Software for Mac

Discussion forum for the new Picoscope Mac software
Post Reply
coffeysh
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:08 pm

Software for Mac

Post by coffeysh »

I have heard great things about the pico scopes, but without a stable version of the Mac software I will have to search an alternate product. I can't afford do purchase a PC on top of the Scope cost.

One message I saw from the company was they had a more important software project that was taking them away from the Mac software. Well you are losing business because of this. I won't buy from Picoscope.
Attachments
image.png
image.png (333 Bytes) Viewed 5903 times

Gerry
PICO STAFF
PICO STAFF
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:14 am

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Gerry »

Hi coffeysh,

The Mac software you talk about is the PicoScope 6 Beta, which has some issues (missing features, bugs, etc). So rather than fix this software, only for it to always be a few steps behind what is in the Windows software we decided to completely re-write the software so that the Windows, Mac, And Linux versions would always be up-to-date with the latest features. So, this is the more important software project that you mentioned. We believe it is what Mac and Linux users have been asking for and we are aiming to get this done as quickly as we can.

Regards,

Gerry
Gerry
Technical Specialist

AC/DC
User
User
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:27 pm

Re: Software for Mac

Post by AC/DC »

Hopefully this means it will be a native App (Swift or Xojo), no longer depending on Mono (big, slow, ugly).

However, no matter what IDE / language is used, "always be up-to-date with the latest features" does not depend on that. It is purely a matter of available resources to actually DO it, since there is ALWAYS extra work for each platform.

Mono was for sure chosen to have different platforms with one code base, saving work & time. Reality shows that this is true. And false, because multi-platform languages always have missing features, extra bugs, and you end up fixing things and finding workarounds for them. Not always possible, and it costs a lot of time.

Probably Xojo would work (it's quite fast and produces small & native apps), but I guess using platform native languages is a better choice for time/performance critical software.

Gerry
PICO STAFF
PICO STAFF
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:14 am

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Gerry »

Hi coffeysh,

That's just it, key aspects of the development environment are platform independent, so there WON'T be the usual extra work for each platform, which is why I said the Windows, Mac, And Linux versions would always be up-to-date with the latest features.

Regards,

Gerry
Gerry
Technical Specialist

Jonno
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 7:13 am

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Jonno »

Gerry, it's great that Pico say they are developing the software for all platforms. However it's simply not happening. The 'beta' software has been around for years and there is no commitment to fixing it. Not even the simple annoying bugs, let alone the missing functionality. Even fixing a couple of the most annoying bugs would greatly improve the user experience and customer relations. It wouldn't cost much.
How long can it take for a committed company to develop a working app? If the company doesn't invest in their products then they can't expect the returns.
I have already warned two potential customers off Picoscope because of the non existent product support. One of these was looking to buy around 10 devices.
As soon as Pico develop some decent software and some genuine commitment to customer support I'll change my recommendation.

Martyn
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3872
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:15 am
Location: St. Neots

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Martyn »

We have released PicoScope 7 Automotive so it is coming.
Martyn
Technical Support Manager

dkbenn
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:23 pm

Re: Software for Mac

Post by dkbenn »

Hi,

I just wanted to follow up requesting a status report of the Mac version of PicoScope. I downloaded the available beta version today and the app will not launch. When will the running version for MacOs Catalina ver 10.15.5 be available?

Thank you.

Douglas

kisielk
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:21 pm

Re: Software for Mac

Post by kisielk »

Hi @martyn

Any idea when we'll be able to use PicoScope 7 on a non-automotive PicoScope?

granel
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Software for Mac

Post by granel »

Picoscope screen disappears
Post by Woody » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:26 pm
I have a slight problem,
using Pico 6 Beta on Mac High Sierra 10.13.3
If I have a Pop up screen eg, ruler dialog box or zoom box if I click on another application the Picoscope disappears and can only be brought back by clicking the Picoscope icon on the dock. Picoscope is not closed.
Thanks
Woody
=====================================
Re: Picoscope screen disappears
Post by Hitesh » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:57 pm
Hi Woody,
This is an issue that our Development Team are aware of and I have added your comments to the existing bug report.
Any changes made to resolve this would be available via the next major release.
Regards
===============================
Hi, today 2020.07.20 - insaled ned beta PicoScope-6.14.23-4r580.pkg
But old problem same, it looks like picotech engineers don't want to listen to their customers - it's sad - I thought that the British were cultured people ((((

Gerry
PICO STAFF
PICO STAFF
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:14 am

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Gerry »

Hi,

It's easy for you to criticise what you are blissfully unaware of, so let me just explain some harsh realities to you.

In PicoScope 6, we have a large complex piece of software that has many minor errors, which is true of all software (including OS X, Windows, Google, and pretty much every piece of software that you use). This is because it's just not possible to test every single combination and permutation of usage scenarios for that software (and certainly not possible to test the software being used with every different supported operating system, on every different supported computer platform, with every existing piece of software ever written for that platform/operating system combination running in the background). So, as we can't fix all of the bugs, we have to decide which bugs are most important, so that we can fix those first and then work our way down to the least important ones. Unfortunately, sometimes this means that the bug that you want fixed is lower down on the list to be fixed, and hasn't been reached yet.

Software is also continually improved by adding new features by companies that want to satisfy their customers and remain competitive (these might be requested by customers, devised/invented by employees, added to the existing software because they weren't fully tested and completed in time to make it into the originally released software, created from planned future features, etc). There comes a point in the development of software where there are just too many features and existing errors to be fixed that make it unmanageable (companies only have a limited number of software engineers). So, a completely new framework of software has to be written that reduces the errors, makes the testing and bug fixing more efficient, and allows for easier introduction of new features. This new improved version of software has to be developed at the same time as managing (testing, fixing errors, and creating releases for) the old version of software, so during this period, there are even less engineers available to fix errors in the older software. Sometimes it's easier to leave a minor error in the old version of software, because the new version is planned/coded in such a way that the error won't be in the new version. At Pico we are in that phase, trying to get the new version out, while trying to manage the issues with the old version as best we can (especially in the current climate of Covid 19, which puts some limitations on the ways that companies can work) so the issue you see might not be relevant in the new version.

Finally, the creation of software is NOT an automatic push-button process. A human individual has to be involved in creating the application, which means that there is always the possibility of human error (as none of us are perfect!). Occasionally, we see a software error that was fixed, re-occur, as there is always a chance that the same area of code is re-written for a different reason, which breaks what was already fixed. Again, this is just human error.

So, I've just given you 3 reasons why you might be seeing that error, and hopefully you can now see why this has nothing to do with engineers not listening to their customers.

My advice to you, when posting in future, would be to ask for the error to be looked at rather than blindly insulting British people (which is not even related to the problem) if you want us to seriously consider your request.

Regards,

Gerry
Gerry
Technical Specialist

drandaji
Newbie
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Software for Mac

Post by drandaji »

Thanks for that well worded explanation, Gerry. It is such a bummer when people channel their frustration into personal attacks.

As a software engineer, I Totally appreciate that Picoscope is taking the long view, risking a credibility hit in the short term, so they can do things right and assure that future software is more maintainable and stable with increased platform parity. Kudos Pico!

Nearly every software project of significant complexity that survives for more than a few years hits a similar crossroads. Although it's a pain to users in the short term, we'll all win eventually, because future features/fixes will likely have a lower development cost and quicker turn-around.

For now, I do feel like it could limit frustration and increase customer loyalty if Pico could throw Mac and Linux users a bone and tell us a general timeframe when we might get the features/fixes that we're currently missing. Maybe not a detailed roadmap, but maybe 6 months, one year, 2 years, etc. One reason is that we have our own commitments and need to plan accordingly. I can make do with v6-beta for a few months, but if it's gonna be much longer, I need to consider whether I should hack my own solution or acquire another rig for the interim.

My apologies if that's already been communicated somewhere. I searched every keyword combo I could think of... well, keywords that the search engine felt were valid. Why is "version 7" not specific enough for you Forum Search Engine?

Gerry
PICO STAFF
PICO STAFF
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:14 am

Re: Software for Mac

Post by Gerry »

Hi drandaji,

Thanks for the understanding, and I do appreciate where you are coming from....you need to know whether you can wait or whether it's time to consider an alternative.

I wish I could give you some kind of projection, so that you could make your decision. Unfortunately, it would be misleading of me to even attempt to do that. All I can suggest is that you hold on for as long as you reasonably can, but if you need to start working on something then do so.

"Version 7" isn't specific enough because it doesn't create a search string with a space in the middle as it does in Google (I haven't found a way to do that on the forum so I find it easier to use a more complex search string in Google Search).

Regards,

Gerry
Gerry
Technical Specialist

Post Reply