I've had a uscope for a year or two now and had the older version of the 1008c a few years ago. After struggling with the 2 channel scope that is used with our factory scan tool, I decided to get the newer 1008c until I feel the need to upgrade. I played with the demo software first and feel like it is different than what I used a few years ago. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but this seems pretty user friendly.
I got a 1008C earlier this year. IIRC I had to register on their site to get the latest, 1.0.30, software. The version that was easily found on their site was an older one. It installed no problem on Win 10 Pro and has been running reliably. Not at all impressed with the "automotive" features but the 'scope software itself seems OK.
The newer version is a bit less of a fiddle to use and istr at leat one function that was greyed out before works but still awful. The so called automotive presets are joke. Also on the 1008 and many Hanteks all the channels are actually put through a single convertor so the more channels that are working the slower it gets. On Owon all the channels have individual processing, I would be sure this is true for Pico.
" We're trying to plug a hole in the universe, what are you doing ?. "
(Walter Bishop Fringe TV show)
What really limits the 1008 from a hardware standpoint is the shared 4kS buffer. It'll take decent 2, or maybe 3, channel captures but you've got to have the H/div set right. And either mess with the triggering and/or press stop at the right time. Letting the 'scope roll then zooming in to see detail isn't an option with these things.
IIRC the lower priced Owon and Pico 'scopes don't have much of a buffer either. Might be a little bigger but not by much. They're also 8 bit vertical vs. the 1008's 12 bit which is nice, though it sometimes takes some messing around with a spreadsheet to see it.
I don't plan on using more than 2 channels, so it should be fine for what I'm doing with it, for now at least. I'll upgrade later if I run into more than a couple of situations where the upgrade would be worth it, like everything else in life.
After you get the visual setting to what you want to see and the trigger set right, I find the record function to work very well.... It will playback at a much slower rate than real-time, and if the trigger is set right, it allows frame by frame waveform analysis.
It's clumsy and definitely slower than a pico for seeing detail, but if you're not using it professionally, it's definitely a workaround to save the money a pico will cost.
