GPS shopping

[Kevin Rooney]

While I believe Garmin has a firm grasp on the GPS market, I do think some of their software leaves a bit to be desired. For example, they should do a better job testing MapSource before they release it. A recent release was exceptionally slow. That appears to be fixed, along with a problem with font sizing, but ... it crashes regularly with the latest release.

Another gripe I have is the inability to use one's PC (Mac) to customize the GPS options themselves. There should be some type of utility which allows you set these and download the settings to the receiver itself. And, along with that capability, there should be more detailed info on the effects of each option setting, and for those which impact other settings, a discussion of the pros and cons, trade-offs, etc.

I use my Garmin 60CSx constantly, and aside from the added weight and clunkiness of it compared to the eTrex HCx, it's a most useful tool. However, I would dearly like to know why the track occasionally "disappears" and after struggling thru several menus and submenus while in the field, often under less than optimal circumstances, I find that it has chosen to go into "invisibile" mode. This is a mystery to me, and assuming it's not a bug, I'd like to know what combination of settings causes this occur.

Garmin makes good products and charges large sums of money for them. If they had better software I believe their market share would be even larger.

 

[DougPaul]

While I believe Garmin has a firm grasp on the GPS market,

Not everyone agrees--a number people have become annoyed at how Garmin's newer lines of (particularly automotive) GPSes have become dumbed down compared to earlier models. (Some feel that the Oregon and Colorado are part of this trend.) They are also following the trend of adding extraneous features: eg mp3 players etc.

I do think some of their software leaves a bit to be desired. For example, they should do a better job testing MapSource before they release it. A recent release was exceptionally slow. That appears to be fixed, along with a problem with font sizing, but ... it crashes regularly with the latest release.

Welcome to modern commercial software: they release it, you pay for it, and you get to beta (or alpha ) test it too... At least they issue free updates with improved features and bugfixes.

Another gripe I have is the inability to use one's PC (Mac) to customize the GPS options themselves. There should be some type of utility which allows you set these and download the settings to the receiver itself. And, along with that capability, there should be more detailed info on the effects of each option setting, and for those which impact other settings, a discussion of the pros and cons, trade-offs, etc.

Yes that would be a nice feature. (Except I basically set everything to my preferred setting and rarely change it. A paper list might suffice for me.)

The manuals do leave a bit to be desired. You can get updated versions from their website. (Also handy if you want to preview the product before buying.) However, I wonder how many people actually read the manuals these days...

You can't please all of the people all of the time. You should see how adamant some newsgroup posters can get about their favorite proposed feature. (Often said feature is technically impractical or ignores the needs of other users...)

I use my Garmin 60CSx constantly, and aside from the added weight and clunkiness of it compared to the eTrex HCx, it's a most useful tool. However, I would dearly like to know why the track occasionally "disappears" and after struggling thru several menus and submenus while in the field, often under less than optimal circumstances, I find that it has chosen to go into "invisibile" mode. This is a mystery to me, and assuming it's not a bug, I'd like to know what combination of settings causes this occur.

Is the track still being recorded? (ie can you download it later and are the gaps filled in?) I haven't observed this problem with my normal settings.

There are several settings which affect the track and track display. Some set the recording parameters (under "menu > tracks") and some affect only its display (under "menu > setup > map setup--tracks")

Garmin makes good products and charges large sums of money for them. If they had better software I believe their market share would be even larger.

Actually, considering what is in them and what the cost used to be, consumer GPSes are IMO a bargain. And the signals are free! (At least once you have paid your taxes...)

Doug

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Is the track still being recorded? (ie can you download it later and are the gaps filled in?) I haven't observed this problem with my normal settings.

There are several settings which affect the track and track display. Some set the recording parameters (under "menu > tracks") and some affect only its display (under "menu > setup > map setup--tracks")

Doug

Yes, the track is being recorded, but not being displayed. It's happened a few times recently, so I'm getting better at quickly finding the appropriate setting to make it re-appear on the screen. One of the challenges, for me at least, is that in the west, with it's greatly reduced levels of humidity (at least where I do most of my hiking now) it is very bright, especially at elevation. I've found that experimenting with color schemes and adjusting the color of the track, can increase visibility greatly. When I'm in the east I don't find this quite as necessary as it's nowhere near as bright.

To put my previous gripes in some sort of perspective - my hunch is the hiking community is a small part of Garmin's business compared to it's automotive line, so whether some of these issues will be addressed is anyone's guess.

What's happening to GPS' is also occurring with cell phones. Sometimes we want just a phone (or GPS) - and not a combo phone/GPS/MP3 player/Satellite radio/alarm clock/internet browser/coffee maker.

 

[michaelb]

Geko 301 vs 60CSx (or any high sensitivity GPS):
The reception of the 60CSx over the geko 301 under poor skyview conditions is dramatically better. (Yes, I have an eTrex Vista and a 60CS (both pre-high-sensitivity). I almost always use my 60CSx (high sensitivity)).

eTrex Vista HCx vs 60CSx:
Both will perform well with a poor skyview. The eTrex is a bit lighter, but has fewer features and a smaller display. (Larger displays, up to a point, are a big help.*) The optimum orientation of the eTrex is horizontal while the optimum orientation of the 60CSx is vertical (easier to carry on a pack strap). The 60CSx can also use an external antenna (desirable if you want maximum accuracy, for instance to map a trail).

* The 60CSx display is large enough that I can also use it in my car. (I can use the 60CSx anywhere I use a GPS: hiking/walking, biking, driving, or boating.) Many feel that it is the best all-around GPS available.

Doug

Well the 2 oz "bit lighter" is 36% and adds up when 5.5 oz for the vista seems like a lot. Although the 60 CSx screen is "bigger" it doesn't seem to have any higher resolution, and the vista's resolution actually contains just a few more pixels. If screen size and resolution matter (and they usually do), then the 6.8 oz Oregon has almost 3x the screen resolution of the 60 CSx in a slighter bigger screen.

If I was going to consider the weight and the bulk of the 60CSx, I would personally look to the 76 CSx instead, since I like to paddle as well and the 76CSx floats. It has the buttons on the top instead if that matters.

 

[Peakbagr]

If you're a paddler, the 76CSx makes sense. A good friend of mine and GPS expert chose the 76 over the 60 for the same reason.
To me, the 76 seems bulky and I prefer the button locations on the 60CSx.

At to the weight, I know that the ounces add up to pounds, but I'm usually carrying a 20 pound pack in summer. Even if that pack were 10 lbs, the weight difference (to me) of 2oz is inconsequential.

 

[DougPaul]

Well the 2 oz "bit lighter" is 36% and adds up when 5.5 oz for the vista seems like a lot. Although the 60 CSx screen is "bigger" it doesn't seem to have any higher resolution, and the vista's resolution actually contains just a few more pixels. If screen size and resolution matter (and they usually do), then the 6.8 oz Oregon has almost 3x the screen resolution of the 60 CSx in a slighter bigger screen.

If I was going to consider the weight and the bulk of the 60CSx, I would personally look to the 76 CSx instead, since I like to paddle as well and the 76CSx floats. It has the buttons on the top instead if that matters.

The weight is worth the extra function for me. The physical size of the screen is also a factor--I think there are enough pixels that it doesn't make much difference here. The Oregon has a touch screen--such screens tend to be relatively delicate. Can you operate it with mittens on? (It is also reduced fucntion, increased gimmick, and a lot more expensive.)

The 76 series has the same electronics as the 60 series. It floats because the case has more volume. I understand the 60 series also floats if you use lithium batteries or a neopreme foam case. (I haven't tested this.) The issue of buttons on the top vs buttons is purely personal preference--go to a store and hold them in your hand. The flatter case of the 76 series may sit on your deck better but the 60 series fits in a pocket better and is better armored in case you drop it. There are happy users of either series.

Doug

 

[Hikes4fun]

I have the old garmin geko 301. I would like a new gps someday, but this one still works well enough. I am struck though by how nobody appears to care about weight and size. As nice it is, the 60CSx is 7.5 oz with batteries, and over 6 inches long with the antenna sticking out top. I just have a hard time seeing carrying something so big and heavy on the average hike for what use a GPS can be most of time. I would like the vista's to be small and lighter too, but the vista is more manageable at 5.5 oz. For backcountry navigation in real use, what can the 60CSx do that the vista can't? (this question is not for me as much as for the OP, to at least offer the choice to save money and weight).

I'm sorry... but what imaginable difference could 2.5 oz make....Maybe you need stronger legs Anyways--I use a nice clip on my pack straps and believe or not the length never seems to bother me...

 

[Shardik]

Just a few ounces here and there add up

I'm sorry... but what imaginable difference could 2.5 oz make....Maybe you need stronger legs Anyways--I use a nice clip on my pack straps and believe or not the length never seems to bother me...

..Ya riiiight,
Battery life 25 hours against 18 ,more compact,less expensive.
I also prefer the 60CSX, but chose my Legend HCx on my Haut Pyrenees trek.
I had to cut my pack weight from fifty pounds to thirty,and did.
A few ounces make a big difference ,when you apply this to all the equipment.

Doug,thanks for the lithium batteries tip.Managed the whole trek with one set , and power to spare.