Garmin Colorado vs. 60csx

[+g-o-cashers]

I've added a new page on the Colorado wiki which tries to summarize the differences between the Colorado and the 60csx.

 

It's still a bit of a work in progress, but if you can help fill in any of the ?'s or spot errors and omissions, then by all means...

 

Colorado vs 60csx

 

GO$Rs

[+Red90]

Ability to add/remove geocaches

No

Yes

 

This is misleading a bit. On a 60 series "Geocaches" are really just waypoints. Waypoints can be added or deleted on the Colorado just as on the 60 series.... 60 series don't really have any Geoaching support...

 

Archive track storage

 

The 60"X" series also stores an unlimitted "archive" of the active track log. It is just in a different way to the Colorado.

 

Saved tracks are 20 at 500 point each maximum on the 60Csx. They are unlimitted AFAIKT on the Colorado, although I suspect the limit is 128 tracks at unknown number of points.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Red90

[+Prime Suspect]

It's misleading to say the 60CSx doesn't have internal memory, since it obviously does.

[+Red90]

It's misleading to say the 60CSx doesn't have internal memory, since it obviously does.

 

In the notes he says....

Internal memory available to user.

[+DodgerBlues]

is it just me as a novice or is the 60cx a better buy than the Colorado? Seems that the 60csx/cx has more features. Is that the case?

[+Red90]

is it just me as a novice or is the 60cx a better buy than the Colorado? Seems that the 60csx/cx has more features. Is that the case?

 

Not really. The Geocaching features are basically non existent on the 60Csx. They are very advanced on the Colorado. That is the MAIN difference.

[strumble]

is it just me as a novice or is the 60cx a better buy than the Colorado? Seems that the 60csx/cx has more features. Is that the case?

 

The way the two units show Mapsource maps is totally different.

 

60csx on the left - Europe v9

Colorado on the right[without the basemap active] - Europe v9

Both at 800ft.

.

.

....

 

Which is the clearer to see?

 

60csx has proximity alerts for uk speed cameras, the colorado does not! Visually the Colorado is excellent!

.

.

....

[dictum9]

http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=199#comment-117

 

and this looks at power consumption and runtime.

[dictum9]

Another review that highlights the resolution difference. When I look at the pics, I really want Colorado, even though my logical side tells me that I have everything I need with 60CSx.

[Neos2]

is it just me as a novice or is the 60cx a better buy than the Colorado? Seems that the 60csx/cx has more features. Is that the case?

 

The way the two units show Mapsource maps is totally different.

 

60csx on the left - Europe v9

Colorado on the right[without the basemap active] - Europe v9

Both at 800ft.

.

.

....

 

Which is the clearer to see?

 

60csx has proximity alerts for uk speed cameras, the colorado does not! Visually the Colorado is excellent!

.

.

....

You could change the colour setting on the 60CSx to something a bit less hideous, you know. There are many colour scheme options. Or did you deliberately pick the worst one?

[Neos2]

is it just me as a novice or is the 60cx a better buy than the Colorado? Seems that the 60csx/cx has more features. Is that the case?

 

Not really. The Geocaching features are basically non existent on the 60Csx. They are very advanced on the Colorado. That is the MAIN difference.

Depends on what you call a "geocaching feature" I keep seeing people say this or that gps has more geocaching features, but they never say what they mean.

 

For me, actually being able to get to the cache is a primary issue and the 60CSx does that better. The auto-navigation on the Colorado is noted for being slower, and since the redraw is also slow, there is a pretty good chance of spending a lot of extra time just trying to get near enough to park.

 

And then, once parked, the Colorado is more prone to lose it's signal (and yes, have to redraw all those maps yet again) while the folks with the 60CSx's are off finding the cache.

 

Did they ever fix that little problem of not being able to delete caches from the Colorado without totally rerunning a new PQ? I know there have been plenty of times I've decided to skip a cache in an area and I deleted from my 60CSx so it didn't keep showing up as the nearest cache when I hit my "find next" button.

 

And did they ever make the Colorado so you could see the list or the map of nearest caches without having to go back to the main page?

 

Is it the maps that you think are a great geocaching feature? I have topo and city maps on my 60CSx.

 

Perhaps you mean the PDA in the Colorado is the great geocaching feature? I have a very nice PDA-- It holds photos, lets me add logs, holds all the cache info, and if it goes wonky, I don't have to buy a new gps, just another PDA.

 

The Colorado does have the wireless sharing thingy. I guess if any of my friends had a Colorado too that might get used once in a great while. I beam caches to other peoples PDA from my PDA, so maybe I'd do that from a Colorado too if they showed up to go caching with no caches loaded in their gps. No one has ever cared to see my tracks.

 

Compass, 60CSx has got it.

Altimeter, check.

WAAS, yep.

High sensitivity receiver, yep, the 60CSx has the best chip on the market.

Compass? Oh yeah.

Outdoor GPS games? yes

Hunt/fish calendar? yes

Sun and moon information? yes

Tide tables? yep. Custom POIs possilbe? Sure thing.

 

Project a waypoint? 60 CSx can, um Colorado can't?

Battery life, better than the Colorado.

 

Picture viewer? Not on the 60CSx but on the PDA, the cell phone, and the camera. I doubt many people are burning up their storage space on the Colorado on photos anyway, they tend to eat space.

 

Lately folks seem to want their gps to do everything except open the garage door and start the morning coffee. Frankly, the engineers for these companies are trying to make everyone as happy as possible, so they cram in as many do-dads and gee-gaws as they can into these gps units, trying to claim their share of the market. We ought to have learned by now that more doesn't always mean better and that you usually suffer in quality when you get more quantity.

 

I need a darn good gps that will get me to the cache time after time. I need it to have decent maps that can get me through traffic and across the creeks. I need it to be sturdy and rugged and easy to use. I need the batteries to last a whole day of caching. If it has an electronic compass and can hold a bit more than just the waypoints, that's even better. The 60CSx does all that.

 

So what "geocaching features" am I missing again?

[+myotis]

Neos2, not sure what your source of information is, but you are way off. For example, your comments about slow redraw, the CO is MUCH MUCH faster than the 60CSX. Map draws that I used to have to wait for on the 60CSX are instaneous on the CO. With the rock n roller you can zoom way in and out and it is all instaneous while you sit and wait on the 60CSX. On the auto navigation I tried my 60CSX and CO side by side on the same routes and the CO was much faster. COs can project a waypoint. I could go on, but the point is you do not know what you are talking about. While the CO has it problems (so did the 60CSX in the early days), the 60CSX is yesterday's technology.

[Neos2]

Neos2, not sure what your source of information is, but you are way off. For example, your comments about slow redraw, the CO is MUCH MUCH faster than the 60CSX. Map draws that I used to have to wait for on the 60CSX are instaneous on the CO. With the rock n roller you can zoom way in and out and it is all instaneous while you sit and wait on the 60CSX. On the auto navigation I tried my 60CSX and CO side by side on the same routes and the CO was much faster. COs can project a waypoint. I could go on, but the point is you do not know what you are talking about. While the CO has it problems (so did the 60CSX in the early days), the 60CSX is yesterday's technology.

Interesting. You are the first person I have heard say that, and it wasn't what I witnessed when looking at four or five of the Colorados in use by friends.

 

Other than when my husband loaded the entire eastern US in his unit for our last trip (in both topo and his "new & not improved city maps) I have never 'waited' for the 60CSx to redraw a map...it just 'has' the map up immediately when I zoom in or out, or when I scroll, even when switching between maps. I mean literally by the time my finger comes off the button the map is there. It scrolls in real time. Don't tell me I just have a freakishly good 60CSx unit.

[+swfirefly]

I've never used a 60csx, so I cannot compare the two. I recently purchased a Colorado 400c, and I love it. Sure, there are some problems with it, but overall its a giant leap from my Magellan 100.

 

To me, the most important feature the Colorado had that made me purchase it, was the PDA feature. I hade paperless caching before with my Palm, but to me it was not all that convenient. I still had to fumble around with 2 devices to get to the next cache. To me, it was no easier than carrying paper printouts, but that's just me.

 

QUOTE "And did they ever make the Colorado so you could see the list or the map of nearest caches without having to go back to the main page? "

 

Yes, and not only that, the Colorado goes right to the nearest cache as soon as you put it into geocache mode. That is leaps and bounds ahead of using a PDA.

 

QUOTE "Did they ever fix that little problem of not being able to delete caches from the Colorado without totally rerunning a new PQ? "

 

No, that is a major flaw that needs to be addressed! Another thing I don't like about the Colorado is the compass. I don't like that it has to be calibrated every time you turn the GPS on.

 

I've seen many others complain about the brightness of the screen. This doesn't bother me. It's quite easy to turn up the brightness, although I'm sure that does drain the batteries.

 

I really the Wherigo feature, but I suppose you can do that with a PDA too. All in all, I would give the Colorado 4 out of 5 stars.

[+Prime Suspect]

Direct sun no backlight

 

 

Indirect sun no backlight

 

 

Indirect sun backlight max

[+myotis]

Some notes:

 

Waypoint averaging

 

You should put an * since there is a free Wherigo cartidige that will average a waypoint. Other than having to access via Wherigo, I think it is much nicer than 60Csx's since it shows more.

 

Detailed turn pop-ups visible on any page

 

At first I missed those popups, but now I like the way the CO does it much better than the pop ups. In the automotive mode, it zooms in to the turn with the arrows showing you where to go.

 

tide stuff

 

Did not the latest firmware fix this? The CO now does what I remember my 60CSX doing.

 

Maybe you should put something about the processors in the CO/60CSX-the faster processor seems to be a major improvement.

 

Another thing to add is exit services. The 60CSX supports them and the CO does not. However, put an * that there are free POI files that has the exit services with more up to date info than the 60CSX has.

 

Also for the POI, put down the CO supports the fancy POIs like the Nuvi (you can have very long and complicated POIs accessed under more info. The ^60CSX does not support this.

 

***********

 

Neos2, How fast can you zoom from 500 miles to 20 feet? I can do it in less than 2 seconds. I can stop anywhere in between and the map displays instantly. I have custom topo and trail maps that I use that are very detailed. When I used them on the 60CSX I had to wait for it to draw them when scrolling or zooming. It is instanious with the CO.

 

The 60CSX is a great GPS-I loved mine. But the CO was far superior even when it first came out. It still has lots of problems and I still curse Garmin for not fixing them, but I would never go back to my 60CSX.

[MtnHermit]

Direct sun no backlight

Thanks for the comparison. Now more convinced than ever that the Colorado is the best choice for bright sun. No it isn't as bright as a 60, and certainly not an eTrex, but both of those have small low-res screens. Not totally sure why high-res means less brightness, but high-res wins over old-res.

 

The Oregon, like my Nuvi, should be used in a vehicle with the backlight amped to max, it doesn't belong in the sun.

 

I did a 3-mile hike under a cloudless sky in 6" of snow today. Had no problem reading the map and entering waypoint text with no backlight. The 60 while a great receiver, looks like a clunker next to both the CO & OR.

[+Red90]

Indirect sun backlight max

 

Turn of the relief shading......and make sure the 60 has the same maps.... And do it again.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Red90

[freeday]

direct sun, full backlight

http://www.bilder-space.de/upload/22.12SzVLMCSE2968YEF.JPG

 

Seems to be always the same result.

Edited January 1, 2009 by freeday

[+Prime Suspect]

Indirect sun backlight max

 

Turn of the relief shading......and make sure the 60 has the same maps.... And do it again.

I didn't do it in the first place. They're from a site which was comparing the Oregon and the Colorado. The 60CSx was just included for reference purposes. Interesting, though.

 

The fact is, the higher the pixel density, the less effective transflective screens are in direct sunlight. Adding a resistive touchscreen makes the matter worse, by at least 10%.

[yogazoo]

direct sun, full backlight

http://www.bilder-space.de/upload/22.12SzVLMCSE2968YEF.JPG

 

Seems to be always the same result.

 

Yeah, I've seen pictures like this one before I got my Oregon and it made me very concerned, almost didn't get one because of it. BUT the Oregon is more reflective at different angles than the optimum angle for the 60CSX. A side by side, same angle picture doesn't do anyone justice. I've had my Oregon outdoors plenty and never had trouble seeing the screen. Granted, It's not as readable as the 60CSX but it's not that bad either. I encourage anyone concerned about screen brightness to see for yourselves, either from a friend or at the store before passing ill judgement.

 

In my opinion, the screen brightness issue is a bit overblown.

Edited January 2, 2009 by yogazoo

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

IMHO, Colorado and Oregon screen brightness isn't an issue for anyone using them as handhelds, where you can tilt it at will. Put them on a mountain bike at a fixed angle and it's a different thing entirely.

[+g-o-cashers]

I agree with Rich, bike usage is the worst because you can't reorient the screen to optimize the brightness of the reflection.

 

Overall, I've gotten used to the Oregon, although after being down in Florida for a week using it in the bright sun I noticed it a lot more than at home.

 

GO$Rs

[yogazoo]

IMHO, Colorado and Oregon screen brightness isn't an issue for anyone using them as handhelds, where you can tilt it at will. Put them on a mountain bike at a fixed angle and it's a different thing entirely.

 

True... True.

[+tim.lsr]

I agree with Rich, bike usage is the worst because you can't reorient the screen to optimize the brightness of the reflection.

 

Overall, I've gotten used to the Oregon, although after being down in Florida for a week using it in the bright sun I noticed it a lot more than at home.

 

GO$Rs

I am looking for a GPS upgrade for my dual sport motorcycle. I currently have a Magellan CrossOver which works well enough for most aspects except for the fact that the position locks up randomly. When I need it to tell me where I am, I can never be sure if it is working or locked up. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a GPS. The touch screen isn't ideal for motorcycle gloves as well. I had set my sights on the 60CSx but the feedback from a fellow biker was frustration at the 20 track 500 point limit. He likes to be able to store interesting rides and recall them when/where-ever and I can see myself wanting this luxury as well. The Colorado and the Oregon don't have this limitation, but do suffer from less than desirable screen visibility. Since the primary use will be attached to the handlebars, this does make for a difficult decision. Which sacrifice to make?

 

I suspect when I have the money in hand, an extended evaluation at the store will move me in the desired direction.

[+g-o-cashers]

I'm assuming on a motorcycle you can/will have it connected to a power adapter? If so the brightness issue become less of a problem. When the CO/OR are running off of external power they are brighter than when powered off the battery.

[dictum9]

Without backlight, the display seems to be dimmer on Colorado but the added resolution and detail is worth it.

[+RangerR47]

Why is it that when posts like these pop up , the 60csx guys get all up tight? Im pretty sure nobody will say the 60csx is not a top notch GPS. But it is an aged device and it will only get worse. It happens and it doesnt take away how popular the unit is/was. I mean I remember the day when Magellan meridians were the best around, they got bypassed when technology got better, its just the way it is.

 

Anyways, Im glad the colorado wiki is being worked on as it was still stating issues from 08 that has been fixed for a while. Still has a couple items to be "perfect" but it is much better than the early reports now.

Edited September 12, 2009 by RangerR47

[Frozin]

I'm glad this thread is here, but I have to be honest. If it isn't apparent, I’m new to GPS devices and the only Geocaching I’ve done was with friends. My family and I really enjoyed it and I’ve been looking at getting a GPS for a while now. I’m torn between these two models. I mainly want a GPS for Geocaching. The ability to add road maps/city navigator would be the close second. I’ve always been an avid outdoorsman, but never really had a need for a GPS unit; call me old fashioned. From all the reviews I’ve read, I’m leaning towards a Colorado. Mainly because it seems to have updated Geocaching features and many of the problems like viewing multiple caches have been corrected with updates.

 

I’m curious if anyone who has owned a 60csx has gone to a Colorado, or vise-versa? What are you impressions? Which would you recommend and why? I’m not looking to start a big war… I am just curious what you all prefer. Any responses would be appreciated.

[+Maingray]

I'm glad this thread is here, but I have to be honest. If it isn't apparent, I’m new to GPS devices and the only Geocaching I’ve done was with friends. My family and I really enjoyed it and I’ve been looking at getting a GPS for a while now. I’m torn between these two models. I mainly want a GPS for Geocaching. The ability to add road maps/city navigator would be the close second. I’ve always been an avid outdoorsman, but never really had a need for a GPS unit; call me old fashioned. From all the reviews I’ve read, I’m leaning towards a Colorado. Mainly because it seems to have updated Geocaching features and many of the problems like viewing multiple caches have been corrected with updates.

 

I’m curious if anyone who has owned a 60csx has gone to a Colorado, or vise-versa? What are you impressions? Which would you recommend and why? I’m not looking to start a big war… I am just curious what you all prefer. Any responses would be appreciated.

 

ALMOST apples and oranges. Not going through all the differences, you can see those on the wiki. From a "people perspective", those I know who have switched from the 60C(s)X to a CO or OR (the OR being much more common) love it for the 1. field notes and 2. geocaching descriptions and 3. wireless ability.

 

(Point #3 is now finally reaching market usefulness... more than often I now cache with people owning CO or OR units and the ability to wirelessly transfer caches on the fly is cool**).

 

[Rant] **Nothing stalls a well planned route when someone who didn't take the time to enter the caches needs the GC numbers at each cache. [/OT rant]

Edited September 16, 2009 by Maingray

[Frozin]

I will probably go with the Colorado. Mainly because from a beginners standpoint, it looks like my best option. It seems to be more user-friendly. With no one defending the 60csx as a beginners unit, it's hard to beat the paperless, wireless and upgraded screen.

[scotthsi]

 

I need a darn good gps that will get me to the cache time after time. I need it to have decent maps that can get me through traffic and across the creeks. I need it to be sturdy and rugged and easy to use. I need the batteries to last a whole day of caching. If it has an electronic compass and can hold a bit more than just the waypoints, that's even better. The 60CSx does all that.

 

So what "geocaching features" am I missing again?

 

Booyah! Well said!

 

I love my sturdy, rock solid and reliable 60CSx. Zero problems with it and it is VERY accurate. I almost don't know whether to laugh or cry at people who just had to have the Colorado or, possibly worse, Oregon because it was the latest and greatest. These new whiz-bang Oregons sure seem to have a lot of problems and, from what I can tell, a lot of Colorado owners are pissed off because it seems like Garmin left them in the dust when the Oregon came out. Like you said, as long it gets you from point A to B to C, etc EVERY TIME and RELIABLY, what more do you need from a hand held GPS. I completely agree with the other stuff you said about GPS manufacturers wanting to cram every last extra feature into one unit. They lose sight of what the damned thing was originally for! Garmin has WELL demonstrated this in their dumped down Nuvi car GPS units with mp3 players, picture viewers, games and other garbage. The "CAR GPS" part has really gone downhill. I have an older Nuvi 660, which has been very good, but it's not even half the customizable automotive navigator I had in my much older Street Pilot 2720, which my wife uses all the time. Been reliable for years and built like a brick sh^t house...same as my 60CSx.

[ZeMartelo]

Dont knock it down till you've tried.

 

I have a Colorado and it works rock solid with the last firmware

available.

Cant comment on the unit when it came out.

As for the geocaching features, I've lost count how many times I found caches because of the hint, or previous logs either because previous finders posted better cords, or left a much better hint where the cache is.

Without that my DNF count would be much higher.

Edited September 20, 2009 by ZeMartelo

[scotthsi]

Other than when my husband loaded the entire eastern US in his unit for our last trip (in both topo and his "new & not improved city maps) I have never 'waited' for the 60CSx to redraw a map...it just 'has' the map up immediately when I zoom in or out, or when I scroll, even when switching between maps. I mean literally by the time my finger comes off the button the map is there. It scrolls in real time. Don't tell me I just have a freakishly good 60CSx unit.

 

You have a freakishly good 60CSx.

 

Mine has a little lag, but it's not that bad at all. If I'm zoomed out where there's a ton of crap on the screen, it lags when scrolling or zooming in/out. The screen seems to load in for or five "panels", but it never takes more than 2-3 seconds to complete. Not a bother at all, but it is noticeable. That said, I love my rock solid 60CSx.