Lemino

Would it make any sense to argue that the best batteries belong with the best chargers (both for that particular battery and batteries in common)? Energizer for example, makes good batteries if not the best, according to what I've read. Are their chargers equally good?

"NB !!!!" means "notable", right? But besides the language (which I don't think is a big problem), there is no reason to hesitate, is there?

I'm thinking about buying myself a 60CSx. The problem is that I live in Sweden and plan to buy from the U.S. My question is how often Garmins units (especially the 60-series) has such flaws that they need to be sent back to the retailer? If this, for example, would happen not to rarely, maybe I'll think about buying it from a local dealer to a higher price (or not at all ).

Well, I suppose you can't get everything all of the time. And the new improved accuracy can probably weigh up for the drawbacks. As someone on the forum said; the main function of the GPSr is to provide as accurate positioninformation as possible. One way to see it would be, that if the 60CSx does this, compared to the 60CS, it's also the better GPSr.

About this thing with firmware updates for the new x-series; was there ever any similar issues with, say, the 60CS when it was brand new? And did Garmin fix those issues? Maybe it's possible to learn something from history...

Ok. But would it be possible to incorporate the feature in the future, in the next release of the firmware? Will Garmin try to patch the x-series up to the consumers demands by firmware-updates or do you guys think that they will sometime in the future release a "xz"-series, an upgraded version of the x, with, for example, features like the alarma clock and the dormant barometer? On the other hand, this seems rather unlikely. Has Garmin done anything like it in the past?

Ok. Interesting. I'm thinking about purchasing a 60CSx. Are you sure that this is a firmware issue and not a hardware-one?

Well, this can be tricky. If you look in the manual for the new Vista Cx, it says that the unit's supposed to have 32 h of batterytime. (Same as the Legend Cx.) The retailers, however, state that it only goes for 20 hours. The probable reason for this is that Garmin made a "paste-error" and used the Legend's value twice. I don't know if this explains the 60Cx-case, they may have mixed it up with the 60CSx's value?

Short Life? According to everything I have read, the battery life in the 60Cx is like 30hrs... How is this short? Grimm- David is right, at least if Garmin knows what they're printing. The Cx is stated to have 18 hours batterytime, just like the CSx. However, the data has been wrong before... Is 18 h really "depressing"? From people I have spoken to, 18 or 20 h is more than you need, especially if you have a pack of extra cells just in case. Besides, I haven't read any other complaints at all (I think) about the somewhat shortened batterylife in the x-models, at least not in this thread.

For example, I'm thinking about buying a Vista Cx. Would I get better reception (and if so, how much) if I went with 60CS, 60CSx or a Magellan?

How does these brands differ when it comes to reception? I've heard that the early Magellans wasn't that good, but that might have improved with time? Which one is better when it comes to foilage? I'll presuppose that equivalent models are compared.

Anyone who has hade the opportunity to try the new Vista Cx out yet? In Garmins manual it reads that the batterytime is up to 32 h, compared to the old Vista C's 20 h. Does this correlate with reality? Is the Vista Cx any better battery-wise?

But the batterytime IS measured to be 32 h, right (Even if I wount get 32 full hours in real life)? Did the retailers get this wrong? If so, I should probably be able to get like 25 h or something out of it, right? In any case, it should be a lot better than the old Vista C, equal to the new Legend Cx (since they have the same specs. in this aspect) and almost as good (talking batterytime) as the Legend C. This, plus the expandable memory says a lot in favour of the Vista Cx. The Legend Cx is great but lacks the compass so I don't think that will be an alternative. Or is your experience with batterytime different? How much does the electronic compass drain the battery? (Because from what I've heard it doesn't demand THAT much power to run.) Under what circumstances did Garmin perform their tests? Would using WAAS and the compass only when moving slower than, say, 4 km/h and normal resolution on the map-page equal what Garmin calls "typical use"? (This will probably be the way that I will use the compass.)

Well, I want the electronic compass that Vista Cx offers, Legend Cx lacks that. Besides, if you check the batterytime for Legend Cx in Garmins manual it reads 32 hours as well, so the difference between them shouldn't be that great. Also, you don't use the compass all the time. Do you really think that 12 hours will go away just like that. What conditions have Garmin used during their tests?

Hi, I'm thinking about buying the new x-version of the Vista C, it seems to be the best unit for me. However, I'm curious about the batterytime. If you look in Garmins manual it says that it is up to 32 hours under normal circumstances but most retailers state that it's 20 hours, just as the previous vista c. It seems like strange error from their side since these extra 12 hours would be a very competitive feature. How long is the batteytime really? I've mailed Garmin about this several days ago but haven't got any answer. Anyone who knows?