twhang

i suppose... it just feels so... un-independent.

I'm looking for either of these two units as my first GPSr, I wanna' start geocaching right away! I've got enough to spend and have done all the proper research, so don't think you can trick the newb (sorry, I've got to say it just to cover my bases). I'm not against buying used units and don't mind any aesthic defects as long as they don't interfere with the operations of the unit, in other words: scratches, missing paint, dirt = okay. **I'm really not interested in the eTrex Basic -- but if you're capable of offering a really good deal, I'll take it.

I don't understand what's being said here, but I'm planning on buying a GPSr (probably a eTrex Legend). Let me get this straight, because I'm running OSX on a Powerbook G4, I'll have to buy a USB->Serial Port adaptor? Then I'll need a third party MAC->GPS coordinate transfering software to move coords from my computer to the GPSr. Finally, to use the mapping capabilities I'll have to buy PC only mapping software and VPC to download the maps onto my GPSr. Is this correct? If I'm gonna' have to pay $300 (exaggeration) for VPC, wouldn't it just be more economical to buy a non-mapping GPSr?

okay so let say i get the eTrex Legend (i'm still 5050 between the legend and gps 60) are there any readily available and bug free topo software for my macintosh computer?

I've read many debates about the virtues of a quad helix antenna (usually, but not always, protrudes from the body of the unit) vs. a patch antenna (as used on the eTrex series). I did a lot of research on this and discovered that each type can be superior to the other, depending on conditions. Quad helix generally performs better in flat areas or under dense tree cover because it can pick up satellites from horizon to horizon. Patch generally performs better in cities (tall buildings), near cliffs or hills, and in ravines because it is oriented to the satellites overhead, and is less prone to multiplexing (receiving reflected signals that degrade accuracy). You'll frequently find yourself in both situations while geocaching, so there is no real advantage of one type of antenna over another. Like the Magellan vs. Garmin debate, there are devotees on both sides of the antenna debate who will swear that they've "proven" one is better in side by side tests - I wouldn't give those assertions much weight. A separate, external antenna that plugs into the unit can improve reception, but do you really want to be carrying an external antenna around with you in the woods (a plug in external antenna is more useful when the GPSr is used in a vehicle or boat, where portability is not a concern). i guess i was considering the issues of having an external attenna, but i think i could pull it off. i've got a lightfighter raid pack with pleanty of milspec webbing that would work fine for weaving an antenna through... but then again i have no idea how much an external attenna costs. okay, so let me get this straight, mapping vs. non-mapping: a mapping unit will have an actual map on your screen with your coordinates, so assuming you've purchased topographic maps for it, it would show ravines and hills and potentially unpenetrable barriers where as a non-mapping unit is just an arrow pointing in the direction of the gps coord?

Okay, well I'm more or less set on the Etrex legend, but i also recently stumbled upon a GPS 60, which looks nicer (not that asthetics ought to mean anything) and it also has an antenna which is not built into the body, which i read on a site, increases your reception with satellites. is the gps 60's capabilities on par with the legend, or would i be taking a step backwards?

sorry, more questions: for reasons unknown to me i checked out the walmart website and was suprised by prices even lower than those of ebay (that's ebay prices w/o the help of a sniper). as far as tthe garmin products go (the magellan prices aren't too good) the items i'm looking at are the plain etrex (the yellow submarine as you folks like to call it), the etrex venture, and the etrex legend. after looking at the comparison of the legend, venture, and basic, i cant tell which of the two higher models are better than the other. now, your database/basemap is what comes preloaded on your gpsr? if so wouldn't it be better to get a world wide city database with the venture over the legend? next, map points: whats the different between points of interest and "uploadable information"? would i be able to preplan my trips on my computer and load those direct to the legend vs only having POI for the venture? thanks for helping, i'd just like to be properly educated before spending a 100+ bank on something.

i just took another look at the garmin website, and i cant tell which etrex models have the data port and which dont. i'm going to assume that the models that cannot accept maps do not have data ports, while the mapping units do? is that fair to say? because in that case the basic unit would be an etrex legend, which on ebay seems to be going for about $150.

Not sure where you heard that. There are many Garmin fans here simply because Garmin makes excellent GPS units. There are also many devoted Magellan users who post here. The honest answer is that both companies make excellent units that will get the job done. I originally chose the Garmin because at that time it was the only one that was water proof. I'm clumsy, I fall in streams, creeks, lakes and small mud puddles. I'm not sure if Magellan now makes a waterproof one. El Diablo actually i heard it from the navicache guys. they painted a picture where GC was Garmin biased while NC was Magellan biased. Whatever though, I'll take a deeper look at some of the eTrex models. one other thing, i saw something about external attenas, now are these for cars? or could i weave a string of this stuff through the webbing on my pack?

I'm brand new to geocaching and have everything but a GPSr. While everything I've read has said that a GPSr within the $100-140 is considered a beginners piece, I'd like to go even lower. I'm still a student and simply don't have the money to spend on this kind of equipment. Honestly, I'm not too worried about losing whatever capabilities a higher priced system has to offer, I'm really more interested in the opportunity to go hiking and climb around than find treasures. So along those lines, I probably don't need a mapping system, nor would I need color screens or a very precise antenna. I was also confused about the PC linkup, are these absolutely necessary? Can I just punch in the coordinates by hand on the handheld? Because if a PC linkup is necessary, I might be in trouble considering I have a Mac, unless there is software for that too. I'm looking at getting a Magellan eXplorist 200 or 100, both of which I've found for under $100 on eBay, and I'm told that they're good because they have a WAAS (?). Their waterproofing is also a big benefit and personally, I like the look more than the Garmin eTrex line. I'm told this forum has a Garmin bias, but I just need a simple honest opinion -- hell, I'd even buy an older unit if it promises reasonable accuracy and capability to survive a decent beating.