Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Keysight Oscilloscopes.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
There is a learning curve, depends on the client equipment that I am working with. This is where application support teams are helpful.
Everybody is looking for more automation support, so that if they can incorporate more protocols. It makes it easier. People are always going for higher bandwidth and better probing solutions. It needs more flexible probing solutions, especially for the complex ICs. Cost is also a factor on one of the DDRs. I was trying to buy an interpolar so that I can hook up all the probes and have them rerun one time. However, that was quite costly. If I had to do a single or double debugging, then I maybe would spend time soldering each bar rather than using that because it was costly.
I would like be able to measure multi-lane simultaneously. Right now, the high-performance jitter solution measures one signal. I would like to capture many at the same time. The room for improvement is the cost. It's always too expensive. And it's an industry-wide problem to correlate the measurements with real system performance on an oscilloscope.
The biggest challenge for us is getting to higher frequencies, higher data rates. The higher-data product is always more expensive so if it could be cheaper for high-frequency measurement, that is what we would ideally want. There is room for improvement in the upgradability of the products. When we buy a platform, we would like that platform to survive two or three generations, because it is very expensive. If they could provide a more modular type of design, so if we want to upgrade one functionality then we could upgrade that module, rather than all the equipment, that would be helpful. That modularity is something we would like to see.
The user interface has a load of features that come with it, which is why it is an eight out of ten.
There was a long learning curve. It's a bit difficult to get used to, so it took about six months to really fully get up to speed with it. The user interface is not that good. It's not very intuitive. It's functional, but it's not designed for ease of operation. It's designed for functionality. Interface could be improved a bit. It could be a bit easier to use.
Something I'd like to see is much better documentation and some good examples. That would be very helpful for a new user to get better at using the new test equipment. Otherwise, procedure-wise, the testing is pretty repeatable. For my applications, it's really the repeatability and the accuracy, moving forward to very high data rates. For that, we are looking at very close to the picosecond and sub-picosecond range. Accuracy and repeatability are very important for the company to achieve.
I would like them to build in more high-speed functions, such as FEC or PCIe Gen5, built into the array. BERT to be built-in for more specific product call. These would make our lives much easier. FEC (forward error correction) require Reed-Solomon (RS) encoder and decoder. If scope able to provide RS functions (i.e. let us to enter different n and k values (block length and message length) that will make tool more useful for us).
While the user interface is pretty good, going forward, we would like to upgrade it. It needs better calibration features. We are using this product to support connected devices for IoT development, but we need more automation.
There is definitely a learning curve. It is a more advance software, which not everyone can use just by looking at it. It should be easier to debug.
They have some software applications but their GUI is not the best. They need to improve on that. I think their software team needs to put in a little bit more work on how they are presenting the application on the scope. They can do all the measurements but if it's cumbersome to navigate through the system, then it makes life a little bit harder. They have to keep fiddling around with their app to get it to meet some visual acuity. Otherwise, it's fine. Once you can work through the app, it actually tests properly. We're not seeing many issues. The user interface is clunky at times. You might see the box move to one side and you can't minimize it, you can't move it out of screen, and you have to minimize the whole screen and open up the scope screen. It doesn't flow. We do work through that. They need to do a little bit better job in making the UI more user-friendly. They have the stuff built-in, it's just the way it pops up on the screen might not necessarily look nice or it might just move to one corner and you're not able to close it, which is a waste of time. I would also like to see a more detailed change-notice from version to version, what changed. If they had a more detailed description of what is changing and the reason for it, rather than just releasing, that would be good for us so we know whether or not to upgrade. They release software and we find out something might not match what we were expecting, and then we have to go back to them and they say, "Okay, we'll fix this." If they make any design changes, especially in the app or the way it's tested, they need to inform us as customers of what's changing through some engineering change-notice.
I am not really impressed with the GUI since it has not changed in almost 20 years (since I first began using the product). While the GUI part is okay, I can live with it. I would like more accuracy, particularly for multiport measurements.
The user interface is great right now. I think they could improve it slightly, make it a bit more user-friendly. Although it is user-friendly, a bit more would make it even better. In terms of additional capabilities, I would like to see more touchscreen and a larger screen. That would help. The current scope has a decent screen size, but at times what happens is, when I'm looking at it I need to have an extra monitor. If they could somehow improve that design with a bigger screen but not make it too heavy, that would be ideal. Some products do have a bigger screen but they're heavier. Maybe they can balance that out: Make it less heavy and provide a better screen resolution, a bigger size. That would help a lot. There is room for improvement with some of the features of the scope. I would like them to make it a bit more simplistic. It's a very good tool overall, but if they could improve those issues slightly, that would help a lot. For example, if I want to look at what the total jitter is, they should make it simpler to find that, with different tabs. Their de-embedding feature is a very good feature, I like what it does, I think it's better than their competitors'. If they could improve that slightly too that would be nice.
Some of the models have only two ports. It takes much longer to use a two-port. If they had a four-port, it would be much better.
The user interface can be buggy at times. But I'm an engineer, I figure out how to get around them pretty easily so that's not that much of a concern. It allows me to do everything I need to do. I would like to see better post-processing data utility tools like a de-embedding.
I would like to see it go to higher frequencies at the same price. Also, we tried to connect multiple computers with a KVM switch but we could not do that using Keysight VNA. Keysight VNA comes with the PC inside it. We have other equipment as well, and we tried to combine it so that we had one monitor to control everything. With Keysight we could not do it. That's something of an inconvenience.
I would like to see the possibility of interacting with the software, new features for software post-processing. For example, once you're done measuring, it would be nice to be able to generate some data starting from the measurement data.
I wish they would improve the Embed function in the current product because, as the frequencies go up, we see a lot of diversity because of effects in the test feature. So I hope they will provide better technology to solve the test feature diversity which affects our test results. We don't want the test feature effect in our measurements. Also, every component has a manufacturing tolerance. I hope Keysight software can help with the tolerance loss in manufacturing variance, which can be ten percent or five percent. In the real world, we cannot fire a really perfect test with very smooth impedance. I would like to see Keysight provide a solution to solve the issue of loss of manufacturing variance. Regarding the solution being field-upgradable, it is, but I think we need something beyond that. We need to expand to 60 or 70 gigahertz or even higher, perhaps up to 100 gigahertz.
The user interface is getting better. A graphical interface would be good, but having been a test engineer previously, it is nice to have some script programming. The integration between different software and hardware panels could be improved. In the software, it's not as strong as the other solutions. They should have more training resources accessible.
They can improve, but I don't know how.
While the user interface is good with respect to instrumentation, but with respect to documentation, I do not like it. Its documentation is slightly bad. It was not organized properly. The way it's organized is very difficult to understand, so it takes lot of time to search for one thing in particular.
Signalling integration has room for improvement. I would like more customized functions, so we can do the programming and definitions ourselves. There is an automation flow to capture this signal, and we would like to do this ourselves. If we could get a lot of the data automatically, then maybe we could get some machine learning stuff.