaneously your Mac and the VM running in the same time, as you would have two totally different PCs connected at the same display.  And you can make as many VMs as you need.

You can try virtual machine before ordering the hardware, and see if it feats your needs.

Later Edit:
I was told neither VMware or VirtualBox work on M1 Mac.

[adam4521]

I recently bought a used picoscope, mainly for extra protocol decoding and portability, and screen share scenarios, but also because the one on sale happened to be an MSO version. I think the v7 software when it is finished will work better across platform — I think they’ve built using .net, the Linux package downloaded some mono libraries and seems to work the same as the windows version. I find it comparatively clunky on the regular oscilloscope controls, but the ability to drag around the trigger position on the screen and zoom with the mouse wheel or drawing a box is actually quite nice. Also found nice options to choose linear or log axes on the FFT, and ‘window’ the protocol decode with the cursors (or rulers as picoscope call it). I discovered it was convenient to load up a test serial stream into the AWG, just by pasting 1s and 0s into the editor that I copied from the output of a python generator program.

In all, I agree there are pros and cons, not best for general purpose scope but ‘it can do stuff’.

Picoscope V7 can’t do XY mode yet. But for this to work at all well I imagine the scope has to be in ‘streaming mode’, which means comparatively slow sample speeds (mine maxes at 8.9MSa/s — edit, that’s for one channel, it will be slower for two). Can it keep the display going while streaming? Sounds difficult, maybe that’s why it’s not working yet!

Clever idea to use XY oscilloscope to overcome the broken display. But won’t you need to use an oscilloscope with ‘Z’ axis for blanking? Might be job for analogue oscilloscope.

[Fungus]

I find it comparatively clunky on the regular oscilloscope controls, but the ability to drag around the trigger position on the screen and zoom with the mouse wheel is actually quite nice.

Somebody needs to try a Micsig. 

[2N3055]

Yeah, Picos are controversial theme...

Instead of replying to individual things said, just a few answers in no particular order ..

1. Version 7 is on the way... It is missing X-Y mode and fast persistence mode at this time. Most of the other stuff is already at the level of old v6 software..
2. Many manufacturers simply ignore Mac, and some ignore Linux... It is not a political statement but a fact that those users are not the majority of buyers. Up until some years ago, there was no simple way to make cross compiled app with high performance graphics that is not a game.... That being said, Pico underwent huge project to rewrite their software from the scratch to make it that they have functional software for all 3 platforms, that will have full functional parity on all of them..
3. None of the digital scopes I ever tried had X-Y mode that was as fast and could completely replace CRT scope X-Y mode. For curve tracer stuff they are excellent, but for watching live video not really.. I also guess not many people use it for that nowadays..
4. Picoscopes are used a lot in an industry with custom code. Their API is well defined and well documented. Throughputs are orders of magnitude faster than usual SCPI transfers on any other standalone scope. 
5. They support 30+ protocols decoders at this time..
6. Products are good quality and software upgrades are free.. I still have 12 bit parallel port ADC212. It still works and it was supported by software for 15+years. When I bought it there was not protocols decoding any many other functions..
With years it gained all these functions it didn't have at the purchase time...
7. Like somebody said, if you need 8 ch scope for power applications, there is nothing out there with as good a price..
etc..

Picoscopes are specific product. Some of them are not cheapest and some of them are very good price for the specific functionality. They are good, quality, product with great support. But they might not be what some people need..

[voltsandjolts]

Portable USB scopes are the marmite (love it or hate it) of test equipment, and the picoscopes are the best of the bunch IMO.
I have the variable resolution 5000 series mso and find it to be a very versatile tool. I only use it on Windows.

I've tried V7 but went back to V6. The V7 interface is very washed out, like everything is baby blue or white. Looks like their programmer did the UI and I think it would benefit from a pro UI designer.

[jasonRF]

Set it up on another machine (an Intel Mac Mini running boot camp).

Can confirm this thing is hot garbage. Ugh. The clunkiness is straight out of 2003.

Like, OK, sure, you could probably probe an Arduino blink program and see a pulse, cool. Dunno what else you could do with this without wanting to stab someone though.

It seems that a picoscope is the wrong tool for you. 

Are you able to return it?   If not, it shouldn’t be too hard to sell it and recoup most of your investment.

Jason

[bdunham7]

Literally all I wanted to do was plug it into a modern computer and look at signals in XY mode, I didn't think that was a huge ask 

"I've never done it before and I don't know how, but it should be easy, right?" 

Having done this (extracted and viewed vector video signals from devices with broken CRTs) I can tell you that it is never quite that simple and the results are 'good enough' at best.

Doing it with an analog CRT scope, you need X,Y and Z inputs, otherwise you'll have garbage all over the screen.  For whatever reason, the best instrument I've found for this is a Tek 22xx series scope, using a second scope with an output to monitor and scale the Z input.

Doing it with any DSO is an order of magnitude harder.  First off, if you don't have a Z input, your results will be terrible at best--and Z inputs are not common.  And then when you have mixed vector displays--traces combined with character generators, getting the optimum record length is, well, impossible.  Too long and your display update rate is useless.  Too short and you lose part of the display during the blind time.  And as far as I've ever been able to determine, there's no sweet spot in the middle.  Ugh.

Don't blame your Picoscope.  There's lots of happy Picoscope users out there, but I guarantee you they aren't doing vector graphics on an M1 MacBook.  A netbook with Wndows XP SP3 is more like it.

[boyddotee]

Have to say Yay, they have saved my toot on many occasions out in the field. Wouldn't use them in the office so to speak as the software has always been a bit jank. Mac support is another matter I've no familiarity with, but up win10 it's worked for me.

[BeBuLamar]

I only have the cheapest one they made a 2 channel 10Mhz one. The software works well enough. One thing I don't like about it is that I can set the 0 off center on the vertical axis.

[pigrew]

The PicoScope 6 GUI works pretty well for me on Windows, so yay. That said, their software API  (PicoSDK) feels like it's straight out of the 90s and was a fair pain to use.

The scopes are great for portable debugging (e.g., automotive tech), and to some extent automated testing. However, I still like the physical knobs of a bench oscilloscope.

The only other comparable product I've used is the Digilent Analog Discovery 2. The PicoScope has better hardware, but the AD2's GUI is more comfortable to use.

[David Aurora]

I don't know about Picoscope, but if the beta software for Mac is the only problem, then install Ubuntu, or openSUSE, or maybe Windows, whatever you prefer, as a virtual machine (created with VirtualBox, or maybe with WMware, both free and both doing the same thing, don't know which one would be better for Mac).

Then, install and run the Picoscope software inside the Linux virtual machine you have just created.

Another advantage for using a virtual machine is that you can isolate the VM from Internet, so no risk for broken software caused by unwanted updates.  Virtual machines can also be moved or duplicated on a different computer even with a different OS, offers snapshots for the case you want to mess with the VM OS, etc.

VMs are the best choice for something that is needed to just run, today or in 10 years from now, without messing with updates and without messing your current Mac install.  Unless you run them, VMs are just files.  When you run a VM, you have simultaneously your Mac and the VM running in the same time, as you would have two totally different PCs connected at the same display.  And you can make as many VMs as you need.

You can try virtual machine before ordering the hardware, and see if it feats your needs.

I literally said in my post that I did that, it doesn't work in Windows on an M1 Mac, full stop 

[David Aurora]

I recently bought a used picoscope, mainly for extra protocol decoding and portability, and screen share scenarios, but also because the one on sale happened to be an MSO version. I think the v7 software when it is finished will work better across platform — I think they’ve built using .net, the Linux package downloaded some mono libraries and seems to work the same as the windows version. I find it comparatively clunky on the regular oscilloscope controls, but the ability to drag around the trigger position on the screen and zoom with the mouse wheel or drawing a box is actually quite nice. Also found nice options to choose linear or log axes on the FFT, and ‘window’ the protocol decode with the cursors (or rulers as picoscope call it). I discovered it was convenient to load up a test serial stream into the AWG, just by pasting 1s and 0s into the editor that I copied from the output of a python generator program.

In all, I agree there are pros and cons, not best for general purpose scope but ‘it can do stuff’.

Picoscope V7 can’t do XY mode yet. But for this to work at all well I imagine the scope has to be in ‘streaming mode’, which means comparatively slow sample speeds (mine maxes at 8.9MSa/s — edit, that’s for one channel, it will be slower for two). Can it keep the display going while streaming? Sounds difficult, maybe that’s why it’s not working yet!

Clever idea to use XY oscilloscope to overcome the broken display. But won’t you need to use an oscilloscope with ‘Z’ axis for blanking? Might be job for analogue oscilloscope.

Nope. I've successfully gotten perfectly clear traces off a few analog scopes here as well as my ancient Siglent DSO. I figured if the Siglent can do it the Pico should be able to (and it probably can, it just doesn't have a working version for current Macs)

[David Aurora]

Set it up on another machine (an Intel Mac Mini running boot camp).

Can confirm this thing is hot garbage. Ugh. The clunkiness is straight out of 2003.

Like, OK, sure, you could probably probe an Arduino blink program and see a pulse, cool. Dunno what else you could do with this without wanting to stab someone though.

It seems that a picoscope is the wrong tool for you. 

Are you able to return it?   If not, it shouldn’t be too hard to sell it and recoup most of your investment.

Jason

Yeah, to their credit I've been speaking to them via email and apparently they have a solid returns policy. And given a stable release of 7 is 6+ months away, it feels kind of pointless keeping it sitting in the box that long.

[David Aurora]

Literally all I wanted to do was plug it into a modern computer and look at signals in XY mode, I didn't think that was a huge ask 

"I've never done it before and I don't know how, but it should be easy, right?" 

Having done this (extracted and viewed vector video signals from devices with broken CRTs) I can tell you that it is never quite that simple and the results are 'good enough' at best.

Doing it with an analog CRT scope, you need X,Y and Z inputs, otherwise you'll have garbage all over the screen.  For whatever reason, the best instrument I've found for this is a Tek 22xx series scope, using a second scope with an output to monitor and scale the Z input.

Doing it with any DSO is an order of magnitude harder.  First off, if you don't have a Z input, your results will be terrible at best--and Z inputs are not common.  And then when you have mixed vector displays--traces combined with character generators, getting the optimum record length is, well, impossible.  Too long and your display update rate is useless.  Too short and you lose part of the display during the blind time.  And as far as I've ever been able to determine, there's no sweet spot in the middle.  Ugh.

Don't blame your Picoscope.  There's lots of happy Picoscope users out there, but I guarantee you they aren't doing vector graphics on an M1 MacBook.  A netbook with Wndows XP SP3 is more like it.

Nope, not even close buddy. Pulling clean traces off a curve tracer is a piece of cake, I do it all the time with a standalone curve tracer I already had as well as various octopus testers I've had/made over the years. The issue isn't that it isn't displaying correctly or something, the issue is that XY mode is greyed out on Macs, and the Windows version doesn't work on modern Macs in apps like Parallels. None of this stuff is mentioned on their compatibility page, so unless you do a deep dive before purchase you find out the hard way.

[David Aurora]

The PicoScope 6 GUI works pretty well for me on Windows, so yay. That said, their software API  (PicoSDK) feels like it's straight out of the 90s and was a fair pain to use.

The scopes are great for portable debugging (e.g., automotive tech), and to some extent automated testing. However, I still like the physical knobs of a bench oscilloscope.

The only other comparable product I've used is the Digilent Analog Discovery 2. The PicoScope has better hardware, but the AD2's GUI is more comfortable to use.

Yeah I'm real tempted to try the AD2 instead, it seems a whole lot more professional overall