Yes, slow progress, but that hard front end part got quite a bit done on it. . David Robert Rolf wrote: >Uhhh, that's what the 'multianalyser' team was up to, but progress >is slow. > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MultiAnalyser/ > >The project intended to build an open source multi channel analog/digital >hardware module which would be interfaced to a PC under whatever O/S >you liked (probably JAVA based). > >Robert > >kravnus wolf wrote: > > > >>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 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