Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tekkster

  1. Hi Tadpole, Regarding use with Macs, I'm sure there are several threads regarding this all over this forum. But to summarize them: If your GPS is based on a serial interface, then you should have no problems with using a Mac with any Mac GPS software (some mentioned above, I use MacGPS Pro) for uploading and downloading waypoints, tracks and routes. If you have proprietary maps that you want to upload or download, then you need Virtual PC (or another emulator allowing for .exe applications) to work with the unit. Now, for USB-interface GPS's, there's really no hope because no one created a Mac USB driver, and no one wants to....except for one company and the only product they have is the GPS antenna only. It's not a stand-alone (or all in one) GPS. In case you're interested, it's called the Rayming TripNav TN-200 GPS receiver. Incidentally, if your GPS is bluetooth enabled, then you can connect using bluetooth. As a side note, USB 1.1 data rate is theoretically 12mbps, with actual being generally about 4-8mbps. Bluetooth is about 725kbps (much slower). Serial is agonizingly slow at around 115kbps. So serial connections are painful when uploading or downloading maps, but just fine for waypoints, tracks, and routes. pretty much the same for bluetooth. Hope this helps
  2. Here what I've been told recently (correct me if this is untrue). Serial works just fine because of two things. Low bandwidth requirements: Serial based protocols use less bandwidth and as such can exist in emulation mode inside a faster physical connection (i.e. USB). that's why COM port setups work so easily. Second and more importantly, it's unrecognized by default in Mac OSX, so OSX never tries to supercede any applications trying to take control of this emulation-mode port. USB on the other is a a physical connection and protocol that IS recognized by the Mac OSX. So the Mac OSX and any other applications or virtual operating systems conflict when attempting to take control of the port. Hmmmm....don't really know whether this is true, but it rigns true to my non-eeducated ears. If VPC7 really fixes the problem, I'll be happy. But, many OSX users won't have a G5 (those of you who do are lucky), and all the optimization work for VPC7 is focused on G5, leaving the rest of us G4 and under users either very slow, or without compatibility in many areas. I'm fearful here. Someone else asked how I have MacGPS Pro and Route 66 working together. The answer is, I don't. It had been some time since I've used non-VPC methods for connecting to my GPS V, so i forgot what i had done. Route 66 works as is, and with MacGPS Pro, I used a web map. I stopped using this method because it is quite frankly useless for anyone who needs to adjust routes on the fly, have new routes created on the fly, or for anyone who makes wrong turns even with a GPS (that would be me...yes). For Garmin GPS's, only MapSource data files can give you the POI database, road direction database, and speed limit database inside a GPS. Nothing else works.... So I've been forced to use VPC and MapSource over Serial. Pre-loading maps is usually useless because on a multi-city trip, I have to reload new maps to my GPS at night in the hotel room.
  3. So a couple of comments, though everyone seems to have said everything. For VPC, the processor is certainly an issue with, but a bigger issue is RAM. It's best if you can dish out for lots of RAM for your MAC and then give VPC about 768MBs. That speeds things up considerably. I upgraded my PowerBook just for this purpose, and it seems to have been worth it. The other thing is, even though MacGPS pro can't upload routable maps (maybe it can, but I haven't been able to figure it out), it works pretty well. Their site mentions Garmin USB devices, so I'm not sure whether there's any problems. I use the GPS V (which is serial) so can't really comment. The upgrade (which is emailed to you free for a year), just arrived today, so the latest version is 5.2.0. What I do, when I can afford to, is have the Route 66 maps loaded into MacGPS Pro, and then leave the Garmin GPS V hooked up to it, and follow the directions on the much larger powerbook screen....This is incredibly inefficient and cumbersome....but it's an awfully big screen! It's really too bad about Garmin. I love the routing and auto-re-routing software....but if they would just support Mac, we Mac users would have it so much better. Then again, none of the GPS manufacturers I know of support Macs, so it's a bummer....I'll tell you this, though. The first company to support Mac will win a customer right quick....I'll switch without blinking (unless it's Cobra...fo course)
  4. If you drive lots of rental cars, you know that each car is a little different in how the windshield and dashboard is set up. On some cars, the location to set up the GPS (to see the screen and to get reception) is ideal and worry free. On other cars, the flat area of the dashboard may be too far to view the screen, or so close that reception is not so good. I have one of the antennas that can be used on dash or external (from Garmin), and it works great if I set the remote antenna almost all the way forward on not-so-ideal cars and the place the Garmin unit much closer to see the screen. I don't use it every time, but it has come in handy on several occassions. And even left inside the car, depending on the location, you can still get decent reception in a city with a bunch of skyscrapers. Even better would be a the Japanese system for Positioning, which uses a triple combination of Cell triangulation, PHS triangulation, and GPS to show you exactly where you are all the time, even when you're underground, and is incredibly accurate. Then antennas wouldn't be an issue in cities, and in wilderness areas where Cell phones reach....
  5. Just got the CitySelect v6 upgrade, and yes, it's much better to have this, especially if you spend time in various cities. Just in the areas that I know there have been several helpful (really critical) updates. This holds true for most cities, but it's been especially helpful for me near the airports, most of which seem to have changed quite a bit in the last year. Boston, Reagan, and SFO are just a few.
  6. I've had the GPS V for about a year now, and overall, I like it. Several positives: - Auto-routing and re-routing is great (roadtrip, biztrip) - Topo maps work great - Jack-of-all-Trades (Marine, Land, Street) - Tough (Toughest of all my Elec Gadgets) A few light gripes: - Heavyish...not a problem, but heavyish. - Color would be nice, not necessary, but nice. - Screen could be bigger (That would be pretty nice) - More resolution would be pretty nice too. A few serious gripes: - The processor needs to be much faster I have to stop and wait for most things - Memory would be especially nice 512 would be perfect! SD card option??? No???? Why not??!! - Ad hoc map adding would be ideal. it's too slow to not have this feature. - USB (I really hate serial now) As a replacement, the 60CS seems pretty good....but....56MBs? That's just not enough. Other than that, the antenna gets in the way every once in a while. I used one for a business trip/road trip and it did get in the way....same as my old cell phone. The GPS V is less irritating that way with the swiveling antenna. Like some other posts, I thought the 60CS was a merge between the 76CS and the GPS V (slimming down to fewer product families). Guess I was wrong. The Quest does look more like a replacement than the 60CS did. And the fold flat antenna is a nice feature they had in the iQue3600 (ugh, iQue. Great concept, great software integration, loved it, but horribly prone to problems). The 115MB of loadable map storage is nice....but again....SD Card??!! what is the problem with having an SD card? Why does Garmin resist that so much? Why only the PDA's? Clearly, they know how to do it....so why not just add it to the Quest. I'd be sold right then and there. Well, there is the batter issue, but that's not as big a deal if you leave it plugged in the car most of the time, and just take it out for the hiking portion, or the in-between times (i.e. in between cars when on business travel). So the battery, I can live with. It'd probably be a problem for hikers who spend over a week away from their car....but In California, i'm never camping/hiking for more than two days....so really, not a problem at all. It's really just the memory, eh? Garmin has been so stingy with this feature....Wish they would change it.
  7. I've been seeing this too. Did a google search for the Garmin Quest, noticed a website with 243MB internal map memor, figured it was a typo, so did a second google on with "243" added and found several UK websites. (It's how I found this post). I'm wondering if the base map has something to do with it....But that would mean the base map for US is considerably larger (by some 120MBs) then the European base map.... If the Quest came with about 512MB of loadable map memory, you could get the major cities in the US and Canada and some of the surrounding countryside....oh well, can't have everything. USB2.0 wouldn't hurt either....
  • Create New...