Rigol DHO914S vs Siglent SDS1104X-E hands-on (I have both)

[KungFuJosh]

Then we have the situation of a 2017 vs 2023 design......

Don't be silly, everybody knows vintage is better!

[Fungus]

Yeah comparing webservers in touch screen scopes vs normal scopes is like apples vs oranges, they are quite different and require different engineering/programming solutions for usable functionality.

Neither of them should be difficult to use.

nb. We're not talking about using the scope here, obviously that needs knowledge/training, we're talking about using the web browser interface to the 'scope. There's no reason that can't be transparent to the user.

[KungFuJosh]

Neither of them should be difficult to use.

nb. We're not talking about using the scope here, obviously that needs knowledge/training, we're talking about using the web browser interface to the 'scope. There's no reason that can't be transparent to the user.

You're still talking about using the scope. You're specifically talking about using the scope via a web console. One interface or another, you're still controlling the scope. That's the entire point. Yes, web interfaces designed today are better than those designed 6 years ago, at least to some degree.

Neither of them are difficult to use, and both come with learning curves. Nitpicking over something as trivial is using the zoom control on a web browser is silly.

[Fungus]

You're still talking about using the scope. You're specifically talking about using the scope via a web console.

Yes, because that's what the original complaint was.

Somebody couldn't figure out how to use it.

[KungFuJosh]

You're still talking about using the scope. You're specifically talking about using the scope via a web console.

Yes, because that's what the original complaint was.

Somebody couldn't figure out how to use it.

Correct, and then it was explained. 🤷

[asmi]

Yeah comparing webservers in touch screen scopes vs normal scopes is like apples vs oranges, they are quite different and require different engineering/programming solutions for usable functionality.

Yes, and touch interface works much better in web.

Then we have the situation of a 2017 vs 2023 design......

That is manufacturer's problem, not customer's.

[asmi]

That's a comically poor attitude.

That's the reality. Making interface as user-friendly as possible is a manufacturer's problem, not user's.

That's like saying that my lack of skill with an oscilloscope is Siglent's fault. I can't follow the logic there.

Yep, you got it right. If Siglent devices suck so bad that you need to read a manual to use even basic functions, it's place is in the trash bin.

[tautech]

Then we have the situation of a 2017 vs 2023 design......

That is manufacturer's problem, not customer's.

How can that be ?
2 different UI's and physical designs and 2 different webservers < they can never be expected to work the same.
The HW sets what is possible with SW.

[Fungus]

Correct, and then it was explained. 🤷

And apparently I'm the only one who thinks that shouldn't need explaining, that it's badly designed if it does.

Oh, well.

[KungFuJosh]

Correct, and then it was explained. 🤷

And apparently I'm the only one who thinks that shouldn't need explaining, that it's badly designed if it does.

Oh, well.

Well, for one thing, the issue is a screen resolution / browser thing. I agree with you that the dated design of the 2017 scope could be improved, but if a person has an issue using different browsers and that browser's basic functionality, you can't assume the scope manufacturer will cover all those bases.

In the end it's a lazy argument because you and I prefer different scope brands. My SDS2504XP web interface is significantly better, but it's a newer, more expensive touch-screen scope. I do get where you're coming from though, because my hate for rigol was birthed from the 1054Z and it's terrible interface/web console. Obviously the newer stuff gets, the better it is, from both brands.

[asmi]

How can that be ?
2 different UI's and physical designs and 2 different webservers < they can never be expected to work the same.
The HW sets what is possible with SW.

They absolutely can. There are no technical reasons why on-device interface has to match web interface. Infact it SHOULD be different because it's used with different controls, and controls always drive UX (not the other way around). But that seems to be too hard of a concept to grasp by Siglent developers.

[tautech]

How can that be ?
2 different UI's and physical designs and 2 different webservers < they can never be expected to work the same.
The HW sets what is possible with SW.

They absolutely can. There are no technical reasons why on-device interface has to match web interface. Infact it SHOULD be different because it's used with different controls, and controls always drive UX (not the other way around). But that seems to be too hard of a concept to grasp by Siglent developers.

Consider this:
User familiarity with the physical UI is replicated as best as possible with webserver operation. < Is that not desirable ?
Why would a user want/need to learn a different way to operate their instrument ?

[2N3055]

How can that be ?
2 different UI's and physical designs and 2 different webservers < they can never be expected to work the same.
The HW sets what is possible with SW.

They absolutely can. There are no technical reasons why on-device interface has to match web interface. Infact it SHOULD be different because it's used with different controls, and controls always drive UX (not the other way around). But that seems to be too hard of a concept to grasp by Siglent developers.

You do realize that major difference in using two scopes comes from the fact that one is knob based classic design and other is a touch screen scope...

How on earth was Siglent supposed to make GUI in Web look similar to and make it drive like a touchscreen scope made 6 years later... By using time machine?.
When they released that scope it had best Web control on market.

Do you propose that Siglent develops completely different web only interface that does not resemble how scope looks to make it pretend it is a touch screen scope made by different manufacturer?
What the heck are you talking about?

[KungFuJosh]

You do realize that major difference in using two scopes comes from the fact that one is knob based classic design and other is a touch screen scope...

How on earth was Siglent supposed to make GUI in Web look similar to and make it drive like a touchscreen scope made 6 years later... By using time machine?.
When they released that scope it had best Web control on market.

Do you propose that Siglent develops completely different web only interface that does not resemble how scope looks to make it pretend it is a touch screen scope made by different manufacturer?
What the heck are you talking about?

Not only that, but consider the fact that the web console on the touch screen scopes is controlling a virtual mouse on the scope's screen. There is no mouse support on the older scopes, so that entire concept immediately fails.

[Fungus]

Not only that, but consider the fact that the web console on the touch screen scopes is controlling a virtual mouse on the scope's screen. There is no mouse support on the older scopes, so that entire concept immediately fails.

Yes, that's understood.

But... there shouldn't be an excuse for not being able to figure out how to use it via. the web page.

[KungFuJosh]

Not only that, but consider the fact that the web console on the touch screen scopes is controlling a virtual mouse on the scope's screen. There is no mouse support on the older scopes, so that entire concept immediately fails.

Yes, that's understood.

But... there shouldn't be an excuse for not being able to figure out how to use it via. the web page.

That is typically referred to as a PEBKAC error. 🤷

[asmi]

User familiarity with the physical UI is replicated as best as possible with webserver operation. < Is that not desirable ?

Only if it doesn't hurt user experience. Which in this case it does.

Why would a user want/need to learn a different way to operate their instrument ?

Because it leads to better user experience.

[asmi]

You do realize that major difference in using two scopes comes from the fact that one is knob based classic design and other is a touch screen scope...

That is irrelevant.

How on earth was Siglent supposed to make GUI in Web look similar to and make it drive like a touchscreen scope made 6 years later... By using time machine?.

This is only a matter of software update.

When they released that scope it had best Web control on market.

Obviously it sucks.

Do you propose that Siglent develops completely different web only interface that does not resemble how scope looks to make it pretend it is a touch screen scope made by different manufacturer?
What the heck are you talking about?

Now this is pure nonsense. There is no reason why one web interface has to look similar to another one, just that it needs to provide good user experience. It should've been like that in the very beginning, because in 2017 people used the very same controls for web pages that they use today.

[mwb1100]

I'm not a moderator, but I think the oscilloscope web interface war should be dropped.  Or taken to its own thread.

What it is now is people going back and forth saying the equivalent of "less filling"/"tastes great!".

[scopestuff]

Hi Scopestuff!
Please do a  waveform update rate comparison with both, using single/many channels, both with small and max amount of memory depth. Similarly how Perorma01 did it in his in depth review of the 1104x-e just not only with max memory, and also with more than two channels enabled.

Well only if you have the time and motivation, but you were the one who opened tis topic, so I suppose you will not be bored during the next weeks  .

Interesting would be to know also, whether if you zoom in on the Rigol  on the signal vertically, or have it offset, how it affects the measurements including maybe also math. Like if you use the probes for differential measurements with the math channel, and would like to use it that way, can you use and measure the math channel properly? Zooming in out, triggering etc.

Thanks in advance!

I can give it a shot- do you have a link to the post you mentioned? I tried searching for "Perorma01" and couldn't find anything. Just coming back to this thread at the end of the workweek and noticing it's devolved into hyperfixation on web UI, that was definitely not my intent, just something mentioned offhandedly, since I use the scope hands-on most of the time. There are more significant functional differences I'm surprised no one asked about like how segmented memory is handled in each scope, etc.

[tautech]

Hi Scopestuff!
Please do a  waveform update rate comparison with both, using single/many channels, both with small and max amount of memory depth. Similarly how Perorma01 did it in his in depth review of the 1104x-e just not only with max memory, and also with more than two channels enabled.

Well only if you have the time and motivation, but you were the one who opened tis topic, so I suppose you will not be bored during the next weeks  .

Interesting would be to know also, whether if you zoom in on the Rigol  on the signal vertically, or have it offset, how it affects the measurements including maybe also math. Like if you use the probes for differential measurements with the math channel, and would like to use it that way, can you use and measure the math channel properly? Zooming in out, triggering etc.

Thanks in advance!

I can give it a shot- do you have a link to the post you mentioned? I tried searching for "Perorma01" and couldn't find anything.

See reply #5 for the link to Performa01's thread.

[Neutrion]

Thanks for ansvering the question, of course I was talking about Performa01 and not Perorma01. 
This is the link:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/

Now he didn't do much testing with differential measurements, as with 8bit it can be problematic, and theoretically this is where 12 bit could be useful, but reading about all the bugs in the Rigol, I am not shure wheter it is working properly. Talking about general accuracy or measurements with offset channels, or maybe an even slower waveform update rate with math than what we could already see in Daves Test. (It seems that under equal general circumstances and settings the waveform update rate of the DHO is about 1/5-th of the Siglent. but no one did a proper comparison yet.)