Jump to content

Colorado chipset differences account for varying battery life reports?


yogazoo

Recommended Posts

A little background...

 

UNIT 1) I had recieved my first Colorado 300 on January 18th. I was immediately dissapointed with the battery life. I couldn't even get 2 hours of 100% backlight from a set of fresh NIMH eneloops. I had noticed that this unit had the clock memory issue and sent it back for replacement.

 

UNIT 2) I recieved this unit and the only difference in operation was that the clock memory actually worked. Still got lousy battery life, but at least it worked. I noticed some residue under the LCD cover and sent this unit back for replacement.

 

UNIT 3) I recieved this unit and immediately noticed the higher serial # (16900027**) compared to both the older units (in the hundreds). I immediately loaded the new versions (2.3/2.6) with the updater and noticed something I didn't see before. In the web-updater dialogue box it said "GARMIN CHIPSET TYPE M". ???

Yeah, the other units didn't give me this dialogue. Whats was up?

 

I went on to notice that this unit operated just fine, i.e. the clock kept the time when off, the alarm worked, BUT the barometer failed to log data when the unit was off, even if SAVE ALWAYS was chosen. Hmmm. Also strangely enough the backlight blinks every so often when the unit is off. I know, wierd right?

 

Wait it gets better...

 

Tonight I was able to test the battery life with the "M" chips. Man, was I blown away!! On a set of freshly charged eneloop NIMH rechargables I got just over FIVE HOURS with a 100% backlight and full battery meter for 3 1/2 of those!! WOW. Man it blew me away. I had WAAS on and the compass off and the battery type set to NIMH. Let me be clear, I only tested how long the unit remained at the 100% backlight level. Based upon this though it is a vast improvement. Total run times may or may not be affected.

 

I hope for the sake of everyone out there with "G" chips that they can craft some firmware to fix the efficiency. This explains the dichotomy between those who reported 5 hours and those who reported 2 (hours of 100% backlight before autodimming).

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

I'll have to check mine to see which chipset it is, since I get good battery life. I left it on over night by accident last night, and it was at 2 bars after around 10 hours (no backlight, of course).

 

--Marky

 

Marky, does your barometer log data with the unit off and SAVE ALWAYS chosen? If not then there is a good chance you have the "M". You should set it tonight before bed and check to see if there is any dynamic data in your barometer graph in the a.m. If you see a straight line - no data. My previous units all logged data successfully in the off modus.

 

You can also watch for the flickering backlight at around 15 minutes after shutdown (with barometer set to log data) and random intervals thereafter. Neither of my pevious units did this.

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

I'll have to check mine to see which chipset it is, since I get good battery life. I left it on over night by accident last night, and it was at 2 bars after around 10 hours (no backlight, of course).

 

--Marky

 

Marky, does your barometer log data with the unit off and SAVE ALWAYS chosen? If not then there is a good chance you have the "M". You should set it tonight before bed and check to see if there is any dynamic data in your barometer graph in the a.m. If you see a straight line - no data. My previous units all logged data successfully in the off modus.

 

You can also watch for the flickering backlight at around 15 minutes after shutdown (with barometer set to log data) and random intervals thereafter. Neither of my pevious units did this.

do you also have the serial number of unit 1+2 ?

Link to comment

I'll have to check mine to see which chipset it is, since I get good battery life. I left it on over night by accident last night, and it was at 2 bars after around 10 hours (no backlight, of course).

 

--Marky

 

Marky, does your barometer log data with the unit off and SAVE ALWAYS chosen? If not then there is a good chance you have the "M". You should set it tonight before bed and check to see if there is any dynamic data in your barometer graph in the a.m. If you see a straight line - no data. My previous units all logged data successfully in the off modus.

 

You can also watch for the flickering backlight at around 15 minutes after shutdown (with barometer set to log data) and random intervals thereafter. Neither of my pevious units did this.

do you also have the serial number of unit 1+2 ?

 

I have serial # 169005012, it has "M" chipset, flickers, works right logging pressure with unit off + alarm clock running.

Link to comment

My jubilation over obtaining a unit that has good battery life has quickly been obliterated by it freezing!!

 

Yes, my wonderful third unit was having the battery life tested. I turned it on last night at 8pm and it ran through a little past 9am. When I looked over at it at around 9:15 it was off and I just figured that the battery life had expired. When I replaced with fresh batteries tried to turn it on, the unit never started up. I could access the diagnostic screen and noticed the RAM and ROM said "WAIT". The RAM and ROM never intialized. Now it wont even let me as far as the diag screen and just sits there bearing the name GARMIN. :rolleyes:

 

Now I am the proud owner of a $500 paper weight. I know Garmin will exchange it but I'm getting tired of spending $15 to ship it and another $10 for a new invisible shield every single time (this will be my third). I'm going to ask and see if they will replace my unit with a Vista HCX. I'm really getting tired of defective Colorado's. :wacko:

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

Why would I run a command prompt to run the .exe program? WHy wouldn't I just run the exe? Anyway, I saw the "loader" prompt for like two seconds and then the screen goes blank. I can reinstall the batteries and get the GARMIN black screen now but its still frozen.

 

... and why should I have to perform all this hokus pokus to get my new, expensive unit to turn on?

 

I'm sorry, to say that I'm frustrated is an understatement. Thanks everyone for your help!

Link to comment
another $10 for a new invisible shield every single time (this will be my third).
Why not take it off before you send it in?

 

Because the glue will get funky, collect dirt, and you can never quite re-install these things to where they look good as new. I have done it in the past and dust, fuzz, hair, and bubbles all get caught up in them during the transfer. Its best just to get a new one.

Link to comment

Why would I run a command prompt to run the .exe program? WHy wouldn't I just run the exe? Anyway, I saw the "loader" prompt for like two seconds and then the screen goes blank. I can reinstall the batteries and get the GARMIN black screen now but its still frozen.

 

... and why should I have to perform all this hokus pokus to get my new, expensive unit to turn on?

 

I'm sorry, to say that I'm frustrated is an understatement. Thanks everyone for your help!

 

You shouldn't have to do this, you're in a disaster recovery scenario and at this point and you are hoping to avoid another return. When I did it, it worked and saved me the hassle of returning mine.

 

Go to your PC's Start menu and select "Run", type in "cmd" and you should get a black window with a command line.

 

Change directory (ie. "cd") to the directory where you extracted updater.exe and the other file. Type in the command provided in the FAQ. You should get this all prepared before you even plug in the Colorado so that the command is typed but you haven't hit enter yet.

 

Now back to the GPS. If you aren't even getting the Garmin prompt you might be toast. When my CO was in this shape I would hold the up arrow, power on, and I would see the Garmin prompt. Wait about 30 seconds while holding the up arrow and then enter the command above on your PC until you see "Loader" on the GPS. I think you'll need to "okay" or "next" through a few windows on the PC. At that point the GPS is visible as a drive on the PC and you can let go of the up arrow. If you power on and nothing is happening then this might not help.

 

GO$Rs

Edited by g-o-cashers
Link to comment

A little background...

 

UNIT 1) I had recieved my first Colorado 300 on January 18th. I was immediately dissapointed with the battery life. I couldn't even get 2 hours of 100% backlight from a set of fresh NIMH eneloops. I had noticed that this unit had the clock memory issue and sent it back for replacement.

 

UNIT 2) I recieved this unit and the only difference in operation was that the clock memory actually worked. Still got lousy battery life, but at least it worked. I noticed some residue under the LCD cover and sent this unit back for replacement.

 

UNIT 3) I recieved this unit and immediately noticed the higher serial # (16900027**) compared to both the older units (in the hundreds). I immediately loaded the new versions (2.3/2.6) with the updater and noticed something I didn't see before. In the web-updater dialogue box it said "GARMIN CHIPSET TYPE M". ???

Yeah, the other units didn't give me this dialogue. Whats was up?

 

I went on to notice that this unit operated just fine, i.e. the clock kept the time when off, the alarm worked, BUT the barometer failed to log data when the unit was off, even if SAVE ALWAYS was chosen. Hmmm. Also strangely enough the backlight blinks every so often when the unit is off. I know, wierd right?

 

Wait it gets better...

 

Tonight I was able to test the battery life with the "M" chips. Man, was I blown away!! On a set of freshly charged eneloop NIMH rechargables I got just over FIVE HOURS with a 100% backlight and full battery meter for 3 1/2 of those!! WOW. Man it blew me away. I had WAAS on and the compass off and the battery type set to NIMH. Let me be clear, I only tested how long the unit remained at the 100% backlight level. Based upon this though it is a vast improvement. Total run times may or may not be affected.

 

I hope for the sake of everyone out there with "G" chips that they can craft some firmware to fix the efficiency. This explains the dichotomy between those who reported 5 hours and those who reported 2 (hours of 100% backlight before autodimming).

 

yogazoo,

 

I keep seeing new attempts at determining why you have such low battery life, but here is what I am not seeing:

 

Initial voltage (when you first insert these batteries into the unit.) Final voltage once the unit shuts down completely.

 

Capacity of the NiMH batteries in mAh. I assume that you are using 2000 mAh batteries.

 

Condition of these batteries. Are they brand new (on their first cycle). Are they a year old, having been through hundreds of cycles? Are the relatively new with maximum capacity (say 10 - 15 FULL cycles)?

 

I don't know what you know about NiMH batteries, especially the older type (not pre-charged), but these batteries take as many as 10 - 15 full charge/discharge cycles before the maximum voltage at full charge is achieved.

 

I suspect that you are using brand new, low capacity, off brand batteries as well as having the initial battery problems before upgrading to 2.30. I also suspect that your batteries (at least one of the pair) may have a problem.

 

Have you tried using 2650 mAh Duracell Rechargeable batteries and letting them run through at least 10 full charge/discharge cycles taking note of the peak voltage right before insertion of the batteries?

 

I used well established, peak capacity 2650 mAh and 2500 mAh Duracell Rechargeables. The typical peak voltage is 1.400 volts.

 

As well and as you know, its good to be aware of all the features that can run down batteries in these units. I would turn WAAS off, leave GPS on, turn off the compass, turn off the auto-calibrated mode for the altimeter, and turn off the alarm clock. I would use this as the standard conditions for your initial tests. Granted, you will want to know how the unit also runs in a standard field mode: GPS with WAAS enabled and compass on and calibrated. I would leave everything else turned off.

 

As for your 100% backlight continually on tests: I feel this is something to test after initial testing is done. I don't see that this replicates field conditions even if you are a constant night cacher. You don't need 100% backlighting all the time while caching. I've been caching for nearly three years and can't remember any time where I've been observing the compass and/or map pages constantly for more than 30 seconds at a time, much less all the time, in the dark, for 16 hours. Its just not a realistic test at this time. Sure, if you want to know how the backlight drains the batteries and want to test in a Full On mode with everything else turned off, this would be interesting information.

 

After seeing your initial requests for other's performance, I tested my unit Full On, WAAS enabled, compass on, barometer taking data, etc. and got 8 full hours before my display was dimmed. This was nowhere near the performance you were seeing. I suspect your issues are with your batteries and not your GPS unit including the chipset installed.

 

Have you called Garmin and asked them what they think? You can talk to the engineers. You don't have to just talk to whoever answers the phone. Do they think that the choice of chipset affects the power requirements of your unit? What did they say?

Link to comment
another $10 for a new invisible shield every single time (this will be my third).
Why not take it off before you send it in?

 

Because the glue will get funky, collect dirt, and you can never quite re-install these things to where they look good as new. I have done it in the past and dust, fuzz, hair, and bubbles all get caught up in them during the transfer. Its best just to get a new one.

 

You realize that this invisible shield, first of all, is not necessary.

 

It mainly protects against small scratches. If you are careless and smash the face of your GPS into a hard rock or a sharp object, the invisible shield will only protect it so much.

 

Also, and I know you won't believe me, this shield reduces the intensity of the light from your unit. Leaving out the math: you want your display as bright as you can get it. Reducing the light even a couple of percent will cause you to run the backlight brighter. Without it, you can run the backlight at a lower setting (one "notch.") This reduces battery consumption.

 

Also, these things aren't cheap. Wouldn't you rather spend the money on high quality rechargeable batteries? I know I would.

 

I think your expectations on these invisible shields are too high. You've been "sold" and it costs you.

 

I never babied either of my GPSmap 60 units. Sure, they had a few, small scratches over their lifetime, but that is nothing compared to having a piece of plastic covering an otherwise beautiful and bright screen. Those screens are made of materials that do resist scratching. You'll be amazed at how well they perform, especially when you keep your screen clean.

Link to comment

Why would I run a command prompt to run the .exe program? WHy wouldn't I just run the exe? Anyway, I saw the "loader" prompt for like two seconds and then the screen goes blank. I can reinstall the batteries and get the GARMIN black screen now but its still frozen.

 

... and why should I have to perform all this hokus pokus to get my new, expensive unit to turn on?

 

I'm sorry, to say that I'm frustrated is an understatement. Thanks everyone for your help!

 

Honestly, why don't you return your Colorado and order a brand spankin' new GPSmap 60CSx from gpsnow.com, get 4 Duracell Rechargeable 2650 mAh batteries, 4 Duracell Pre-Charged Rechargeable 2000 mAh batteries (for backup), and a nice (slow) car charger for these (Energizer sells an awesome kit)?

 

Forget the Colorado. It's simply not for you. Enjoy the tried and true GPSmap 60 (and get a new one even if you have an older one -- sell that one to someone else who isn't getting the results out of their Colorado.)

 

You'll be money and frustration ahead. - Pat

Link to comment

 

Initial voltage (when you first insert these batteries into the unit.) Final voltage once the unit shuts down completely.

 

Look, what I'm saying is that the new unit I received was getting the kind of numbers as far as runtime as you and the others reporting good battery life. There are obviously many people (check the threads) that are experiencing much less. I know all about NIMH batteries and have used them in everything for years.

Starting voltage with eneloops is 1.44 per battery. Dont assume that those of us that observed bad runtimes lack rather common knowledge (NIMH's have been around for a while).

 

As for your 100% backlight continually on tests: I feel this is something to test after initial testing is done. I don't see that this replicates field conditions even if you are a constant night cacher. You don't need 100% backlighting all the time while caching. I've been caching for nearly three years and can't remember any time where I've been observing the compass and/or map pages constantly for more than 30 seconds at a time, much less all the time, in the dark, for 16 hours. Its just not a realistic test at this time. Sure, if you want to know how the backlight drains the batteries and want to test in a Full On mode with everything else turned off, this would be interesting information.

 

I disagree. It is a test under constant power draw. I don't care if I get 100% backlight in the field, thats not the point. What is the point? Its an easy way to see which camp you fall in. The 2hr or 5+hr 100% backlight. The point is also that there are battery meter issues and other subtle differences between certain units and other units.

 

After seeing your initial requests for other's performance, I tested my unit Full On, WAAS enabled, compass on, barometer taking data, etc. and got 8 full hours before my display was dimmed. This was nowhere near the performance you were seeing. I suspect your issues are with your batteries and not your GPS unit including the chipset installed.

 

The issues are not with my batteries (as discussed before). The newer unit was an M-type chipset, the older units weren't. Like I said the newer unit ran fine for 5+ hours. This morning it died, froze, died. My frustration comment had nothing to do with the battery life.

 

Have you called Garmin and asked them what they think? You can talk to the engineers. You don't have to just talk to whoever answers the phone. Do they think that the choice of chipset affects the power requirements of your unit? What did they say?

 

Yeah, just try and call a garmin engineer and get information out of him like that. Might as well call the north pole and ask for Santa.

 

 

Most GPS users I know buy and install some sort of shield over their LCD display. I use GPS's every day in my line of work and they get rode hard and put away wet. Believe me, if these shields were not installed they would be scratched within the week. It keeps the screen fresh from ANY scratches so if I ever go to sell it to a friend or online I get the value back for being able to say "Screen was protected from day one with invisible shield." If I was going to buy a GPS and saw this I would be more likely to bid on it.

 

Look I generally like my Colorado and I don't care to send it back for another unit. I test these units out and post my findings for the benefit of not only myself but mostly for others. That way if someone who doesn't know much about the GPS scene is experiencing poor batt life he can maybe find out why. That the whole point of these threads and forums in general to serve as a community to describe problems, post test results and investigate potential answers. I'm sorry if you view it as some sort of complaining but thats not what this is. I'm sure I'm not the only frustrated Colorado user out there and, like the others, I want to put our heads together and identify the bugs so Garmin can fix it.

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

so what you're basically saying is that I wasted gobs of time writing what I wrote. Sorry. Lesson learned.

 

DUDe! The person (Yogazoo )has been through 3 different units. He hasn't given up on Garmin, Yogazoo keeps hoping that for some strange reason they are just unlucky. From Yogazoos thread they are using quality batteries. Their has got to be something different with the last unit since, it lasted longer than the others. Now the newest unit does not work at all. Wow, and you suggest that He should just give up wanting a Colorado because it's just not for Him. that's funny. Yogazoo, I hope you have the fortitude to get another, these units apparently have issues try, ask, garmin for some form of compensation but don't give up.

Link to comment

I'm curious what other people have for GCD files in

 

[drive]:\Garmin\RemoteSW

 

I have a file called 006B073300.GCD which is the 2.6 GPS software. At least on the Nuvi threads people claim this is MTK firmware. Sure enough there seem to strings like "MTKGPS" in the file. I'm assuming that means I have an M-type chipset.

 

It would be interesting to see what other people have and if it would be a way to distinguish Type G from Type M.

 

GO$Rs

Link to comment

You know the battery issue would be easier to determine if you simply run through an ammeter to determine how many watts the unit is pulling. That way you could determine what versions of chip pull what power.

 

BTW... It seems that the new Garmin Colorado is having as many issues as the new Magellan Triton series... should be interesting to see who actually gets their units working first. Many have switched from the Triton, in assumption that Garmin would get it right... interesting to see the results.

Link to comment

BTW... It seems that the new Garmin Colorado is having as many issues as the new Magellan Triton series... should be interesting to see who actually gets their units working first. Many have switched from the Triton, in assumption that Garmin would get it right... interesting to see the results.

 

I disagree. The Colorados are not perfect, but they are better than the Tritons.

 

Colorados = beta

Triton = Alpha

Link to comment
Marky, does your barometer log data with the unit off and SAVE ALWAYS chosen? If not then there is a good chance you have the "M". You should set it tonight before bed and check to see if there is any dynamic data in your barometer graph in the a.m. If you see a straight line - no data. My previous units all logged data successfully in the off modus.

 

You can also watch for the flickering backlight at around 15 minutes after shutdown (with barometer set to log data) and random intervals thereafter. Neither of my pevious units did this.

I am pretty sure I recall mine saying "M" when I upgraded to 2.6, and I definitely know that my wife's is an "M". I've not tested the barometer log data thing, since I don't plan on using that feature. :bad:

 

--Marky

Link to comment

BTW... It seems that the new Garmin Colorado is having as many issues as the new Magellan Triton series... should be interesting to see who actually gets their units working first. Many have switched from the Triton, in assumption that Garmin would get it right... interesting to see the results.

 

I disagree. The Colorados are not perfect, but they are better than the Tritons.

 

Colorados = beta

Triton = Alpha

 

I have to agree here. I have been monitoring both posts and there are two things I can say about the Colorado that can't be said for the Triton:

 

1. They are funtional

2. Customer support exists for them

Link to comment

I'm curious what other people have for GCD files in

 

[drive]:\Garmin\RemoteSW

 

I have a file called 006B073300.GCD which is the 2.6 GPS software. At least on the Nuvi threads people claim this is MTK firmware. Sure enough there seem to strings like "MTKGPS" in the file. I'm assuming that means I have an M-type chipset.

 

It would be interesting to see what other people have and if it would be a way to distinguish Type G from Type M.

 

GO$Rs

 

I'm also running 2.3 / 2.6, and have the same file, 006B073300.GCD, in my RemoteSW dir. As noted, it contains strings like "MKTGPS". My unit's serial # 18Z001078.

Link to comment

BTW... It seems that the new Garmin Colorado is having as many issues as the new Magellan Triton series... should be interesting to see who actually gets their units working first. Many have switched from the Triton, in assumption that Garmin would get it right... interesting to see the results.

 

I disagree. The Colorados are not perfect, but they are better than the Tritons.

 

Colorados = beta

Triton = Alpha

 

Well, I for one have a working Colorado. Do I believe that the firmware will ever change? Of course I do. Will these upgrades improve performance and functionality? Of course they will.

 

I get great battery performance. Even if I got less, I know how to charge batteries. I do it daily. In fact, I've charged several pairs today.

 

Waterproofness: I'm gonna slap the next person I see in person that mentions this. Have you SEEN the seal on the GPSmap 60's? And you're worried about the Colorado? I honestly think what people are seeing is water that spilled into the battery compartments and the SD section of the outer case from being careless. I don' believe for a minute there is a design flaw.

 

I'm still not sure why I would care about the chipset. I've read and re-read the start of this thread and scratched my head with ambiguous and unclear English.

 

I have seen my favorite pair of 2650s lose 3% of their initial voltage in about 10 hours. I've not seen any mention of how these batteries drop their charge and how this may be affecting the effective performance of the Colorado units tested. Considering that the voltage curve is flat and the rated voltage is about 85 % of the maximum, a 3% drop is significant. I still haven't seen initial voltage readings, even though I asked about those. I doubt they are being noted.

 

I don't mean to be a dredge in this conversation, but I don't see how anyone expects to get logical results from a illogical approach. I'm a scientist. I know what controls are. I also know what sloppy experiments look like. I'm just saying ...

Link to comment

so what you're basically saying is that I wasted gobs of time writing what I wrote. Sorry. Lesson learned.

 

DUDe! The person (Yogazoo )has been through 3 different units. He hasn't given up on Garmin, Yogazoo keeps hoping that for some strange reason they are just unlucky. From Yogazoos thread they are using quality batteries. Their has got to be something different with the last unit since, it lasted longer than the others. Now the newest unit does not work at all. Wow, and you suggest that He should just give up wanting a Colorado because it's just not for Him. that's funny. Yogazoo, I hope you have the fortitude to get another, these units apparently have issues try, ask, garmin for some form of compensation but don't give up.

 

And what is yogazoo's time worth? How much time has he/she spent fighting this when they KNOW that the GPSmap 60 units work so well and are currently and the lowest cost of their long lives? After a certain time you have to bury the horse. Know what I mean?

Link to comment

My 300, Unit 169000579 (got one of the 1st from GPSNow), has the exact same 006B073300.GCD file. When opening it in Notepad I do see reference to Nuvi and MTKGPS. Is there a way to find out if I have Type G or Type M other than updating firmware again?

 

I'm pretty sure if you have this file you have a Type-M (MediaTek) chip. 006B073300 is the part number for the MediaTek firmware according to some of the Nuvi threads (the Colorado and Nuvi 2xx use the same GPS software). A little more searching in the GCD file revealed this string:

 

MT3318 1.2V Software Version 2.60

 

That's the MediaTek chip.

 

Some other part numbers I've found below. The Bravo chip seems to be a Garmin chip so if someone has 006B068000.GCD in their RemoteSW directory that might suggest they have a Type-G (or Type-B as it is called on the Nuvi 2xx's).

 

GO$Rs

 

006-B0478-00 SiRF GSC3f GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B047800.bin)

 

006-B0680-00 Bravo 3.0H GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B068000.GCD)

 

006-B0733-00 MediaTek MT3318 GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B073300.GCD)

 

edit: more specific on which Nuvi

Edited by g-o-cashers
Link to comment

 

Well, I for one have a working Colorado. Do I believe that the firmware will ever change? Of course I do. Will these upgrades improve performance and functionality? Of course they will.

 

I get great battery performance. Even if I got less, I know how to charge batteries. I do it daily. In fact, I've charged several pairs today.

 

Waterproofness: I'm gonna slap the next person I see in person that mentions this. Have you SEEN the seal on the GPSmap 60's? And you're worried about the Colorado? I honestly think what people are seeing is water that spilled into the battery compartments and the SD section of the outer case from being careless. I don' believe for a minute there is a design flaw.

 

I'm still not sure why I would care about the chipset. I've read and re-read the start of this thread and scratched my head with ambiguous and unclear English.

 

I have seen my favorite pair of 2650s lose 3% of their initial voltage in about 10 hours. I've not seen any mention of how these batteries drop their charge and how this may be affecting the effective performance of the Colorado units tested. Considering that the voltage curve is flat and the rated voltage is about 85 % of the maximum, a 3% drop is significant. I still haven't seen initial voltage readings, even though I asked about those. I doubt they are being noted.

 

I don't mean to be a dredge in this conversation, but I don't see how anyone expects to get logical results from a illogical approach. I'm a scientist. I know what controls are. I also know what sloppy experiments look like. I'm just saying ...

 

Thanks LifeOnEdge! Your accute dismissal of everyones problems and issues is a big help. Your right, There are no issues that your logical thinking and incredibe ability to recharge rechargable batteries can't fix. We are all just a collection of liars and idiots who strive, in vein, to achieve the level of sound logical and rational thought as you, scientist, LifeOnEdge.

 

I could sit here and attach links to nuvi threads that talk about differences in performance due to different chipsets, or threads on water seal probems people ARE experiencing (really, they are, no really, water has gotten past this superior seal), or even the thread that discusses flat discharge of NIMH's, but I wouldn't want to insult your scientific mind.

 

In seriousness, your condescending attitude and prosaic responses don't really help with anything.

 

Of course this is all just my humble opinion (IMHO). ;)

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment

Thanks LifeOnEdge! Your accute dismissal of everyones problems and issues is a big help. Your right, There are no issues that your logical thinking and incredibe ability to recharge rechargable batteries can't fix. We are all just a collection of liars and idiots who strive, in vein, to achieve the level of sound logical and rational thought as you, scientist, LifeOnEdge.

 

I could sit here and attach links to nuvi threads that talk about differences in performance due to different chipsets, or threads on water seal probems people ARE experiencing (really, they are, no really, water has gotten past this superior seal), or even the thread that discusses flat discharge of NIMH's, but I would'nt want to insult your scientific mind.

 

In seriousness, your condescending attitude and prosaic responses don't really help with anything.

 

Of course this is all just my humble opinion (IMHO). ;)

 

You get two thumbs up and I couldn't have really worded it any better! :)

Link to comment

...

It would be interesting to see what other people have and if it would be a way to distinguish Type G from Type M.

...

 

I opened this file (006B073300.GCD) with a hex-editor and found the text "M-Core" starting at Byte $11AB.

 

Does anybody have noticed some differences between v2.5 and v2.6. Mine is v2.5 and before I start updating I would like to know if v2.6 is a valuable update.

Can I downgrade afterwards by just copying back the old 006B073300.GCD file?

 

Greetings from Germany!

tompagolf

Link to comment

 

I'm pretty sure if you have this file you have a Type-M (MediaTek) chip. 006B073300 is the part number for the MediaTek firmware according to some of the Nuvi threads (the Colorado and Nuvi 2xx use the same GPS software). A little more searching in the GCD file revealed this string:

 

MT3318 1.2V Software Version 2.60

 

That's the MediaTek chip.

 

Some other part numbers I've found below. The Bravo chip seems to be a Garmin chip so if someone has 006B068000.GCD in their RemoteSW directory that might suggest they have a Type-G (or Type-B as it is called on the Nuvi 2xx's).

 

GO$Rs

 

006-B0478-00 SiRF GSC3f GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B047800.bin)

 

006-B0680-00 Bravo 3.0H GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B068000.GCD)

 

006-B0733-00 MediaTek MT3318 GPS Module

(\garmin\remotesw\006B073300.GCD)

 

edit: more specific on which Nuvi

 

So, are we suggesting that this file in the \garmin\remotesw folder conclusively identifies the chipset? As noted, I've got the same "Type M" GCD file - but, it seems from reading through the threads about clock drift, and logging of barometric data when the unit is off - that I think I'm seeing some conflicting 'clues'.

 

On a related note: Do the other hardware differences (e.g. available RAM) also vary, by chipset - or are these unrelated (e.g. you could have more or less internal memory on a 400t with either chipset)?

 

Thanks!

Billy

Link to comment

:):):);):D

 

I'LL HAVE TO CHECK MINE

 

 

A little background...

 

UNIT 1) I had recieved my first Colorado 300 on January 18th. I was immediately dissapointed with the battery life. I couldn't even get 2 hours of 100% backlight from a set of fresh NIMH eneloops. I had noticed that this unit had the clock memory issue and sent it back for replacement.

 

UNIT 2) I recieved this unit and the only difference in operation was that the clock memory actually worked. Still got lousy battery life, but at least it worked. I noticed some residue under the LCD cover and sent this unit back for replacement.

 

UNIT 3) I recieved this unit and immediately noticed the higher serial # (16900027**) compared to both the older units (in the hundreds). I immediately loaded the new versions (2.3/2.6) with the updater and noticed something I didn't see before. In the web-updater dialogue box it said "GARMIN CHIPSET TYPE M". ???

Yeah, the other units didn't give me this dialogue. Whats was up?

 

I went on to notice that this unit operated just fine, i.e. the clock kept the time when off, the alarm worked, BUT the barometer failed to log data when the unit was off, even if SAVE ALWAYS was chosen. Hmmm. Also strangely enough the backlight blinks every so often when the unit is off. I know, wierd right?

 

Wait it gets better...

 

Tonight I was able to test the battery life with the "M" chips. Man, was I blown away!! On a set of freshly charged eneloop NIMH rechargables I got just over FIVE HOURS with a 100% backlight and full battery meter for 3 1/2 of those!! WOW. Man it blew me away. I had WAAS on and the compass off and the battery type set to NIMH. Let me be clear, I only tested how long the unit remained at the 100% backlight level. Based upon this though it is a vast improvement. Total run times may or may not be affected.

 

I hope for the sake of everyone out there with "G" chips that they can craft some firmware to fix the efficiency. This explains the dichotomy between those who reported 5 hours and those who reported 2 (hours of 100% backlight before autodimming).

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...