On Apr 3, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> It also pisses me off because we all know it would have been
> a simple difference in the firmware to have done it right.  I
> understand things like bandwidth, sample depth, number of
> channels, etc cost money and that a low end scope will have
> less of them, but doing this right would have cost nothing extra.
>
I wonder if anyone will ever sell an open-source oscilloscope?
Don't like the way the SW works?  Fix it yourself, or download
the "unstable with enhanced extra knobs" version from your favorite
repository.  Since a lot of the high end scopes these days seem to
be essentially PC clones as the Display/UI, it's not unthinkable.

BillW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist