300 & 400 Series Hardware/Firmware/RAM & MapSource

[+Ratsneve]

I believe at one time the 300 had less RAM then the 400 series and that that was why the model number difference. However, now the 300 and 400 series all have 4 GB RAM onboard.

 

This is your opportunity to confirm or deny this.

 

I talked to two techs today that said there was no hardware differences now between the 300 and 400 series. I also looked through the Wiki Review and it also says 4 GB but it may relate only to the 400t now that I think of it?

 

It would have been cleaner imho to have left the 300 alone and create a plain 400 model that has 4 GB with base map(s) only.

 

I'm leaning toward the 300 now because I really would like to have all maps in MapSource...topo and city and load only what I need to use into the GPSr. Having the whole topo loaded is a waste. If I only load the topo and city for a few states I won't need an SD card.

 

So, let the thoughts on all this begin... Thank you.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+g-o-cashers]

If this is true then changes have been made to the 300 because up until very recently the 300 had 512MB of memory with about 380MB free for user space.

 

The easiest thing to do would be to ask some people with recent vintage 300's to check the disk size of their 300 in explorer to see how big it is.

 

I would tend to agree with your analysis, however. If the 300 does have 4GB now, you would be better off not getting the preinstalled maps so you can have them available in Mapsource, this is the main disadvantage of the 400 series.

 

GO$Rs

[luke4it]

If this is true then changes have been made to the 300 because up until very recently the 300 had 512MB of memory with about 380MB free for user space.

 

The easiest thing to do would be to ask some people with recent vintage 300's to check the disk size of their 300 in explorer to see how big it is.

 

I would tend to agree with your analysis, however. If the 300 does have 4GB now, you would be better off not getting the preinstalled maps so you can have them available in Mapsource, this is the main disadvantage of the 400 series.

 

GO$Rs

 

Colorado 300 bought 1 month ago:

469 mb

[+Cacheoholic]

Whatever size it is you are still constrained by the 4000 and something map segment limit. I’m restricted by map segment limit not disc size. The Colorado 400t uses a v2 version Topo that is 429 map segments verses the 6633 map segments of regular Topo US 2008. I bought a 300 first, discovered the segment limit, then had to turn around and buy a 400t because I wanted all City Navigator and Topo US 2008.

[+g-o-cashers]

The Topo2008 segment limit can be avoided on the 300 by using this procedure.

 

GO$Rs

[+Cacheoholic]

I thought that didn’t work for Topo US 2008, only v 3.02?

[+bluemustangpride]

My Colorado 300 bought in January.

 

469 MB (10 times more storage than the first PC I ever owned)

[+g-o-cashers]

I don't think Rich ever got the Topo2008 maps to make the appropriate files but the txt file provided would give you what you need to create them if you were so inclined!

 

GO$Rs

[+storm180]

469mb On one I bought a 2 months ago and 469mb on the one I get 3 weeks ago.

[+Ratsneve]

Wow!

Just finished heated discussion about all this with a senior tech named Larry at Garmin. He said to tell everyone (which maybe only includes me--granted) to stop worrying about how much RAM the 300 has available.

 

In the discussion he said:

1. The amount of RAM the 300 has is going to vary over time and that design isn't going to tell anyone what that currently is or what it might be next year--nor are they going to list what it is in the specs or track what it is based on your 300 or 400 GPSr s/n.

 

2. The whole focus is on your applications and not on RAM available. If what you or I am doing doesn't fit we get an SD card and forget it. He got very very frustrated trying to understand why I wanted to know how much RAM was onboard the 300. He consistently refused to discuss it in my direction and said that Garmin just wasn't going to go that way.

 

3. Preloaded SD cards did not really come up in the discussion because of their update cost problem. Also, I haven't read how, if it is even possible, you would load just portions even of TOPO and City if they were both separate SD cards?

 

4. He agreed that if you wanted to plan out the trips first on the PC in MapSource that you have to buy those maps on DVD but there are two approaches.

 

a. Buy the 300, plan out the trip on the PC, load what you need to the 300--if it won't fit on the 300 then get an SD card. If you use an SD card then the whole download goes on the card--it does not load what it can into the 300's available RAM and the remainder to the card.

 

b. Buy a 400t, plan out the trip on the PC (I know, or Mac) and load your trip into the 400t. Even though you have the whole TOPO 2008 on the 400t what you do on the PC won't conflict.

 

Bottome line for me at this point is to forget all about available RAM between the 300 and 400 series and think about my application path only:

 

A. Buy the 300 and both TOPO and City maps and if a trip doesn't fit use a SD card and not worry that onboard available RAM might be less then what the 400t has.

 

B. Buy a 400t and just the City map. Load the portion of City I need into the 400t and plan the trip on the 400t and not use the PC to plan with.

 

C. Buy a 400c or i and both TOPO and City maps, load what I want to use from the PC to the 400c or i and either plan the trip on the PC or on the GPSr and if on the PC transfer the trip to the GPSr again.

 

I want as much a long term solution as possible.

 

The 300 may make the most sense now...or pay a little more with a loaded map and buying two more maps and get either the 400c or i?

 

Assuming that I will have TOPO and City Navigator regardless which 400 would be most useful c with coastal waterways or i with inland lakes?

 

Don't hate me for all of this... Try to help if you can or ignore it. Thank you. It might be valuable to clarify or expand in the current 400t Review in the Wiki FAQ the 300 differances and why RAM doesn't matter?

 

Thank you.

[+g-o-cashers]

Honestly I think the response you got from Garmin is BS. He's glossing over the important point -- he just assumes that as soon as I run out of memory I'm going to go buy an SD card. The fact that I need to spend an extra $30-$40 factors into my decision about which unit I should buy based on my planned memory usage and when I think I might need that extra memory. It might not be the most important factor but it plays a part in my buying decision. If I can buy a 400t and avoid purchasing an SD card (or leave the slot free to use one of the new 24k topo preloaded SD cards) then there is an advantage to buying a 400t, period. If Garmin doesn't provide the memory specifications I don't have the data to make an informed decision.

 

If Garmin claims that the the memory size is so unimportant then they should include the SD card with the unit rather than making me pay for it - if they gave me a 4GB SD card then I wouldn't worry about it and we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.

 

Somehow Garmin is worried enough about it to remove it from their cost but their customers shouldn't worry about spending the extra money? They've already forced people into a situation where they have to go buy 2500 mAh+ NiMH batteries with this unit, I guess they figured what's a few more bucks for an SD card.

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

Barometer...Which Colorado To Buy? (To be edited to reflect most recent feeling.)

 

300

**********

400c

****

400i

**

400t

******

 

Notes:

See discussion...

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+Ratsneve]

Honestly I think the response you got from Garmin is BS. He's glossing over the important point -- he just assumes that as soon as I run out of memory I'm going to go buy an SD card. The fact that I need to spend an extra $30-$40 factors into my decision about which unit I should buy based on my planned memory usage and when I think I might need that extra memory. It might not be the most important factor but it plays a part in my buying decision. If I can buy a 400t and avoid purchasing an SD card (or leave the slot free to use one of the new 24k topo preloaded SD cards) then there is an advantage to buying a 400t, period. If Garmin doesn't provide the memory specifications I don't have the data to make an informed decision.

 

If Garmin claims that the the memory size is so unimportant then they should include the SD card with the unit rather than making me pay for it - if they gave me a 4GB SD card then I wouldn't worry about it and we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.

 

Somehow Garmin is worried enough about it to remove it from their cost but their customers shouldn't worry about spending the extra money? They've already forced people into a situation where they have to go buy 2500 mAh+ NiMH batteries with this unit, I guess they figured what's a few more bucks for an SD card.

 

GO$Rs

I wish you had talked to Larry because I think you said it better then I did above. However it is very unlikely that we are going to change Garmin any in the near future.

 

A 400t if I don't trip plan on the PC? If I do want to do this then I have to buy the TOPO DVD... Why not get a c or an i then so only the topo information I need for a trip is taking up RAM. And the preloaded coastal or inland lake info might be interesting to have--but which one to start off with? And why not go this way--what am I overlooking? Of the three...c, i, or t which gives the most available RAM? Did I see this in the FAQ--have to go look.

 

You mentioned the "new 24k topo preloaded SD cards". I've heard of them but haven't consider why I might want to add one. I take it they overlay on top of the TOPO and City maps and give a much finer contour for a specific area? (I guess some CO owners would like two or more SD slots. )

Edited July 1, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+Ratsneve]

What a difference two different techs can make. Willing to spend all day on this and after a disasterous attempt to send Garmin an email I called them up yet again armed with my complaints. Only this time I got someone very pleasant and patient and understanding to talk to--Stephen H.

 

He willingly gave me the current available memory left on each unit:

300 is 384 MB

400t is 129.1 MB

400c is 73.3 MB

400i is 37.8 MB

 

It is true that Garmin recommends that maps get loaded onto SD cards. But they have good reason to suggest that and there are exceptions to it too--most notable is the 300. The main reason is that this available memory is there for software updates, waypoints and routes and the like. Firmware updates must go into ROM? If you use up this memory you stand a good chance of crashing the unit.

 

He also said (if I got it right in my own words) that all four units are physically identical--same internal architecture and size of ROM and RAM. He would not say what this RAM size was but that they all have the same size. The difference in available memory left over is due to the size of the base program and software that comes pre-installed which cannot be touched. That is why the available memory size can change on any of the units--when Garmin changes the preloaded software on any CO.

 

He mentioned that there is a new software update that just came out today--v 2.54 I believe.

 

The tech thought the focus on 3 GB or 4 GB was to the max size of the SD card that would work and not available RAM. This puzzles me though because I'm pretty certain that the CO series will use even larger SD cards. From the wiki FAQ review also it sounds like 4 GB is the actual RAM size in the units. And if that is true then something may still not be said or known right

 

--because if the 300 has 4 GB of RAM in it and only 384 MB remain free then it has a HUGE base map program!?

 

Knowing and believing that the 300 isn't physically any different from the 400 series I finally feel confident in buying the CO 300 and City Navigator NT on DVD.

 

The big question now remains whether to get TOPO U.S. 2008 on DVD or try the new TOPO U.S. 24K--Northwest on a Micro SD card that includes a SD adapter? Thoughts on this?

 

BTW, this somehow reminded me of a disappointment I noticed with my old Magellan eXplorist 200. When I drove through Death Valley a number of years ago I went below sea level at some point and the road signs said so but the eXplorist 200 stopped at 00 feet. Please tell me that the CO will read below sea level. It shouldn't be too tough an algarithm to work out.

 

Thanks.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[jcc123]

Two thoughts.

 

First, as a long time Garmin customer that started buying their trail GPSs back in 2001 with a Vista and upgrading with subsequent units such as the 60 CS and the 60 CXs, I realized that it’s not worth it to pay for the bells and whistles since you’re going to have to upgrade anyway in 12-18 months. I rather save the extra dough for the NEXT unit that will be much better than the current one. That means that if the 300 and 400t is essentially the same except for the map and a little memory which can easily be overcome by getting a map on DVD and an external SD card, that’s the way people should go. The added benefit besides all the extra money you save for the next upgrade is that the topo map and external SD card is portable. You can use that on the next machine! Whereas, with the 400t, you spend the extra money only to lose it in your next upgrade. Not a good value!

 

Second, the more important question to ask in my mind is that will having an external SD card rather than the internal memory of the 400t slow down the boot-up time or scrolling of maps? Does the speed of the SD card matter?

[+g-o-cashers]

While I partially agree with your statement your assumption about not being able to move the 400t maps is incorrect. I don't think there is anything to prevent me from coping that file onto an SD card and using it in some other Garmin handheld -- what I can't do is use it in Mapsource.

 

GO$Rs

[jcc123]

As I said before I'm a long time Garmin customer. They have changed their map formats many times over the years. What you can use it in today is no guaranty that it will tomorrow. With the DVD Map, I can always use Mapsource to reformat and load into anything I want in the future.

[+jws2go]

Wonder how the Colorado would react to the new 32GB SD cards???

[+Ratsneve]

Two thoughts.

 

...That means that if the 300 and 400t is essentially the same except for the map and a little memory which can easily be overcome by getting a map on DVD and an external SD card, that’s the way people should go.

 

Second, the more important question to ask in my mind is that will having an external SD card rather than the internal memory of the 400t slow down the boot-up time or scrolling of maps? Does the speed of the SD card matter?

Your experience in this is well taken by me I hope. I have ordered City Navigator North America NT on DVD and decided to try TOPO U.S. 24K-Northwest on the micro-SD since I live in Oregon. I want to experience the better trail detail and I'm not waiting for it to come out on DVD--which will likely happen by next week I suppose.

 

In getting the CO 300 which has the most available memory of the whole line left free I am making and accepting one assumption--The physical RAM total has not changed and is the same for the 300 and 400 series. When available memory does change it is the result of onboard preloaded software changes. Also, I don't want to push the onboard available memory limit and risk crashing. How I work with this available memory exactly has to remain to be seen.

 

I purchased a 300 from BroadwayPhoto.com last night. By this morning it looks like a huge mistake and hopefully the sale has been canceled and no credit card charges have been made. It looks like the unit, advertised with no indications it was any different from any 300 marketed inside the U.S. was in fact different. BroadwayPhoto at least contacted me to confirm things before canceling the order. $375 with free shipping _was_ to good to be true. I was told it didn't have English in it and to get a 300 with English would cost around $465 or some such. I was pretty darn upset at this point and canceled and the cancelation has been accepted. Let's hope no credit card charge shows up. In reading this little "mess" understand that the Garmin p/n for the 300 was the same as on Garmin's website. Also understand that I tried contacting Garmin about the deal but the phone call failed as it seems prone to do. So I'm off again looking for a 300 below list price from somewhere inside the U.S.

 

Lastly here and now do any of you know for certain that the CO will read below sea level?

 

Thanks.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+g-o-cashers]

I'll reiterate what is in the FAQ based on what I've seen personally and from users on this and other forums: the 300 and 400t present different sized filesystems to the user. Internally they may have different sized flash devices or the same but in the end what matters is what I can see through the filesystem when connected to the computer because ultimately, once I take away space for maps and other misc files, that's what is left for me to use as free space.

 

Garmin can claim what they want but based on the units in the field this is what I've seen:

 

300: Filesystem size: 470MB, Free space: 360MB

400t*: Filesystem size: ~4GB, Free space: ~1GB

400i: Filesystem size: 1.85GB, Free space: 278MB

 

* There were some early 400t units that had a 3GB filesystem with 150MB of free space, I have not heard of reports of these for several months now.

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

I'll reiterate what is in the FAQ based on what I've seen personally and from users on this and other forums: the 300 and 400t present different sized filesystems to the user. Internally they may have different sized flash devices or the same but in the end what matters is what I can see through the filesystem when connected to the computer because ultimately, once I take away space for maps and other misc files, that's what is left for me to use as free space.

 

Garmin can claim what they want but based on the units in the field this is what I've seen:

 

300: Filesystem size: 470MB, Free space: 360MB

400t*: Filesystem size: ~4GB, Free space: ~1GB

400i: Filesystem size: 1.85GB, Free space: 278MB

 

* There were some early 400t units that had a 3GB filesystem with 150MB of free space, I have not heard of reports of these for several months now.

 

GO$Rs

Thanks GO$Rs. I will try to work this further with Stephen H. at Garmin if I can. Since the CO 300 order fell through and the maps I have bought would be what I would buy for either a 300 or 400t there is nothing lost for the moment. There must be a way to resolve this rather huge free space discrepancy on the 400t.

 

When I had my 400t hooked up through MapSource to my PC I was seeing two directories for the CO. I looked through them very quickly but never looked at their Preferences nor understood why there were two.

 

Do the COs read below sea level?

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+AuntieWeasel]

I just bought my 300 this week (w00t!): it's currently got 370M free, with about half a dozen waypoints on it.

 

It made sense to me to put my waypoints on the on-board memory and maps and caches on the chip. I took a 1 gig card out of my camera and popped it in. Mapsource Topo for RI, most of CT and MA and the 500 closest caches takes up not quite 28M. I think I'm good to go. I ordered a 4-gig card for, like, $16 and I am *so* not going to need it.

 

By the way...I LOVE THIS THING!

[+g-o-cashers]

 

When I had my 400t hooked up through MapSource to my PC I was seeing two directories for the CO. I looked through them very quickly but never looked at their Preferences nor understood why there were two.

 

Do the COs read below sea level?

 

If you had an SD card in the Colorado that would be the second filesystem.

 

I calibrated my CO to 0' when held above my head and lowered to my feet and it read -5'. So I think it should work.

 

GO$Rs

Edited July 2, 2008 by g-o-cashers

[+Ratsneve]

 

When I had my 400t hooked up through MapSource to my PC I was seeing two directories for the CO. I looked through them very quickly but never looked at their Preferences nor understood why there were two.

 

Do the COs read below sea level?

 

If you had an SD card in the Colorado that would be the second filesystem.

 

I calibrated my CO to 0' when held above my head and lowered to my feet and it read -5'. So I think it should work.

 

GO$Rs

So, since I didn't have any SD installed then one of these directories was empty--if fact it probably asked for the data.

 

If you can get the minus indication and a -5 feet that's good enough for me. I never thought of using elevation that way before on a GPS.

 

Thanks. Now on to the real "problem".

[+storm180]

Two thoughts.

 

...That means that if the 300 and 400t is essentially the same except for the map and a little memory which can easily be overcome by getting a map on DVD and an external SD card, that’s the way people should go.

 

Second, the more important question to ask in my mind is that will having an external SD card rather than the internal memory of the 400t slow down the boot-up time or scrolling of maps? Does the speed of the SD card matter?

Your experience in this is well taken by me I hope. I have ordered City Navigator North America NT on DVD and decided to try TOPO U.S. 24K-Northwest on the micro-SD since I live in Oregon. I want to experience the better trail detail and I'm not waiting for it to come out on DVD--which will likely happen by next week I suppose.

 

In getting the CO 300 which has the most available memory of the whole line left free I am making and accepting one assumption--The physical RAM total has not changed and is the same for the 300 and 400 series. When available memory does change it is the result of onboard preloaded software changes. Also, I don't want to push the onboard available memory limit and risk crashing. How I work with this available memory exactly has to remain to be seen.

 

I purchased a 300 from BroadwayPhoto.com last night. By this morning it looks like a huge mistake and hopefully the sale has been canceled and no credit card charges have been made. It looks like the unit, advertised with no indications it was any different from any 300 marketed inside the U.S. was in fact different. BroadwayPhoto at least contacted me to confirm things before canceling the order. $375 with free shipping _was_ to good to be true. I was told it didn't have English in it and to get a 300 with English would cost around $465 or some such. I was pretty darn upset at this point and canceled and the cancelation has been accepted. Let's hope no credit card charge shows up. In reading this little "mess" understand that the Garmin p/n for the 300 was the same as on Garmin's website. Also understand that I tried contacting Garmin about the deal but the phone call failed as it seems prone to do. So I'm off again looking for a 300 below list price from somewhere inside the U.S.

 

Lastly here and now do any of you know for certain that the CO will read below sea level?

 

Thanks.

 

Broadway Photo are a bunch of con artists that try to upsell you stuff. What they were telling you about the colorado was bogus, they were just trying to charge more for the same product. This is what they do, I can't believe they told you it didn't have english on it. Hahaha.. OMG thats funny. The colorado has multiple language files in the setup. One time they tried to upsell a digitial camera point and shoot and tried to tell me that the lens didn't come with it and I would have to buy a US lens to use it properly. I hate those people.

 

Go to www.electronicadirect.com I bought two from them and they were perfect. 383.00 was the price I paid.

[+Ratsneve]

I'll reiterate what is in the FAQ based on what I've seen personally and from users on this and other forums: the 300 and 400t present different sized filesystems to the user. Internally they may have different sized flash devices or the same but in the end what matters is what I can see through the filesystem when connected to the computer because ultimately, once I take away space for maps and other misc files, that's what is left for me to use as free space.

 

Garmin can claim what they want but based on the units in the field this is what I've seen:

 

300: Filesystem size: 470MB, Free space: 360MB

400t*: Filesystem size: ~4GB, Free space: ~1GB

400i: Filesystem size: 1.85GB, Free space: 278MB

 

* There were some early 400t units that had a 3GB filesystem with 150MB of free space, I have not heard of reports of these for several months now.

 

GO$Rs

Okay, well, we'll see now what happens next. Garmin seemed receptive to the problem going on here with this free space/available memory issue between the CO series. He (not Stephen H. ) asked for your user name of 'g-o-cashers' which I gave him. At first he tried poo-poo'ing your credentials but I told him otherwise who you were HERE and that this was serious and I wanted the discrepancy resolved and wouldn't rest now until it was. He's got my name, phone number, and email address and said they would be in touch. I hope this will be resolved soon so we can forget about it and new geocachers with Colorados will get the straight accurate skinny and I can buy the unit best for me. It is pretty clear that if I believe Garmin I'm better off by far with a 300 and 384 MB available memory compared to all the other 400s available memory; and if I believe your free space of ~ 1 GB I'm by far better off with a 400t. Hanging between the two now is unacceptable.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+g-o-cashers]

Here's the screen shot of my 400t drive properties.

 

 

Filesystem size: 3.72GB; Free space 768MB

 

I have about 200-300MB of maps and other files I've copied onto my Colorado since I bought it. I would expect to see closer to 1GB free on a new unit.

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

Here's the screen shot of my 400t drive properties.

 

 

Filesystem size: 3.72GB; Free space 768MB

 

I have about 200-300MB of maps and other files I've copied onto my Colorado since I bought it. I would expect to see closer to 1GB free on a new unit.

 

GO$Rs

I would totally agree with you. I can't for the life of me see what Garmin is driving at when they say only 129.1 MB free and you would agree if the 300 is accurate too at around 384 MB that one would be better off with the 400t?

 

Fascinating. Well, maybe some others will post in my new thread asking specifically for both these units. I might have drawn more attention in a different forum but it is here now very close to this one.

[+SparkyInCali]

I really don't see why everyone is so up in arms about this.I know we always want more but SD cards are really cheap now and there are two threads about this issue on the front page.I guess I will be bumping both to the top though since I am going to be copying this to both threads for everyones information.I have the 400c because it was free so I can't complain.I didn't really need the coastal information though so I deleted the maps that were loaded and loaded CN and various topo and other maps in the place of the stock maps.I have 470Mb free of 939 with enough maps loaded to cover me for the wester states.Some people just got lucky and got units with more memory than others .I didn't see anything on Garmin's site containing specs for the amount of memory on the Colorado units.

 

CrazyOn2Wheels

[+Ratsneve]

I really don't see why everyone is so up in arms about this.I know we always want more but SD cards are really cheap now and there are two threads about this issue on the front page.I guess I will be bumping both to the top though since I am going to be copying this to both threads for everyones information.I have the 400c because it was free so I can't complain.I didn't really need the coastal information though so I deleted the maps that were loaded and loaded CN and various topo and other maps in the place of the stock maps.I have 470Mb free of 939 with enough maps loaded to cover me for the wester states.Some people just got lucky and got units with more memory than others .I didn't see anything on Garmin's site containing specs for the amount of memory on the Colorado units.

 

CrazyOn2Wheels

By posting the same message to both threads you did a good job bumping them up together--thanks. I was hoping this one might die out and we'd finish up with the other. Oh well.

 

There is not much more to it except to see if Garmin admits that indeed the free space on the 400t is much greater then any other unit in the series. There is good reason to keep around as much free space as you can in my opinion to help assure you don't run out of it and crash and because if for instance you give the 24K U.S. TOPO a try which only comes currently on a micro-SD and currently only for Washington and Oregon that pretty much ties up your SD slot. Where are you going to put everything else you need--in the units free space. Why not get the unit that maximizes that free space? What if Garmin's information that says the 300 gives the most free space is incorrect--which it is? I'm just trying to understand Garmin's thinking on this so the facts there and here on Geocaching.com both ring true. Garmin gets in a tizzy over this issue because...?

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ratsneve