Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
4America

I canceled my Garmin Colorado 300 order

Recommended Posts

I was all set to order, after looking at the 400t vs the 300. While I like that face that the 400T has all of the topos, the version that Garmin has doesn really do much for me.

 

No way to update the 400t to a "400 super T" assuming they come out with better map set, so time to a 300... then lots of bad user reviews.

 

So off the fence, now not even in the game. I'll evaluate after I see some of the new updates.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted responses to the varrious 300 / 400t /garmin colorado topics.

Share this post


Link to post

No way to update the 400t to a "400 super T" assuming they come out with better map set,

 

What? I’m sure the topo maps will be updateable just like they update the nuvi maps.

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you 4America. I have a Colorado 300 and the more and more I use it, the more and more it reminds me of something less than a serious navigation tool. I do alot of field work, waypoint and track gathering for GIS applications, and the fact that there is no waypoint averaging?!? (come on Garmin!). Also when you go to set your datum you have to select "NONE" under datums if you want WGS84, then it says that the spheroid is WGS84?????? What? WGS 84 is a datum not a spheroid. Garmin, come on! So many little flaws makes me wonder how much thought went into this product before they released it.

 

Talk to me a week from now, or after a few firmware updates and I'll probably either love it because they fixed the stupid snags or I'll have gotten used to it.

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you 4America. I have a Colorado 300 and the more and more I use it, the more and more it reminds me of something less than a serious navigation tool. I do alot of field work, waypoint and track gathering for GIS applications, and the fact that there is no waypoint averaging?!? (come on Garmin!). Also when you go to set your datum you have to select "NONE" under datums if you want WGS84, then it says that the spheroid is WGS84?????? What? WGS 84 is a datum not a spheroid. Garmin, come on! So many little flaws makes me wonder how much thought went into this product before they released it.

 

Talk to me a week from now, or after a few firmware updates and I'll probably either love it because they fixed the stupid snags or I'll have gotten used to it.

 

I can't believe that Garmin doesn't have visible presence here...I'm pretty sure they are lurking, but you think they would be here for PR / damage control.

 

Maybe they don't know how big Geocaching is... maybe they need to hire someone to do PR here... I wonder where I could find an application? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe that Garmin doesn't have visible presence here...I'm pretty sure they are lurking, but you think they would be here for PR / damage control.

 

Maybe they don't know how big Geocaching is... maybe they need to hire someone to do PR here... I wonder where I could find an application? :unsure:

 

kinda odd considering they're selling the (insert expletive of your choice here) things with these selling points :

 

"Supports Geocaching.com GPX files for complete cache description and hints"

"Groundspeak's Wherigo Player application comes pre-installed and includes an instructional tutorial; learn more at www.Wherigo.com"

 

so I would THINK they know how big this geekish sport is...but yeah, they need a presence here....

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of companies won't participate in public forums per the advice of their legal staff. If the rep slips up it can bite them in the you-know-what. There are way too many lawsuits nowadays and so companies steer clear of anything that's a potential risk to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Also when you go to set your datum you have to select "NONE" under datums if you want WGS84, then it says that the spheroid is WGS84?????? What? WGS 84 is a datum not a spheroid.

WGS84 is both a datum and a spheroid, but it is weird to have a datum of "none". You always have a datum--you have to start somewhere...

 

Also, everyone settle down. The Colorado firmware has some incomplete functions, but compare it to the Triton firmware! At least it's generally functional and doesn't lock up all the time just trying to do common tasks. Expect Garmin to continue improving the firmware.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

Edited by Source_GPS

Share this post


Link to post

No way to update the 400t to a "400 super T" assuming they come out with better map set,

 

What? I’m sure the topo maps will be updateable just like they update the nuvi maps.

 

And in one thread (they were talking about the "eternal" 40sec boot time :unsure: ), someone renamed the pre-installed topo map on the 400t.

 

If you can rename the file, surely it can be replaced with a newer version.

Share this post


Link to post

Every Garmin I have ever bought has had firmware issues. I even bought the 60CSx when it first came out and dealt with it's inadequacies until the firmware fixes arrived. Now with the current firmware (and multiple early revisions) the 60CSx is a stable, well working unit.

 

I believe Garmin will address these issues promptly and like the 60CSx, the Colorado will be a tremendous unit. In fact, I am already in the process of selling my 60CSx so that I can get the Colorado even with it's early issues. If you're not into early adoption then by all means sit out and wait, but I know that even with the early issues this is going to be a super gps!

 

I'm still debating whether to wait until Feb when the units hits the online retailers at a discount or drive to my REI and pay premium to get one now LOL.

Share this post


Link to post

I was all set to order, after looking at the 400t vs the 300. While I like that face that the 400T has all of the topos, the version that Garmin has doesn really do much for me.

 

No way to update the 400t to a "400 super T" assuming they come out with better map set, so time to a 300... then lots of bad user reviews.

 

So off the fence, now not even in the game. I'll evaluate after I see some of the new updates.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted responses to the varrious 300 / 400t /garmin colorado topics.

 

I wouldn't give the Colorado a black eye just yet. Certainly there are issues, most of which look to be software related. After talking to Garmin yesterday it sounds like they are working on fixes for some of these. I would encourage others to contact Garmin support and raise the issues which bother you the most. The more they hear about a given issue the more likely they are to fix it.

 

At the end of the day you have to ask how stable is the unit. After using it for 2-3 days (10-12 hours of driving/geocaching/hiking) I've only seen one freeze and that was reading a geocache description. Garmin has reproduced the problem and I'm sure it'll be something they can fix or workaround pretty easily. The basic operation and navigation seems to work very well for what I need it to do.

 

Aside from the pure software issues I see a couple of things that might not be fixable (or very difficult to fix) in software:

 

- Screen brightness is the big one for me. Garmin claims that changing color schemes (ie. lighter backgrounds) might fix this. I'm skeptical, but I also asked about the possibility of screen brightness control at the expense of battery life. If neither of these work then I'm left with running the backlight more frequently and changing batteries more often. I'll have to decide if this is an acceptable trade or not.

 

- Initialization time. Not necessarily hardware related but it may be hard to fix without significant software changes -- it could be something we have to live with long term but I'm hoping there still is improvement. See discussion below on maps.

 

- Outdoor temp is very inaccurate, not a showstopper but it would have been nice

 

- 2-axis compass, again not a showstopper but it would have been nice if Garmin could have put a 3-axis compass in the unit

 

- No speaker, I don't think this is a big deal for most people unless you want to play Wherigo carts that require audio.

 

The other issue is the discussion around how maps are released and supported on the 400 vs. 300. I really think Garmin should consider providing the Topo2008 DVD's with the unit, either free or at a significantly reduced price so you 1) do trip planning and 2) configure which maps you load to improve startup time. Garmin's argument is that "we do this on the auto units so now we are doing on the outdoor units". At least for the 400t I don't buy this -- I'm much more apt to do trip planning in Mapsource for a hike than I do before I drive some place. The GPSr is still not a great offroad hike planning interface.

 

Even if Garmin doesn't buy that I think it makes sense to provide some sort of map loader that allows you load chunks of data onto the unit to improve startup time, maybe even at a courser granularity than the current Mapsource map set.

 

BTW, I don't think the ability to upgrade to a "Super T" or even remove the maps is a problem on the Colorado. There is a single file on the Colorado 400t (gmaprom.img) which can be replaced to upgrade the entire map set. The problem is that it is an all or nothing operation.

 

GO$Rs

Share this post


Link to post

I was at the outdoor sportsman show this weekend and stopped to talk to GARMIN as they had a booth. I asked about the Colorado series and the H series units. I told them I had both a 60csx and a nuvi 760 and wondered if it would be worth going to a colorado for my off road excursions. I really thought they would say yes but instead he asked why I would want to do a thing like that. Basically he told me the chipset was the same in the 60csx and the colorado and the H series. There was no reason to upgrade unless I was just a tech junkie and wanted to spend more money on map software. In reality the 60csx is still the top unit they have for geocaching and general off the road usage. Works for me.

He told me that eventually the 60 series like all units would be replaced but there was no rush to do so. I like the fact that the bugs are out of the 60 and it is not complex once you play with it. Im not into a new learning curve and do hate the online owners manuals such as with the nuvi series. You can download it and print it but its not the same as a handbook with the previous units like the 60csx.

Just my opinion but the 60csx will be a long time till something comes out good enough to really replace it. If you know anything off the road that another unit will do better, then maybe, just maybe I would think of replacing it. Thats not likely for some time...

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe they don't know how big Geocaching is... maybe they need to hire someone to do PR here... I wonder where I could find an application?

Geocaching in not that big, as geocachers we would like think it is. But I am sure that the automotive, aviation and marine markets are much larger.

Share this post


Link to post

Every Garmin I have ever bought has had firmware issues. I even bought the 60CSx when it first came out and dealt with it's inadequacies until the firmware fixes arrived. Now with the current firmware (and multiple early revisions) the 60CSx is a stable, well working unit.

Wouldn't it be nice if they did their own product testing instead of rushing new models to market and letting their customers discover the problems for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Every Garmin I have ever bought has had firmware issues. I even bought the 60CSx when it first came out and dealt with it's inadequacies until the firmware fixes arrived. Now with the current firmware (and multiple early revisions) the 60CSx is a stable, well working unit.

Wouldn't it be nice if they did their own product testing instead of rushing new models to market and letting their customers discover the problems for them.

 

I completely agree with you, but Garmin's firmware history speaks for itself. If there are software issues, they will get fixed in due time. I'm still willing to buy one now and take the firmware updates as they come.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately working for the IT department in a large corporation I see products being put on line before they are ready all the time. It seems to be the way things are all over these days. The end user gets to test the products instead of having proper testing before giving it to the general public. In fact when I was in school my programming instructor told me the chance of me being hired as a programmer was slim because I spent to much time making sure my programs ran properly.

Share this post


Link to post

They do test. The problem with that is that in the very short time from pilot run units available until availability at the retailers, not every single issue can be found and corrected.

 

Some issues are pretty "special". It takes more luck than planning to happen to spot them. Like if you follow a route, made with City Navigator, then decide to display the elevation plot, then stray off the route so a recalculation takes place. Now nothing special happens, but before testing...

Edited by apersson850

Share this post


Link to post

I am a newbie on geochaching and was excited to look forward on getting a Colorado 400t. But I thought I stopped by the forum to see any info posted on them and disappointedly I have. Any recommendations on what unit would be good to start with then...or should I stick with the Colorado...?

Share this post


Link to post

Not having a found cache and next cache option is a pretty large oversight to me. It makes you wonder what they were thinking....

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say they were thinking "Let's now make a better geocaching interface, and let's see how much of all good ideas we can get in there in time for market introduction."

Share this post


Link to post
Basically he told me the chipset was the same in the 60csx and the colorado and the H series. There was no reason to upgrade unless I was just a tech junkie and wanted to spend more money on map software.

There are a lot of things the Colorado does that the 60csx doesn't:

  • View full cache pages with logs
  • Shaded topo maps
  • 3D view
  • Wherigo

While some of these are more geocaching related, certainly the shaded topo maps and 3D view would be useful features for off road GPS activities.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

I'll wait a while and see what fixes are doen....maybe if there is enough requests and fixes, they might have to change a chipset.

 

I'll just wait a while and get the latest.....

Share this post


Link to post

........Basically he told me the chipset was the same in the 60csx and the colorado and the H series........

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the 'H' series units use the SiRF Star III chipset not the Garmin chip that is used in the Nuvi and the Colorado. It will be interesting to see how the on road Nuvi's chipset will stand up to off-road use. I am curious if it will have accuracy issues like the Garmin's used to before the 'H' series and the adoption of the SiRF chip.

 

Maybe they don't know how big Geocaching is... maybe they need to hire someone to do PR here... I wonder where I could find an application?

Geocaching in not that big, as geocachers we would like think it is. But I am sure that the automotive, aviation and marine markets are much larger.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. You can't compare handheld use to auto or aviation use, or for that matter a marine application to a TOPO application. Comparing apples to apples; if you look at the number of people that would buy a handheld TOPO GPSr, the numbers are probably pretty evenly split between backpackers and geocachers (with some industry applications thrown in as well). SO, I would say that in that regard Geocachers are a pretty large part of the target demographic for the TOPO GPSr companies out there. That being said, I think that the Colorado was a great concept, it just fell short of the bar in several areas.

Share this post


Link to post

They do test. The problem with that is that in the very short time from pilot run units available until availability at the retailers, not every single issue can be found and corrected.

 

Some issues are pretty "special". It takes more luck than planning to happen to spot them. Like if you follow a route, made with City Navigator, then decide to display the elevation plot, then stray off the route so a recalculation takes place. Now nothing special happens, but before testing...

 

I understand the beta cycle better than most, as a previous paid gig, I did contract work. They said I have the reverse midas touch... for those that have never heard about the midas touch, everything he touched turned to gold...

 

They said I could break an anvil!

Share this post


Link to post

They do test. The problem with that is that in the very short time from pilot run units available until availability at the retailers, not every single issue can be found and corrected.

 

Some issues are pretty "special". It takes more luck than planning to happen to spot them. Like if you follow a route, made with City Navigator, then decide to display the elevation plot, then stray off the route so a recalculation takes place. Now nothing special happens, but before testing...

 

I understand the beta cycle better than most, as a previous paid gig, I did contract work. They said I have the reverse midas touch... for those that have never heard about the midas touch, everything he touched turned to gold...

 

They said I could break an anvil!

Ah, yes, I have that, too. Everything I touch turns to s***, then takes my gold.

Share this post


Link to post

........Basically he told me the chipset was the same in the 60csx and the colorado and the H series........

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the 'H' series units use the SiRF Star III chipset not the Garmin chip that is used in the Nuvi and the Colorado.

The H series does not use the Sirf chipset. It was rumored to use a MediaTek chipset (based on boot-up messages on early firmware) but they might actually use Garmin's (also rumored) chip. There's also the possibility that different runs of the units have different chipsets (but the chipsets would have to be very similar in order for that to work). Maybe Garmin collaborated with MediaTek to create their own chipset?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

 

I believe this, as well as other reasons given for vendors not posting on forums. Ironically I just hit a post that appears to be by a vendor; http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3272022

 

Note the use of 'we just improved' and the signature of Team Delorme

 

Interesting.....

Share this post


Link to post

Several Garmin units have different GPS receivers, dependent upon availability and time of manufacture. That's even true for certain nüvi models.

 

But the Colorado has an "equivalent" GPS receiver chip, compared to other high-sensitivity models.

 

Using different chipsets in the same unit is no problem. They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

 

I believe this, as well as other reasons given for vendors not posting on forums. Ironically I just hit a post that appears to be by a vendor; http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3272022

 

Note the use of 'we just improved' and the signature of Team Delorme

 

Interesting.....

 

Team Delorme is part of Delorme. They are very active on the Delorme forum and welcome emails to them with questions about Delorme products. I have to say that Delorme has, by far, the best customer service I have seen of the GPS companies.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

 

I believe this, as well as other reasons given for vendors not posting on forums. Ironically I just hit a post that appears to be by a vendor; http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3272022

 

Note the use of 'we just improved' and the signature of Team Delorme

 

Interesting.....

Maybe we need a bunch of lawyers here to interpret SOX requirements. :)

OTOH, perhaps DeLorme is a private company, that is, one whose stock is neither publicly traded nor owned. If so, I'd guess that the SOX does not apply.

 

Any other questions?

Edited by CowboyPapa

Share this post


Link to post

Several Garmin units have different GPS receivers, dependent upon availability and time of manufacture. That's even true for certain nüvi models.

 

But the Colorado has an "equivalent" GPS receiver chip, compared to other high-sensitivity models.

 

Using different chipsets in the same unit is no problem. They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.

 

Interesting. Thanks!

 

<They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.>

 

Unless it doesn’t. That could easily explain why people with the same model may or may not experience a particular problem.

Edited by PerryB2

Share this post


Link to post

Do you know if this applies to privately-held companies or just public companies?

 

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
<They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.>

 

Unless it doesn’t. That could easily explain why people with the same model may or may not experience a particular problem.

In which case it would be dead as a doornail, unless the different chips are identical. But then there is no issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I was all set to order, after looking at the 400t vs the 300. While I like that face that the 400T has all of the topos, the version that Garmin has doesn really do much for me.

 

No way to update the 400t to a "400 super T" assuming they come out with better map set, so time to a 300... then lots of bad user reviews.

 

So off the fence, now not even in the game. I'll evaluate after I see some of the new updates.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted responses to the varrious 300 / 400t /garmin colorado topics.

I've had some frustration with my 400, but I suspect the first couple of firmware patches will fix things and add/improve features.

 

The biggest problem for me, so far, is that it isn't displaying street names with City Navigator. They are displayed on my other units (60-series and Vista), but on the 400 I just get attractive nuvi-like graphics -- but no street names. I started a thread about this issue.

 

Another annoyance for me is entering text. I find the "spin the wheel" method much slower than navigating the grid on the older models. I hope they'll add that input method as an option. It's not as glitzy and graphic, but it just plain works better. I presume they don't use a touch screen due to cold weather functionality.

 

I probably just have to get used to where all the options are now, but so far it seems more cumbersome to change settings than it is on the older models. I need to sit with my 60CSx and the 400t and compare the location of each setting. I presume they both have the same options.

 

No, one option that I haven't found yet on the 400, which someone mentioned in my "lack of street names" thread -- Declutter is MIA so far.

 

At least the 400 has been relaible and accurate for me so far. I'm sure that between tech support and patches, my issues will be resolved. I've always found Garmin to be caring and responsive. I'll just have to be patient.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
<They just make a firmware that appropriately identifies the chip in each unit, then handle it accordingly.>

 

Unless it doesn’t. That could easily explain why people with the same model may or may not experience a particular problem.

In which case it would be dead as a doornail, unless the different chips are identical. But then there is no issue.

 

Hi Anders,

 

I realize I was not clear. I was thinking about the situation where it did identify the chip correctly but did non handle / process the information from chip ‘A’ to produce the same result as it did for chip ‘B’…because of a bug in the firmware that only affected the result from a certain chip.

 

Thanks for all your contributions.

 

Perry

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the extra time its taking to fill my order may give me a chance to cancel my order. I am used to startup problems with units but there are a few issues that may not be fixed, either because they can't with firmware or not enough incentive on Garmin's part to do so (as in not enough complaints to warrant a fix). The lack of street names, if not fixed on CN is a deal breaker. I plan to use this unit like my old 76S for some road trips, along with geocaching. I already would like to kill the 3d effect on the road screen. I would rather have just the streets show as on a standard map (like the 60 or 76 series). The screen brightness may be another unfixable problem. The lack of being able to average a point for geocaching is just not acceptable. If fixes are in the works, I will let the order stand but if not I will just cancel my order. I may try calling Garmin and see if I can get a little light shed on some of the problems. The unit has potential but...I have quite a list of concerns so far. If I was not headed out on a trip next month I would just wait it out till late May to order. Thanks again to all for your posts. I hope Garmin will be able to make this into a good unit...no unit will be perfect for all of us.

Bob

Edited by WoodenShoe

Share this post


Link to post

Do you know if this applies to privately-held companies or just public companies?

 

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

Well, since my call for lawyers to volunteer has been unfulfilled, I'll toss out another guess. A privately held company is one that does not have stock to be traded publicly. Therefore, there is nothing to "hype."

Share this post


Link to post

Let me offer my opinion (not Groundspeak's) from one wearing lots of hats - free s/w producer, commercial s/w producer, moderator, and an actual reader of the forums.

 

I don't have a problem with posts from vendors as long as they're clearly identified as such and are responding to threads about their products in ways that aren't shamelessly commercial. I find the posts by Delorme to be a lovely example of good behaviour - they don't trash talk the competition, they speak with (clearly identified) authoritiy on their own products, and they don't sound like a commercial.

 

I can't cite SOX and hope to never be able to, but I see it blamed for all kinds of goofy stuff. If a posting from a company that's clearly identified as such isn't shamelessly promotional, I don't see a problem with it.

 

My vote isn't the final one as a Groundspeak forum moderator but I'd welcome more particpants like Delorme. I'd also run operations like "Bye mye ultra c00l gps now from me.com" that posted in every thread with just their company name out of town on a rail.

 

We're at to the edge of needing to split the "what is SPAM/SOX" discussion awayh from "I cancelled mhy Colorado order", though. Both are valid conversations;they're just different.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually they can not participate in forums as it is a violation of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) requirements. This can be viewed as "hyping" the company for stock inflation purposes.

 

Not true. SOX covers mostly how your report the financial condition of the company. If company employees couldn't talk to the general public how would they ever sell a product? I go out every day and "hype" my company and product to potential customers. It's called selling.

 

In case you're interested (or bored) take a look at this LINK for more details on SOX.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me offer my opinion (not Groundspeak's) from one wearing lots of hats - free s/w producer, commercial s/w producer, moderator, and an actual reader of the forums.

 

I don't have a problem with posts from vendors as long as they're clearly identified as such and are responding to threads about their products in ways that aren't shamelessly commercial. I find the posts by Delorme to be a lovely example of good behaviour - they don't trash talk the competition, they speak with (clearly identified) authoritiy on their own products, and they don't sound like a commercial.

 

I can't cite SOX and hope to never be able to, but I see it blamed for all kinds of goofy stuff. If a posting from a company that's clearly identified as such isn't shamelessly promotional, I don't see a problem with it.

 

My vote isn't the final one as a Groundspeak forum moderator but I'd welcome more particpants like Delorme. I'd also run operations like "Bye mye ultra c00l gps now from me.com" that posted in every thread with just their company name out of town on a rail.

 

We're at to the edge of needing to split the "what is SPAM/SOX" discussion awayh from "I cancelled mhy Colorado order", though. Both are valid conversations;they're just different.

"Well said Fred", more participation, similar to that of Ander's and Chip's would be welcome from my

point of view!

On a side note, what ever happened to 'Triton Eh', seems sorta quiet on that front 'Eh'?

 

WAASless near Seattle :^(

Norm

Edited by RRLover

Share this post


Link to post

Well I have had it! I got my 400t a week ago and I gave it a try this weekend. I like Garmin and know they will fix SOME of the problems but after struggling with it this weekend I realize they may never get this unit to do what I need for Geocaching. I am stuck with some great features on my 60C and some great features on my Colorado but I have to use both to geocache making the Colorado one expensive PDA. For what I have spent on the Colorado I can get a new Map60cx and a brand new CN 2008 and still have some money left not counting the money I would have had to spend on a new AC adapter and a car mount. I hope all who have got the Colorado will have your issues fixed in time and I am returning my 400t to Buy.com and buying a good old Map60cx.

Share this post


Link to post

Anybody thinking about buying it, JUST BUY IT!!! It still works. It might not be perfect just quite yet but in time it will be. The problems with the COlorado is not even close to the Triton line. - WW

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't see this posted elsewhere. Here is a youtube video review of the Colorado 400t from "Icenrye's Geocaching" (review starts about 8 minutes into the 16 minute video):

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have accepted that my 300 was not designed for use in a vehicle and has shortcomings for road navigation. I've never seen anything from Garmin that indicated it was a good choice for cross platform use.

 

It is designed as an outdoor use Handheld unit and it does that well.

 

Many complain about the GPX features. I see no problem at all. Works much like my older Garmin units. Load the caches as waypoints so they show on the maps - then load the GPX so I have the cache details to carry along. Instead of a separate GPS and PDA - I now do that all on one unit. Easy enough - same process. Limited to 1000 but that has always been more than enough for a week plus of caching.

 

The only thing I really miss and feel is a problem is the lack of a find nearest/log as found/find next geocache feature. That is a huge problem.

 

I have high confidence that will be fixed though and make it an even better unit.

Share this post


Link to post

It is designed as an outdoor use Handheld unit and it does that well.

 

Many complain about the GPX features. I see no problem at all. Works much like my older Garmin units. Load the caches as waypoints so they show on the maps - then load the GPX so I have the cache details to carry along. Instead of a separate GPS and PDA - I now do that all on one unit. Easy enough - same process. Limited to 1000 but that has always been more than enough for a week plus of caching.

 

 

But that's not way it is supposed to work. I wish people would stop making excuses for poor initial performance issues. Work arounds don't make up for flaws. When you shell out this kind of cache for a high end piece of equipment, you expect high end performance. If I want older Garmin unit performance, I'll buy an older Garmin. Wait....I already have two older Garmins that are more functional than the initial version of the Colorado. What about the long load and screen update times? Once they offer something better than the old, or get the Colorado up to speed, then I will think about forking out $500-$600.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and some want it now, and are willing to pay now and then wait for the successive updates to bring it upto the functionality they expect.

For them, short-term workarounds are acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and some want it now, and are willing to pay now and then wait for the successive updates to bring it upto the functionality they expect.

For them, short-term workarounds are acceptable.

 

Anders,

 

Read SB's post again. SB is saying "I see no problem at all." SB is making excuses, marginalizing the impact of the performance issues, and rationalizing poor market delivery.

 

I don't think there is anyone who thinks Garmin won't improve the Colorado platform. From my read of the forums, and even your posts, some of the work-arounds may not be "short-term" since nobody even knows the Colorado's intended performance specs.

 

Now I know why the manual is so vague. It is easy to deny performance delivery when the specs are not published.

 

I'm not expecting the Colorado to do everything for me since it was not made specifically for me. I'm saying, don't make excuses for Garmin and don't settle for anything less than the highest level of quality and performance.

Share this post


Link to post

What kind of serious navigation device comes without some form of waypoint averaging?

 

Yes, that would be the Colorado, as it currently has no waypoint averaging and its gotta make people wonder at just what %*@ Garmin was thinking. This is a HUGE omission. If I was Mr Colorado firmware guy I would be embarrassed and wouldn't be able to sleep at night in fear that Garmin might fire me for leaving out something so integral to serious navigation and positional tools. As posted in another thread, I'm beginning to believe more and more that the Colorado is indeed marketed towards teenage girls.

Share this post


Link to post

... the Colorado is indeed marketed towards teenage girls.

:D sorry, but i didn't think this will be the market - with this price :laughing:

but really it looks like to be the real market :)

Share this post


Link to post

I assume StarBrand wrote "I see no problem", because to him, it's not a problem.

We all have our opinions, but it's not fair to request that some throttle theirs, just because they don't share your's.

 

Getting positions at a favorable time is often better than averaging the position. But the latter is very easy to do, of course. But to get the best result, you need prediction software to know when to go out there.

 

Some old, but interesting reading.

 

Here's a quote from another source:

Several interesting effects of averaging GPS positions can be seen from the chart. For averaging periods of less than approximately a minute, little effect is had on the accuracy of a positional determination. For averaging periods between a minute and an hour or two, a fairly consistent improvement in accuracy is obtainable. Averaging for longer periods naturally continues to improve accuracy, though the rate of improvement decreases.

 

Most users have no idea about how long it takes to get significantly better values.

Edited by apersson850

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...