Jump to content

Garmin Colorado 300 Vs GPSMap60CSX


wasicun
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I bought a Colorado 300 (after a GPSmap60CSX) and, after a month of study and field tests I definitively had to accept the fact that the gps performaces are lower:

 

- longer time to acquire satellites (extremely long if the unit has been switched off for some days)

 

- larger position error, that seems to improve only after a 20-25 minutes under open sky

 

- poorer reception in difficult situation.

 

I am convinced that this is due to the new chipset, while SirfStar performances where absolutely outstanding, and I found really unacceptable that for a costs driven decision Garmin launch a new product (more expensive) with poorer performances.

 

I can only hope that the problems can be solved with new firmware

Link to comment

and people were saying that about the 60 a year after that came out as well..........anyway the 300 series is the lower end models IMO, the 400 series is equivelant to the higher end 60 series, but the 300 series is still definitely nice and wiill get a bit better with future firmware updates to fix issues

 

Most companies do the same exact thing for instance if you know something about nvidia they do the something similar, they recently released the 9600 series but about two years ago they released 8800 series which outperforms the 9600 series simply due to the model number and hardware they introduced due to the model number.......the series is mainstream and just meant to sell

 

well Im horrible at explaining things but you should be able to decipher that in a few days

Edited by gratefulHIKE
Link to comment

This is not the next generation 60. This is the first generation Colorado. What is so hard about this to understand?

 

I can understand and accept any kind of issues regarding menu, interface etc.

 

I can't accept poor performances in the most important aspect of a GPS: GPS reliability and precision.

I can't accept to switch from a very good chipset (SirfStar) to a lower quality one, probably just because is less expensive

Link to comment

This is not the next generation 60. This is the first generation Colorado. What is so hard about this to understand?

 

Well, I'll take a stab at answering. The CO lacks features found on the 60csx which are a simple matter of software. This is not a matter of making trade-offs between what hardware performance can be crammed into a unit (e.g., sacrificing battery life / brightness for the higher-res screen).

 

The only reason the CO does not include all software features of the 60csx is that Garmin made the money-grubbing decision to keep the 60csx marketable by not replacing it with the CO. Understandable, but rightfully irritating to the consumer.

 

So now, imagine you're in the market for a GPS and you see the 60csx and the CO. You can see that the CO, with its awesome display and superior handling, is the future, but it hasn't yet replaced the 60csx. Do you:

 

(1) buy the 60csx and install expensive maps that can only be unlocked once, knowing there's a chance the CO will fully replace the 60csx in a year, or

 

(2) buy the CO and wait for features to be added later, knowing there's a chance that Garmin will protect the 60csx by not making those upgrades available for several years?

 

Consumers are faced with a frustrating decision so Garmin can make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

Link to comment

I bought a nuvi 350 three years ago and the only problem I've ever had with it was the suction cup came apart on my windshield. Garmin replaced the mount for free. I bought an Edge 305 one year ago and have never had a single problem with it, it does exactly what it says it will do. I asked questions and read answers for about a week and ordered the CO 400t this morning. I've decided to give Garmin time to hear what consumers want and respond. As far as I'm concerned they've earned it.

Link to comment

I bought a Colorado 300 (after a GPSmap60CSX) and, after a month of study and field tests I definitively had to accept the fact that the gps performaces are lower:

 

- longer time to acquire satellites (extremely long if the unit has been switched off for some days)

 

- larger position error, that seems to improve only after a 20-25 minutes under open sky

 

- poorer reception in difficult situation.

 

I am convinced that this is due to the new chipset, while SirfStar performances where absolutely outstanding, and I found really unacceptable that for a costs driven decision Garmin launch a new product (more expensive) with poorer performances.

 

I can only hope that the problems can be solved with new firmware

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I have both of these units and the 300 is definately better in all those respects. Perhaps you have a defective unit?

 

I live in NYC and in this canyon of buildings the 300 is better, faster, and just as accurate.

Edited by jcc123
Link to comment

and people were saying that about the 60 a year after that came out as well..........anyway the 300 series is the lower end models IMO, the 400 series is equivelant to the higher end 60 series, but the 300 series is still definitely nice and wiill get a bit better with future firmware updates to fix issues

 

 

I was under the impression the 300 and 400 were identical units except for mapsets. Are you suggesting the technology/chipset etc is superior in the 400? Can you point to some supporting documentation.

Link to comment

Internal disk space and maps are the differences. The 400t will yield you a topo map and about a gigabyte of free space, the 300 no map and about 380 megabytes of free space.

 

I love it when people say Garmin used some cheap chipset in a device yet have no idea what it is or isn't.

Link to comment

 

I love it when people say Garmin used some cheap chipset in a device yet have no idea what it is or isn't.

 

GPSMap60CSX has the SiRFStarIII - Colorado has, as far as I know, the MTK MT3318

 

After one month of tests I can only say that the first is definetely better for speed and sensitivity.

Perhaps it's just a problem of my unit, but other threads seem to confirm it.

Link to comment

- longer time to acquire satellites (extremely long if the unit has been switched off for some days)

 

What firmware do you have. There was a problem with the internal clock not keeping time when the unit was off causing this problem.... Check to see if that is happening.

 

With my unit cold acquisition is the same as a 60csx.

Link to comment

Internal disk space and maps are the differences. The 400t will yield you a topo map and about a gigabyte of free space, the 300 no map and about 380 megabytes of free space.

 

I love it when people say Garmin used some cheap chipset in a device yet have no idea what it is or isn't.

 

The Colorado has an internal disk?

 

I love it when people say "disk" when they have no idea what it is or isn't. :huh:

Link to comment

Reaching pretty far there... don't hurt yourself.

 

So what is the problem with that chipset (if that's what it has, I don't know) from what I've read it's rapidly catching up to the Sirf plus it yields better battery life. Some very popular GPS units use that chipset. I guess it depends on your environment, my 60CSx didn't seem as accurate as my Colorado (or my Geko for that matter).

 

Just curious if it's problematic or what... Odd that Garmin would choose a 'lesser' quality in a more expensive unit.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

- longer time to acquire satellites (extremely long if the unit has been switched off for some days)

 

What firmware do you have. There was a problem with the internal clock not keeping time when the unit was off causing this problem.... Check to see if that is happening.

 

With my unit cold acquisition is the same as a 60csx.

 

Similar to the original poster, my Colorado 400t (serial #18Z002817) has the latest beta software and I also see extremely long acquisition times when the unit has been off for several days; maybe even when turning the unit off in one area and then driving far away (20 miles) and turning it back on.

 

One day last week, I turned it on in a different location (after having been off for several days), and the 400t was seeing a lot of satellites but said it was "unable to detect satellites" (or whatever the phrase is). I turned the unit off, and then back on, and it immediately locked on.

 

My unit keeps perfect time (my previous 400t did not and I returned it). I've only had a handful of crashes when booting the device (have to pull batteries & reinstall).

 

I hope the above is a software problem that will eventually be fixed. I wonder about the rumor(?) about Garmin pulling units to fix them is true.

Link to comment
So now, imagine you're in the market for a GPS and you see the 60csx and the CO. You can see that the CO, with its awesome display and superior handling, is the future, but it hasn't yet replaced the 60csx. Do you:

 

(1) buy the 60csx and install expensive maps that can only be unlocked once, knowing there's a chance the CO will fully replace the 60csx in a year, or

 

(2) buy the CO and wait for features to be added later, knowing there's a chance that Garmin will protect the 60csx by not making those upgrades available for several years?

 

Consumers are faced with a frustrating decision....

 

I think this most closely sums up my current predicament. I love the features the CO offers, but there are also features lacking, and a high rate of either broken units or bizarre behavior. Complicate this with subtly- or aggressively-biased Garmin fanboys and detractors, and mix in a little grousing from those will not be satisfied until they have the best of both units.

 

Whether you personally like the CO or hate it, I am frustrated. I was all set a month ago to get a 60CSx, until I found out about the CO. Now I don't know what to do.

 

Just like bmirak said, I could spend $500 - $600 on the 400t (plus maps and accessories) and maybe Garmin fixes things and adds features, maybe not. Or I get the 60CSx, $280 - $350 (plus maps and accessories, GSAK, a PDA and software for paperless, etc.), and then risk finding out that in 2 months Garmin is going to transform the CO into the geocacher's dream, and I could've had it for $200 more.

 

I use forums and other resources available to me for one major reason--to prevent buyer's remorse. With the mixed bag I'm reading about on the forums here, I'm not yet comfortable purchasing my first-ever GPS unit that will have to last me 3 - 5 years.

 

This is where the consumer appreciates transparency on the part of the company he is looking to support. I'm just not ready to give Garmin my money until I know which way this is going to end up.

Link to comment

if money is no object then yea, go for the colorado series (ie 400t) because it has some newer software quirks and a slightly more interesting layout with the screen and wheel.......but really its not going to give you much more than that

 

you arent going to find stuff quicker due to a stronger signal lock, or get better readings in vastly denser forest.....just go to a store that has the models you want, put them in your hand and use that as a deciding factor if you are that stumped on which to get

 

I have the vista HCX, 60CSX, edge 305 and edge 705.......they all have their upside and downsides, the only deciding factor I can see in any unit is truly the size and shape and position of the buttons......I still love my 60csx and use it weekly its my favvvorite to date until prices drop or they release another unit with buttons below <----my 2cents

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...