Brian Stirling

OK, I have you at that point right on the border of LA and AR near the town of Litroe, LA. You're heading NE towards DC or NYC I would guess. Brian

Well I don't always carry my cell phone either and I haven't worn a watch in years. Of course, working in the clean rooms ( semiconductor industry ) broke me of any habit to wear watches years ago. I have no expectation of being able to build this device as the tooling cost to make a device like this is too high for non-corporate type short of Gates to fund from there own pockets. Also, it a guy like me goes to a company that is in the possition to make it what chance is there that they'd take my idea and show me the door? No, the reason I brought this up was that I wanted an idea if those here would be interested or not -- looks like not. Brian

Well I certainly wouldn't expect the built in camera to match the FF sensor of my Canon 1Ds Mark II DSLR and have no intentions of selling my DSLR and lenses if I had the device I've been talking about. On the other hand there are situations that aren't well suited to carrying a large DSLR and f/2.8 lens and in those situations the less capable but much smaller P&S digitals are a better choice. A camera like the Canon SD700 IS or SD800 IS is pocket sized, has 6MP or 7MP, can shoot pretty decent video and can be taken places my 1Ds Mark II can not. Similarly, having a camera in a cell phone or PDA may provide you an opertunity to capture shots you couldn't with the DSLR when it's not with you. Just last night an A-10 dropped a flair into a north Las Vegas neighborhood by accident and the only pictures of it were from a few teens with, need I say it, cell phones. Brian

I'll join you in the minority. There are times I use my PDA when I don't want my GPSr, or use my camera when I'm not caching. So why should I have one bigger, heavier unit when the smaller, lighter indivual items are carried at different times? But if that's what YOU want... Besides, it's easier to talk the wife into four $200 items (spread out over time) than one $800 item. Once again, nobodies forcing you to sell your seperate devices and requiring you to buy my device -- to each his own. I pointed out that the makers of cell phones are incorporating more features every year and the PDA folks are doing the same. You may not want these additional features but many do. The subway (Tube) bombing in England last year was photographed and video'd by passengers with, you guessed it, cell phones. Many people that have been in car accidents have taken pictures of the accident with, that's right, there cell phone. A good number of criminals have been apprehended because a passer by snapped there picture with -- wait for it -- there cell phone. I've seen people in stores like Fry's use there cell phone to take pictures of products and the prices and features for it so they can compare. I've had a camera phone for over three years and have taken at most 20 pictures with it so I'm not all that worked up about having that feature but if it didn't effect the cost much why not have it on the chance it might prove useful. Most of the newer point-and-shoot digital cameras will also take pretty decent video and almost none of the new ones are picture only so you don't have much choice here, but even if you don't plan to use it for video it's nice to know it's there. It's a fact that the additional cost and weight of these features is pretty minimal as most of the feature is the programming of the uP anyway and that doesn't add any weight and very little price if the unit volume is high enough. Brian

Unfortunately not all brains are created equal! As has been said before you shouldn't put yourself in a possition that depends on technology but at the same time there are occasions that require it. Not many of us could free dive to 100 feet so having a scuba tank and regulator is required for most people -- fair to say you GOT to depend on it. Maybe that's why I'm not a scuba diver! OTOH, anytime you drive your car you depend on your brakes -- can't stop without them! Brian

ANSWER: Type on the flip out qwerty keyboard! Many phones have speakerphone abilities so that wouldn't be anything new. And, being able to record the conversation might obviate the need for notes anyway. And I do want to correct the concept of 'everything in one device' that seems to be the interpretation here. I would not expect this device to open up into a tent or to have a mace/peper spray feature. Integrating features that logically go together, make use of the same hardware (uP, storage and display, etc.) and would prove useful is the thing. I have little doubt that a decade from now devices like this will be common place and far more capable than even I have specified. Who would have expected a decade ago that cell phones would have: digital voice AND data communications, still camera and video features, music storage and playback, PDA features, WiFi and bluetooth connection to perifferals, and video games. If I'd suggested such features for cell phones a decade ago I wonder what the folks on this board would have said about the idea. Brian

Yes, in spite of the fact that some here think integrating all these features into a single device is dumb it's pretty clear that the makers of such devices are getting pretty close to having it already. The PDA makers are closing in from one side as the cell phone makers are closing in from another. As best I can tell none of the PDA makers have the display size and resolution I'd want. The best Palm is, I believe, 320x480 and is 3.5 inch and not quite as large as I'd want. My reason for the larger higher res screen is that I'd like to be able to display the RAW images from my digital cameras so as to be able to do field edits/pruning and doing so would bennefit from a larger higher res screen. Also, a larger screen would make map reading easier, particularly for my 50yo eyes. Also, since such a device would be used for internet browsing and email as well as other PDA/handheld PC functions having a larger display is always nice. One of the reasons I mentioned XM/Sirus sat reception is that it could give you news and weather info in places were AM/FM radio doesn't reach. If you're out on a multi-day hike you might want to be able to keep track of the weather. The news features aren't as important, however one of the guys I used to work with was hiking the AT during the late summer and early fall of 2001 -- he didn't find out about 911 until leaving the trail. One other reason a single device has some advantages is the need for only a single charging system. If I were hiking for a week with such a device I might want a small solar cell on my backpack that could charge my spare battery. Brian

1. If you are out in the backcountry depending on a piece of electronics to save your life, frankly you're stupid. In SAR they have name for people like that - dead. There are too many people heading out into the backcountry with the idea that they can always call for help on their cell phone. Well, sorry to say that doesn't always work. Most of the backcountry isn't covered by cell networks. I've stood on top of Mount Rainier, with full view of Seattle & Tacoma and not gotten a signal. Electronic devices are fragail, run on batteries that can become depleated, or lack signal need. Also, most people in such a situation aren't going to be nicely calm, and sit down and do an internet search. A more likely scenerio is they go to pull out the miracle device is such a hurry they drop and break it. 2. Gee, how have the rangers gotten along without this device so far? See the above response. 3. I'm sure every Boy Scout is going to be able to afford (by your estimates) a 500 to 800 dollar device. And what if he is hurt and can't answer the call? Dependency on electronics is not the way to go. The above opinions have been formed over the last 40+ years of hiking the backcountry, being a First Aid instructor, and a climbing instructor. Hey, no one said you HAD to depend on it. If you have the device to help navigate around and it is also capable of providing life saving information about a species of snake you were not familiar with why not use it? It is all too true that some people venture out without knowing an area well enough and to do so becuase you have this neat toy is unwise. Let me ask you this -- should the person that's crashed his car and is trapped simply wait for someone to come along and help him or should he just use his cell phone to call for help? Yes, there are places without cell coverage but hardly a week goes by without hereing on the news how someone called for help with there cell phone and was saved. Let me ask you another question -- if your wife/girlfriend/daughter were driving a long distance would you prefer she left her cell phone home or have it with her -- remember, she shouldn't depend on it -- right? It would be nice if everyone that ventured into the mountains and woods were trained in survival like military pilots but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Having technology shouldn't be a crutch but if you have why not use it were feasable? Before GPS hiking was a map-and-compass thing and it would be nice if hikers today knew how to do it. Knowing how to navigate by the stars, moon and planets is also a nice thing and if I were teaching a course in backwoods survival I'd expect my students to get by without ANY technology. You know: follow streams downhill, follow powerlines, head towards to light in the sky at night that usually indicates a city, etc. OK, one final question, say you're heading out into the mountains for a week long hike, what gear do you bring? Do you take a cell phone? GPS? Compass? Maps? Sextant? Altimeter? Brian

The D70 is a nice DSLR and it's a kind of cross over camera in as much as DSLR's of 6MP have pretty much equalled the best the 35mm color film can do (35mm B&W has been eclipsed by 12MP DSLR's). For sports there's no way film can hang with digital as you can bump the speed ISO800 or more and still get pretty clean images. When I was travelling across the western USA I had the F100 and D100 for about half the trip and then switched to Canon when the 1Ds Mark II came out as I do mostly landscape photography and the 16.6MP FF 1DsM2 is unbeatable for landscape until you go to the larger medium format film cameras. In fact, if you have a good day you can shoot many overlapping pictures then stitch them together on the PC to get as high a resolution as needed. I have a few images in the 200MP+ range and that's right at the 8x10 film range for resolution. Just remember when you're shooting the football game to keep the camera pointed at the players and not the cheerleaders! Brian

Well I have several cameras. I've had a Yashica and a Minolta Maxxum 7000. I still own a Nikon F100 and D100, but a few years ago I switched to Canon and have a 1D Mark II and a 1Ds Mark II DSLR. Of course I also have a collection of lenses (24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 28-135mm IS, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4L IS). I got my first digital camera, a Kodak DC210, in 1998 and a year later upgraded to the DC290. The 210 was more of a toy but the 290 was pretty good and openned my eyes to the possibillities of digital. In 2002 I got my first DSLR when the Nikon D100 came out. I was a great camera and relagated my F100 to the shelf. In 2004 I travelled across the western USA and had switched to Canon. At present I've shot about 20,000 pictures with the D100 and about the same with my 1Ds Mark II. As a PSD I've had a 20GB Nixvue Digital Album and when the battery began to act up I replaced it with an 80GB PD70X. Brian

You still don't get it. I got all that and more. You missed the point of the humor and that part you obviously don't want to get. So 1.4 lbs isn't close enough to 2 lbs for you. It is more than a mere 12 ounces, but that's pushing shot glasses back and forth. That's ok too. Like I said, it was a dusty memory but it still was a more accurate target than your 12 ounces. Cheers! Here's hoping you find yourself lightening up soon. I've made the case for 12 ounces and haven't had to change my guestimation three times in doing so. A device such as I detailed would weigh about 12 ounces -- not 1.4 pounds, not 2 pounds and not 6 pounds! You refuse to accept that FACT that adding the features of a cell phone does not require adding a cell phone -- just the features! You've not mentioned my observation that adding the features of these seperate devices does not require having 4 cases, 4 batteries, 4 displays, etc. You make snide comments about my 'superiority' but fail to chalenge the fact that integrating more features into silicon doesn't require REQUIRE additional weight or battery consumption. You site a number of examples (6 pound laptop) that imply you're a smart guy but the examples you site argue against that assumption. The average laptop may well be about 6 pounds but there are versions larger and smaller (<4.3 pounds). But, once again, the laptop was never the point of comparison I was using so why you chose to pick it is anyones guess. We've hastled over this point for the better part of a week and you hide your refusal to accept your errors with a pretend smilly face -- you we're not joking and everything you have said since confirms that fact. You implore me to 'lighten up' while at the same time continuing to argue, in error, "... So 1.4 lbs isn't close enough to 2 lbs for you. It is more than a mere 12 ounces..." I can take a joke as well as anyone but I can also see when a joke isn't a joke. But, just in case anyone else is reading along and is still here let me give you a few examples where such a device might even save a life: * You're hiking along and you come upon a snake you're not familiar with, perhaps you're bitten by it, what do you do? Well you might look up snakes in the encylopedia and efter a minute or two you match it with a picture and discover its poisonous. You contact 911 or similar, give them your lat/lon/alt and within 25 minutes a helicopter picks you up and delivers you to the hospital BEFORE you die. The emergency staff knows what snake it was because you identified it with the encyclopedia and you took a picture of it with your digital camera, and they are able to give you the correct anti-venom. * You're a ranger and have been told of an emergency. You look at your device and are able to see both your possition and that of the emergency and are able to determine the quickest route to get there. * You're a the leader of a Boy Scout Troup and one of your kids is missing. You contact him and determine his location because he has the device and you are again able to plot the quickest route to rescue him. Brian

So, if you had these references handy why did you 'estimate' 6 pounds on your first go then 2 on your second? You might want to take a new look at my first posts. The first one had a winky in there... My second post explained it was tongue in cheek with a smilie in it. The 6 lbs btw, was in reference to a laptop. You're taking yourself too seriously to see the humor. (I hate having to explain an obvious one liner - geez) and Two pounds for everything you asked for based on current technology is the correct target. The OQO is old technology, limited in speed, disk size (20GB is too small by your wishlist) and memory (XP uses 192MB to be efficient). It also received poor reviews as too little too late. You listed out PDA benefits as part of your wishlist so the OQO really doesn't match yor wishlist quite as well as as the Dualcor. Add the weight of the extras in the components you're looking for and 2 pounds gets closer to the truth; the Dualcor is 1.2 lbs and gets closer to your wishlist target and is also better bang for the buck over the OQO. As to why I didn't list them out previously? It took 30 seconds to google it. I figured you to be a smart guy to figure out something similar already exists. Or maybe... I was just being a wiseguy based on your superiority crack at my guesses versus your guesses. Btw, there were no guesses in my respons = es. All my answers were correct. 6 lbs is a laptop. I had to dust off old memories on the 2nd response of 2 lbs. And the pricing was dead on. By the way Microsoft had made a big fuss last spring on the Dualcor. I'm surprised you missed it. Jeez, where do I start... At no time did I indicate the device should be a laptop -- that should be obvious enough as the laptop has already been invented so the reference to 6 pounds was NEVER correct. Two pounds becoase you have to add the other features and they will add weight? OK, if you add features you MAY add weight but why is the necessary? But even if it is let's add it up? Cell phone: 3.5 ounces (Motorola V3i) GPSr : 2.6 ounces (Garmin Foretrex 101) PDA : 5.8 ounces (HP iPAQ HX2795 Pocket PC) PSD : 10.5 ounces (Creative Zen Vision w/60GB HD and 4.3 inch LCD) Adding that all up as SEPERATE devices we get 22.5 ounces or about 1.4 pounds. I should point out that the Creative device is larger and heavier than needed as it uses a 2.5 inch HD and not the smaller and lighter 1.8 inch HD. So, at worst we're looking at 1.4 pounds. But, why do you have to add the weights this way? If you recognize that there is no need to have 4 batteries and 4 cases and 4 displays etc. Forgive me if I come off superior here but I'm mearly chalenging the comments you made in error. The modern cell phone with camera, pda and mp3 features in addition to the rf/phone functions isn't any heavier than the past phones because the features were added -- they mearly upgraded the processing power of the uP, at no additional weight, and provided the software/firmware to run them, again, at no additional weight. Here's how I see it: Start with the lergest device, the Creative Zen Vision that has a 60GB HD and 4.3 inch LCD display. We have a display that's pretty close to what I spec'd and also does audio and video with outputs for same. Replace the uP controlling it with a more capable one that can do all the other things needed -- additional weight is zero. Add the RF functions needed for the cell phone and wifi feature -- about 1 ounce or less. Add the gps funtion -- well that already covered with the cell phone addition but call it an ounce just for s&g's. Add the PDA/handheld PC -- again, the more capable uP is all that's needed and that does cost anything in weight. Total weight = 12.5 ounces! What part of this don't you understand? Brian

No problem -- I won't listen to your music. I'm not sure how being able to output the music (and/or video) requires that you do so to the inconvience of others... Current iPods can interface with the car stereo -- does that offend you? Surely there are idiots that blast their music and you can here them coming from a mile away, but that doesn't mean you or I are required to do so! Brian

A couple of good pointers here... Of the two the OQO is closer to the package size I was looking for and at 14 ounces is very close to the 12 ounces I'd estimate. So, if you had these references handy why did you 'estimate' 6 pounds on your first go then 2 on your second? I don't think one needs a full on XP/Vista/OS10 based handheld for my application and the already avialable products from Palm and HP have suffieient horsepower to do most of what I would want. In fact, XP/Vista/OS10 are kind of the Swiss Army Knife OS's and Lynux is a closser match to the functionality needed though the Palm OS and handhelp PC OS is even closer to the mark. As the feature size for the chips goes down so does the power requirement for a given level of processing power. Intels latest uP's are at 65nm feature size and they have a definate path down to 30nm using immersion lithography. The dual core uP's are nearly twice as powerful as there predacessors and require about half the power! A device such as I've detailed could well be integrated into a single chip with perhaps another chip for RF functions. As I look a couple years down the road there is no reason to doubt that a handheld device could have more power than todays desktop PC's and still run on a small battery pack. You don't need the power of todays PC's to do what I want. Most of the items on my list are already integrated into the latest generation cell phones so adding the additional features I listed would only require the addition of: HD (1.8" at <2 ounces), larger display and battery (perhaps 3-4 ounces). A few here have also mentioned that they don't want all the eggs in one basket -- fair point -- but wait a second. If you want a cell phone and mp3 player and gps and pda you could do that with four seperate devices or a single one -- the modern cell phone. It doesn't look like the folks buying such cell phones are too terribly put off by the fact that they are all integrated into a single device. In addition to reducing the weight by putting all these things into a single device you ADD capabilities you can't do so easily with seperate devices. Say you're out caching and you have your new multifunction device with you. You follow the moving map display (topo map etc.) to the cache without having to consult with paper maps or secondary pda's or fumble arround with the wires to connect your pda to your gpsr. Need that tip -- no problem, just call it up on the screen. Brian

Well I can see you haven't done much comparison with what IS available so let me fill you in... Two product that have much of what I detailed are the iPAQ HX2795 and the Palm TX handheld PDA/PC's. Both have relatively larger displays (about 3.5 inch) and both have the processing power to do all or nearly all of what I specified and both weight less then half a pound (6 ounces)! The device I listed would be a bit larger and would include a HD so I'd put the weight at about 12 ounces or less -- or a bit more than a third of your last guestimate and an eigth of your first. A couple more guesses and you might be in the ballpark. Oh yeah, the price for these units is about $300-500 (USA). So, adding the HD and cell phone functions might double the price to the $600-1000 price and my best estimate, provided the first units come with ALL the feature I detailed, would be about $850 or so. Brian

OK, asside from the obvious fact that most here discount the possibility that such a device is even possible I'd like to know if such a device were made available would it interest you. What would you want it to have and would you not want it to have. Generally, when things like this are developed it's done in stages with the first stage having far fewer of the features then the later versions. So, if I were to go through the list of items I detailed a few days ago I might subtract the HDTV features and perhaps the digital camera feature in the first version but would expect to add them, and perhaps some other things, after a market has developed. At present we are left with the hodge-podge of devices that individually have most of these items in several seperate devices. Cell phones, for example, have had digital cameras for a number of years and some now also do video. In addition, many cell phones have some form of GPS built in and a crude PDA capability. And, that's really my point -- you can integrate lots of things into a single device -- if there's a market for someone will develope it! If we start with the high end cell phone what's missing from it to get to where I'm thinking... * Larger high resolution LCD screen * 100GB HD * Greater handheld PC functionality * HDTV capabilities Current high end cell phone already have most of the other things including: Bluetooth and MP3 in addition to the other things aready mentioned. The iPod has the HD and good quality audio already and the later ones also do video and can act as a PSD to store things like digital pictures from your camera. At pressent the iPod is a bit smaller than needed for the items I mentioned and the display just doesn't cut it in my view. Also, as a PSD the iPod is just about the worst at transfer speeds and it can't display RAW files at all. I similar device with the larger higher resolution display and handheld PC functionality would get around those limitations. Some of the better PSD's have larger and higher resolution displays and can display many of the RAW formats so it clearly is possible to do so. The top Epson models are pretty nice but they don't have the other functionality that cell phones have. So, although it is appearant that many here don't think the device I detailed is possible I can assure you that you would be wrong. If you take the functionality that the cell phones, iPods, PSD's, handheld PC's and GPSr's already have and design a device that combines most of the features into a single unit you're not really required to conjure up anything that hasn't already been done -- mearly putting it all together into a single, well integrated package. The only question is -- would you want one if it were available. Brian

Just as a FYI. The Moderaters frown on you for posting the same topic in multiple threads. El Diablo Yeah, I erred by starting this thread here so if the moderators wish to kill this here then fine. My bad... Brian

Not likely! If someone is thinking about doing the design and engineering and then the tooling to manufacture something like this then they're not going to plan on losing money. If you look at the products I mentioned that are similar (GPSr, PDA/Handheld PC, PSD, iPod, etc.) then figure on spending more than any of those items. How about $750-$995 for starters and after a time when volume increases I could see a line of such products with differnt HD sizes and features beginning at about $495 and going up to, perhaps, $795 for the most capable unit. Brian

Six pounds is awfully heavy for a GPS doncha think? Why six pounds? I've worked in the semiconductor manufacturing industry for over 20 years and they are pretty good at putting everything into a single chip or a small number of chips. Of course to do so would require a minimum market to make the design and engineering effort worth it but if enough of us ask for it they will provide. I should also mention that I moved (copied actually) this thread to the "GPS Units and Software" page as that's probably a better place for this... Brian

This thread was started elsewheare then I realized this is the best place for it so here's goes. * I only recently upgraded to the Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx and though it is a nice improvement over the 12XL I'd been using for nearly 8 years it isn't the perfect solution. * About the same time I got the 60CSx I also splurged for an Apple iPod 30GB (black) and it to is great but also less than perfect. * I also have a PSD (portable storage device) I use to store pictures from my digital cameras and it has an 80GB HD but no sound or video capabilites either. * For mapping pruposses I have a couple laptop and desktop PC's that have great displays but are not exactly hiker portable. I use one of the laptops along with the 60CSx while driving and in combination with Delorme Street Atlas it works very well in this application, but, once again, it's not field portable. * Lastly, like most of us I also have a cell phone and in my case it's a Motorola Razor as my previous one was stolen a couple months back. So, putting it all together here's what I want: 1. An iPod sized or slightly larger PDA like device with... 2. A 3x4 inch high resolution (1280x1024) display 3. A 100GB or larger HD with 4GB or so of flash memory and perhaps 1GB RAM to reduce the HD activity 4. A high quality sound system with ability to output no only stereo to headphones but also HDMI and 5.1/7.1 though the later features are less 'necessary' 5. Ability to output HD video to onboard display and also output it 6. Cell phone features 7. GPS features with baro altitude and compass 8. PDA/Handheld PC with flipout keyboard capable of marrying all the above features and do -- MAPPING and moving maps at that 9. A 6MP digital camera feature would be nice also but not absolutely necessary 10. WiFi and Bluetooth comm. 11. OK, why not sat radio (Sirus/XM) 12. High capacity battery (LiIon) with ability to swap out fresh one without tools. I could imagine having a single, multi-function connector, to handle power, USB2(HS), video, audio and data. OK, I've created my wishlist, now who wants to add/subtract from it or otherwise comment? Brian

I only recently upgraded to the Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx and though it is a nice improvement over the 12XL I'd been using for nearly 8 years it isn't the perfect solution. About the same time I got the 60CSx I also splurged for an Apple iPod 30GB (black) and it to is great but also less than perfect. I also have a PSD (portable storage device) I use to store pictures from my digital cameras and it has an 80GB HD but no sound or video capabilites either. For mapping pruposses I have a couple laptop and desktop PC's that have great displays but are not exactly hiker portable. I use one of the laptops along with the 60CSx while driving and in combination with Delorme Street Atlas it works very well in this application, but, once again, it's not field portable. Lastly, like most of us I also have a cell phone and in my case it's a Motorola Razor as my previous one was stolen a couple months back. So, putting it all together here's what I want: 1. An iPod sized or slightly larger PDA like device with... 2. A 3x4 inch high resolution (1280x1024) display 3. A 100GB or larger HD with 4GB or so of flash memory and perhaps 1GB RAM to reduce the HD activity 4. A high quality sound system with ability to output no only stereo to headphones but also HDMI and 5.1/7.1 though the later features are less 'necessary' 5. Ability to output HD video to onboard display and also output it 6. Cell phone features 7. GPS features with baro altitude and compass 8. PDA/Handheld PC with flipout keyboard capable of marrying all the above features and do -- MAPPING and moving maps at that 9. A 6MP digital camera feature would be nice also but not absolutely necessary 10. WiFi and Bluetooth comm. 11. OK, why not sat radio (Sirus/XM) 12. High capacity battery (LiIon) with ability to swap out fresh one without tools. I could imagine having a single, multi-function connector, to handle power, USB2(HS), video, audio and data. OK, I've created my wishlist, now who wants to add/subtract from it or otherwise comment? Brian

I think you'll love the 60CSx although it is not a perfect unit. Among the issues most talked about here is the altitude feature with the barometer. Garmin has not quite figured out the best way to use the baro feature and the altitude indication can be off by several hundred feet when your changing your elevation quickly as can happen when driving in hilly/mountainous areas. It would also be nice if the battery life was a bit better than 18 hours for a set of NiMH batteries but that's not a killer in my book. Brian

Just wondering, how big is the house boat and how much does it cost to rent? Thanks, Brian

As has been mentioned before the use of fast chargers (45/30/15 minutes) are not a good idea if you want your batteries to last long. I'm not talking about how many hours they last on a charge but how many charge cycles they last. The big problem with fast chargers is that they overheat the batteries and that's not good for them. Better to use a good (smart) charger that takes several hours to charge and has individual charging circuits for each cell. You can use a fast charger in a pinch but just know that it's not good for the life of the battery. What would be better for GPSr's would be a rehargable LiIon battery of comparable size to two AA batteries. Such a battery would last 1.5 to 2x as long as good NiMH batteries (24-30 hours in the 60 CSx) and have much lower self discharge. The big problem with NiMH is that they will self discharge in about a month and are best used right after charging whereas LiIon has much better self discharge ratings and should hold a decent charge for several months. Brian

It's odd that the 60CSx should puke over fresh Li batteries as the manual indicates in the specifications section that it can be powered by two 1.5 volt AA batteries, USB data cable, 12 V adapter cable, or up to 36 VDC external power. Now the Li batteries will be higher voltage by a bit over a freash set of alkalines but not by much. Also, since the unit can except up to 36VDC the internal power supply can certainly handle it. I do hope this is fixable in a firmware update. Garmin has always been the leader in my mind but it does look like they are cutting corners now -- sad! Brian