Tektronix is Grrreeaatttt!!!
 

Isn't free speech a wonderful thing? I followed the Tek thread with
interest and am wondering if the whiners actually:

1. Have a use for instruments of this caliber
2. Know how to use them properly

I have used Tektronix instruments for almost 30 years now, and don't
know how I could have got along without them. Most of my work has been
in commercial radio and television.

The manuals are written incredibly well, and I have received
assistance from tech support on devices more than 25 years old. Try
that with Hitachi, Leader or Phillips or Sony. And I could still get
parts for them!

I reflect with fondness on repairing a device like a waveform monitor,
more than 20 years old, and finding a small coil of silver solder on
the chassis in a place that was designed for it, tucked neatly in its
own "home." Tek has used silver solder for decades now...they have
always known it makes a better solder joint...and they want their
stuff to keep on working, 24/7 for years and years. So they put their
money where their mouth is, and provide the end user with what they
consider to be a lifetime supply (for that instrument) of the stuff.

And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.

I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that
"you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and
accuracy of the products they are complaining about.

Merry Chirstmas and Happy Holidays to all.

de WA2AFD

Well stated! Sparks

Well stated! Sparks

In article , haf47
@juno.com says...
And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.


You're wearing rose-colored glasses. They absolutely do destroy older
equipment via the trade-in "bounties" collected by resellers such as
Tucker. This is no secret in the industry.

That doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't make them "suck", but it
does (IMHO) demonstrate a lack of respect for the engineering ethos and
tradition that made the company great, while taking perfectly good
equipment out of the ham/hobbyist community forever.

You could divide the T&M equipment world into two categories: stuff like
logic analyzers and signature analyzers that's pretty much doomed to
obsolescence the minute the first pilot build rolls off the production
line; and gear like oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers that still
serves its original purpose decades after it's out of production. HP,
for instance, made a lot of great test equipment, but a lot of it fell
into the first category and nobody misses it much. For most of its
life, Tektronix focused on the second category: scopes, spectrum
analyzers, video monitoring equipment. In this regard, Tek's main
competition is themselves, which is a problem for them.

Whether I'm a hobbyist or a pro, I can (and do) use an old 2430A DSO and
2467 analog scope to do just about anything I could do with a new $6K
TDS3034B. That means that it's not really in Tek's best interest to
support their customers in their efforts to keep the old gear alive.

I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that
"you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and
accuracy of the products they are complaining about.

If you actually read the thread, you'll see that folks aren't
complaining about the *products* as much they are the company's support
policies and decision-making strategies. Yes, it sucks that they no
longer honor Howard Vollum's lifetime warranty on 535 power
transformers. It sucks that I can't get a replacement U800 for my 2467.
It sucks that they sold the chip foundry to a bottom-feeding IC company
known for promising the moon and delivering press releases. But Tek is
what it is. They still make good scopes, even if they aren't worthy of
the kind of adoration from the engineering community that they used to
enjoy. And their legal department is actually pretty enlightened when
it comes to granting permission to reproduce out-of-print T&M manuals
and documents.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

In article , haf47
@juno.com says...
And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.


You're wearing rose-colored glasses. They absolutely do destroy older
equipment via the trade-in "bounties" collected by resellers such as
Tucker. This is no secret in the industry.

That doesn't make them evil, and it doesn't make them "suck", but it
does (IMHO) demonstrate a lack of respect for the engineering ethos and
tradition that made the company great, while taking perfectly good
equipment out of the ham/hobbyist community forever.

You could divide the T&M equipment world into two categories: stuff like
logic analyzers and signature analyzers that's pretty much doomed to
obsolescence the minute the first pilot build rolls off the production
line; and gear like oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers that still
serves its original purpose decades after it's out of production. HP,
for instance, made a lot of great test equipment, but a lot of it fell
into the first category and nobody misses it much. For most of its
life, Tektronix focused on the second category: scopes, spectrum
analyzers, video monitoring equipment. In this regard, Tek's main
competition is themselves, which is a problem for them.

Whether I'm a hobbyist or a pro, I can (and do) use an old 2430A DSO and
2467 analog scope to do just about anything I could do with a new $6K
TDS3034B. That means that it's not really in Tek's best interest to
support their customers in their efforts to keep the old gear alive.

I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that
"you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and
accuracy of the products they are complaining about.

If you actually read the thread, you'll see that folks aren't
complaining about the *products* as much they are the company's support
policies and decision-making strategies. Yes, it sucks that they no
longer honor Howard Vollum's lifetime warranty on 535 power
transformers. It sucks that I can't get a replacement U800 for my 2467.
It sucks that they sold the chip foundry to a bottom-feeding IC company
known for promising the moon and delivering press releases. But Tek is
what it is. They still make good scopes, even if they aren't worthy of
the kind of adoration from the engineering community that they used to
enjoy. And their legal department is actually pretty enlightened when
it comes to granting permission to reproduce out-of-print T&M manuals
and documents.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

John Miles wrote:
That means that it's not really in Tek's best interest to
support their customers in their efforts to keep the old gear alive.

Isn't this where -- at least in the software arena -- the idea of
maintenance contracts comes in? Granted, the average hobbyist is typically
not going to buy into such a plan, but I would imagine most of Tek's sales
are to companies that would be willing to pay, e.g., 10-30% of the original
equipment cost per year for a guarantee that the equipment will be repaired
free of charge if it breaks. The new equipment is so much software-based as
well these days that Tek could also consider changing for software
upgrades -- although personally I'm quite happy that TDS3000 software
upgrades are free!

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.

It sucks that I can't get a replacement U800 for my 2467.

Ah, but wasn't someone mentioning that some third party is making compatible
replacements? It was supposedly very expensive, but if one person can do
it, surely others can as well -- and will, once there's some demand. Look
at the old computers such as the Commodore 64 -- these days people enjoy not
only completely emulating them in software (doesn't applies to scopes,
obviously) but also building equivalent pieces of hardware in FPGAs (e.g.,
the Commodore One).

---Joel Kolstad

John Miles wrote:
That means that it's not really in Tek's best interest to
support their customers in their efforts to keep the old gear alive.

Isn't this where -- at least in the software arena -- the idea of
maintenance contracts comes in? Granted, the average hobbyist is typically
not going to buy into such a plan, but I would imagine most of Tek's sales
are to companies that would be willing to pay, e.g., 10-30% of the original
equipment cost per year for a guarantee that the equipment will be repaired
free of charge if it breaks. The new equipment is so much software-based as
well these days that Tek could also consider changing for software
upgrades -- although personally I'm quite happy that TDS3000 software
upgrades are free!

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.

It sucks that I can't get a replacement U800 for my 2467.

Ah, but wasn't someone mentioning that some third party is making compatible
replacements? It was supposedly very expensive, but if one person can do
it, surely others can as well -- and will, once there's some demand. Look
at the old computers such as the Commodore 64 -- these days people enjoy not
only completely emulating them in software (doesn't applies to scopes,
obviously) but also building equivalent pieces of hardware in FPGAs (e.g.,
the Commodore One).

---Joel Kolstad

In article ,
says...

In article , haf47
@juno.com says...
And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.


You're wearing rose-colored glasses. They absolutely do destroy older
equipment via the trade-in "bounties" collected by resellers such as
Tucker. This is no secret in the industry.

snip

I would question this statement. I've seen lots of older 'scopes
and other gear at the Tektronix company surplus store, mainly 7000 and
11000 series.

I would be curious to know how much really is destroyed, and how
much makes it into the store's inventory. Perhaps someone who actually
works for Tektronix could comment?


--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
Motorola Radio Programming & Service Available -
http://www.bluefeathertech.com/rf.html
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)

In article ,
says...

In article , haf47
@juno.com says...
And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.


You're wearing rose-colored glasses. They absolutely do destroy older
equipment via the trade-in "bounties" collected by resellers such as
Tucker. This is no secret in the industry.

snip

I would question this statement. I've seen lots of older 'scopes
and other gear at the Tektronix company surplus store, mainly 7000 and
11000 series.

I would be curious to know how much really is destroyed, and how
much makes it into the store's inventory. Perhaps someone who actually
works for Tektronix could comment?


--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
Motorola Radio Programming & Service Available -
http://www.bluefeathertech.com/rf.html
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)

In article , Joel Kolstad JKolstad71
writes

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.
CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed.
Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not
equalled in the digital domain.
--
ddwyer

In article , Joel Kolstad JKolstad71
writes

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.
CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed.
Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not
equalled in the digital domain.
--
ddwyer

ddwyer writes:

CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed.
Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not
equalled in the digital domain.
--
ddwyer

Use both every day. The digital scope (Tek DPO style) is great for analysing,
but sometimes is it a lot easier to find a problem on the old 500MHz 7904.
Once I find the problem signal, I can then set the digital scope to trigger
properly and analyse the details.

The 7904 is the "stand" for the 3054.

Steve.
--
Steven D. Swift, , http://www.novatech-instr.com
NOVATECH INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 55997
206.301.8986, fax 206.363.4367 Seattle, Washington 98155 USA

ddwyer writes:

CRT/Analog scopes are superior in many ways that are seldom discussed.
Dynamic range is equivalent to 24 bits which with 200MHz is not
equalled in the digital domain.
--
ddwyer

Use both every day. The digital scope (Tek DPO style) is great for analysing,
but sometimes is it a lot easier to find a problem on the old 500MHz 7904.
Once I find the problem signal, I can then set the digital scope to trigger
properly and analyse the details.

The 7904 is the "stand" for the 3054.

Steve.
--
Steven D. Swift, , http://www.novatech-instr.com
NOVATECH INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 55997
206.301.8986, fax 206.363.4367 Seattle, Washington 98155 USA

On 8 Dec 2003 08:00:52 -0800 (Howard) wrote:

I have used Tektronix instruments for almost 30 years now, and don't
know how I could have got along without them. Most of my work has been
in commercial radio and television.

While I agree with much of what you say, it's only fair to point out
that it's the old-timers among us who mostly feel this way. Tek has
changed.

The manuals are written incredibly well, and I have received
assistance from tech support on devices more than 25 years old.

Yes, the OLD manuals were wonderful, but have you looked at a manual
for a Tek scope sold new in the last 10 years? They have no theory of
operation, no parts lists, and no schematics. If you try to call them
for tech info on an old scope today, you're pretty likely to be
politely turned down.

I reflect with fondness on repairing a device like a waveform monitor,
more than 20 years old, and finding a small coil of silver solder on
the chassis in a place that was designed for it, tucked neatly in its
own "home." Tek has used silver solder for decades now...they have
always known it makes a better solder joint...and they want their
stuff to keep on working, 24/7 for years and years.

The special little coils of silver bearing solder WERE neat, but they
were intended for use ONLY on the little ceramic terminal strips. The
silver content was necessary to prevent delamination of the metalized
part of the strip. This was carefully explained in their manual.

I don't think they used that solder in any solid state gear, nor did
they provide the little rolls in any solid state scopes.

And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.

Baloney perhaps, but I belive it is still true. I've heard it from
people who were there and saw it happen.

I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that
"you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and
accuracy of the products they are complaining about.

The scopes you're remembering are the products made decades ago. Those
were the scopes that made Tektronix' reputation as exceeding the
"state of the art." In recent times Tek has been taken over by the
bean counters who have entirely different priorities.

It's unfortunate that a giant like this has now stooped to this level,
but you really should listen to some of the people here, and
elsewhere, who have worked with them, and for them, in recent times.

I'm afraid that much the same thing is happening to Hewlett-Packard.
The corporate climate that Bill Hewlett and David Packard spent their
lives building has now gone the way of corporate acquisition over
innovation. Agilent may continue to do well, but Bill & Dave's names
have been sacrificed on the alter of profit.

Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster
as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new
one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does
300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it
on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently
enough.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

On 8 Dec 2003 08:00:52 -0800 (Howard) wrote:

I have used Tektronix instruments for almost 30 years now, and don't
know how I could have got along without them. Most of my work has been
in commercial radio and television.

While I agree with much of what you say, it's only fair to point out
that it's the old-timers among us who mostly feel this way. Tek has
changed.

The manuals are written incredibly well, and I have received
assistance from tech support on devices more than 25 years old.

Yes, the OLD manuals were wonderful, but have you looked at a manual
for a Tek scope sold new in the last 10 years? They have no theory of
operation, no parts lists, and no schematics. If you try to call them
for tech info on an old scope today, you're pretty likely to be
politely turned down.

I reflect with fondness on repairing a device like a waveform monitor,
more than 20 years old, and finding a small coil of silver solder on
the chassis in a place that was designed for it, tucked neatly in its
own "home." Tek has used silver solder for decades now...they have
always known it makes a better solder joint...and they want their
stuff to keep on working, 24/7 for years and years.

The special little coils of silver bearing solder WERE neat, but they
were intended for use ONLY on the little ceramic terminal strips. The
silver content was necessary to prevent delamination of the metalized
part of the strip. This was carefully explained in their manual.

I don't think they used that solder in any solid state gear, nor did
they provide the little rolls in any solid state scopes.

And now I hear that they desroy their own equipment so they can sell
more new stuff?! Baloney.

Baloney perhaps, but I belive it is still true. I've heard it from
people who were there and saw it happen.

I think I am hearing from people who not only do not understand that
"you get what you pay for," but have no use for the quality and
accuracy of the products they are complaining about.

The scopes you're remembering are the products made decades ago. Those
were the scopes that made Tektronix' reputation as exceeding the
"state of the art." In recent times Tek has been taken over by the
bean counters who have entirely different priorities.

It's unfortunate that a giant like this has now stooped to this level,
but you really should listen to some of the people here, and
elsewhere, who have worked with them, and for them, in recent times.

I'm afraid that much the same thing is happening to Hewlett-Packard.
The corporate climate that Bill Hewlett and David Packard spent their
lives building has now gone the way of corporate acquisition over
innovation. Agilent may continue to do well, but Bill & Dave's names
have been sacrificed on the alter of profit.

Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster
as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new
one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does
300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it
on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently
enough.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

Jim Adney wrote:

. . .

[Good comments]

. . .

Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster
as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new
one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does
300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it
on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently
enough.

There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Tek, 1974-80, 1984-95

Jim Adney wrote:

. . .

[Good comments]

. . .

Yes, I own several old Tek scopes. I consider myself a Tek youngster
as I've only been using them for about 35 years. I've got a nice new
one at work that only seems to weigh a couple of pounds and still does
300MHz. It takes me 20 minutes to figure it out every time I turn it
on, but I assume that's just because I don't turn it on frequently
enough.

There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Tek, 1974-80, 1984-95

There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.
===================
Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments.
What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem
to be important in scope development.
Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial
designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics.
Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by
nerds for nerds.
It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to operate
and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element
of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does bring in the $$$.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.
===================
Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments.
What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem
to be important in scope development.
Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial
designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics.
Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by
nerds for nerds.
It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to operate
and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element
of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does bring in the $$$.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Roy Lewallen wrote:
These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper
level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope.

An un-named source working for H-P/ Agilent totally agrees with that!

He also added:
"The founder of Tek invented the triggered timebase and offered it to
Hewlett-Packard. Bill and Dave saw the value but were committed to doing
other things for their near future and suggested he start his own firm,
giving him some advice along the way."



--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Roy Lewallen wrote:
These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper
level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope.

An un-named source working for H-P/ Agilent totally agrees with that!

He also added:
"The founder of Tek invented the triggered timebase and offered it to
Hewlett-Packard. Bill and Dave saw the value but were committed to doing
other things for their near future and suggested he start his own firm,
giving him some advice along the way."



--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

"Frank Dinger" wrote in message news:...
There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.
===================
Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments.
What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem
to be important in scope development.
Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial
designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics.
Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by
nerds for nerds.
It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to
operate
and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element
of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does NOT bring in the
$$$.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

This message sent a second time due to an earlier omission in the last line
Please note the added word : NOT

"Frank Dinger" wrote in message news:...
There's another reason.

For a long time, scopes were designed by engineers who used scopes
daily, as their main tool. It wasn't any trick at all for them to select
features that were useful, and operation that was intuitive. These days,
the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper level managers,
few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope. They're
implemented by software engineers, most of whom don't have the slightest
idea what a scope does or how to use one. Consequently, we can look
forward to a future of instruments that will be harder and harder to use
and understand, and won't have the feature set the user really needs.

I'll give you just one example, from the development of one of the first
highly digital lines of scopes. A mock-up had been created out of some
computer pieces, a display unit, and bits of this and that, so the
engineers could get a sense of how the new instrument was to use. I sat
down at the bench, and the first thing I did was to adjust the
horizontal position. I turned the (only) knob clockwise, and the trace
moved to the left. "Oh," I said to the software engineer who had
implemented most of the functions, "I see you've got that backward, but
that's easy enough to fix." "No," he said, "that's how I intended it to
work. It's logical: the delay increases when you turn the knob
clockwise." Pointing out to him that, logical or not, it would throw a
barrier in the way of every person who ever used the instrument, had
absolutely no effect on his certainty that his way was best(*). (And,
yes, I would have made the exact same argument that turning the knob to
the right *should* move the display to the left if the instrument were a
spectrum analyzer.) In this case, the project manager was a former
analog engineer, and he overruled the software engineer. But these days,
most management positions are filled with people who have seldom or
never actually used a scope, so more and more counter-intuitive, clumsy,
and useless features are showing up. Get used to it.

(*) In the '60's, when I was a technician, every place I went would have
a bunch of Tek scopes and one or two HPs. The HPs were just fine, except
that HP had insisted on making their own user interface. Where a Tek
scope would use a knob, they'd use buttons, and so forth, and the
controls were all put in different spots. We'd swear if we got stuck
with using one of the HPs, since it would take so long to figure out
where the needed control was and which way to turn it or which button to
push. So no one ever recommended buying an HP -- we all wanted Tek
scopes -- and as much due to familiarity as anything else. Then the
Japanese scopes came on the market. Y'know what? The knobs and other
controls were not only in exactly the same places as on Tek scopes, they
were even the same shape and color. We could pick one up and begin using
it right away. Y'know what else? Tek took a real beating from the
Japanese scopes, way worse than they ever did from HP.
===================
Roy , Tnx for your interesting comments.
What surprises me is that ,as you highlighted , ergonomics no longer seem
to be important in scope development.
Whereas in other industrial activities and product design ,industrial
designers pay a lot of attention to ergonomics.
Perhaps it is that modern scopes (and similar equipment) are designed by
nerds for nerds.
It also adds to the perception that one has to be a 'specialist' to
operate
and use this type of equipment ,which I fear is an ever increasing element
of modern marketing . A 'KISS' approach apparently does NOT bring in the
$$$.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

This message sent a second time due to an earlier omission in the last line
Please note the added word : NOT

In article , "Ian White, G3SEK"
writes:

Roy Lewallen wrote:
These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper
level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope.

An un-named source working for H-P/ Agilent totally agrees with that!

He also added:
"The founder of Tek invented the triggered timebase and offered it to
Hewlett-Packard. Bill and Dave saw the value but were committed to doing
other things for their near future and suggested he start his own firm,
giving him some advice along the way."

Well, I have no "un-named" sources, only the named ones. For two
interviews with Howard Vollum, co-founder of Tektronix, try:

http://www.infoage.org/oh-howard-vollum.html

Infoage is concentrating on the Signal Corps labs, most notably
Camp Evans, NJ (outside of Fort Monmouth) which became the
"Evans Laboratories," an adjunct of Fort Monmouth (along with
Coles and Squires labs outside of the Fort in the 1950s). Vollum
spent some service time at Camp Evans after overseas work on
radar in Great Britain. Vollum's interviews consist of one in 1955
and another in 1980.

There's some more at:

http://www.ohsu.edu/vollum/about.htm

There's also archive material from EE Times and several Tektronix
collector's web pages.

I don't find any reference to Hewlett-Packard, but more on the rivalry
with Allen B. DuMont and his oscilloscope company.

My own acquaintence is first with the 511AD model in 1954 while in
U.S. Army and becoming a supervisor on microwave radio relay
equipment. As far as I can recall, the sweep trigger of the 511 is
little more than a Schmitt Trigger circuit which was rather common
in pulse circuitry of the 50s. All of the first Tektronix scopes had
regulated power supplies which enabled the stability of the vertical
sweep to give true volts-per-graticule-marking information and for the
sweep rate to be calibrated with some precision. Whether in service
and maintenance or engineering design, the true information on the
trace is more important than whether or not the sweep trigger is
fancy (which it was, again, stable to use repeatedly thanks to the
regulated HV supplies). Add to that the "unblanking" of the CRT
while in sweep (blank screen during retrace) and the display is
quite natural and easy to use.

Having used a number of different instruments and scopes, I can't
agree with the "standard control arrangement" comments. Each
and every instrument has, to me, ALWAYS had some differences
which required attention to the bell and whistle control lay-outs.
This got worse by the 1970s when more and more function controls
were added to the front panels and the sizes of controls got smaller
and smaller. My fingers remained the same size...it got ridiculous
with the pointy little "keys" of the optional 7000 series (?) plug-in
for writing things on the CRT face...and the plug-in "spectrum
analyzer" modules from a company that Tektronix acquired.

Given the rather totally different function controls of today's DSOs,
it boils down to everyone needing to understand their instruments
FIRST before trying to use them. Ain't no such thing as "standard
control arrangements" when the controls don't apply to newer
functions.

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person

In article , "Ian White, G3SEK"
writes:

Roy Lewallen wrote:
These days, the features are decided mainly by marketers and upper
level managers, few of whom ever spent any time actually using a scope.

An un-named source working for H-P/ Agilent totally agrees with that!

He also added:
"The founder of Tek invented the triggered timebase and offered it to
Hewlett-Packard. Bill and Dave saw the value but were committed to doing
other things for their near future and suggested he start his own firm,
giving him some advice along the way."

Well, I have no "un-named" sources, only the named ones. For two
interviews with Howard Vollum, co-founder of Tektronix, try:

http://www.infoage.org/oh-howard-vollum.html

Infoage is concentrating on the Signal Corps labs, most notably
Camp Evans, NJ (outside of Fort Monmouth) which became the
"Evans Laboratories," an adjunct of Fort Monmouth (along with
Coles and Squires labs outside of the Fort in the 1950s). Vollum
spent some service time at Camp Evans after overseas work on
radar in Great Britain. Vollum's interviews consist of one in 1955
and another in 1980.

There's some more at:

http://www.ohsu.edu/vollum/about.htm

There's also archive material from EE Times and several Tektronix
collector's web pages.

I don't find any reference to Hewlett-Packard, but more on the rivalry
with Allen B. DuMont and his oscilloscope company.

My own acquaintence is first with the 511AD model in 1954 while in
U.S. Army and becoming a supervisor on microwave radio relay
equipment. As far as I can recall, the sweep trigger of the 511 is
little more than a Schmitt Trigger circuit which was rather common
in pulse circuitry of the 50s. All of the first Tektronix scopes had
regulated power supplies which enabled the stability of the vertical
sweep to give true volts-per-graticule-marking information and for the
sweep rate to be calibrated with some precision. Whether in service
and maintenance or engineering design, the true information on the
trace is more important than whether or not the sweep trigger is
fancy (which it was, again, stable to use repeatedly thanks to the
regulated HV supplies). Add to that the "unblanking" of the CRT
while in sweep (blank screen during retrace) and the display is
quite natural and easy to use.

Having used a number of different instruments and scopes, I can't
agree with the "standard control arrangement" comments. Each
and every instrument has, to me, ALWAYS had some differences
which required attention to the bell and whistle control lay-outs.
This got worse by the 1970s when more and more function controls
were added to the front panels and the sizes of controls got smaller
and smaller. My fingers remained the same size...it got ridiculous
with the pointy little "keys" of the optional 7000 series (?) plug-in
for writing things on the CRT face...and the plug-in "spectrum
analyzer" modules from a company that Tektronix acquired.

Given the rather totally different function controls of today's DSOs,
it boils down to everyone needing to understand their instruments
FIRST before trying to use them. Ain't no such thing as "standard
control arrangements" when the controls don't apply to newer
functions.

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:56:45 -0800 "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.

I had to smile when I read this. I realize that there certainly are
jobs out there which require this kind of bandwidth, but I think for
the vast majority of us, 20MHz is more than enough.

I know that I often pull the 20 MHz bandwidth limit switch on my 465B,
just to quiet down the noise, and I actually have a 10 MHz scope which
is still extrememly useful.

It's nice to know that the extra bandwidth is there, but for almost
any servicing job (TV, radio, CD, DVD, audio...) 50 MHz is way more
than enough.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:56:45 -0800 "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

I am going to get myself a nice 2465B or perhaps a 2467 after finish school
and find myself a Real Job again -- in a sense those scopes seem like the
pinnacle of pure-analog scope development and even if they are only good to
400MHz, there'll continue to be plenty of designs that can be serviced by
such scopes for years to come.

I had to smile when I read this. I realize that there certainly are
jobs out there which require this kind of bandwidth, but I think for
the vast majority of us, 20MHz is more than enough.

I know that I often pull the 20 MHz bandwidth limit switch on my 465B,
just to quiet down the noise, and I actually have a 10 MHz scope which
is still extrememly useful.

It's nice to know that the extra bandwidth is there, but for almost
any servicing job (TV, radio, CD, DVD, audio...) 50 MHz is way more
than enough.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------