Garmin Colorado

[+RRLover]

And what about Macintosh support?

 

Garmin promised us Mapsource for 2007: nothing has happened (except Mapconvert and Mapinstall, that are almost useless because you need a PC). We're december 18th.

 

I hope there will be full Mac OS support this time.

 

Amen to that brother. They've been promising for quite a while now, but no action's been seen. The overall market share is supposed to double in the next few years (according to tech research groups), and as I've explained to GPS manufacturer reps, the percentage of geocachers using Macs is probably far larger than that of the computer-using population in general.

 

Parsa

In the last several years my Macintosh investment has increased no less than fifteen fold, whereas my

Microsoft investment has taken an negative hit . . . "let'n 'er ride!". I started w/ equal values!

 

Norm

[ajacobs]

I know many have expressed that they don't have any desire for it, but I hope hiding on the other side of that rock and roller in some model is a camera lens. Like many here I don't have a need for it in caching but I do for many other things. Primarily planning trail work on state lands.

 

I know it is all most all just speculation at this point but preloaded software maps makes me wonder if they will ship it with anything other than trip and waypoint manager. I like being able to plan things out and look at them first on the computer.

 

It sounds like the topo version is using there own competing product to NG topo! (3d views etc). Of course magellens deal with NG was non exclusive. So who knows.

[+Harriet the Spy]

The Rock and Roll wheel reminds me of a more rugged version of the wheel on an ipod, you roll the wheel to your menu choice and rock (tap) your selction. It also looks like it will have some palm capabilities. I wonder if we are going to be able to use it for the Wherigo application?

[+Team Perrito Blanco]

So, aside from the ability to load sat images, which is of little use to me, what features would make me spend the extra bucks on the 400t over the 60CSx?

[MtnHermit]

So, aside from the ability to load sat images, which is of little use to me, what features would make me spend the extra bucks on the 400t over the 60CSx?

Assuming you use your 60CSx with color maps, then the Colorado 400 has more than double the pixels so you can see more map at one time. A very worthwhile feature to me.

 

Let's hope the as yet unmentioned Colorado 100, 200 & 300 have a subset of the 400's "Whistles & Bells" at a much lower price point. I for one am very turned-off by the $650 MSRP of this critter. No one else seems to care.

 

Different folks, Different strokes.

[+steenroller]

MtnHermit, you are not alone in your concern about the price. It has taken me about 2 years to upgrade to the new technology of the CSx recievers. I figure with the Colorado MSRP of $650 it will sell for around $600 and will be down to around $350 in 2 years. Thats when I may buy it. By then the bugs should be worked out of the system.

[+RRLover]

MtnHermit, you are not alone in your concern about the price. It has taken me about 2 years to upgrade to the new technology of the CSx recievers. I figure with the Colorado MSRP of $650 it will sell for around $600 and will be down to around $350 in 2 years. Thats when I may buy it. By then the bugs should be worked out of the system.

 

$600.00 does seem on the uphill side of steep, unless it's got a very good map package included, that

would make it more palatable. It cost more than that to get my present GPSr and ancillary software

up and running, then the changing of the WAAS guard and 'POOF' no WAAS. Looking around I'm

starting to think the "Golden Age of GPS" might be behind us, time will tell. Here's hoping it's not.

 

Norm

 

P.S. : If the PN20 had a bigger screen and was Mac compatible I'd have one right now at that price point.

And would have gifted one this Yule as well!

Edited December 31, 2007 by RRLover

[+MissJenn]

From Jeremy: Wherigo™ Platform on the Garmin Colorado

[QuigleyJones]

Heres some more of what garmin has to say.

http://www8.garmin.com/ces/colorado/index.html

[sanramonhunter]

Since these have the same M.S.R.P. as the Triton 1500 and 2000 I imagine the street price will be similar which is basically $399 and $499 respectively. Looks like the C300 and C400 are basically the same, your just paying $100 extra for the TOPO maps. Since the 60csx is going for about $300 street, these prices seem reasonable by comparison.

Edited January 4, 2008 by sanramonhunter

[MtnHermit]

Based on this image I'll suggest that the included Topo maps are Topo USA 2008, the 100K topo maps of the US. Basically the same thing DeLorme is doing with the PN-20, including the maps with the GPS.

 

 

That screen sure does look nice, can't wait to see it in person.

[sanramonhunter]

just got off the garmin website, you can now compare it to the other models. Looks like they discontinued all the non H series etrex save the vista and the legend. I am officially wanting one. Anyone know when these hit the streets? My only decision is whether to get the 300 or 400t. Just need to see if I can get better topo's as an add on to the 300. If the 400T has the best available topo's I guess I'll just get it.

Edited January 4, 2008 by sanramonhunter

[+RRLover]

just got off the garmin website, you can now compare it to the other models. Looks like they discontinued all the non H series etrex save the vista and the legend. I am officially wanting one. Anyone know when these hit the streets? My only decision is whether to get the 300 or 400t. Just need to see if I can get better topo's as an add on to the 300. If the 400T has the best available topo's I guess I'll just get it.

Groundspeak and Garmin are sponsoring a demonstration in Seattle on the 26th, be there or be L7!

I think every Parks Dept. be it Metro, State, or Nat. should get a heads up on Wherigo, it could be a

real advantage for family adventure. Not to mention getting people in the gate.

Norm

Edited January 4, 2008 by RRLover

[sanramonhunter]

Groundspeak and Garmin are sponsoring a demonstration in Seattle on the 26th, be there or be L7!

I think every Parks Dept. be it Metro, State, or Nat. should get a heads up on Wherigo, it could be a

real advantage for family adventure. Not to mention getting people in the gate.

Norm

 

Little bit far for me to travel. Might hit up macworld though.

[+geognerd]

Garmin, if you're listening, could you please introduce a "Colorado 200?" The Colorado 300 looks fine and good to me (and a leading candidate to replace my Magellan eXplorist next year), but I really have no need for the electronic compass or barometer. I carry a separate compass and live on the flatlands of Illinois, so a barometric altimeter won't be much help. A Colorado without the compass and barometer would be a successor to the 60/76Cx, which plenty of people purchased. Magellan screwed up the launch of the Triton, but at least they had a couple of budget models thrown into the mix. Companies typically introduce the most expensive versions of a product first, so there may be some hope. However, Garmin's CES product announcement made no mention of a lower-end Colorado.

[MtnHermit]

In my mind their are at least three more models coming in the next 6 mo - 2 yrs:

Colo 100 - The obvious stripper, no wireless, no altimeter/compass

Colo 200 - No wireless for sure, unclear about the alti/compass

Colo 600 - The wireless, I assume it's bluetooth, will allow a headset and MP3

Colo 700 - Add a camera

Colo 800 - Add a cell phone

 

Because I have so little past Garmin experience, not clear when the 100 and 200 will show. The upper end models await faster low power CPU's so are 2+ years out.

[QuigleyJones]

In my mind, whats out is out and thats it until the next model release.

But I do see the possibility for a 100 and 200

[+Zooma 4]

You can order a Garmin Colorado right now at www.megagps.com and apparently it will ship later this month. $439.00 for the 300 model.

[+T F T C]

Neat video. Too short, tho. http://www8.garmin.com/ces/m/v/Colorado.mpg

[+Elminster7781]

So this thing will only support Garmin's own 1:100,000 topo maps?

 

If thats the case, thats a major disappointment.

 

So I guess those that want a GPS with 1:24,000 maps either go with Delorme or wait for the Triton's issues to be worked out.

 

Also I the only one that thinks the price is kinda ridiculous?

Edited January 4, 2008 by Elminster7781

[deepctrouble]

After looking at garmins site I didn,t see where I can use my maps , topo 2008 , lakes and hotspots NE ,ver 8 city nav. Why call it a 300 ? are the 400,s better maps also a quick thought what size card will they suport , right know I have a 76 cs . it would nice to load all my maps on one card , am I dreaming.

Edited January 5, 2008 by deepctrouble

[MtnHermit]

After looking at garmins site I didn,t see where I can use my maps , topo 2008 , lakes and hotspots NE ,ver 8 city nav.

What about this statement confused you? Ability to add maps: yes See this Link to read for yourself.

 

Why call it a 300 ? are the 400,s better maps

The 300 is w/o maps, whereas the 400 has maps included, seems logical to me. After all, the 400 has a $105 higher MSRP.

 

what size card will they suport , right know I have a 76 cs . it would nice to load all my maps on one card , am I dreaming.

Given that they have all the topo maps for the USA resident inside the 400t and I think those maps are on the order of 3-4GB, it tells me two things:

1] The Colorado series no longer has a 2025 map limit, and

2] The Colorado series accepts SDHC, because SD is offically 2GB max.

 

Currently you can buy 16GB SDHC cards for less than $100. So depending on the new max number of map segments, I'll suggest that you'll be able to put every map you own on a single card. Now the only problem is how long will it take Mapsoure to load a 16GB card?

[QuigleyJones]

So this thing will only support Garmin's own 1:100,000 topo maps?

along with the 1:24,000 National Parks topo

Why call it a 300 ? are the 400,s better maps

The 300 is w/o maps, whereas the 400 has maps included, seems logical to me. After all, the 400 has a $105 higher MSRP.

Logical, no. Reasonable, maybe. But Id say its more reasonable that they call the 300 a 400 minus any letter at the end, because should you load maps the units are indistinguishable.

 

I do find it curious that garmin has decided to use SD cards rather then the MicroSD. Anyone have a suggestion as to why?

[+hogrod]

I do find it curious that garmin has decided to use SD cards rather then the MicroSD. Anyone have a suggestion as to why?

 

You can buy larger capacity for less money, and the size is much nicer when handling them. I would much rather take out an SD card in the woods than a micro SD... if I dropped the micro SD I would be lucky if I ever found it.

[+WoodenShoe]

I agree on the SD card the larger cards are easier to handle and they did not need to fit a microSD in an older design. The SD cards are available as SDHC..and as noted in a previous post slightly less expensive ..but will they be able to use larger SCHC or faster extreme III?

I found out rei.com has the Colorados on their site and noticed that the under Specs, Pixels were listed as 400 X 240 inches...now thats one large unit! I sent an email and they responded promptly! Surprised me, I guess they listen to future customers.

The response from Kevin was "Thanks for bringing this oversight to our attention, we will try and have it corrected as soon as possible.

You are right, that would be a huge GPS if it was 33 X 20 feet in size."

rei will take preorders...looks like Jan. for the 300 and maybe Feb. for 400 series!

[+apersson850]

The 400 models have a larger internal memory than the 300, to accomodate for the pre-installed maps. That's one good (?) reason for another numbering.

 

The 300 has about 384 Mbytes available on the internal drive for maps. If you don't need more, you don't need any card either. Or it will solve the problem with having maps you've downloaded to the unit co-existing with pre-programmed memory cards.

 

Another thing that's better on the Colorado, compared to the 60 CSx, is that the Colorado allows card swapping without removing the batteries, i.e. with the power still on. No need to restart.

 

The map appearance on the display is a lot better on the Colorado as well, still compared to the 60 CSx.

 

There aren't that many intricate settings on the Colorado, though.

 

Of major interest to geocachers is perhaps the special geocaching mode. But that's not yet supported by Groundspeak, so it doesn't get the proper files for that to work now.

[+jotne]

I do not agree with you Anders.

 

Memory alone is not enough for another model name.

My PC can have 2 or 4GB, but still same name.

 

Colorado 400 would be better then 300

 

You would then have

400

400i

400c

400t

 

This is only confusing.

Edited January 5, 2008 by jotne

[+jotne]

A very good review of the Colorado GPS

 

http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2008/01/garmin_...view.php?page=6

 

It seem that you also can use Heart censor and Cadense censor.

But it does not mentein if it can replace a Edge 305

[+apersson850]

You would then have

400

400i

400c

400t

 

This is only confusing.

Now that would be confusing to most potential customers, as it would not clearly show that some 400 don't have pre-loaded maps, but some do.

You have to look at it with other eyes than your own expert's eyes!

 

Of course it can replace an Edge 305. Just like you can use a 60 CSx in your car, instead of a nüvi 760. But that doesn't say that the 60 CSx does all the same things. Neither does a Colorado do all things the Edge does, but it does some of them. Including displaying cadence, if you have the sensor for that.

Edited January 5, 2008 by apersson850

[+jotne]

ok 400n no-map.

 

Its hard without lookup what i, c and t does mean

[+apersson850]

ok 400n no-map.

 

Its hard without lookup what i, c and t does mean

Which someone of course would interpret as "nautical".

If you think about it a bit further, I think you'll also come to the conclusion that it's better the way it is.

But it's true that the map is the only difference.

 

Perhaps you've noticed that the basemap is now world-wide in a 300, so it doesn't matter where you buy it any longer.

[+jotne]

Perhaps you've noticed that the basemap is now world-wide in a 300, so it doesn't matter where you buy it any longer.

 

Not true.

Colorado 300, Americas 010-00622-31

Colorado 300, Europe 010-00622-32

Take from:

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145&pID=11019

Click on version

 

Do you know the difference?

[+apersson850]

Perhaps menu languages, then?

Mine is a Euro version, but it still has worldvide basemap coverage.

[+jotne]

Can you change the basemap? Like Nüvi?

Can I copy basemap from Colorado to Nüvi?

 

Does it use Normal BlueChart, Bluechart G2, or other?

 

Do you need to hold Colorado horizontally to use compas?

 

Can you have more than 2GB maps on the SD card?

If its FAT filesystem it need to have several files like

gmapsupp.img gmapsupp1.img.

Nüvi can do this on internal memory, but not on the SD card.

[+apersson850]

The basemap is in the same kind of file as in a nüvi, yes. 92 MB.

But the Colorado basemap is a DEM version (Digital Elevation Model), so a nüvi wouldn't understand it anyway.

 

I haven't tried BlueChart, so I don't know. I've used Friluftskartan, CNE and CNNA. They all work.

 

The magnetic compass is the same style as before, so you do need to hold it level, yes.

 

I don't have any SD card larger than 2 GB, so I haven't been able to try that either. The only cards I have that are larger than that are for my cameras. They use CF cards.

[+ICHTHYS]

So, aside from the ability to load sat images, which is of little use to me, what features would make me spend the extra bucks on the 400t over the 60CSx?

Assuming you use your 60CSx with color maps, then the Colorado 400 has more than double the pixels so you can see more map at one time. A very worthwhile feature to me.

 

Let's hope the as yet unmentioned Colorado 100, 200 & 300 have a subset of the 400's "Whistles & Bells" at a much lower price point. I for one am very turned-off by the $650 MSRP of this critter. No one else seems to care.

 

Different folks, Different strokes.

 

I have a Lowrance H2Oc right now and the screen size and higher resolution image is much nicer than the 60cx screen.

 

With the improved screen of the Colorado I may switch back to Garmin.

 

But I don't want the compass or barometer. I can live without them and don't think they are worth the price. If they sold a 200 without them I'd snatch one up fast.

[+apersson850]

The map is 35% larger, when viewed on the Colorado. When measured in millimeters, not pixels.

 

The map appearance is also significantly better on the Colorado than on the 60 CSx. Easier to read.

[MtnHermit]

The 400 models have a larger internal memory than the 300, to accomodate for the pre-installed maps. That's one good (?) reason for another numbering.

I've read a number of your post, it appears you have a Colorado (sufix?) in hand, as well as a 60CSx.

 

If I could trouble you with a few specific questions.

- What maps are preloaded?

- If not on a SD, it implies 3-4GB of map memory for Topo USA 2008?

- The shaded relief, is it done by the Colorado or via the maps? Would your 60CSx show the same shaded relief?

 

These question may not be fair given you're not in the USA.

 

Thanks

[+hogrod]

Another thing that's better on the Colorado, compared to the 60 CSx, is that the Colorado allows card swapping without removing the batteries, i.e. with the power still on. No need to restart.

 

You can swap out the card on a 60csx if you have it powered by an external cable and remove the batteries, there is no restart needed. On my vistaCX the card slot isn't below the batteries so you can easily swap cards without removing the batteries, again no restart needed.

Edited January 5, 2008 by hogrod

[+apersson850]

As I'm in Europe, mine is a Colorado 300, without pre-loaded detailed maps.

 

Powering the 60 CSx via USB is possible, but then I'm usually by my desk, in which case navigation isn't necessary. If I just want to change the contents of the card, then a card reader is usually quicker.

[MtnHermit]

In my mind, whats out is out and thats it until the next model release.

That's because you lack foresight, but don't feel bad, you're in the majority.

[MtnHermit]

As I'm in Europe, mine is a Colorado 300, without pre-loaded detailed maps.

Here's a small group of 40' (~10M) topo maps in a self installing .exe file. The maps will install into Mapsource as TopoDemo. Does your Colo 300 show them as flat or shaded?

 

Does the Colorado do screenshots internally like a Nuvi or does it require xImage?

 

Thanks

[KD6QZX]

Aperson850,

 

I have a couple of questions as to the set up of this colorado, can you do both horizontal and vertical screen like the old GPS V, and is there a port in there maybe on the top? I see in the specs, there is a caribener included,where does it hook to?

can you confirm the scale of the topos in the T model. 1:24 or 1;100 ? as well it says at garmin that the user will be able to customize the display, can you change the boxes like speed, elevation, direction, eta.....

 

Thanks

[+apersson850]

The screen orientation doesn't change.

 

You can set what to show in the info fields. You can also select two or no fields on the map display. Over the map, they are semi-transparent.

 

The carabiner, like all other attachements, hook on to the grooves in the battery compartment cover.

 

Screenshots are done like on a nüvi, but you don't have to assign any special key for that.

 

I can try the maps that were linked to above, but later. I don't have any 400 version, so I don't know the maps in them. There are no maps that are interesting for Europe anyway.

Edited January 6, 2008 by apersson850

[KD6QZX]

Apersson850 thanks for the repley.

 

in the meantime I found this review with pictures.... enjoy... I can't wait to get the 400T

 

http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2008/01/garmin_...400t_review.php

[+Red CBX]

The map provided for Garmin's Topo (image above, in post by MtnHermit) does appear to display the same data for that location as the Topo U.S. 2008, at N36 11.279 W111 43.999, and about 1.6 miles East of Grand Canyon National Park. That also puts it just outside the coverage area for Garmin's 24K maps.

[+JohnnyVegas]

So, aside from the ability to load sat images, which is of little use to me, what features would make me spend the extra bucks on the 400t over the 60CSx?

Assuming you use your 60CSx with color maps, then the Colorado 400 has more than double the pixels so you can see more map at one time. A very worthwhile feature to me.

 

Let's hope the as yet unmentioned Colorado 100, 200 & 300 have a subset of the 400's "Whistles & Bells" at a much lower price point. I for one am very turned-off by the $650 MSRP of this critter. No one else seems to care.

 

Different folks, Different strokes.

 

not quite

from garmins web site

 

Display size,

Garmin 60CSx WxH: 1.5" x 2.2" (3.8 x 5.6 cm)

Colorado 400T 1.53"W x 2.55"H (3.8 x 6.3 cm);

Display resolution, WxH:

Garmin 60CSX160 x 240 pixels

Colorado 240 x 400 pixels

 

the screens on the 60csx and the 400T are almost the sam size

the width of the colorado is .03 inches more

the length of the colorado is .35 inches more

The colorado with have a much higher resolution than the 60csx, but you will not see all that much more of the map.

 

besides a topo map that is about the same size of a match book is not all the usefull anyway.

Edited January 7, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+apersson850]

The Colorado screen surface available for map display is 35% larger than it is on the 60 CSx.

[MtnHermit]

The map provided for Garmin's Topo (image above, in post by MtnHermit) does appear to display the same data for that location as the Topo U.S. 2008, at N36 11.279 W111 43.999, and about 1.6 miles East of Grand Canyon National Park. That also puts it just outside the coverage area for Garmin's 24K maps.

Is the shaded relief a function of the Colorado or of Topo USA 2008? In other words, would Topo USA 2008 show the same shading in your 60CSx, Nuvi, etc. ?

 

Thanks

[MtnHermit]

So, aside from the ability to load sat images, which is of little use to me, what features would make me spend the extra bucks on the 400t over the 60CSx?

Assuming you use your 60CSx with color maps, then the Colorado 400 has more than double the pixels so you can see more map at one time. A very worthwhile feature to me.

 

not quite

from garmins web site

 

Display size,

Garmin 60CSx WxH: 1.5" x 2.2" (3.8 x 5.6 cm)

Colorado 400T 1.53"W x 2.55"H (3.8 x 6.3 cm);

Display resolution, WxH:

Garmin 60CSX160 x 240 pixels

Colorado 240 x 400 pixels

 

the screens on the 60csx and the 400T are almost the sam size

the width of the colorado is .03 inches more

the length of the colorado is .35 inches more

The colorado with have a much higher resolution than the 60csx, but you will not see all that much more of the map.

My statement was more pixels, not larger size. The Colorado has 96,000 pixels, whereas the 60csx has 38,400 pixels . . . more than double. Therefore you will be able to see more information, albeit smaller. Since its a handheld device, easy to move until you reach your close focus limit.

 

besides a topo map that is about the same size of a match book is not all the usefull anyway.

Absolutely not true, I have Above the Timber's Colorado (the state) 24K Topos inside my Venture and they work very well. The key is the position pointer, seeing your exact position on the map is huge. One simply zooms in/out more with the controller for more detail/more map. Having said that, bigger is better!