Magellan eXplorist XL

[TopangaHiker]

I'll admit that I'm a newbie but I purchased the XL along with 2 software programs and the car charger.

I had it 6 days and then it crashed beyond the point of a reset so that it had to be sent back for repairs.

 

Question: would I have been better off with the Garmin CSx?

[+geognerd]

Compared to any SiRF-equipped Garmin, the only thing the XL really has going for it is its large screen.

[+Knight2000]

Question: would I have been better off with the Garmin CSx?

It depends on if you value/need customer service.

[+EScout]

Compared to any SiRF-equipped Garmin, the only thing the XL really has going for it is its large screen.

The other thing the XL has is a superior file management system. There are file folders on the SD card and internal memory, with the ability to move, copy, save files between drives and in various subfolders that you can create and name. No other GPSr comes close to the Explorists.

As for reception, the comparisons I have seen show them very close. If you have played with radios, you know that signal meters are not standard, which means that you do not rely just on what is shown on the screen.

[tossedsalad]

Compared to any SiRF-equipped Garmin, the only thing the XL really has going for it is its large screen.

 

What exactly is better about the SiRF based units compared to any other GPSr designed in the last couple of years? I have been looking very hard at GPSr of all types and I have not found that much difference between them in regards to what the SiRF front end would provide.

 

For example, a lot of people tout the sensitivity of the SiRF III. But there are other units on par with the SiRF II in that department. Notably the Numerix devices that are being used in a number of bluetooth receivers. I expect you will not be able to observer significant differences in handheld units if you compare units of similar design age.

 

Maybe I am just on a rant, but I have heard a *lot* about how much better the SiRF III devices are and I am not seeing it. I see that a lot of newer devices do just as well or better than the SiRF in all regards and I hate to see a receiver promoted on the buzzword "SiRF".

[+dbased]

I'll admit that I'm a newbie but I purchased the XL along with 2 software programs and the car charger.

I had it 6 days and then it crashed beyond the point of a reset so that it had to be sent back for repairs.

 

Question: would I have been better off with the Garmin CSx?

I've had the explorist XL for about a year and my girl fiend got one about a months ago. It works really good for both us. On rare occasions I have had lock ups. If I take out a battery and restart all is fine.

 

I've called tech support a few times and it SUCKS! Their people there are obviously just ready from a knowledgebase and no real working knowledge. I speak as someone who has done support for 22 years and knows good and bad support when I see it.

[+geognerd]

Compared to any SiRF-equipped Garmin, the only thing the XL really has going for it is its large screen.

The other thing the XL has is a superior file management system.

Good point. That is one of the things that makes me reluctant to leave Magellan. Though how many buyers have "file management system" at the top of their things to consider when looking for a GPS receiver? Important, but not at the top of my list. The eXplorist XL's defining feature is its screen size (and associated case size and weight); otherwise it's just a 500 with different SD slot placement and different batteries.

 

What exactly is better about the SiRF based units compared to any other GPSr designed in the last couple of years?

Compared to the eXplorists, probably not much. I presume the OP was talking about the 60/76CSx. I was just trying to make a point that if you compared the XL to the 60/76CSx, the screen size and file management system EScout mentioned are two points in favor of the XL. Otherwise, I would give the nod to the 60/76CSx for their equivalent/marginally better reception performance, better autorouting, and seemingly better support from Garmin. I mentioned SiRF because any Garmin without a SiRF chipset won't perform as well as an eXplorist. Edited May 15, 2007 by geognerd

[+GOT GPS?]

I have both the Map60Cx and the eXplorist XL, and the eXplorist beats the 60Cx any day with its better higher resolution screen for mapping, and my friend even prefers the eXplorist XL with Topo 3D, for searching around on the map screen when we are on trips. The Map60Cx is bad enough that He prefers a paper map over the Map60Cx's little screen.

 

One thing I have not seen discussed here is whether the SD memory card in your eXplorist is bad or not, and have you tried resetting your eXplorist without the memory card in it??

Edited May 15, 2007 by GOT GPS?

[TopangaHiker]

To follow up:

The repair process with Magellan was a nightmare.

I've returned it and now have the Garmin 60CSx.

What a difference.

In the first place it's half the size and weight which means it can actually fit in a pocket.

The learning curve is so much easier.

I'll admit right now that I'm a newbie.

It took me several days to begin figuring out the XL. The second day I had the 60CSx I was hunting and finding a geo cache.

Instead of frustration I'm having fun.

Tech support for the Csx is in Kansas and they don't make you to spend the first 5 minutes of the call verifying your identity.

I learned a lesson the hard way on this one. Please accept my apologies if my negativity towards Magellan offends any of you.

The ending to this story is a happy one.

Garmin rules.

Magellan sucks.