Old instruments, i.e. instruments that were developed in the '70's, were designed to be manipulated by hand. This is particularly true of the ones that were portable, as solid-state instruments of that generation were designed by people who were extremely familiar with what one had to do with an oscilloscope, and tried to make it all possible with simple adjustments to the front panel.

The later generation of analog oscilloscopes, including, BTW, that 24xx series from TEK, of which I have the latest-greatest version, though extremely capable and flexible, are not as convenient to operate as the earlier 4xx-series. That's why I still use the 475A whenever I can, as I can operate it without taking my eyes off what I'm doing, whether it's probing a circuit or adjusting other instruments in order to create the scenario I need to monitor. I've had access to a wide variety of oscilloscopes over the years and have found none more convenient and practical than the TEK 4xx-series. I will add one thing, however, and that's that the original 465, as opposed to the 'B' version, which was reinvented for video systems use, seemed to have much more capable triggering circuitry than comparable instruments from HP and others, including the later models of the 465.

Current-generation instruments are designed for the convenience of the manufacturer and not of the end-user. They add lots of features because it's easy, but don't consider that you have to spend lots of time looking at menus and buttons rather than at the waveform display. They're terribly encumbered by what we once termed, "creeping featurism."

I find my 465 (which I gave to a needy student not too long ago, which served me for over 20 years, was reliable, solid, convenient, and effective. The 475 is just as effective and, in fact, essentially identical, as is the 50 MHz 455, and those storage versions, e.g. the 466 and 468 are no different, aside from the storage phosphor. You should know the limitations of the instrument you're buying so you won't be disappointed, however. If you expect to capture very fast infrequently occurring pulses or sequences of them, you'll have little luck with the 466 as its storage channel is limited. I just looked in my old (1978) TEKTRONIX catalog, and don't find the limitations specifically discussed, but the information is out there on the www. If you can live with the storage limitations on the 400-series of storage 'scopes, they're otherwise just like the other 400-series 'scopes, and I've never encountered anything I personally like better. Once your hand becomes accustomed to the front panel's "feel," you won't even have to look to make adjustments.

RE