Have you owned the latest generation of rigol?
Maybe if there was something you could compared two items against each other that you don’t own that isn’t opinion. How about the manufactures own specification sheets?
Hardware wise the rigol that theoldwizard1 listed is much more capable than a picoscope 4425A at a fraction of the cost.
And he admitted that the software of the pico scope was its strong point.
I think you are confusing scopes from several generations ago.
They are not that much larger than a picoscope box, they record more onto their memory for review later on a laptop, or they can output to a touch screen as well as large as your poor eyes need.
Many of the "buy a rigol/bench scope" posts subsequently link to a 120v AC powered model which isn't portable. Not all obviously, they have units powered like you're suggesting. Although per the above unit, it requires being powered correct? No internally battery? It needs external power, from whatever you may use be it a power supply or wall voltage or an inverter. Of course a picoscope or a snap on scope needs mounted to the laptop/tablet so it's similar in that aspect that it's not entirely stand alone. The ghetto option would probably be sticking a power bank on the back to power it. That rigol, per the quick guide from their website, also doesn't have differential inputs which is a major point for automotive scopes. I couldn't find it in their documentation, is data is captured and can be reviewed on that screen, not just a live display saving buffer screens for later viewing on another device? They list a 500000 frame capacity, so I would assume you could view it on the device. It's listed as "playing frame by frame or continuous" and without specifying an external device I would assume the device can review it. Output is a very nice feature if you can inject a signal into a circuit, I believe ATS has that on their Escope.
The 7 inch screen would be acceptable for 1-2 channel use, you're going to have troubles as it fills up. All of your scales and waveforms overlap when scaled to the point they're valuable. But that's true of any scope, not just a specific model. Sometimes the best option is just turning off channels and looking at data in two groups. Although the 7" screen would likely have better resolution than a 24" CRT monitor of an old school ignition scope. But how much resolution does one really need in a parade? I suppose it depends on how much it aliases, but with that hardware I doubt you'd have that issue.
[EDIT: I still think a 7" screen is going to be too small for an 8 cylinder parade and the detail you'd want unless something is way wrong]
Generally speaking for automotive use the hardware isn't the limiting factor. It's manipulation after the fact. That's why "but the specs **** in the grand scheme of electrical measurement devices" isn't that relevant. You could 10x the power of the scope, more samples aren't the answer. Although more buffer is always nice. Something "old tech" like a 4xxx Picoscope will provide the required resolution with even awful setup zoomed way too far out. The burn time of a secondary ignition event is ~1.5ms. That's forever in oscilloscope time. So long as the scope can prevent aliasing and capture the data as expected the hardware is good enough. I can go 5 seconds/division on a picoscope, and zoom in so far into a secondary waveform it's just a line representing nanoseconds. Bump all the resolution you want, you're not getting more information. Signals are realtively slow. Not that you can't make a snap-on scope alias severely with less than ideal setup.
The plus side of the Pico design is all the interface is on the laptop which is a consusmable and easily replaced. No knobs to snap off, all that abuse goes into the laptop and you can chuck it or upgrade. Stuff is getting balanced in engine bays, laid where the leads have room, etc which is why I normally advocate 10ft leads to protect the hardware.
"Capsable" depends a lot on what problem you are trying to solve.
I don't know how many 4425A's ope have been sold, but Pico took a big gamble that software would sell when they started developing it, years ago.
I would expect the development costs have been paid many times overs. The real question is, are they adding additional functionality ?
One thing Pico needs to be concerned about us how long will the actual hardware (chips) be available. Clearly thy are approaching EOL !
100%. You're not buying Picoscope specs, you're buying the finished product/system they offer. The software, the waveform library, differential inputs, high input voltages, premade crank signal to RPM math channels, etc. Not that everyone needs a picoscope 4xxx series automotive scope. I wouldn't call it required to do what OP is trying to do. Most basic digital storage oscilliscopes would do what he wants.
A pico 4425 really is perfect for what it's doing. It's like asking why a Grumman LLV postal vehicle is used to deliver mail when a pickup could hold more mail, or a 911 would be faster. The 4xxx family of pico is optimized for exactly what it needs to do and it does it quite well. I know of zero sponserships in the automotive training world, trainers have stated as such and hinted if Pico wants to mail them a check they'd take it. Pico 4425, Snap On, and ATS Escope - that's who rules the world. Snap on has the worst specs and interface, but there's a lot out their and the guided component test is a god-send. ATS makes pico look cheap, but I'd love to use one. I'm not sure ATS even makes the 4 channel model anymore, The 8 channel is ~5k, but you get an accessory kit with it. Snap on and ATS use a single ground which *****, you can't voltage drop with one channel. But how often do you really need that many channels and voltage drop at the same time? Pico dominates the diagnostic automotive scope world, and it's not from their impressive hardware specs.
