Didjerrydo

How drunk WERE you? Kidding. Clear satellite view, I suppose? I haven't seen that (so far.) Hey, just a few beers!..Yeah, actually the unit was laying on my coffee table indoors (but showing a a 14' accuracy. I will retry it outdoors but I really believe I'll see the same behavior.

Is this kind of wandering about of position normal in the Colorado?: This track log "occured" in a matter of 30 minutes or so while the unit was stationary at a fixed location. Seems like I never seen this much wandering occur with my 60CSx.

I can find no instructions whatsoever anywhere on how to include an image with a post. What's the trick anyway?

Yes that make sens, but Only Garmin can confirm this. I don't think so at all. If the clock fails to keep accurate time, and you're not specifically looking for this problem as your primary concern when you switch the unit on, what you'll first observe is, that it's not picking up satts, and failing to locate. Obviously, this is because the almanac is wrong and it's looking for the wrong satts in the first place! This is what I observed, and I believe, posted the first mention of the issue on the Colorado's here several weeks ago. The clock is supposed to work all the time, period. I've sold Garmin GPS units for 15 years and all the previous models I've dealt with did, although I must admit, I've noticed some rather inaccurate timekeeping here and there from occasional units. By this I just mean a few seconds drift over a couple of days, not flat out stopping entirely, or losing big blocks of time like the many Colorados are doing on a regular basis!

I received a replacement 400t from garmin yesterday. Did the update, took it to my sat free office, turned it on on 5 pm, it still displayed 7:52 am... yet another return for me. Did you give it the 20 minute period with a clear view of the sky AFTER doing this last update in order for it to totally reset its almanac data prior to your test? If not, this can easily happen.

I called and asked Garmin's handheld team if the new firmware update addressed the clock problem in the Colorado's and they claim it supposedly fixed it. I'm just wondering if it really did though. Has anyone updated yet still see a clock problem (losing time)?

"Improved acquisition time in certain circumstances." Is this Garmin's way of saying we fixed the clock issue, or is this something totally different?

Make sure ... when you do ... you only pull out the thing that has a roller wheel on it. Nasty! So THIS is what's been going on with your units. Which REI did you get your units from? I ain't telling.

Gee, I think I'll dunk my 300 in the commode again- I'll bet this new firmware had made it waterproof!

I think Garmin has a problem here. I never had this with any earlier units I've owned. I just hope it's fixable via a software update and not something hardware related. Yet again, this isn't an issue. This is even covered in the (GPSmap 60 units) users manual. When any GPS hasn't established a satellite lock, not only does it not know where it is, it doesn't know when it is. When the unit is moved a considerable distance and has been turned off for some length of time (not sure how long this needs to be), the GPS isn't aware of the positions of the satellite relative to its position. This is especially true when batteries were removed or discharged. You guys know this. If not, where have you been? Especially if you own a GPSmap 60 unit. This is a common situation with that device. You expected something different with this unit? I am not a GPS pro, but I have taken considerable time to read about and use all my GPS units. I have more than a basic understanding of its operation. It seems that there are two camps here: Those with this information (who don't have major issues with the Colorado) and those without this information (who have major issues with the Colorado.) Also, I rarely read that these folks with issues have actually called Garmin and discussed these issues with them. When I do read that someone has called, the typical complaint is that the person they speak with is relatively clueless concerning this new unit. The internal clock chip within any GPS unit (Colorado or otherwise) is there to keep relatively accurate timekeeping when the unit is turned off. Otherwise, the unit will experience varying periods of delay in re-acquiring satellites due to the fact that it is scanning for the frequencies of satellites that are not available (below horizon). Sure, you can tell the GPS to "Autolocate Position" which erases all almanac data and causes the unit to totally have to re-establish this data, which works, but slows everything down greatly. The clock is supposed to work, period, whether the unit is on or off. Otherwise, how is functions such as the alarm clock supposed to function properly? I have talked at lenght to Garmin's head of handheld technical support concerning this and believe you me, he is taking it very, very seriously!

I think Garmin has a problem here. I never had this with any earlier units I've owned. I just hope it's fixable via a software update and not something hardware related. I am very sure, Garmin has a problem here. I had the same experience with my 300 today. Stopped both my 300 and 76cs this morning and started them up this afternoon. My 76cs had a fix within a minute, the 300 however did not find a satellite for over 15 minutes. The satellite constellation on the 76cs was totally different from that of the 300. The map however showed the right position. After at least 15 minutes it told me that there seemed to be problems with acquiring satellites. "Do you want to continue"? YES! Within seconds it found 8 satellites at 100%. These were NOT shown in the sky view!! Fix came on and everything worked fine again, showing coherent information. If this should be drift in the internal clock, it is very much more than 15 minutes (several hours will do better). I hope it is software, otherwise this is really bad. Cheers, Stormy Garmin is apparently taking this issue very seriously, and according to the correspondence I recieved from this morning, an update will be appearing within the week. Exactly whether or not it can/will address this clock thing is uncertain but I would think/hope something like this would be top priority ! Otherwise Garmin is going to see a mass migration of Colorado's of all types coming back to Olathe!

This is an ongoing issue that seemingly effects all Colorado's. See my post ( http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...183925&hl=) from weeks ago when the first units hit the market. I can't believe Garmin hasn't jumped all over this and put out a firmware update to fix such a serious problem! It kinda' scares me that they haven't and makes me wonder if it might be a hardware issue instead. Surely otherwise they would deal with this immediately since it almost cripples the normal functioning of the units!

That don't help me here in the mountains of western North Carolina (outside the Smokies)!

Webscouter is exactly right. This is precisely what happens when the clock is losing time- slow aquisition because it is looking at an incorrect almanac due to the time error. The aggrivating thing is (at least in all 3 units I've had this issue with), this erratic clock behavion is totally random. It will work perfectly for days and then take several hours off-time for whatever reason. This also totally screws up the alarm function and pressure plotting (when unit is off). Hopefully Garmin is going to give fixing this problem very high priority with its next update which supposedly just around the corner.

Believe you me, this issue is Garmin's #1 priority to get fixed with the illusive "next update", whenever that happens. I've been talking to a rather high-up tech guy at Garmin and he assures me that this is a MAJOR issue and that the update is getting pretty close. Supposedly the erratic clock operation is also a top priority according to him.

There you go,another drowned Colorado 300! If these things take on water this easily, Garmin is going to see them returning in droves once there gets to be bunches of them out there in use. This has never been a problem with previous designs. I think someone dropped the ball here in an effort to come up with a sleek, sexy body shape.

I have learned to tolerate most of the shortcomings (as compared to the 60CSx) of the Colorado 300 except for the really lousy NiMH battery life and the most annoying one- the erratic clock operation. I've been through four units now, and every one has had this issue. The internal clock just decides to not keep time when the unit is off for a while. This screws up the alarm clock function as well as the time it takes to re-establish a proper almanac and locate. If Garmin doesn't address this one soon by a firmware update, mine is going back for good!

Yeah, I don't see what's the big deal. I'm not wanted for anything as far as I know and don't suffer from "Big Brother Paranoia"! What's the big problem here anyway?

Sure, this should work fine. As a matter of fact, I understand that all the pre-loaded mapping software cards that Garmin will sell are Micro SD in the SD sized adapter. I guess this way one card fits all (60's, 76's and Colorados). There's also a 4000 map limit and 4GB is the max sized card usable in the Colorados I understand.

Come on SB. Stop making excuses for Garmin. Garmin is a big boy and does not need you blowing wind up their back side while singing their praises. (Blowing and singing at the same time is quite the talent at which you seem quite adept.) There are plenty of "problems" with the initial release. I think you'd find it hard to get any Garmin designers, testers, or executives to say the Colorado was released "bug free" and/or that the model is currently functioning as designed. The reports from the Garmin/Groundspeak events indicate Garmin freely admits to "problems" that will be addressed in future updates. Either those who attended the events and reported back to us in these forums are lying and the Colorado is perfect in it's current form or they are truthfully reporting the facts and there are indeed problems. I find it hard to believe that the reports found in these forums are anything less than full and honest disclosure intended to keep us informed. Are you saying those who reported back to us were lying? There is a whole laundry list of core functionality issues and an ever growing list of un-met expectations. Some are minor and some are quite significant. The first firmware updates and the chip-set change are early attempts to get a handle on some of the issues. Garmin never released a full manual for the Colorado and has not even come out with a list of features. Therefore, nobody but the designers can truly say if the unit is functioning as designed or expected. In Garmin’s own words, the Colorado “…is designed for the people who are serious about getting out there (and) finding adventure…” The Colorado is “rugged and waterproof to IPX7 standards,…..and (has) the ability to wirelessly exchange user routes, tracks, waypoints and geocaches with other select Garmin devices.” The advertised screen shots show features and detail not currently reported by anyone using the Colorado. The limited manual has a few examples of their own screen shots. Good luck trying to reproduce those looks.. IMHO, the Colorado is currently a glorified, repackaged, retooled, and overpriced Nuvi. For those “serious about getting out there,” it falls short as released. The work-arounds documented in these forums allow you a peek at the Colorado’s full potential, but that potential will not be fully appreciated until the problems and issues have been addressed. Time and effort on the part of Garmin will afford us the opportunity to look back at the initial release with true perspective. When that day arrives, and I hope it arrives soon, the Colorado will be a powerful, serious, fully functioning, and innovative piece of equipment. BTW, saying something is "substantially exactly" as advertised makes no sense. It is either exactly as advertised or it is something less than advertised. Substantially is somewhat less than exactly. Therefore, the terms are in opposition to each other and should not be used together. End rant. Continue with the love fest. FLOWER POWER and please pass the brownies!! I'm afraid the above usage of "substantially" falls within the bounds of context! sub·stan·tial [suhb-stan-shuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money. 2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real. 3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique. 4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement. 5. wealthy or influential: one of the substantial men of the town. 6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons. 7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing. 8. of or pertaining to the essence of a thing; essential, material, or important. 9. being a substance; having independent existence. 10. Philosophy. pertaining to or of the nature of substance rather than an accident or attribute. –noun 11. something substantial. [Origin: 1300–50; ME substancial < LL substantiālis, equiv. to L substanti(a) substance + -ālis -al1] —Related forms sub·stan·ti·al·i·ty, sub·stan·tial·ness, noun sub·stan·tial·ly, adverb —Synonyms 3. stable, sound. 6. valid, important. —Antonyms 2. immaterial, ethereal. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This sub·stan·tial (səb-stān'shəl) Pronunciation Key adj. Of, relating to, or having substance; material. True or real; not imaginary. Solidly built; strong. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin. Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do. n. An essential. Often used in the plural. A solid thing. Often used in the plural. [Middle English substancial, from Old French substantiel, from Latin substantiālis, from substantia, substance; see substance.] sub·stan'ti·al'i·ty (-shē-āl'ĭ-tē), sub·stan'tial·ness (-shəl-nĭs) n., sub·stan'tial·ly adv. (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This substantially adverb 1. to a great extent or degree; "I'm afraid the film was well over budget"; "painting the room white made it seem considerably (or substantially) larger"; "the house has fallen considerably in value"; "the price went up substantially" [syn: well] 2. in a strong substantial way; "the house was substantially built" WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. We don't need anyone starting this crap again. I thought we were over that. We are here to discuss GPS.. get over it!

In the other thread about the clock problem they recommend that you leave the GPSr outside for at least 20 mins to download all the info (almanac?). From your post above it sounds like you're just letting them get a signal and then shutting them off. Is that correct? No, I actually gave them the 20 minute treatment.

I can appreciate you testing out these units at your store, but you did receive them as stock to sell as new to a customer. That fact that you open them up and play with them and re-box them to sell as new to a customer bothers me though. After seeing the first unit's clock fail, I simply thought I'd be doing our customers a favor by putting batteries into these units, letting them locate, turn them off and then some hours later turn them on inside to make sure the clock was functioning properly. Commonly here at the store customers ask me to initialize their new units and make a few basic configurations for them. I handle these units with kid gloves and never in 15 years have I had a customer complain about doing this!

That really should have no bearing whatsoever on the timekeeping of the internal clock. There's no internal "battery" per se. I assume there's a capacitor or something that maintains enough power to keep the clock active (supposedly).