Ratsneve

Since 8GB SDHC cards are $15-20, why does this make sense? This is internal flash memory integrated into the system. Not the memory card inserted into the slot. I could be wrong but that will allow larger maps and images without having to worry about the size of your storage card. Isn't it very likely that this 8GB of internal memory is nothing more then an 8GB MicroSD located inside and addressed as the internal memory instead of the smaller standard MicroSD card addressed as internal memory in a regular PN-40? Maybe. But I still like the idea. If I'm going to make a purchase, I'm going to make it last at least 5 years. I'll the max I can with the little I have. That's the same attitude I had when I bought the MeriPlat and it has served me well. I expect nothing less with the PN-40 and I'll gladly go after the bigger internal memory. Maybe. But if lots of internal memory really becomes important a year down the road or so I can't imagine DeLorme not ramping up and selling more PN-40se's. It just looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot. It isn't lot's more internal memory...its the limited edition angle driving me (forcing me) to consider this now. ON THE OTHER HAND... Can I preorder the PN-40se through REI or is it only directly through DeLorme? But heck, I'm playing a game I have no business being in even--my mapping needs are so limited. What I need is some major advantage to using internal memory exclusively and keeping the SD slot empty? Maybe there could be some other devices that would plug into the empty SD slot--like wireless capabiltiy? Hey Chip? Not now but, you know, in six months?... With external temp probes and software to record when the unit is turned off even the highs and lows and chart it; integrate to my Prius to chart gas milage along a route (I love that one. ); a sonar for depth readings; heart rate and cadence?

Since 8GB SDHC cards are $15-20, why does this make sense? This is internal flash memory integrated into the system. Not the memory card inserted into the slot. I could be wrong but that will allow larger maps and images without having to worry about the size of your storage card. Isn't it very likely that this 8GB of internal memory is nothing more then an 8GB MicroSD located inside and addressed as the internal memory instead of the smaller standard MicroSD card addressed as internal memory in a regular PN-40? Is there really any speed or access differences between internal memory and an external SD or MircoSD card? My first thought was, "Why do companies play these exclusive pre-order games on us?" Gimmicks turn me off. DeLorme, PLEASE don't make extra memory exclusive to the first 100 PN-40's you sell--just offer the PN-40se to anyone wanting/needing more internal memory for $100 more. As far as that goes you could offer a model for $200 more that includes 8GB of internal and an external 8GB SD card? You don't need to play these pre-order games really do you? Or, how about this...? I assume opening up a PN-40 would ruin warranty so unless internal memory is soldered on the motherboard one wouldn't likely go this path anyway, BUT you could offer an "upgrade" path to anyone if they really needed more internal memory? I still haven't read any "why" answers. Well, this isn't going to change anyone's mind. Of all the _many_ things that have _impressed_ me about DeLorme and the PN-40, offering a limited number of PN-40se's doesn't.

My CO had the carabiner that needed to have the strap reversed to fit on well, but when I got my OR the carabiner fit on just fine. I'm pretty sure that it was already installed in the way that lets it go on smoothly - and it went on even more smoothly than the modified carabiner goes onto my CO. Then I had to replace the first OR for an air pocket under the protective cover that was giving me touchscreen problems. New OR had a good carabiner that went on easily as well. Then I had to replace it again for crashing when I squeezed it. My 3rd OR came with the same old backwards strap on the carabiner that wouldn't go on without a lot of force. Luckily it was easier to reverse this time and it now slides on just fine. This strap also seems to be slightly too tightly sewn on the carabiner end such that the carabiner doesn't slide around on it very well - it binds and usually at an odd angle that I want/need to correct. :-( I traded my CO for the OR and I am extreemly happy. I just tried the carabiner and it did not fit without forcing in on the unit. Thanks for the tip of reversing the strap, it work great. I wish people who just got Colorado and Oregon units wouldn't be so extremely happy with them right off the bat. But I am glad reversing the strap worked well enough for you. Did you still send Garmin an email to let them know?

I still haven't gotten into using MapSource much but I was under the impression that the built in Help file at least covered these basic mapping concepts? Is there any better source for how to manage maps and how to use MapSource? Thanks.

I just want to mention here that two have emailed me about "alternate means" to unlocking maps without bothering Garmin. I want you all to be aware that I have long been aware of these possibilities posted in Usenet binaries especially but gave up these means years ago. I just want to make it clearer that these other means would not have to be periodically mentioned if Garmin would once again PLEASE TRAIN YOUR phone technical support people to know how to properly transfer registrations and map unlock codes OR TO TRANSFER the call to those who _can_ handle the problem instead of wasting _my_ time.

It is a mixed bag over the carabiner luck. No doubt many have reversed the nylon strap and avoided the problem. I choose as part of my $600+ with maps investment to try to force Garmin as much as I can to fix even the little problems.

Let's hope it will fix all of the above.

Great post; glad it is indeed waterproof. How do you plan on installing 2009 when only the update is available? Do you have the full version of City Navigator NT installed? I tried installing the update, but it failed as I don't have the full version. Well, as you may tell from my later not so great post getting City Navigator 2009 to work on the Oregon is a big failure so far. In my case where Garmin knows that I was forced to change GPSr's because of their failure and because Garmin has the defective units it isn't like I'm trying to install City Navigator on two units. Unfortunately in these cases Garmin is the one who has to jump through some hoops while standing on their hands and like most problems I've confronted them with with two COs and this OR the first tier of support continues to be less then helpful. Believe it or not I was told by the first software tech who actually _straightened out_ an identical problem with unlocking City Navigator in my new Colorado that the updated City Navigator 2009 I had installed (present) in MapSource was all I needed and it has its own short key code--not the 25 digit code the guy today gave me. This first guy that straightened it all out the first time did something at his end, I think I entered the shorter key code he gave me for the 2009 update at my end, and all of a sudden the map sent the GPSr unlocked and worked. Maybe both the original and the update CN have to be unlocked to the new GPSr and the guy today only unlocked the 2009 update? I do have the full original version of course but since when the 2009 update is complete in MapSource you do not have to keep the 2008 present in MapSource. BTW, just to show you how little the guy today or I know of this whole process I noticed that after I entered the new 25 digit code that supposedly unlocked everything and allowed transferring the Oregon CN map to the OR GPSr that the comment field next to the CN map installed still showed the old CO s/n and ID, while a previous entry map above this that indicated it was not installed or unlocked when I looked through its properties contained the new 25 digit code I had just entered. The map that said it was installed and unlocked had a different 25 digit code. No explanation could be made for this disparity but I was assured everything was okay. First thing Friday morning will be my next try to get a software tech to straighten this mess out again.

If it is a review it is an honest one and it isn't finished. I think people are justly afraid of the Colorado and Oregon... They need lots of polish (the CO and OR) unless you would rather just accept technology as is whether it all works right or not or accept Garmin's weak excuses of "just minor problems". I wish someone in Garmin would start rolling heads and redefine and rehire quality assurance. Begin rant... I'm too depressed to work this Oregon further right now...maybe by Friday I'll get more sorted out with Garmin's sucky technical support. They left me hanging with City Navigator changed over to the Oregon all right and a state loaded into the Oregon and assured me everything was fine but it wasn't. They screwed it up just like they did last time and I've banged my head against the wall already for forgetting what I learned last time. The Oregon won't unlock the map so even though it is there it is useless. Last time, now that I remember it to late, I had to call Garmin, wait a half hour to get the first line of support and then wait another 40 minutes to get the software tech support... I have Friday to look forward to doing that all over again now. I HATE GARMIN! I long for the day when I might get things working well enough to tell Garmin to go @#$% themselves--they are generally clueless about the Colorado and Oregon product problems. For the fourth time I found myself explaining what was wrong with the Carabiner design for why it would not slip on the unit without a certain adjustment or modification first...and for the fourth time the guy understood and said I was right (but Garmin, not the poor phone tech, could car less.)...and for the second time they are sending me out a free carabiner replacement but who knows how it will fit. End rant... The PN-40 is just daring me to drop down in screen size and base map quality... Should that have been part of the rant?

The OR seems to work from what little I have done with it. It came with 2.2 software and I've upgraded that to 2.3 but am holding off on 2.4 until "2.5" comes out. After coming from the CO and getting pretty use to using it one handed my first impressions of the OR are that I don't like the touch screen as much--but I think this would be expected at this point. I successfully "accidentally" after careful preparation set the OR into 13" of water for around 5 minutes while running. At the bottom of the tub it lost satellite contact. I tapped it gently in all different positions at depth to let water seep in where it should and then carefully drained and tapped and dried off the outside. The battery compartment was totally bone dry. I actually had a minor concern when I first installed the batteries because the foam strip on the cover rests on these batteries and the cover didn't appear to go down quite as far when locked and there was slight resistance to the cover edge being totally flush. Also of note here is a tiny clear pin hole in the cover. I could see light through it but in fact is is well sealed and of no concern. But I had to laugh all the same. After installing the MicroSD 24K U.S. Nortwest Topo and disabling the 100K Topo base map I noticed that when I was zoomed out to beyond the 20 mi increment the 24K map stops drawing...the map field is blank. Actually, if you wait long enough they will draw out I suppose but it takes to long to be practical when you want to roam around. The 100K base map doesn't seem to have this problem--nor when both are enabled. I'll be loading and registering the unit and City Navigator 2009 shortly I hope. The other thing I haven't figured out yet is the red pin that shows up wihen I tap and/or start moving around the map. I haven't learned what it is good for? And if I don't want it I can't get rid of it until I move back to the location mark...but if I don't want to move back there doesn't seem to be any way to explore without the pin floating around. Yet another thing I haven't figured out to do is if there is a moutain icon or place icon and I want to display what the mountain or place name is it has so far been very tedious getting the pin (apparently) on an icon to register what it is. Time to play more...

Done. Of minor note...I had to rename the file downloaded. Once this was done restarting the OR updated the software/firmware successfully. Of second note...This update file disappears entirely. Yesterday late I finished a total backup of the GPS directory. Reading its properties on the GPS I got 2,839,461,888 bytes with ~1.160 GB remaining free. When finished the backup directory properties read 2,839,318,283 bytes... I was expecting these values to be identical but there appears to be more on the GPS that was not copied? Are there hidden files that won't copy? Could they be made visible to copy or would this be a dangerous undertaking? Have you accounted for these different values?

Got the Oregon this evening. It has 2.2 installed. I'll get the registration/unlocking done tomorrow--that should take an hour. Maybe the tech will encourage me to upgrade to 2.3? First impressions with the touch screen after using the Colorado are not real good yet.

GO$Rs, if calibrating the barometer fixes it until cycling the power, might this have the same temporary effect on the tide tables? It seems to me that no barometer and tide tables might be better then a permanent memory full and not being able to install the 2.4 update? Do you agree or what might be your advice on this? Thanks

I don't know freeday. I think everyone posting a Garmin problem they are having should post a one liner that they have emailed and/or phoned Garmin. It would be very interesting to learn how many Oregons are out in the field; and of those how many even have the 2.3 update installed; and of those even how many are tracking any problems at all?

No. Until Garmin gets their act together _everyone_ experiencing these problems or trusting those who have acknowledged these problems needs to phone or email (or both) Garmin tech support. I know it sounds stupid but just one person mentioning a problem isn't going to do anything. Garmin simply does not trust anything said by anyone in these forums. If someone in software is actually fixing these problems right now their is zero communication between them and technical support. As far as I'm concerned so far between Garmin engineering and technical support it is the blind leading the blind. We've got to find someone somewhere in Garmin willing to open their eyes and start communcating with us wtf is goiing on before the powers to be at geocaching.com (all of us) can let our guard down and hope somthing is automatically being taken care of.

What is recommended? Staying at 2.3 and suffering the original problems 2.4 fixes OR updating to 2.4 and suffering no barometer or tide tables? I would guess that if the pre 2.4 updated Oregon has to be returned to Garmin for repair that the loss of barometer and tide tables is a better deal? Does the 2.4 update actually fix and do everything it says it does (minus the new things it breaks but makes no mention of)?

Tired of hearing about the Oregon feature failures after applying the 2.4 software update, I called Garmin Technical Support in the hopes I could learn something of these issues and might measure some improvement in Garmin's technical support services. I'm sorry to report there are no improvements: The person I talked to was not aware of any 2.4 update problems for the Oregon and specifically the barometer and tide tables. He could not reach any software engineering to see if they could confirm these two problems with the 2.4 update. He found one person I believe who had heard of the barometer problem. He suspects that someone is working on a solution but clearly the right hand still does not know what the left hand is doing at Garmin. He is elevating the problem to his supervisor. He agreed and is looking into how one might downgrade the firware back to 2.3 until 2.4 is fixed by "2.5?". He indicated that he "thought" that 2.4 was not causing these problems in house. He might as well have said this because otherwise I was going to question whether Garmin really does any good beta testing of firware updates. Instead of using the WebUpdater I believe one can download the update to their PC/Mac. If that is true and if one had a copy of the 2.3 update can one revert back their Oregon to 2.3? Is it that simple to do? I should be getting my Oregon any time now. I'm so excited--not! Oh, and so far they have charged my card full list price for the Oregon--not exactly the $40 I had expected. Fortunately (pun intended) they do acknowledge this little bit of trouble so my credit card will be fixed before the 2.4 update is fixed.

The Colorado has displays for depth, air, and water temperatures. Not certain but I think the Oregon has none of these. I just haven't a clue what a 'NMEA input' is? Would there be some 'input' to the Colorado so accurate ambient air temperature could be displayed which currently only seems to read internal GPSr temp? I think there was . . . until Garmin discontinued the serial interface cable, that only lasted like . . . a week, maybe a month tops! Norm Even if Garmin removed the serial interface why did they leave the water temp and depth displays? Is it possible that the same wireless interface used for geocaches, heart rate and cadence could, with software that works, communicate with other wireless gadgetry such as sonar and temp probes?

The Colorado has displays for depth, air, and water temperatures. Not certain but I think the Oregon has none of these. I just haven't a clue what a 'NMEA input' is? Would there be some 'input' to the Colorado so accurate ambient air temperature could be displayed which currently only seems to read internal GPSr temp?

Does or will the PN-40 offer the following features: 1. Recording barometric pressure trending while the unit is turned off? 2. Reading ft/min? (Should be answered in post above this one.) 3. Ambient air and water temps? I think the answer for air temp is 'no'. Could these be added software functions connected to available ground station WAAS? 4. Water depth? 5. Sun and moon rise and set forcasting? 6. Moon phase forecasting? 7. High and low tide forecasting? Thanks.

Would you describe how water depth and water temperature work with your 60CSx please? How is this possible? Thanks.

One of my favorite old questions too. I was surprised my eXplorist 200 wouldn't read minus elevations. The Colorado will from what I understand but I haven't been able to test it myself. It will read a negative rate of descent when descending in elevation which is fun to watch either way but will it continue to read negative when descending below sea level? And how about that PN-40 too? OK, I just reviewed the relaxed version, if I may describe it so, of the NDA and I think that I can now respond to that question. Yes, the PN-20 does NOT chop negative values of elevation and display them as 0. This is true for elevations derived from GPS data and derived barometrically. I live essentially at sea level, about a 1 1/2 mile inland from PCH. While the PN-40 I see negative values for both elevation determinations. But don't worry for me. I'm OK and my feet are not wet and the PN-40 is not giving bogus data. The negative values are just the resultant phenonema of measuring data subject to random fluctuations. I have no reason to believe that we would not get numbers in the range of -290 to -270 feet at Badwater. Well, in any event, we'll now have to go to Badwater for other reasons. What about ft/min? Does the PN-40 do ft/min and would it continue to read minus when dropping further down below sea level and only go positive when ascending even if you were still below sea level?

Doesn't do much good when I don't have anything yet to compare with. But one thing I am curioius about is it shows a bearing of 28 degrees true but the arrow is pointing more like SSW or 208 degrees true? Isn't true north at the top always? If you prefer it otherwise can the PN-40 set true north to the top? Or perhaps I'm totally missing something else? My recollection of the CO was somehow similar to this.

When you do something like this on the Colorado, might one assume you can do it on the Oregon too? (Porbably a terrible assumption to make--to make any assumptions on a Colorado or Oregon.) Are the roads and trails that you could describe in your procedure above fully routable too? You really should post a picture of what you have done here if you would? Thanks.

The suffix at the end of the PN-20/40 files happens to be pm0, for those who care. So if you let a new GPS company into your life, welcome to another format. Fortunately, I let that be a matter between the PNs and the software. But yeah, if you want to bring your own imagery into a PN, XMap is the gateway software for that. That was indeed how I did the Smith Rock trails: downloaded a pdf of the park map, took a screen snapshot and saved it as a jpg, imported the jpg into XMap and registered it, and then traced the trails it showed. After I had the trail layer, I ditched the imported jpg layer because it didn't look so hot after its journey. At that point I could have XMap generate the pm0 file for the PN-40. If you have a good quality image to import, you could use it for your imagery. It would be rasterized if you retained it...on reflection, my aesthetic choice to chuck the jpg allowed for the more efficiently sized vector file. For something the size of that park, though, it wouldn't have been too big a raster file. Perhaps I ought to add for clarity that pm0 files can contain both raster and vector data. I really don't want to pay another $200 for XMap 6 Professional Software even if I pay another <$500 for a PN-40 from REI. I think it will be far more practical for me to explore/learn how _I_ can do this mapping--or not--to wait until I get a PN-40 in my hands but perhaps I can still learn more about what my limitations will be.