Colorado 300 and 400t Available Memory/Free Space...

[+Ratsneve]

If you have a Garmin Colorado 300 or 400t please post what your free user space available is/was from Garmin, i.e., before you added your own stuff. The 300 should be around 384 MB. The 400t though is a problem for sure. Garmin says 129.1 MB while the FAQ here or rather in the wiki says ~ 1 GB. This is frustrating me and will make a difference in whether I buy a 300 or a 400t. Thank you. I have elevated this issue at Garmin too so that one day this discrepancy will go away--I hope. Please include your purchase date or first satellite acquisition date from your MyGarmin. Further discussion may also be found here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=197656

 

(I find it a little hard to believe that Garmin has actually changed out physical ROM or RAM size in any of the Colorado series without documenting it with a different product number or serial number range or first satellite acquisition date--but so far they aren't saying much and the discrepancy seems to be real and unresolved. Actually, Garmin hates the subject.)

 

Thank you.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+g-o-cashers]

A bunch of this is already in the various Colorado threads. I did a search on Colorado 400t memory and came with a dozen.

 

This is one of the earlier threads when people discovered the issue with some units that had 3GB:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=184685&hl=

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

A bunch of this is already in the various Colorado threads. I did a search on Colorado 400t memory and came with a dozen.

 

This is one of the earlier threads when people discovered the issue with some units that had 3GB:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=184685&hl=

 

GO$Rs

Interesting... If a few more post what they've got we can "fix" Garmin for sure. I don't like this one bit. It certainly means that Garmin's tech support knowledge base (people) suck because you can't get down to the truth. If the 300 proves to only have around 384 MB available then how in the heck could it have the same physical RAM onboard it that the 400t has? So Garmin is making physical changes to their product line and not documenting it with us at all. I wonder if middle 400t owners that end up with around 129.1 or 140 MB have gotten new units from Garmin out of the mess? What will Garmin do about this?

[+Ratsneve]

Could Garmin in firmware exclude a portion of RAM so that an end user would see less left over and available then what might physically be in the unit?

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+RonFisk]

Could Garmin in firmware explude a portion of RAM so that an end user would see less left over and available then what might physically be in the unit?

My 400t has 3.81GB of total RAM. I have 1.07GB free with everything loaded. Includes TOPO and about 600 waypoints. Firmware 2.54 Ser# 18Z018xxx

[+g-o-cashers]

Could Garmin in firmware explude a portion of RAM so that an end user would see less left over and available then what might physically be in the unit?

 

I'm sure that they are doing this, the extent to which they do it isn't clear. If these were raw memory devices you would see file systems that were very near, say, 4GB and 512MB, the natural sizes of memory devices. The fact that with the 300 you see a file system of 480MB makes me think that there's at least a 512MB device involved, Garmin shaves off a piece for loaders, the system software and other internal databases. What is left over is made visible as a mass storage device that you and I can see and use. I guess what we don't know is how much of the physical device are they taking away? For example it could be that the 400t and 300 are exactly the same hardware with a 4GB chip(s), its just that on the 300 they hide 3.5GB of internal storage.

 

I would be surprised if they do that however, usually in consumer electronics its all about trying to remove every last bit of cost from the hardware -- if they can save $5 by going to a smaller device they would probably do it unless there is a bigger savings to keep all the units the same (because of volume savings, etc).

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

Could Garmin in firmware explude a portion of RAM so that an end user would see less left over and available then what might physically be in the unit?

 

I'm sure that they are doing this, the extent to which they do it isn't clear. If these were raw memory devices you would see file systems that were very near, say, 4GB and 512MB, the natural sizes of memory devices. The fact that with the 300 you see a file system of 480MB makes me think that there's at least a 512MB device involved, Garmin shaves off a piece for loaders, the system software and other internal databases. What is left over is made visible as a mass storage device that you and I can see and use. I guess what we don't know is how much of the physical device are they taking away? For example it could be that the 400t and 300 are exactly the same hardware with a 4GB chip(s), its just that on the 300 they hide 3.5GB of internal storage.

 

I would be surprised if they do that however, usually in consumer electronics its all about trying to remove every last bit of cost from the hardware -- if they can save $5 by going to a smaller device they would probably do it unless there is a bigger savings to keep all the units the same (because of volume savings, etc).

 

GO$Rs

All makes some sense now doesn't it maybe--kind of? One reason the 300 is not a 400 with no pre-loaded software other then its base map might be because it has a 3 GB chip in it and the 400s have 4 GB chips?

 

I wish some other people with 300s would get interested in this. Maybe one more 300 and one more 400t and if it all makes sense I'll give up and get a 400t.

 

I wonder when Garmin will give me an answer? I'll call them again tomorrow to see if they are taking any interest in this.

[MarcTheReliabilityMan]

It would also be interesting to know what the free space is on the 400c and the 400i.

[+Ratsneve]

It would also be interesting to know what the free space is on the 400c and the 400i.

I got from Garmin and apparently from the same list on two occasions now that:

the 300 has 384 MB free

the 400t has 129.1 MB free (which is certainly bogus from what has been reported here).

the 400c has 73.3 MB free and

the 400i has 37.8 MB free--the least of the lot.

 

We'll see what tomorrow brings--tomorrow is another day.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+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

[+Cacheoholic]

It would also be interesting to know what the free space is on the 400c and the 400i.

I got from Garmin and apparently from the same list on two occasions now that:

the 300 has 384 MB free

the 400t has 129.1 MB free (which is certainly bogus from what has been reported here).

the 400c has 73.3 MB free and

the 400i has 37.8 MB free--the least of the lot.

 

We'll see what tomorrow brings--tomorrow is another day.

 

Maybe it's more like - the 400t has 1291. MB free? The little off one decimal place thing. My Colorado 300 has 384 mb free space and my Colorado 400t has 1115 mb free space.

 

To repeat what I said in the other post. My limiting issue is not free space, it is map segment limit. Until either someone figures out how to successfully combine Topo US 2008 map segments or Garmin starts selling the v2 Topo US 2008 that is preloaded on the 400t, the 400t is the only choice you have if you want to load all Topo US 2008 and City Navigator NA NT 2009. I cancelled my order for a 400t on the mis-advice of these forums that the 300 with a 4 gb SD card + Topo US 2008 equals a 400t. They were wrong and now I have a Colorado 300 and a Colorado 400t. It’s a lot cheaper to just buy the 400t in the first place.

[+g-o-cashers]

the 400t has 129.1 MB free (which is certainly bogus from what has been reported here).

 

If you look at the the numbers for the 3GB 400t this might be correct. If Garmin is building different configurations (ie. 3G and 4G) then it would make sense for them to spec the worst case from the customer's point of view. If you happen to get more then consider yourself lucky.

 

GO$Rs

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

All makes some sense now doesn't it maybe--kind of? One reason the 300 is not a 400 with no pre-loaded software other then its base map might be because it has a 3 GB chip in it and the 400s have 4 GB chips?

 

I wish some other people with 300s would get interested in this. Maybe one more 300 and one more 400t and if it all makes sense I'll give up and get a 400t.

 

I wonder when Garmin will give me an answer? I'll call them again tomorrow to see if they are taking any interest in this.

 

Well, I own a 300, and I will chime in a bit here with something that many people are overlooking... SD cards are SLOW. I create GPX files with 1500 geocaches in them using GSAK. If I put that GPX file on an SD card and power on my GPSr, it takes about 85 seconds to get to the map displaying on the screen. If I place that same GPX file on the GPSr (directly in it's internal memory) the startup time is closer to 18 seconds. So, based on this observation, it takes about 67 seconds longer to load that GPX data from the SD card than it does to load it from the internal memory.

 

Now, one thing I have done with my unit is to delete the internal basemap file and to load a 7 state region of Topo 2008 data onto the unit and rename that file to be my basemap. This gives me a Topo basemap for my foreseeable local area. I then loaded the City Navigator 200x NT maps onto my SD card.

[+g-o-cashers]

Well, I own a 300, and I will chime in a bit here with something that many people are overlooking... SD cards are SLOW. I create GPX files with 1500 geocaches in them using GSAK. If I put that GPX file on an SD card and power on my GPSr, it takes about 85 seconds to get to the map displaying on the screen. If I place that same GPX file on the GPSr (directly in it's internal memory) the startup time is closer to 18 seconds. So, based on this observation, it takes about 67 seconds longer to load that GPX data from the SD card than it does to load it from the internal memory.

 

This isn't the slowness of the SD card. This is a bug (feature?) in the Colorado that always rebuilds the entire internal geocache database on every boot cycle if the gpx file is loaded from the SD card.

 

Here's a way to compare. Take that same gpx file you have above and load it into internal memory and time the first boot, you'll notice that it is almost exactly the same as your SD card boot times above. However, subsequent reboots don't suffer this penalty -- they boot very quickly -- like the 18 seconds you mention above. I'm assuming that this is because the internal database is already built and since there are no new/changed files the Colorado skips rebuilding the database. For some reason the Colorado doesn't do this when the GPX file is on an SD card.

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

Well, I own a 300, and I will chime in a bit here with something that many people are overlooking... SD cards are SLOW. I create GPX files with 1500 geocaches in them using GSAK. If I put that GPX file on an SD card and power on my GPSr, it takes about 85 seconds to get to the map displaying on the screen. If I place that same GPX file on the GPSr (directly in it's internal memory) the startup time is closer to 18 seconds. So, based on this observation, it takes about 67 seconds longer to load that GPX data from the SD card than it does to load it from the internal memory.

 

This isn't the slowness of the SD card. This is a bug (feature?) in the Colorado that always rebuilds the entire internal geocache database on every boot cycle if the gpx file is loaded from the SD card.

 

Here's a way to compare. Take that same gpx file you have above and load it into internal memory and time the first boot, you'll notice that it is almost exactly the same as your SD card boot times above. However, subsequent reboots don't suffer this penalty -- they boot very quickly -- like the 18 seconds you mention above. I'm assuming that this is because the internal database is already built and since there are no new/changed files the Colorado skips rebuilding the database. For some reason the Colorado doesn't do this when the GPX file is on an SD card.

 

GO$Rs

Are you both saying then that if I use any SD card in any CO that the inital boot time is going to jump from ~18 seconds to ~85 seconds? There will be no getting around that when using TOPO U.S. 24K then? I'll just practice holding my breath that long.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

Are you both saying then that if I use any SD card in any CO that the inital boot time is going to jump from ~18 seconds to ~85 seconds? There will be no getting around that when using TOPO U.S. 24K then? I'll just practice holding my breath that long.

 

I have not seen a noticeable delay in startup when loading maps from the SD card. I have only seen the delays when loading the geocache GPX file from the SD card.

[+g-o-cashers]

There is an additional delay to load maps when you boot. The 400t takes about 6 secs longer than a 300 because it has to load 2.7G of Topo maps, but the delay is the same on SD card or internal memory and it is relatively small.

 

The issue I mentioned only has to do with loading large gpx files with caches from SD card. Take a lot at the Performance section of the FAQ it is all documented there.

 

GO$Rs

[+Ratsneve]

There is an additional delay to load maps when you boot. The 400t takes about 6 secs longer than a 300 because it has to load 2.7G of Topo maps, but the delay is the same on SD card or internal memory and it is relatively small.

 

The issue I mentioned only has to do with loading large gpx files with caches from SD card. Take a lot at the Performance section of the FAQ it is all documented there.

 

GO$Rs

Oh, I would have to miss that detail (and maybe many others)--sorry. I'm not into gpx files yet.

[+Ratsneve]

Perhaps the final reply to this thread...

 

This is a copy of the email I sent Garmin a few minutes ago:

 

"Hello Stephen and Cecil,

 

This email summarizes what I wish Garmin would do to correct this apparent and presumed error in the 400t's free memory spec.

 

1. Your internal data specs show that the current production of 400t free memory is 129.1 MB. Documented end user data disputes this with all current users that have participated in the several recent threads on geocaching.com that have 400t's stating that their free memory is around or over 1 GB. Please, by all means verify this and correct your internal data for us. [i should have added "if found incorrect."]

 

2. Consider changing the current free memory of the CO 400 series on your website specs to reflect the current shipped free memory (replace "yes" with current value) with a note or * explanation that this free memory may change without notice do to preloaded software changes on all the units. This would include the 300 too although that free memory must be very stable now since you do show its value at 384 MB.

 

Thank you. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification. The bottom line to remember in my opinion is that recent accurate free memory does matter for some geocachers and Garmin users. The disparity between 1 GB and 129.1 MB is to great for any of us to really ignore. In my own case it means the difference between buying a 300 or a 400t. My considerations are over and above (have nothing to do with) how I might utilize the SD slot. On the other hand I am getting the recent TOPO U.S. 24K--Northwest microSD card which will tie up that SD slot. Having as much free memory as I care to afford could make a real difference one day.

 

Sincerely,

 

Susan" [i included last name & contact info but failed to include "Ratsneve" for these threads.]

 

I also have ordered a 400t at a discounted price with it already agreed that I can return it immediately with a restocking fee should its free memory fall way short (below that of the 300)--at this point that looks highly unlikely.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ratsneve

[+Ratsneve]

Some conclusions at last:

 

I got my new Colorado 400t today. The s/n starts off 18Z02nnnn and is maybe 13 thousand later then the previous one I had if Garmin counts like that. The unit number likewise starts off 344nnnnnnn but is 34.5 million later then the previous.

 

Software version is 2.50...I know I need to update this.

GPS Software version is 2.60.

 

Did you ever read the license agrement on the unit? I don't understand what Garmin is getting at because it sounds like you can copy, distribute, change, and do anything you'd like to with it. Does that include any map software you install. I think they are talking about the JPEG Group but...

 

Before loading anything or doing anything other then my own first satellite acquisition I hooked the unit up to the PC and got two drives letters for the 400t. One is still empty and waiting for the MicroSD--another post. The other one's properties read:

 

Capacity: 3,999,502,336 bytes or around 3.72 GB

Used: 2,838,011,904 bytes or around 2.64 GB

Free: 1,161,490,432 bytes or around 1.08 GB!

 

Looks to me like everyone here that has hooked up there recent or not 400t to their PC has been right about the free memory available and that Garmin needs to do whatever they would like to do I guess. I'd do something to help them if I could but it's not my job.

 

First Satellite Acquired is May 10, 2008. Previous 400t was March 01, 2008. This date is found under your registered GPSr in your MyGarmin account and is the date Garmin (successfully) turned the unit on and checked it out (QC).

 

Other things:

 

I don't know where I posted this--might have been in someone else's thread on the carabiner clip but the new one that came with my new CO fits just fine. Someone in China positioned and sewed the strap correctly so its nylon edge end cannot protrude out from the clip structure and thus the carabiner clip slides on and off with ease.

 

So I think this thread is a wrap.