Vista cx vs. 60csx

[Pyro37976]

After looking at both the specs of the Vista cx and the 60csx the only differences I found were that the 60csx was Sirf enabled while the Vista cx was not, the size of the units, and the button layout. Are there any other big differences? Is the 60csx worth the extra $150... seeing that I like the small size of the Vista cx and I'm contempt with the button layout, since it's the only layout I've used? Hows the accuracy of the 60csx vs. the Vista cx? My Vista cx usually says about 20 ft accuracy and the cache ends up being 30 - 40 ft away from what my cx says . Thanks in advance for your input!

Edited September 10, 2006 by Pyro37976

[+JanniCash]

After looking at both the specs of the Vista cx and the 60csx the only differences I found were that the 60csx was Sirf enabled while the Vista cx was not, the size of the units, and the button layout. Are there any other big differences? Is the 60csx worth the extra $150... seeing that I like the small size of the Vista cx and I'm contempt with the button layout, since it's the only layout I've used? Hows the accuracy of the 60csx vs. the Vista cx? My Vista cx usually says about 20 ft accuracy and the cache ends up being 30 - 40 ft away from what my cx says . Thanks in advance for your input!

 

I had a VistaCS. Lost it and upgraded to a 60CSx. Got used to the different button layout in no time and IMO the SiRF chipset alone is worth the price difference.

 

Jan

[kb9nvh]

SIRF puts the reciever in a different league

 

After looking at both the specs of the Vista cx and the 60csx the only differences I found were that the 60csx was Sirf enabled while the Vista cx was not, the size of the units, and the button layout. Are there any other big differences? Is the 60csx worth the extra $150... seeing that I like the small size of the Vista cx and I'm contempt with the button layout, since it's the only layout I've used? Hows the accuracy of the 60csx vs. the Vista cx? My Vista cx usually says about 20 ft accuracy and the cache ends up being 30 - 40 ft away from what my cx says . Thanks in advance for your input!

 

I had a VistaCS. Lost it and upgraded to a 60CSx. Got used to the different button layout in no time and IMO the SiRF chipset alone is worth the price difference.

 

Jan

[Pyro37976]

What's so great about the Sirf chip?

[+BigLarry]

My friends and I like the Vista over the 60CSx on our mountain bikes as it's much more rugged and compact size. The 60CSx seems to have a lifetime between repairs of only a couple months versus a few years for the Vista. If it weren't for the much better ruggedness of the Vista compared to the 60CSx, we'd all be using the 60CSx on our handlebars as it has much better performance.

 

Unfortunately, the Vista doesn't have the SiRF receiver as you mention. But everything else important is about the same: expandable memory, good interrace, software for geocaching, number of pixels on the screen (just smaller screen but same pixel count), same waypoint and track capability, USB port, altimeter and compass function, and so on.

 

So just how important is the better SiRF receiver in the 60CSx? Enough that I purchased a 60CSx as a second GPS, and leave it wrapped safely in my back pack when I ride. It is mostly to get a slight improvement on tracks from my rides. But I use the Vista on the handlebars for my primary navigation and I am very happy with the Vista performance in that role.

 

In Northern California, I rarely loose reception with the Vista, oriented face up on my handlebars. When I get good reception, the accuracy between the Vista and the 60CSx is comparable. I only loose reception on the north side of steep hills with lots of trees.

 

I have a couple images of the tracks between the two on a recent mountain bike trip to Oregon. You may need to log into the post on this site to see the pictures. I'd post them here, but don't can't link to them for some reason.

 

1. One picture is a worst case I rarely see gong down Larison Rock. It's indeed on the north face (north is up in the pictures) of a steep hill thick with trees. The Vista track is the white straight lines between widely spaced track points and the 60CSx is yellow track. Ignore the first big straight white line, I had the Vista turned off on the bus shuttling us up to the top. If you look at the tracks, you see the Vista tracks only start getting very jagged at the bottom of the steep 3000' hill, which is the top of the picture. The 60CSx has high precision the whole route.

 

2. The other picture is a moderately difficult reception, in the narrow valley along the Middle Fork stream thick with thick trees. Here you see the Vista (in yellow this time) only lost reception for a mile or so in the middle of the 28 miles, going by a steep hill just to the south. The Vista and 60CSx tracks are virtually the same elsewhere.

 

You can see the Vista looses badly on the very steep north-facing wooded hill, but does OK on the wooded valley. Again, these are the most demanding situations: steep mountans and thick woods, and I usually get better. Most of my tracks from the Vista and 60CSx are on top of one another on 90% of my rides. The better SiRF receiver helps a lot though on those last 10% of places.

 

If you don't need the more rugged Vista, I'd go with the 60CSx as it's the receiver is much better in those occasional situations that need it, depending on where you use the GPS. It's just about worth the extra $150 price. On the other hand, the Vista is very usable in most all situations. Whereas I'd like just a little better reception with the Vista, the much superior 60CSx reception is often overkill. You really don't need to pick up GPS reception inside your house or local store. And you can wait a minute or two for it to start up.

Edited September 11, 2006 by BigLarry

[+El Diablo]

What's so great about the Sirf chip?

 

It locks in faster and doesn't lose the lock. I can get a lock anywhere in my house within 45 secs. This is the greatest thing since the wheel!

 

El Diablo

[+CaspianJVC]

The other advantage the 60csx has over the vista cx is the quad helix antenna. The 60 does not have to be facing up to get sat reception and can be hanging from your belt etc and still give a good track log.

 

The vista cx is still a good unit and for the price point is well worth it.

[+DocDiTTo]

What's so great about the Sirf chip?

 

Sensitivity. I borrowed a friend's 60CSx for a cache trip, cause I knew we'd be under heavy tree cover and my older etrex vista probably wouldn't keep a lock. That CSx kept a signal the whole time.... it was extremely impressive. What was even more impressive was on our way home... we stopped at a rest stop for coffee, and while in line at the Starbucks I had 8 sats locked in tight. My Etrex Vista loses signal if a bird flies overhead, and here I was with 8 sats locked indoors? Oh yeah, I was impressed. That was back in June. My new 60CSx is due to arrive this week. One of the other guys on that same trip with me just ordered one also. (He was pretty impressed too)

[+NetJunkie]

Get the 60CSX. We have both the Vista CX and the 60CSX. The Sirf chipset is much nicer and the button layout is SO much better to me. It just makes more sense and is easier/faster to use. I believe the 60 also has a faster CPU as it seems to redraw faster.

[+hamgran]

same waypoint and track capability,

 

Are you sure about the waypoint capability being the same? I understand that the Vista C and Vista Cx only have 500-waypoint capability, whereas the 60C and CXS have 1000. (The addition of the mini-SD card in the Vista Cx expands the map capacity but not waypoints). Am I wrong?

[Pyro37976]

You could be right, I thought that the bigger the card the more waypoints you could have. But, I am fairly new to GPS so you are most likely correct in saying that.

 

(edited for typo)

Edited September 20, 2006 by Pyro37976

[+kevnmc]

I just returned a Legend Cx for a 60Csx(I'm pretty sure the only difference between a Vista and a Legend is the Electronic Compass and Altimiter). The one thing I noticed immediately was that the backlighting isn't as bright on the 60Csx. I suppose this makes sense to preserve battery life, considering the screen is larger. I was a little put off by the dimmer screen but I'm sure I will adjust.

 

Also, I didn't see it mentioned that you lose the Alarm Clock on the 60Csx. OK with me, the limited tone volume would have never woke me up! I also don't recall seeing the "Jumpmaster" icon on the Legend. This is a feature for skydiving.

 

Aquiring a satellite link and maintaining it are definately better with Sirf. I would also say that the rocker button on the 60Csx is way nicer. I found the little joystick on the Legend to be annoying and flimsy. I am however concerned about the white lettering on the keys of the 60Csx. It seems thay will rub off over time. Hope I'm wrong!

 

Overall...If you like the small form factor of the Vista Cx and aren't to concerned with aquiring a fast link, don't need the slightly better antenna, larger screen(and dimmer) than the Vista Cx is a real nice unit.

 

hope this helps.

[jonners]

I bought a Vista Cx, having compared the spec to the MAP60CSx. On paper, the differences didn't seem to warrant the extra cost. However in practice, because of very poor reception with the Vista Cx in fairly open situations, I returned it and got the MAP60CSx. I am very pleased with the reception I get using the new unit. If safety is a concern (ie not getting lost on a mountain when the weather closes in) then even losing lock for just 5% of the time simply isn't good enough, when your life may depend on it.

 

My observations on differences:

 

The Vista Cx chassis is lighter, smaller and neater.

The Vista Cx battery compartment cover is more robust than that on the MAP60CSx, and doesn't distort, probably because it clamps in the centre. The MAP60CSx cover clamps at the top and bottom, so it is slightly distorted outward in the centre. Don't know if this will ever be an issue as the unit gets older.

The memory card mounting is much better in the Vista Cx, less fiddly than the MAP60CSx.

The side cut-outs in the MAP60CSx socket mouldings make me doubt whether the rubber bungs would actually prevent water getting to the electric terminals if the unit was ever submerged.

 

The Vista Cx buttons required a MUCH firmer press to register.

The Vista Cx joystick button seemed flimsy and inconsistent in whether or not it registered a push

Beware - the neoprene cover sold for the Vista Cx is designed (Garmin won't admit this) for the older taller/slimmer monochrome units, and obscures both edges of the screen on the newer colour units, and hinders use of joystick and lower side buttons.

I often use the unit indoors to plan journeys etc and it is frustrating when the unit keeps bleeping every time it loses satellite lock. The Vista couldn't hold indoor lock at all, whereas the MAP60CSx holds on well.

The MAP60CSx buttons are not printed - the markings are cast into the button itself. You can tell this if you use it in the dark - the letters illuminate!

You always have the option of a second antenna with the MAP60CSx, but not with the Vista Cx.

Be aware of the reception/accuracy issues that people in this forum have discussed at length (found them after buying the Vista Cx). Topics have tended to refer to the Legend Cx but I believe the receiver is the same as used in the Vista Cx.

 

A bit of a mixed bag of information, I know, but I hope my experience of these units is of some help in coming to a decision.

[andman]

What's so great about the Sirf chip?

 

It locks in faster and doesn't lose the lock. I can get a lock anywhere in my house within 45 secs. This is the greatest thing since the wheel!

 

El Diablo

Would the Nuvi with Sirf chip do just as good?

[+Sputnik 57]

I bought a Vista Cx, having compared the spec to the MAP60CSx. On paper, the differences didn't seem to warrant the extra cost. However in practice, because of very poor reception with the Vista Cx in fairly open situations, I returned it and got the MAP60CSx. I am very pleased with the reception I get using the new unit. If safety is a concern (ie not getting lost on a mountain when the weather closes in) then even losing lock for just 5% of the time simply isn't good enough, when your life may depend on it.

 

My observations on differences:

 

The Vista Cx chassis is lighter, smaller and neater.

The Vista Cx battery compartment cover is more robust than that on the MAP60CSx, and doesn't distort, probably because it clamps in the centre. The MAP60CSx cover clamps at the top and bottom, so it is slightly distorted outward in the centre. Don't know if this will ever be an issue as the unit gets older.

The memory card mounting is much better in the Vista Cx, less fiddly than the MAP60CSx.

The side cut-outs in the MAP60CSx socket mouldings make me doubt whether the rubber bungs would actually prevent water getting to the electric terminals if the unit was ever submerged.

 

The Vista Cx buttons required a MUCH firmer press to register.

The Vista Cx joystick button seemed flimsy and inconsistent in whether or not it registered a push

Beware - the neoprene cover sold for the Vista Cx is designed (Garmin won't admit this) for the older taller/slimmer monochrome units, and obscures both edges of the screen on the newer colour units, and hinders use of joystick and lower side buttons.

I often use the unit indoors to plan journeys etc and it is frustrating when the unit keeps bleeping every time it loses satellite lock. The Vista couldn't hold indoor lock at all, whereas the MAP60CSx holds on well.

The MAP60CSx buttons are not printed - the markings are cast into the button itself. You can tell this if you use it in the dark - the letters illuminate!

You always have the option of a second antenna with the MAP60CSx, but not with the Vista Cx.

Be aware of the reception/accuracy issues that people in this forum have discussed at length (found them after buying the Vista Cx). Topics have tended to refer to the Legend Cx but I believe the receiver is the same as used in the Vista Cx.

 

A bit of a mixed bag of information, I know, but I hope my experience of these units is of some help in coming to a decision.

Really nice post, Jonners. You even got the external antenna thing I was going to add. Nothing like hands on experience with both. Thanks for taking the time.

[+Sputnik 57]

. . . and I'm contempt with the button layout

I just have to add that Norm Crosby would be so proud.

[Pyro37976]

. . . and I'm contempt with the button layout

I just have to add that Norm Crosby would be so proud.

Whoops, I meant I was content, darn my malapropisms.

 

(Edited for a dumb typo...I'm not very good at that English stuff.)

Edited September 23, 2006 by Pyro37976