Actually from the amount of members on the list and
the quality we have I am suprise we don't build one as
a team. Hint hint ;)

John

--- William Chops Westfield <westfw@mac.com> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist