Colorado TFT display is a poor choice by Garmin

[+geokitebuggy]

I received my Colorado 400T Friday and am reasonably impressed with it in many ways. I have used a 76CSx for the short duration of my caching career, so I expected this new GPSr to behave in a similar fashion. As Lowell Wood said, "Software is just a detail." I am hopeful that Garmin will work out the software issues in the near future.

 

One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. The 76CSx has such a screen, so Garmin knows about them...

 

Outdoors, the Colorado needs the backlight on in daylight to be seen. If the ambient is too bright, you cannot see the screen details since the contrast becomes too low. The backlight is not bright enough to provide the contrast necessary. With the 76CSx the screen is usable in full daylight, even near dusk, without any backlighting whatsoever. Could Garmin have made such a blunder to save a few $$? With the price of the Colorado 400T up in the stratosphere as it is now, you'd have expected them to gold plate the buttons and knobs...

 

Maybe they will offer a return-to-factory display upgrade (for a price, I'm sure) so that the Colorado units will be useful OUTDOORS where they are advertised to be in their element. Probably battery life would be extended into the 20+ hour realm with alkalines as well. One can only hope.

 

<flame off>

 

George

[tgfoyl1472]

I received my Colorado 400T Friday and am reasonably impressed with it in many ways. I have used a 76CSx for the short duration of my caching career, so I expected this new GPSr to behave in a similar fashion. As Lowell Wood said, "Software is just a detail." I am hopeful that Garmin will work out the software issues in the near future.

 

One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. The 76CSx has such a screen, so Garmin knows about them...

 

Outdoors, the Colorado needs the backlight on in daylight to be seen. If the ambient is too bright, you cannot see the screen details since the contrast becomes too low. The backlight is not bright enough to provide the contrast necessary. With the 76CSx the screen is usable in full daylight, even near dusk, without any backlighting whatsoever. Could Garmin have made such a blunder to save a few $$? With the price of the Colorado 400T up in the stratosphere as it is now, you'd have expected them to gold plate the buttons and knobs...

 

Maybe they will offer a return-to-factory display upgrade (for a price, I'm sure) so that the Colorado units will be useful OUTDOORS where they are advertised to be in their element. Probably battery life would be extended into the 20+ hour realm with alkalines as well. One can only hope.

 

 

<flame off>

 

George

 

This is quite dissapointing. I was about to purchase the Colorado 400t for paragliding, the occasional hiking excursion and for some road navigating when needed. I like the hardware with the exception of the screen. Of the software, let's not get started on that . I don't geocache so I was ok with many of the issues other people have complained about but the screen issue is a major one for me. I guess I am purchasing a 60CSx and waiting a couple of years prior to considering the Colorado again.

Edited February 18, 2008 by tgfoyl1472

[MtnHermit]

One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. The 76CSx has such a screen, so Garmin knows about them...

I'll assume in this reply that you are correct that the display is not TRANSFLECTIVE.

 

Some thoughts:

- This could explain why the screen is so dark.

- Transreflective screens are not able to display as many colors as backlight screens, don't know why.

- Since the Colo will display photos, this may be why a TFT display was choosen.

- I'd give up some photo quality for readability.

- My Venture has a Transreflective display and I find it very readable under all conditions.

 

Curious as to others replies.

[RzrSxS]

- My Venture has a Transreflective display and I find it very readable under all conditions.

 

The OP mentions his 76csx having this screen also...do our Rino 530Hcx's have this type of screen?

I am continually told that this model is nothing but a 60csx (or maybe even 76csx?) with a radio....

Edited February 18, 2008 by RzrSxS

[+texbaz]

 

One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. ........................................

 

Maybe they will offer a return-to-factory display upgrade (for a price, I'm sure) so that the Colorado units will be useful OUTDOORS where they are advertised to be in their element. Probably battery life would be extended into the 20+ hour realm with alkalines as well. One can only hope.

 

<flame off>

 

 

George, You are so right about the screen. It is also, one of the reasons I have not purchased a Colorado. I have gone several times spent maybe 3-4 hours operating the product indoors and outside. The screen has left a big hole in my heart for this little unit. I am now convinced that what Garmin has produced and sold is a CONCEPT gpsr. From here they will make the needed improvements and sometime in the future deploy a much more respectable unit. The hardware issues are definitely my biggest reason for not buying a Colorado. As far as an update program for current Colorado owners, that is wishful thinking and a really good company would, probably do just that.

 

Of course their are many owners that feel the screen is just fine, they don't mind wasting precious energy to illuminate a screen that should really need no artificial illumination unless lighting conditions are at minimums. (like Dark for one). I'm not considered a real end user/ adventurer as defined by some forum members cause I don't climb mountains, scale vertical cliffs, head to the amazon, traverse vast open sand masses, sail the oceans with my kayak, bass buster, or floaties. skydive, windsurf, search for Bigfoot, sasquatch no Sir, I'm not an adventurer by others criteria, I just use it in everyday activities, for work, for pleasure, and in all sorts of modern civilization environments. but, I do know this. I use a GPSr in my everyday life, The Colorado has a dedicated group of owners followers and if Garmin ever thought about getting something right, this is a good time, and definitely a worthy cause. I foresee a swarm of competition on on the Horizon, right now Garmin has a very, very, good and loyal customer following one Ah' S**T can open the door for some serious Competition .

 

how'd that go <flame OFF>

Hope they take care of you George good luck.

Edited February 18, 2008 by texbaz

[MtnHermit]

- My Venture has a Transreflective display and I find it very readable under all conditions.

The OP mentions his 76csx having this screen also...do our Rino 530Hcx's have this type of screen?

I am continually told that this model is nothing but a 60csx (or maybe even 76csx?) with a radio....

AFAIK, ALL Garmins use ONLY Transreflective displays, so George's post was news to me. Easy to tell, take your Rino into the bright sun with no backlight, if you can read the display, its Transreflective, if not its a TFT like a laptop.

 

I also strongly suspect your Rino is based on an eTrex, not the 60/76 family. Easy to check, go to the website and compare the display size and pixel H&W: Rino/eTrex/60/76.

[+Marky]

It's my understanding that the Colorado screen is Transreflective (That's what TFT means, right?), but because of the higher resolution, the smaller pixels don't reflect nearly as much. I could be off base here though.

 

--Marky

[MtnHermit]

It's my understanding that the Colorado screen is Transreflective (That's what TFT means, right?), but because of the higher resolution, the smaller pixels don't reflect nearly as much. I could be off base here though.

TFT stands for Thin Film Transistor. Here a Wikipedia Article: Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display.

 

I still think a Transreflective LCD is a special case whereby you get sunlight readability, but you lose color range. Why? Don't know.

[MtnHermit]

The Colorado clearly has a Transflective color TFT display, read Here

 

Therefore, is it just darker? or something else?

[+LifeOnEdge!]

I received my Colorado 400T Friday and am reasonably impressed with it in many ways. I have used a 76CSx for the short duration of my caching career, so I expected this new GPSr to behave in a similar fashion. As Lowell Wood said, "Software is just a detail." I am hopeful that Garmin will work out the software issues in the near future.

 

One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. The 76CSx has such a screen, so Garmin knows about them...

 

Outdoors, the Colorado needs the backlight on in daylight to be seen. If the ambient is too bright, you cannot see the screen details since the contrast becomes too low. The backlight is not bright enough to provide the contrast necessary. With the 76CSx the screen is usable in full daylight, even near dusk, without any backlighting whatsoever. Could Garmin have made such a blunder to save a few $$? With the price of the Colorado 400T up in the stratosphere as it is now, you'd have expected them to gold plate the buttons and knobs...

 

Maybe they will offer a return-to-factory display upgrade (for a price, I'm sure) so that the Colorado units will be useful OUTDOORS where they are advertised to be in their element. Probably battery life would be extended into the 20+ hour realm with alkalines as well. One can only hope.

 

 

<flame off>

 

George

 

This is quite dissapointing. I was about to purchase the Colorado 400t for paragliding, the occasional hiking excursion and for some road navigating when needed. I like the hardware with the exception of the screen. Of the software, let's not get started on that . I don't geocache so I was ok with many of the issues other people have complained about but the screen issue is a major one for me. I guess I am purchasing a 60CSx and waiting a couple of years prior to considering the Colorado again.

 

These people who continually bash the Colorado are doing others a great disservice by their actions.

 

I just did a side-by-side, outdoor comparison of the GPSmap 60 CSx and the Colorado 400t.

 

Here are two things I observed:

 

1) The screen on the Colorado is easily read without backlight while outdoors. I was not in direct sunlight (the sun was 100 minutes from setting when I did this comparison. Had the sun been overhead the display would have been even easier to read.

 

2) Then I used the backlight under the same conditions, readability of the unit did not significantly improve.

 

Any observant and intelligent experimenter would realize that the background of most of the text areas on the Colorado are dark with light print. This provides an incredible contrast and reduces the amount of backlight required at night. This would, to the untrained person, make the display appear darker, but it is not less easy to read.

 

What gives here? Are geocachers going blind? Are they just not thinking? Are they brainwashed?

 

People, this is a no-brainer: If you're NOT HAPPY with your Colorado, TAKE IT BACK!

Edited February 18, 2008 by LifeOnEdge!

[Baumer]

The lack of brightness is starting to bring me down a bit as well. There is a brief moment when you plug the data cable in where the screen goes very bright, but I've never seen it this bright in battery operation, even with the backlight "fully" lit. I think I get this full brightness as well with the DC power kit.

 

You can read the screen, it's just "dim".

[+LifeOnEdge!]

The lack of brightness is starting to bring me down a bit as well. There is a brief moment when you plug the data cable in where the screen goes very bright, but I've never seen it this bright in battery operation, even with the backlight "fully" lit. I think I get this full brightness as well with the DC power kit.

 

You can read the screen, it's just "dim".

 

Baumer, do you need a bright screen or do you need bright text? With a dark background and white lettering, you have optimal contrast. Contrast is what allows you to differentiate letters and other characters as well as symbols.

 

If you'll notice, the map screen is the same brightness on the Colorado as with the GPSmap 60 series. Only when the shading is applied to the map information does the map on the Colorado become less readable than the map on the 60. This shading varies and I believe can be turned off, although I am not sure how at the moment.

 

On the Compass Page, the main page most geocachers use while searching for a geocache, the contrast and readablity is quite nice. The onlyparts of the page that are dark is the background for the text fields and the overall background for the display. The background for text fields is what makes the text more easily read. If you're not pleased with the display "appearing dark," then create your own white background screen and this should make you happy.

 

I'll say this again: If I had wanted a high power flashlight, I would have bought one. You really don't need or want a brightly lit GPS screen. If you do, something is really wrong. I would suggest buying a flashlight to light the trail and maybe taking your sunglasses off when reading your GPS.

 

I would be willing to bet that most cachers who complain that their GPS isn't bright enough are wearing sun glasses while outdoors.

[+Marky]

Also, I've heard that if you are wearing polarized sunglasses, I hear that it can make some transreflective screens harder to read. I don't know, as I don't wear them.

[Baumer]

Part of the annoyance is LifeOnEdge, is that knowing a higher level of backlighting is there, yet I can't access it.

 

I understand your logic, and agree with some of it. but, I do know this, there are times I have been using my Colorado when I wished the display was brighter.

[+Timpat]

I used my 300 today side-by-side with my 60Cx while caching and hiking in an Upstate NY State Park. Both units have Topo 2008 loaded. I had cloudy conditions while in a mix of deciduous (leaf-off, it's winter here) and evergreen forest. With all conditions being equal, there is no comparison in screen brightness and readability. The 60Cx excels, where the 300 is difficult to see because it is so dark. Even with full backlighting on the 300, the 60Cx is much better with zero backlighting.

 

My experience today was solely using the map screen to hunt for caches, so I was looking at Topo 2008 that is colored Green as it was parkland. I could not make out contour lines with full lighting on. The 300 renders the Topo in great color but it's of little value if I can't see it using battery power in the woods. I've used my 60Cx with never any problems seeing the mapping well in all poor lighting conditions.

 

When I'm still in my truck with the 300 running on DC power the map screen is brilliant. I love my 300 but if the map screen can not be brightened by allowing us users to somehow adjust contrast, I won't be using it for my forest and backcountry hikes. Is there any chance a firmware update can improve this? I just don't know. I may try loading my old US Topo to see how it displays, even though that's a leap backward in map quality. And no, I don't wear sunglasses. The 300 just plain and simple has a darker map screen making it hard to read. Unless by some chance I have a defective unit. Everything else has been as fine as it can be awaiting the much anticipated updates to address all the points mentioned in this forum.

[+Carignan]

I used my 300 today side-by-side with my 60Cx while caching and hiking in an Upstate NY State Park. Both units have Topo 2008 loaded. I had cloudy conditions while in a mix of deciduous (leaf-off, it's winter here) and evergreen forest. With all conditions being equal, there is no comparison in screen brightness and readability. The 60Cx excels, where the 300 is difficult to see because it is so dark. Even with full backlighting on the 300, the 60Cx is much better with zero backlighting.

 

My experience today was solely using the map screen to hunt for caches, so I was looking at Topo 2008 that is colored Green as it was parkland. I could not make out contour lines with full lighting on. The 300 renders the Topo in great color but it's of little value if I can't see it using battery power in the woods. I've used my 60Cx with never any problems seeing the mapping well in all poor lighting conditions.

 

When I'm still in my truck with the 300 running on DC power the map screen is brilliant. I love my 300 but if the map screen can not be brightened by allowing us users to somehow adjust contrast, I won't be using it for my forest and backcountry hikes. Is there any chance a firmware update can improve this? I just don't know. I may try loading my old US Topo to see how it displays, even though that's a leap backward in map quality. And no, I don't wear sunglasses. The 300 just plain and simple has a darker map screen making it hard to read. Unless by some chance I have a defective unit. Everything else has been as fine as it can be awaiting the much anticipated updates to address all the points mentioned in this forum.

 

can you take a photo of he colorado and the 60Cx side by side and put it here, so all of us will be able to compare

 

like that

Photo Credit: cyber6 from http://www.geocaching-qc.com/phpBB2/viewto...c&start=180

Edited February 19, 2008 by Carignan

[MtnHermit]

I used my 300 today side-by-side with my 60Cx while caching and hiking in an Upstate NY State Park. Both units have Topo 2008 loaded. I had cloudy conditions while in a mix of deciduous (leaf-off, it's winter here) and evergreen forest. With all conditions being equal, there is no comparison in screen brightness and readability. The 60Cx excels, where the 300 is difficult to see because it is so dark. Even with full backlighting on the 300, the 60Cx is much better with zero backlighting.

This is valuable feedback, two units, side-by-side, same maps, what could be fairer.

 

I was looking at Topo 2008 that is colored Green as it was parkland. I could not make out contour lines with full lighting on.

You can turn the green off, have you tried that? Just curious.

 

I think everyone agrees that the Colorado is an awesome product with great potential. Garmin simply needs a few months to work out a few kinks.

[+bdejong]

I used my Colorado the other night to do a night time cache hunt with my daughter and the screen was super bright. So bright in fact I had to dim it down. We also used it this weekend in varying conditions from 100% daylight to overcast to dusk (We were out all night long). I had no trouble reading the display at all.

 

I actually found the display to be very readable in the sunlight with no back lighting on at all. later in the evening I had to turn up the back lighting to help it out under full cover and the reduced daylight.

 

Now, I am new to this and this is my first GPS unit (Car or handheld) but I have not had a time where it was unreadable. I used it tonight in the car as a routing GPS and it was brilliant. I found that the backlight would turn off after the set time but would pop on before any turns or direction changes. This was a handy feature so hat it was not glaring at me the whole way home.

 

Now, I do know of a person who has a 60CSx, maybe I can talk him into bringing it in an measuring it on some light measurement gear we have at my work place.

[+Timpat]

can you take a photo of he colorado and the 60Cx side by side and put it here, so all of us will be able to compare

Yes, I'll do that tomorrow outdoors in the natural light as you suggest and will post the images here.

[+geokitebuggy]

I guess I got the ball rolling on this...

 

I did a side-by-side comparison of the Colorado 400t and 76CSx at the Garmin site and found that the 76 has a "256 color transflective TFT" ("thin film transistor" for those curious folks) display with 160x240 pixels and measuring 4.1 x 5.6 cm. The Colorado has a "transflective color TFT" display with 240x400 pixels and measuring 3.8 x 6.3 cm. The number of color levels is not specified.

 

BTW, the Colorado manual that comes with the unit specifies "Display: 1.53" x 2.55" backlit color TFT display (240 x 400 pixels) backlit." For the 76CSX the manual reads "Display: 1.5" W x 2.2" H, 256-color, high resolution, transflective (160 x 240 pixels) with backlighting." My original post was based upon what I read in the printed Garmin Colorado manual, not on the website information. Which one can you trust?

 

I'm not going to speculate on how these displays differ since I'm not a display engineer. The thing I do know is that when both are side-by-side outdoors viewing the same map information, the Colorado is dimmer. So far, I have not been able to find any setup parameters that allow the map backgrounds to be changed. There is a display background that can be selected, but this does not show up in the maps.

 

Hmmm. Just found that if I deselect the topo map (map>options>select map) and just view city navigator, the green background turns to gray and the two displays are more evenly matched. This is in moderate roomlight. I normally run my 76CSx with the topo disabled, since it takes more time to load the maps at startup. I find the need to switch back and forth between map sets to be annoying.

 

As for Colorado bashing, I'm willing to give Garmin time to make things right. I said that in the original post. It has great potential. I bought mine and will keep it, thank you.

 

As far as being ignorant about the topic, I have spent the past 27 years working with lasers and electro-optical systems including high resolution space based CCD imaging systems. I know a bit about this stuff but never claim to be an expert. Some differences are quantitative, others are qualitative. Screen brightness is qualitative. I would like to see ALL the detail on the screen. It takes brightness and contrast to do this.

 

George

Edited February 19, 2008 by geokitebuggy

[RzrSxS]

- My Venture has a Transreflective display and I find it very readable under all conditions.

The OP mentions his 76csx having this screen also...do our Rino 530Hcx's have this type of screen?

I am continually told that this model is nothing but a 60csx (or maybe even 76csx?) with a radio....

AFAIK, ALL Garmins use ONLY Transreflective displays, so George's post was news to me. ...I also strongly suspect your Rino is based on an eTrex, not the 60/76 family. Easy to check, go to the website and compare the display size and pixel H&W: Rino/eTrex/60/76.

 

A 76csx (latest model) looks like this:

Display resolution, WxH: 160 x 240 pixels

Display type: 256 color transflective TFT

 

The Rino 530hcx specifies this:

Display resolution, WxH: 176 x 220 pixels

Display type: 256 level color TFT

 

I think that the Colorado simply specifies "Transflective TFT" with obviously more pixels involved yet.

 

My comments in regards to the Rino530Hcx being very similiar in many ways to the 60Csx (I put a question mark behind the 76 version) came from my conversation with somebody in customer service at Garmin. This is one of the reasons that I ended up going with the 530hcx; as what are you truly losing (latest technology-wise; save what the new Colorado brings to the table) with so many more features to boot?

 

The crux of this matter seems to be the OP's last assertion (see previous post) that has remained unchallenged:

 

"...As far as being ignorant about the topic, I have spent the past 27 years working with lasers and electro-optical systems including high resolution space based CCD imaging systems. I know a bit about this stuff but never claim to be an expert. Some differences are quantitative, others are qualitative. Screen brightness is qualitative. I would like to see ALL the detail on the screen. It takes brightness and contrast to do this...."

 

If the average human eye just isn't picking the details up in comparison to other displays already out there....then the OP's observation seems to be a valid one at this time.

Edited February 19, 2008 by RzrSxS

[dopoka]

I think that if you ask 20 different people about the screen you would get 20 different answers. Just like televisions, some people like LCD, some plasma, some DLP, etc.. It all depends on your expectations. I have had no problem reading my 400t screen in any conditions. I can see every detail fine with no backlight under bright sunlight. Of course I would like it to be brighter and have higher contrast, but I'd also like it to be 3ftx3ft, weigh nothing, and fold up to the size of a postage stamp. I guess I'll have to make do with the limitations of our current technology.

 

My only question would be does anyone know about a better type of screen that could have been used? Seems like most mobile electronics today use the same type of screen as the Colorado.

[RzrSxS]

"...My only question would be does anyone know about a better type of screen that could have been used? Seems like most mobile electronics today use the same type of screen as the Colorado."

 

From the OP's assertion...that screen would be the last one that he had ever tried:

 

"...I have used a 76CSx for the short duration of my caching career, so I expected this new GPSr to behave in a similar fashion....One big disappointment I found is that Garmin chose to use a backlit TFT display that is not TRANSFLECTIVE. The 76CSx has such a screen, so Garmin knows about them...Outdoors, the Colorado needs the backlight on in daylight to be seen. If the ambient is too bright, you cannot see the screen details since the contrast becomes too low. The backlight is not bright enough to provide the contrast necessary. With the 76CSx the screen is usable in full daylight, even near dusk, without any backlighting whatsoever..."

 

Again, I don't have a Colorado or indeed know if any of this is true...just that this guy claims to have used the 'latest' 76csx and is simply comparing the two in terms of readibility (in his opinion).

Edited February 19, 2008 by RzrSxS

[dopoka]

I believe both are transreflective. If they weren't the amount of ambient light would not affect the display at all, and that is not the case. The issue here is that as you increase the density of pixels, there is less area for light to get through (or around) the TFTs once, reflect off the back, and pass back through the TFTs again.

[+piper28]

Also, I've heard that if you are wearing polarized sunglasses, I hear that it can make some transreflective screens harder to read. I don't know, as I don't wear them.

 

Actually, all LCD screens have issues with polarized sunglasses (at least as far as I know). Thankfully, at least in the 60CS, the orientation is ok that it's not a problem. (Turn it 90 degrees, and you can't read it). LCD computer monitors, and heck, even the lcd displays on a gas pump all interact with the orientation of your glasses and the panel.

[+Timpat]

Well, here goes with some side-by-side photos of my Map60Cx and Colorado 300. To be fair I have to say it sure isn't easy to capture photos like this to truly reflect what the user sees. I tried to turn each unit to show the best appearance for each, and to give the fairest representation I could.

 

I took one photo outdoors this morning under overcast skies, then took two more indoors under better conditions...I hope. Both units have Topo 2008 loaded and viewed on the map screen. I panned to the area I hiked in yesterday and both units are at the same zoom scale (800 ft).

 

This is outdoors under overcast skies. No backlighting on either. You can see how the green parkland on the 300 is very dark, and washes out the contour lines there.

 

 

This is indoors with no backlighting on either.

 

 

This is indoors with FULL backlighting on the 300 ONLY

 

 

Judge for yourselves. All I can say is that for my eyes, when hiking in this area shown above, having both units in hand, currently the 300 is harder to view with all conditions being equal. I hope these photos illustrate the screens well enough. If not I apologize in advance.

[+Marky]

Nice pictures. There is definitely a topo line contrast issue with the green. I'm guessing this could be fixed via firmware (or at least, have some options to adjust the contrast colors or something).

[+Renegade Knight]

It's my understanding that the Colorado screen is Transreflective (That's what TFT means, right?), but because of the higher resolution, the smaller pixels don't reflect nearly as much. I could be off base here though.

TFT stands for Thin Film Transistor. Here a Wikipedia Article: Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display.

 

I still think a Transreflective LCD is a special case whereby you get sunlight readability, but you lose color range. Why? Don't know.

Not sure. I know in PDA's that you can read in the sun the transflective screens were good enough for photo's even though they didn't display true color.

 

I also know the 60 series blew away even the black and white GPSs that came before for readability in sunlight. Garmin knows how to get the screens right. Maybe it's another vendor where the specs read the same but the real result is night and day different.

[+Manatee87]

Therefore, is it just darker? or something else?

 

The problem is that Garmin contracted out design of the screen to a consortium of Energizer, Duracell, and Rayovac. Who'd have guessed they'd come up with this?

[MtnHermit]

This is indoors with FULL backlighting on the 300 ONLY

 

Thanks for the side by side pics.

 

On my Venture, I can turn off the green Park/Forest color in Map Setup - Points > Land Cover > Off/Auto/n ft.

 

The 300 display is awfully nice, let's hope Garmin hears the comments and lightens the overall color values.

[+Timpat]

On my Venture, I can turn off the green Park/Forest color in Map Setup - Points > Land Cover > Off/Auto/n ft.

Thanks MtnHermit, I had tried that, and after the new update I tried again. It does not turn off the Green Park/Forest colors. Actually, I'm not sure what that turns off on my 300. I've played around and so far don't notice what is effected.

[+GOT GPS?]

I noticed that when the GPS's are off, the 60CSx is so much brighter than the 400t, The screen on the 400t has a darker haze to it when off. My magellans tended to have darker screens when off, and the eXplorist XL had a dark haze to it like the 400t. The mirror like surface below the LCD, but above the backlight, is very good in making the 60 series pretty bright, when off, but in the sun, since the mirror like surface reflects the incoming light.