Etrex X-models Without Sirf, What's The Point

[OttoLund]

I've studied the manuals, was planning to buy an eTrex with big mem. and SiRF high-senistive receiver, they haven't got SiRF(!).

 

Luckily the 60/76 x-series have, very good units, greetings to Garmin.

 

What do you think about the eTrex x-es without SiRF?

Can't the old ones store enough map data?

I only use 2-3mb og mem. for maps at a normal hike, on my 60CS.

 

Otto

http://www.navigate3d.com

Edited January 11, 2006 by OttoLund

[+Sputnik 57]

My bet: If I could get SiRF III in a Legend Cx, why would I spend the extra money to buy a 60Cx? It seems to be simple market stratification.

[+krisse]

Indeed.. The only reason I went for the 60s in the first place was to get the extra RAM, now when on-board RAM is obsolete why would people bother with the clumsy 60 models if it wasn't for the sirfs.

Edited January 11, 2006 by krisse

[HokieBird]

Is the receiver and antenna on the Etrex comparable to the one on the 60CS? I understand the Cx (sirf) should be better than the CS, but how does the Etrex series compare with the 60C or 60CS right now?

[OttoLund]

Is the receiver and antenna on the Etrex comparable to the one on the 60CS?  I understand the Cx (sirf) should be better than the CS, but how does the Etrex series compare with the 60C or 60CS right now?

The "old" eTrex and 60/76 series antennas are almost equal regarding satellitte reception.

 

60/76 x-models are much better, please post when you've tried them.

 

Otto

http://www.navigate3d.com

Edited January 11, 2006 by OttoLund

[HokieBird]

-snip-

The "old" eTrex and 60/76 series antennas are almost equal regarding satellitte reception.

-snip-

 

Then what was the main reason for selecting the 60C or 60CS over the eTrex series? Seems like the 60C is alot bigger with margin benefits (slightly bigger screen is all I can think of).

[+krisse]

Then what was the main reason for selecting the 60C or 60CS over the eTrex series? Seems like the 60C is alot bigger with margin benefits (slightly bigger screen is all I can think of).

2 x RAM.. That was my reason.

[OttoLund]

My bet: If I could get SiRF III in a Legend Cx, why would I spend the extra money to buy a 60Cx? It seems to be simple market stratification.

Yes, you are right. If eTrex x-models had SiRF there would be no need for 60 x-models. But using "old" hardware is not very clever in the long run.

[Neo_Geo]

My bet:  If I could get SiRF III in a Legend Cx, why would I spend the extra money to buy a 60Cx?  It seems to be simple market stratification.

Yes, you are right. If eTrex x-models had SiRF there would be no need for 60 x-models. But using "old" hardware is not very clever in the long run.

The 60 offers a few things that the color eTrexes don't:

1. Serial (RS-232) interface with NMEA protocol

2. External antenna jack

3. 1,000 waypoints (eTrex only 500)

4. Larger display

 

I'd pay an extra $75 or so for all those features. The external antenna is a deal-breaker for me.

[+wildlifewriter]

Yes, you are right. If eTrex x-models had SiRF there would be no need for 60 x-models. But using "old" hardware is not very clever in the long run.

They're only there at all, because of customers...

 

When Garmin introduced the 60-series units, that was supposed to be their "standard" line of outdoor handhelds.

 

But when they asked their customers, many of the customers said: "We don't really like those ugly, expensive, Type 60 units. We love our little eTrexes - and what we just want is an eTrex with a better screen - maybe color - and some extra features..."

 

So the eTrex line still continues, to this day - and still sells.

 

-Wlw.

[shaunknee]

Some good info on sirf:

 

http://www.sirf.com/products-ss3.html

 

http://www.sirf.com/Downloads/Collateral/GSC3(f)_6.20.05.pdf