A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 30 Dec 2009 21:09 krw wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:25:50 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> krw wrote: >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:50:42 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> krw wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:09:10 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jamie wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:7pt6ptFvehU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From August this year: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/tektronix_exports_manufacturin.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "However, Culp said profit margins were high and the pipeline of new >>>>>>>>> products was strong." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those high profit margins are one of the things that's killing them. >>>>>>>>> If you're just re-badging Chinese-engineered and manufactured scopes >>>>>>>>> and what-not at the low- to mid-end of equipment, why should the >>>>>>>>> customer hand over high profit margins when, e.g., Instek is >>>>>>>>> perfectly happy to make do with less? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bingo! Which is why I chose Instek. Plus it had more sample memory and >>>>>>>> features, for less money. Now clients of mine are buying those as well >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Last time a client asked me whether they also sold a LabView driver >>>>>>>> for theirs. "No, they don't sell one, you just download it for free >>>>>>>> just like the PC control software." ... "Oh, really?" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is why I see people like Allen Bradley, soon to join those like Tek! >>>>>>> It's totally ridiculous with their hardware pricing on top of their >>>>>>> software pricing and licensing.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are they? Hardware or Microsoft? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned, they are an industrial hardware manufacturer >>>>>>> and the software to configure their electronics should be supplied as a >>>>>>> free tool or maybe enough to pay for the materials at best. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me with the lack of any recent advancement in hardware, I >>>>>>> think all they want to do is have an office and just >>>>>>> sell software that requires no employees, because they can get the code >>>>>>> written in India and charge you dearly for the use of it! It's like >>>>>>> paying rent on a program which isn't cheap! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It used to be you had a one time payment and they gave you a key or >>>>>>> what ever for one computer, now, they make you pay over and over because >>>>>>> your license runs out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just another fine example of greed! We are now buying Omron >>>>>>> electronics because they are worth the money, software is great and >>>>>>> reasonable. Also looking into other avenues. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good bye AB! >>>>>>> >>>>>> Or as they say, we vote with our feet :-) >>>>> I interviewed with AB (Rockwell) a couple of years ago. They had a >>>>> firewall between their software, firmware, and hardware groups. The >>>>> FPGA folks were in the firmware group along with the embedded software >>>>> types, which turned me off completely (LM was the same). There didn't >>>>> look to be much communication between the groups, either. It wouldn't >>>>> surprise me if the hardware and software organizations had their own >>>>> P&L spreadsheets too. Nuts. >>>> In defense companies you have to do that for security reasons. There >>>> will be firewalls even between individual hardware groups. I don't think >>>> that they split P&L. >>> Sure, different customers, different contracts. This was a firewall >>> between groups working on the same product. The hardware people >>> didn't seem to talk to (or even know much about) the firmware people; >>> "they're over there, somewhere". I can't imagine how one can firewall >>> FPGA designers from the hardware designers, but they did. Crazy. >>> >> In defense you must do that, with people working on the very same >> project. The reason is that the number of people who have access to >> every detail of a project must be kept low, ideally zero. This reduces >> the chance of a serious leak, big time. > > Nope. Not at all. I had no security clearance but had access to the > hardware and FPGA stuff, though I wasn't supposed to be working on the > hardware. ...and my managers were the managers of the software group. > All of the FPGA people (in this project, anyway) worked for the > software managers. > That doesn't sound like a 100% kosher environment to me if it was a serious big system defense project. > The AB situation was similar but there was no defense work going on > there. Just a screwy (product) management structure. > There I agree with you, that just doesn't make sense. >>>> But in a non-defense setting that would make no sense at all. >>> Even in a defense setting, firmware and hardware sorta go together. I >>> did both but only because the hardware developer mucked it up so bad >>> (I found out when I was going through the design trying to figure out >>> what I had to control). OTOH, the (embedded) firmware people didn't >>> know too much about FPGA stuff, yet may manager was the OS guy. >> >> I had a situation where I got tired and wanted a candy bar. But not this >> sugary stuff from our machine. So the only way to get a trail mix type >> of candy bar was to send coins through the internal mail thingie and >> someone from the other group sent back a candy bar. > > Did they get a cut? ;-) No, that could have been construed as bribery since I was not an employee :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 30 Dec 2009 21:23 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:09:15 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:25:50 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> krw wrote: >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:50:42 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:09:10 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jamie wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:7pt6ptFvehU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From August this year: >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/08/tektronix_exports_manufacturin.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "However, Culp said profit margins were high and the pipeline of new >>>>>>>>>> products was strong." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those high profit margins are one of the things that's killing them. >>>>>>>>>> If you're just re-badging Chinese-engineered and manufactured scopes >>>>>>>>>> and what-not at the low- to mid-end of equipment, why should the >>>>>>>>>> customer hand over high profit margins when, e.g., Instek is >>>>>>>>>> perfectly happy to make do with less? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bingo! Which is why I chose Instek. Plus it had more sample memory and >>>>>>>>> features, for less money. Now clients of mine are buying those as well >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Last time a client asked me whether they also sold a LabView driver >>>>>>>>> for theirs. "No, they don't sell one, you just download it for free >>>>>>>>> just like the PC control software." ... "Oh, really?" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is why I see people like Allen Bradley, soon to join those like Tek! >>>>>>>> It's totally ridiculous with their hardware pricing on top of their >>>>>>>> software pricing and licensing.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are they? Hardware or Microsoft? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I'm concerned, they are an industrial hardware manufacturer >>>>>>>> and the software to configure their electronics should be supplied as a >>>>>>>> free tool or maybe enough to pay for the materials at best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems to me with the lack of any recent advancement in hardware, I >>>>>>>> think all they want to do is have an office and just >>>>>>>> sell software that requires no employees, because they can get the code >>>>>>>> written in India and charge you dearly for the use of it! It's like >>>>>>>> paying rent on a program which isn't cheap! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It used to be you had a one time payment and they gave you a key or >>>>>>>> what ever for one computer, now, they make you pay over and over because >>>>>>>> your license runs out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just another fine example of greed! We are now buying Omron >>>>>>>> electronics because they are worth the money, software is great and >>>>>>>> reasonable. Also looking into other avenues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good bye AB! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or as they say, we vote with our feet :-) >>>>>> I interviewed with AB (Rockwell) a couple of years ago. They had a >>>>>> firewall between their software, firmware, and hardware groups. The >>>>>> FPGA folks were in the firmware group along with the embedded software >>>>>> types, which turned me off completely (LM was the same). There didn't >>>>>> look to be much communication between the groups, either. It wouldn't >>>>>> surprise me if the hardware and software organizations had their own >>>>>> P&L spreadsheets too. Nuts. >>>>> In defense companies you have to do that for security reasons. There >>>>> will be firewalls even between individual hardware groups. I don't think >>>>> that they split P&L. >>>> Sure, different customers, different contracts. This was a firewall >>>> between groups working on the same product. The hardware people >>>> didn't seem to talk to (or even know much about) the firmware people; >>>> "they're over there, somewhere". I can't imagine how one can firewall >>>> FPGA designers from the hardware designers, but they did. Crazy. >>>> >>> In defense you must do that, with people working on the very same >>> project. The reason is that the number of people who have access to >>> every detail of a project must be kept low, ideally zero. This reduces >>> the chance of a serious leak, big time. >> >> Nope. Not at all. I had no security clearance but had access to the >> hardware and FPGA stuff, though I wasn't supposed to be working on the >> hardware. ...and my managers were the managers of the software group. >> All of the FPGA people (in this project, anyway) worked for the >> software managers. >> > >That doesn't sound like a 100% kosher environment to me if it was a >serious big system defense project. It was a Navy Destroyer subsystem. There were some classified parameters I wasn't allowed to know, but the ones I needed were easily inferred from those that weren't classified. ;-) >> The AB situation was similar but there was no defense work going on >> there. Just a screwy (product) management structure. >> > >There I agree with you, that just doesn't make sense. They didn't like my questioning their structure, either. I really wanted to know how the position fit into the structure and what the limits were. I couldn't believe two companies were that screwy. ;-) Where I am now, I'm not "allowed" to do the (embedded) firmware but am expected to do all of the FPGA stuff and most of the analogs. Go figure. >>>>> But in a non-defense setting that would make no sense at all. >>>> Even in a defense setting, firmware and hardware sorta go together. I >>>> did both but only because the hardware developer mucked it up so bad >>>> (I found out when I was going through the design trying to figure out >>>> what I had to control). OTOH, the (embedded) firmware people didn't >>>> know too much about FPGA stuff, yet may manager was the OS guy. >>> >>> I had a situation where I got tired and wanted a candy bar. But not this >>> sugary stuff from our machine. So the only way to get a trail mix type >>> of candy bar was to send coins through the internal mail thingie and >>> someone from the other group sent back a candy bar. >> >> Did they get a cut? ;-) > > >No, that could have been construed as bribery since I was not an >employee :-) At LM one of the labs had an under-the-table "canteen service" going in competition with the vending machines. Once every few months they bought pizzas out of the proceeds. I didn't participate much because I didn't have access to the lab. I ate the pizza, though. ;-)
From: Joerg on 31 Dec 2009 11:59 krw wrote: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:09:15 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> krw wrote: [...] >>> The AB situation was similar but there was no defense work going on >>> there. Just a screwy (product) management structure. >>> >> There I agree with you, that just doesn't make sense. > > They didn't like my questioning their structure, either. I really > wanted to know how the position fit into the structure and what the > limits were. I couldn't believe two companies were that screwy. ;-) > > Where I am now, I'm not "allowed" to do the (embedded) firmware but am > expected to do all of the FPGA stuff and most of the analogs. Go > figure. > Time to have a friendly chat with the CEO? Maybe a quick lunch together? Seriously, they are usually quite glad if an amployee sees a situation that is harmful to the company and has a suggestion how to fix it. Heck, might mean a free lunch for you :-) >>>>>> But in a non-defense setting that would make no sense at all. >>>>> Even in a defense setting, firmware and hardware sorta go together. I >>>>> did both but only because the hardware developer mucked it up so bad >>>>> (I found out when I was going through the design trying to figure out >>>>> what I had to control). OTOH, the (embedded) firmware people didn't >>>>> know too much about FPGA stuff, yet may manager was the OS guy. >>>> I had a situation where I got tired and wanted a candy bar. But not this >>>> sugary stuff from our machine. So the only way to get a trail mix type >>>> of candy bar was to send coins through the internal mail thingie and >>>> someone from the other group sent back a candy bar. >>> Did they get a cut? ;-) >> >> No, that could have been construed as bribery since I was not an >> employee :-) > > At LM one of the labs had an under-the-table "canteen service" going > in competition with the vending machines. Once every few months they > bought pizzas out of the proceeds. I didn't participate much because > I didn't have access to the lab. I ate the pizza, though. ;-) We had a doughnut & bagel kitty. The good thing was you contributed only when you ate one, so I didn't have to eat the doughnuts which are mostly too sugary for my taste. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joel Koltner on 31 Dec 2009 12:10 "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:7q2feiF5btU1(a)mid.individual.net... > That doesn't sound like a 100% kosher environment to me if it was a serious > big system defense project. Just as a point of reference, we're doing COTS contracts for the military indirectly as a sub-contractor, and there's no separation of software and hardware people. The pieces we work on aren't classified, although for the overall projects some other pieces are. We do have a perhaps-slightly-overzealous IT guy who would *love* to start spending months implementing very fine-grained controls on who can and can't see every file on the server, log in to any given machine, etc. if he was just given the go-ahead by management, though. :-) ---Joel
From: John Larkin on 31 Dec 2009 12:42
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:23:23 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >Where I am now, I'm not "allowed" to do the (embedded) firmware but am >expected to do all of the FPGA stuff and most of the analogs. Go >figure. One nice thing about small companies is that everybody gets to do everything. I think that works better. Our newish software engineer wanted to design and lay out a display board that he was assigned to program, so we let him. We're furnishing a subassembly for one project that's over a year late. It's pretty obvious that the not-so-big company is compartmentalized unto paralysis. John |