60CSx or HCx?

[+patrickjohng]

Hello all,

 

I'm trying to decide between a GPSMAP 60CSx or eTrex Vista HCx. Both look like they'll do the job for me here in Northern Minn, with tall tree cover. But is one better? I heard the HCx has a faster, newer chip, but not by much. Both seem to have great, sensitive antennas.

 

Is it just looks? I like the feel of the CSx better, but it's quite a bit more money, if there's no tangible benefit beyond its feel, I'll probably go with an HCx.

 

If it makes any difference, I use a Mac, so it has to be compatible (which has kept me from DeLorme). But I think Garmin offers Mac capability with both.

 

What do you all think?

[+Damin69]

Hello all,

 

I'm trying to decide between a GPSMAP 60CSx or eTrex Vista HCx. Both look like they'll do the job for me here in Northern Minn, with tall tree cover. But is one better? I heard the HCx has a faster, newer chip, but not by much. Both seem to have great, sensitive antennas.

 

Is it just looks? I like the feel of the CSx better, but it's quite a bit more money, if there's no tangible benefit beyond its feel, I'll probably go with an HCx.

 

If it makes any difference, I use a Mac, so it has to be compatible (which has kept me from DeLorme). But I think Garmin offers Mac capability with both.

 

What do you all think?

Well between the 2 I prefer the 60. The feel and button lay out is what I like the most. It feel the 60 is alot easier to use as the navigation is easier to do with the button layout on the 60. My dad has the Vista and it is a nice unit and does a good job.

[PG+LT+WD+AD]

I love my Vista HCX. Years ago I bought a ETrex Yellow when they first came out, about a month later the rest of the Etrex line came out on the market. A couple years later I got my dad a legend, and my first vista. Last year for Christmas we got me the HCX. I really like it. But I would have to say that the best advice is, if you are going to use it quite a bit you should get the one that is most comfortable for you to use. If you find it difficult to use you won't use it. Don't make a half way investment. No mater how much any of us like or dislike a particular unit dose not mean it will work for you. Good luck, both are great units. Paul

[+IBcrashen]

I have both and like the 60 better. I like the outlay of the buttons. Seems you have to go a few layers into the HC to do the same as some of them. The girlfriend likes the HC better

Great town your from.

I have a 40% discount coupon for BB on handheld GPS`s if you need it. Its good till the end of the year.

[Bonaro]

I have both and like the 60 better. I like the outlay of the buttons. Seems you have to go a few layers into the HC to do the same as some of them. The girlfriend likes the HC better

Great town your from.

I have a 40% discount coupon for BB on handheld GPS`s if you need it. Its good till the end of the year.

 

I have a 60, love it. Havent tried the HCx

I bought a 4 GB memory card for $1 on eBay but the gps would only use 2GB of it, I think. I was still able to load high res maps for most of Wa, Ore, Id and N. Cal.

From the way people talk, the Colorado is better.

No matter what you will still need to buy the mapset after the GPS. Get that from eBay also. Get the older version, detail is nearly the same and price is half

[gps_dr]

I have both and like the 60 better. I like the outlay of the buttons. Seems you have to go a few layers into the HC to do the same as some of them. The girlfriend likes the HC better

Great town your from.

I have a 40% discount coupon for BB on handheld GPS`s if you need it. Its good till the end of the year.

 

I have a 60, love it. Havent tried the HCx

I bought a 4 GB memory card for $1 on eBay but the gps would only use 2GB of it, I think. I was still able to load high res maps for most of Wa, Ore, Id and N. Cal.

From the way people talk, the Colorado is better.

No matter what you will still need to buy the mapset after the GPS. Get that from eBay also. Get the older version, detail is nearly the same and price is half

 

Not all like the Colorado better, I got rid of mine, prefer my 76CSx & DeLorme PN40

1) Not as good sunlight visibility on handlebars.

2) Only one tracklog can be displayed at a time.

[+Team DeLorme]

If it makes any difference, I use a Mac, so it has to be compatible (which has kept me from DeLorme).

DeLorme Mac support described here...

 

http://blog.delorme.com/2008/11/11/geocach...the-mac-and-pc/

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Chip Noble

Team DeLorme

[+Gone Geocaching]

I have the Vista Hcx and enjoy the longer battery life. Also, the little joystick is handy. You can press down on the joystick and go directly to a waypoint screen with Long/Lat showing.

[+Star*Hopper]

I don't have either, but I'd done some shopping/feature comparisons. While it is color, the HCx screen just seemed too tiny for my prefs. It's only 1.3" wide x 1.7" tall, & my plain ol' blue Legend's is bigger than that! In fact, same size as the Cx's:

60Cx 1.5 x 2.2" vs Vixta HCx 1.3 x 1.7"

 

YMMV, but that one thing alone DQ'd the Vista from my 'Want List'.

~*

[Neos2]

I'll sing the praises of the 60 CSx...

 

The HCx does have "newer" chipset, but that doesn't mean it's faster or better, it's just different than the one in the 60CSx. The chipset in the 60CSx is also high sensitivity. One person will tell you one is better and the nest will say the other is better--it depends on what the person owns, which tells me they are so close it doesn't matter....

 

However, I will say the HCx has seemingly had a lot of "issues" lately that require uploading the latest software update, according to folks in these forums. That would make me wary of the HCx right now, otherwise it's a fine unit.

 

I've never had a single problem with my 60 CSx and personally I prefer the look and feel of the 60 body style over the "Legend" body style.

[gallet]

I don't have either, but I'd done some shopping/feature comparisons. While it is color, the HCx screen just seemed too tiny for my prefs. It's only 1.3" wide x 1.7" tall, & my plain ol' blue Legend's is bigger than that! In fact, same size as the Cx's:

60Cx 1.5 x 2.2" vs Vixta HCx 1.3 x 1.7"

 

YMMV, but that one thing alone DQ'd the Vista from my 'Want List'.

~*

 

The 60csx screen resolution is much coarser, and a lot less bright. The actual difference in size is like holding hcx at a distance of 10" and the 60csx at 11", then the apparent size is the same.

 

Main difference between the two units is one is overly large and one is nicely compact.

Edited November 15, 2008 by gallet

[+Berta Nick Zoey]

I bought a 60CSx 2 yrs ago and love it. I bought my wife a Vista HCx last year and we compared the two and we found that the 60CSx appeared to have better accuracy than the 60 did. It could have been us, it could have been the machine or it could have been the conditions. I ended up selling the Vista and bought her her own 60CSx. Now she has no excuse if I find the caches before her.

[cliff_hanger]

I went from a clunky Meridian Gold to a nice compact Vista HCx. The 60CSx, while a fine unit, still seemed too big for what I wanted. A lot of cachers I know have them and love them.

 

For me, the Vista is perfect for backpacking. Love the long battery life. Screen is really bright (much brighter than the 60CSx, imo) and has great resolution. I like the tactile feel of the positive click joystick. It fits, and stays put, on my dashboard wedged under the windshield while driving. It seems accurate and fast. I've never seen any of the problems some have reported with drifting.

 

Both good units. Which one "feels" best in your hand? Which button arrangement do you prefer?

[+patrickjohng]

Thanks for all the great feedback. One other question though. If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

[+IBcrashen]

Thanks for all the great feedback. One other question though. If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

No brainer for me, I always have a real compass on me ( my watch if its sunny out) or in my cache bag if needed. Also you have to re-calibrate it each time you change the batteries. And how much good will it do you if your batteries die with no spares?

 

Hope you picked up one of those 40% off coupons at the MN State Park Challenge caches, if not get out there and get one.

[+bikercr]

I've got both units--the 60CSx and the etrex Vista HCx (actually my brother's but in my possesion right now).

 

There are four major differences between these two units:

 

1) Screen size and brightness--the 60CSx definitely wins here. When held next to each other in any kind of light, the 60CSx is significantly larger, sharper and brighter (except with backlights on--HCx may have a little edge here). Because the 60CSx screen is larger, it's a lot more readable at the same zoom level.

2)Form factor: HCx wins. It's more compact and lighter--feels better in the hand. It doesn't have an antenna protruding (uses a ceramic internal antenna). 60CSx is more sturdy, however, and I don't have to be as careful with it.

3)Buttons--Big advantage for 60CSx. The toggle lever on the HCx is frustrating to use and I'm constantly tipping it (you either press down or tip it) by accident which starts up the cursor and a location datafield that shrinks the small map even further requiring me to action the "back" button to return to the normal display. This is a big design defect in my opinion. The side buttons on the HCx are poorly marked, all look similar, and difficult to figure out without a lot of practice. The buttons on the 60CSx face frontwards, are clearly marked and simple to use.

4)Chipset: I prefer the 60CSx. It's more accurate and stable with the SiRfStar III GPS chipset. It's too bad that Garmin uses this chip only in the 60CSx because it's the best one out there. The MediaTek chip in the HCx is OK, but has more drift and just doesn't seem as sensitive and predictable. This may have something to do, as well, with the ceramic antenna--not as good under heavy cover as a quad helix (the one that protrudes from the top of the 60CSx). I recently read that SiRf has run into patent problems with their chip and is being sued big-time. I wonder if this is why Garmin dropped them as suppliers to all their newer devices.

 

You can get the HCx cheaper than the 60CSx. It's a very good unit, but if price and size are not all-important to you, I give the nod to the 60CSx--now considered an "industry standard" for accuracy and ease of use.

[+roadrage64]

I've got both units--the 60CSx and the etrex Vista HCx (actually my brother's but in my possesion right now).

 

There are four major differences between these two units:

 

1) Screen size and brightness--the 60CSx definitely wins here. When held next to each other in any kind of light, the 60CSx is significantly larger, sharper and brighter (except with backlights on--HCx may have a little edge here). Because the 60CSx screen is larger, it's a lot more readable at the same zoom level.

2)Form factor: HCx wins. It's more compact and lighter--feels better in the hand. It doesn't have an antenna protruding (uses a ceramic internal antenna). 60CSx is more sturdy, however, and I don't have to be as careful with it.

3)Buttons--Big advantage for 60CSx. The toggle lever on the HCx is frustrating to use and I'm constantly tipping it (you either press down or tip it) by accident which starts up the cursor and a location datafield that shrinks the small map even further requiring me to action the "back" button to return to the normal display. This is a big design defect in my opinion. The side buttons on the HCx are poorly marked, all look similar, and difficult to figure out without a lot of practice. The buttons on the 60CSx face frontwards, are clearly marked and simple to use.

4)Chipset: I prefer the 60CSx. It's more accurate and stable with the SiRfStar III GPS chipset. It's too bad that Garmin uses this chip only in the 60CSx because it's the best one out there. The MediaTek chip in the HCx is OK, but has more drift and just doesn't seem as sensitive and predictable. This may have something to do, as well, with the ceramic antenna--not as good under heavy cover as a quad helix (the one that protrudes from the top of the 60CSx). I recently read that SiRf has run into patent problems with their chip and is being sued big-time. I wonder if this is why Garmin dropped them as suppliers to all their newer devices.

 

You can get the HCx cheaper than the 60CSx. It's a very good unit, but if price and size are not all-important to you, I give the nod to the 60CSx--now considered an "industry standard" for accuracy and ease of use.

 

I couldn't agree more. Very well said.

[+DanOCan]

If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

 

My comments on compass vs. no compass. Clicky.

[+bikercr]

If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

 

My comments on compass vs. no compass. Clicky.

I pretty sure that only the CSx has the SiRfStar III chip. That is essential to making this one of the best all-time GPSr's from the older generation of units.

 

Another reason to get the CSx is that you definitely will want an electronic compass. I'll give you an example. Two days ago I was hiking in the woods trying to bushwhack back to my starting place. Most of the hike I had excellent lock with about 12-20 ft accuracy. I got to a place where I was at the bottom of a steep slope and kept getting fluctuating directional information from the GPS sending me in the wrong direction. I figured out that the slope was blocking a satellite or two. By stopping and holding the unit level, the compass was set to automatically activate thereby resetting the directional arrow in the correct orientation. From that point until I got up to the top of the ridge, I would stop every 30 yards or so to check my direction by compass. This was essential to my getting out of the woods rapidly enough to beat the dark.

Edited November 15, 2008 by bikercr

[+DustyWalker]

I think you might find that the CSx is more durable. The e-trex series have problems with the rubber bumper coming loose. Also, a friend of minebroke the joystick on his, although I never had problems with my old B&W Vista, which is similar.

[Neos2]

If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

 

My comments on compass vs. no compass. Clicky.

I pretty sure that only the CSx has the SiRfStar III chip. That is essential to making this one of the best all-time GPSr's from the older generation of units.

 

Another reason to get the CSx is that you definitely will want an electronic compass. I'll give you an example. Two days ago I was hiking in the woods trying to bushwhack back to my starting place. Most of the hike I had excellent lock with about 12-20 ft accuracy. I got to a place where I was at the bottom of a steep slope and kept getting fluctuating directional information from the GPS sending me in the wrong direction. I figured out that the slope was blocking a satellite or two. By stopping and holding the unit level, the compass was set to automatically activate thereby resetting the directional arrow in the correct orientation. From that point until I got up to the top of the ridge, I would stop every 30 yards or so to check my direction by compass. This was essential to my getting out of the woods rapidly enough to beat the dark.

I agree with bikercr on almost everything written here--except the 60 CSx being the only unit that uses the SirfStar III--the Garmin 60 Cx, Garmin 76Cx, and Garmin 76CSx also have that same chipset.

 

The 76 model is flat and looks like a large TV remote. It also has all the buttons on the front of the unit, and you might prefer that body style over either of the other two being discussed. One additional value--lately the 76CSx has been priced very competitively. I have seen them as low as $225.

 

bikercr's post points out one time it really, really, really matters whether you use an electronic compass---on steep slopes and very rugged terrain it is hard to get up to 3 mph to make a non-electronic compass work. Another time it would matter is when you are projecting a waypoint: a tiny error magnified over a great distance would add up quickly.

 

On flat ground, you can use the basic compass built in to almost any gps and have it "become accurate" by taking a few quick steady steps in one direction.

 

Someone else mentioned battery failure--which is really a moot point. Without a working battery the entire gps isn't going to work, so it won't matter which type of compass you have.

 

As for relying on a compass of any type--if you are somewhere truly "wild" you should always carry a hand-held compass and a paper quadrant topo map no matter what kind of gps you use. You should also know how to use the compass and how to read the map.

 

I prefer the units with the electronic compass for the reasons above, and it was worth the extra $$$ to me--as an added bonus they also have the altimeter/barometer--which I've used to predict weather changes. The compass/barometer has also been useful to help find certain puzzle caches.

[SiliconFiend]

I've got both units--the 60CSx and the etrex Vista HCx (actually my brother's but in my possesion right now).

 

There are four major differences between these two units:

 

1) Screen size and brightness--the 60CSx definitely wins here. When held next to each other in any kind of light, the 60CSx is significantly larger, sharper and brighter (except with backlights on--HCx may have a little edge here). Because the 60CSx screen is larger, it's a lot more readable at the same zoom level.

2)Form factor: HCx wins. It's more compact and lighter--feels better in the hand. It doesn't have an antenna protruding (uses a ceramic internal antenna). 60CSx is more sturdy, however, and I don't have to be as careful with it.

3)Buttons--Big advantage for 60CSx. The toggle lever on the HCx is frustrating to use and I'm constantly tipping it (you either press down or tip it) by accident which starts up the cursor and a location datafield that shrinks the small map even further requiring me to action the "back" button to return to the normal display. This is a big design defect in my opinion. The side buttons on the HCx are poorly marked, all look similar, and difficult to figure out without a lot of practice. The buttons on the 60CSx face frontwards, are clearly marked and simple to use.

4)Chipset: I prefer the 60CSx. It's more accurate and stable with the SiRfStar III GPS chipset. It's too bad that Garmin uses this chip only in the 60CSx because it's the best one out there. The MediaTek chip in the HCx is OK, but has more drift and just doesn't seem as sensitive and predictable. This may have something to do, as well, with the ceramic antenna--not as good under heavy cover as a quad helix (the one that protrudes from the top of the 60CSx). I recently read that SiRf has run into patent problems with their chip and is being sued big-time. I wonder if this is why Garmin dropped them as suppliers to all their newer devices.

 

You can get the HCx cheaper than the 60CSx. It's a very good unit, but if price and size are not all-important to you, I give the nod to the 60CSx--now considered an "industry standard" for accuracy and ease of use.

Small correction: The HCx has a patch antenna, not a ceramic antenna. Of the Garmin handhelds, only the Oregon has the ceramic antenna. The patch antennas work best when held facing up, which is more conducive for getting the best reception while you're trying to read the screen (quad helix work best vertically).

[+bikercr]

I've got both units--the 60CSx and the etrex Vista HCx (actually my brother's but in my possesion right now).

 

There are four major differences between these two units:

 

1) Screen size and brightness--the 60CSx definitely wins here. When held next to each other in any kind of light, the 60CSx is significantly larger, sharper and brighter (except with backlights on--HCx may have a little edge here). Because the 60CSx screen is larger, it's a lot more readable at the same zoom level.

2)Form factor: HCx wins. It's more compact and lighter--feels better in the hand. It doesn't have an antenna protruding (uses a ceramic internal antenna). 60CSx is more sturdy, however, and I don't have to be as careful with it.

3)Buttons--Big advantage for 60CSx. The toggle lever on the HCx is frustrating to use and I'm constantly tipping it (you either press down or tip it) by accident which starts up the cursor and a location datafield that shrinks the small map even further requiring me to action the "back" button to return to the normal display. This is a big design defect in my opinion. The side buttons on the HCx are poorly marked, all look similar, and difficult to figure out without a lot of practice. The buttons on the 60CSx face frontwards, are clearly marked and simple to use.

4)Chipset: I prefer the 60CSx. It's more accurate and stable with the SiRfStar III GPS chipset. It's too bad that Garmin uses this chip only in the 60CSx because it's the best one out there. The MediaTek chip in the HCx is OK, but has more drift and just doesn't seem as sensitive and predictable. This may have something to do, as well, with the ceramic antenna--not as good under heavy cover as a quad helix (the one that protrudes from the top of the 60CSx). I recently read that SiRf has run into patent problems with their chip and is being sued big-time. I wonder if this is why Garmin dropped them as suppliers to all their newer devices.

 

You can get the HCx cheaper than the 60CSx. It's a very good unit, but if price and size are not all-important to you, I give the nod to the 60CSx--now considered an "industry standard" for accuracy and ease of use.

Small correction: The HCx has a patch antenna, not a ceramic antenna. Of the Garmin handhelds, only the Oregon has the ceramic antenna. The patch antennas work best when held facing up, which is more conducive for getting the best reception while you're trying to read the screen (quad helix work best vertically).

When you say "facing up" I presume you mean screen facing the sky, correct? What orientation is best for ceramic and how good are those antennae under dense cover? The 60CSx does incredibly well.

[SiliconFiend]

When you say "facing up" I presume you mean screen facing the sky, correct? What orientation is best for ceramic and how good are those antennae under dense cover? The 60CSx does incredibly well.

Yes, screen facing the sky. I don't have an Oregon but others who do have reported that the orientation (horizontal or vertical) doesn't seem to matter as much, but holding it with the screen facing the ground impairs reception (why would you do that anyway?). Also users report poorer reception for the Oregon when carried in a pocket, etc (relative to other models), but I haven't read any specific reports of problems in dense cover. On the contrary, Oregon owners seems to think the reception in difficult conditions is as good as any other high-sensitivity GPS receiver.

 

The short answer is that the specific style of antenna (of any that are in current use by GPS manufacturers) really doesn't make much difference in the end--the chipset is far and away the most important factor in reception.

[+bikercr]

When you say "facing up" I presume you mean screen facing the sky, correct? What orientation is best for ceramic and how good are those antennae under dense cover? The 60CSx does incredibly well.

Yes, screen facing the sky. I don't have an Oregon but others who do have reported that the orientation (horizontal or vertical) doesn't seem to matter as much, but holding it with the screen facing the ground impairs reception (why would you do that anyway?). Also users report poorer reception for the Oregon when carried in a pocket, etc (relative to other models), but I haven't read any specific reports of problems in dense cover. On the contrary, Oregon owners seems to think the reception in difficult conditions is as good as any other high-sensitivity GPS receiver.

 

The short answer is that the specific style of antenna (of any that are in current use by GPS manufacturers) really doesn't make much difference in the end--the chipset is far and away the most important factor in reception.

Thank you for your kind explanation. Having had such good luck with the 60CSx, I'm wondering if the beefy looking, extenally protruding quad helix antenna is part of what makes this Garmin so good. I know the SiRF chip is excellent, but think that isn't the whole deal. If only the Oregon had this antenna and chipset, and a much brighter screen--that would be the killer!

[SiliconFiend]

When you say "facing up" I presume you mean screen facing the sky, correct? What orientation is best for ceramic and how good are those antennae under dense cover? The 60CSx does incredibly well.

Yes, screen facing the sky. I don't have an Oregon but others who do have reported that the orientation (horizontal or vertical) doesn't seem to matter as much, but holding it with the screen facing the ground impairs reception (why would you do that anyway?). Also users report poorer reception for the Oregon when carried in a pocket, etc (relative to other models), but I haven't read any specific reports of problems in dense cover. On the contrary, Oregon owners seems to think the reception in difficult conditions is as good as any other high-sensitivity GPS receiver.

 

The short answer is that the specific style of antenna (of any that are in current use by GPS manufacturers) really doesn't make much difference in the end--the chipset is far and away the most important factor in reception.

Thank you for your kind explanation. Having had such good luck with the 60CSx, I'm wondering if the beefy looking, extenally protruding quad helix antenna is part of what makes this Garmin so good. I know the SiRF chip is excellent, but think that isn't the whole deal. If only the Oregon had this antenna and chipset, and a much brighter screen--that would be the killer!

But the eTrex HCx series, with its patch antenna, has at least as good (some early reviews said better) reception than the 60CSx. It had some subsequent drift issues, but those were caused by chipset firmware, which seems to have been fixed now. I would guess that the Oregon's reception "issues" (if you can call them that) are caused by chipset firmware as well. (I'm talking about the reported slight position lagging possibly caused by averaging of readings.) So, that just goes back to my point that the antenna really doesn't matter that much. Other factors can completely dwarf any minor advantage or disadvantage given by a particular antenna style.

[+JSWilson64]

My 2 cents: I have a Legend and a 60CSx. I much prefer the 60's buttons to the click-stick. I despise the click-stick, especially when trying to use the GPS on my bike. It's too easy to apply lateral pressure when clicking.

[+bikercr]

When you say "facing up" I presume you mean screen facing the sky, correct? What orientation is best for ceramic and how good are those antennae under dense cover? The 60CSx does incredibly well.

Yes, screen facing the sky. I don't have an Oregon but others who do have reported that the orientation (horizontal or vertical) doesn't seem to matter as much, but holding it with the screen facing the ground impairs reception (why would you do that anyway?). Also users report poorer reception for the Oregon when carried in a pocket, etc (relative to other models), but I haven't read any specific reports of problems in dense cover. On the contrary, Oregon owners seems to think the reception in difficult conditions is as good as any other high-sensitivity GPS receiver.

 

The short answer is that the specific style of antenna (of any that are in current use by GPS manufacturers) really doesn't make much difference in the end--the chipset is far and away the most important factor in reception.

Thank you for your kind explanation. Having had such good luck with the 60CSx, I'm wondering if the beefy looking, extenally protruding quad helix antenna is part of what makes this Garmin so good. I know the SiRF chip is excellent, but think that isn't the whole deal. If only the Oregon had this antenna and chipset, and a much brighter screen--that would be the killer!

But the eTrex HCx series, with its patch antenna, has at least as good (some early reviews said better) reception than the 60CSx. It had some subsequent drift issues, but those were caused by chipset firmware, which seems to have been fixed now. I would guess that the Oregon's reception "issues" (if you can call them that) are caused by chipset firmware as well. (I'm talking about the reported slight position lagging possibly caused by averaging of readings.) So, that just goes back to my point that the antenna really doesn't matter that much. Other factors can completely dwarf any minor advantage or disadvantage given by a particular antenna style.

As you know, I've got both models in my possession right now. The 60CSx is superior to the HCx under thick foliage with the 2.8 update of the HCx. Whether that's the chipset or the quad helix or some combination--who knows? I think the externalized antenna's got to pull in weaker signals better than an inside the case patch antenna.

[GeoBobC]

I've tested both and share the sentiment: "The 60CSx is superior to the HCx under thick foliage". I live in Washington state and have had outstanding performance from two 60Cx units. The HCx performs better than non X units, but not as well as the 60Cx units in my side by side testing.

[+StarBrand]

....As you know, I've got both models in my possession right now. The 60CSx is superior to the HCx under thick foliage with the 2.8 update of the HCx. Whether that's the chipset or the quad helix or some combination--who knows? I think the externalized antenna's got to pull in weaker signals better than an inside the case patch antenna.

I rather strongly agree.

 

but is that difference worth another $80 to $100 bucks???

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Thanks for all the great feedback. One other question though. If I go with the 60, is the CSx with the electronic compass really worth the extra cash over the 60Cx? Are there other features that make one better than the other?

 

The best single feature for geocaching on a GPS unit is a three pole electronic compass ( assuming ALL have mapping)

[+bikercr]

....As you know, I've got both models in my possession right now. The 60CSx is superior to the HCx under thick foliage with the 2.8 update of the HCx. Whether that's the chipset or the quad helix or some combination--who knows? I think the externalized antenna's got to pull in weaker signals better than an inside the case patch antenna.

I rather strongly agree.

 

but is that difference worth another $80 to $100 bucks???

What's more than worth that price difference is the far superior screen on the 60CSx and the much better, easier to use button layout. The one advantage to the HCx is its smaller form factor, if that's important to the user. The difference in GPS sensitivity may not be that critical for the "home gamer".

[Orion84]

What's more than worth that price difference is the far superior screen on the 60CSx and the much better, easier to use button layout. The one advantage to the HCx is its smaller form factor, if that's important to the user. The difference in GPS sensitivity may not be that critical for the "home gamer".

What exactly do you mean by 'far superior'? OK, the 60CSx's screen is a bit taller (part of which is taken up by the permanent battery/gpsfix/clock indicator bar), but the resolution is slightly lower than that of the HCx (111dpi vs 123dpi).

 

I was at my uncle's place today and was able to compare my Vista HCx to his recently bought 60CSx and I can't say I was overly impressed by the screen of the 60CSx, it appeared to me to be less crisp (like when you are not using the native resolution on the TFT of your PC) and the contrast of my HCx appeared to better as well (with backlight on).

 

Button layout might be an advantage indeed though. I'm quite used to handling my HCx by now, so it is hard to tell, but I can imagine the 60CSx is easier. I do agree with someone who posted here that the rocker button of the HCx is a bit annoying at times, especially when you are in a less stable position, for instance while cycling with the device mounted on the handlebar.

 

Personaly I chose the Vista HCx over the 60CSx, mostly because the functionality is almost exactly the same and the HCx is a lot cheaper. I also like the compactness of the HCx

Edited November 19, 2008 by Orion84

[+Team GeoBlast]

I've tested both and share the sentiment: "The 60CSx is superior to the HCx under thick foliage". I live in Washington state and have had outstanding performance from two 60Cx units. The HCx performs better than non X units, but not as well as the 60Cx units in my side by side testing.

 

I'll through in a yeah here too. If you cache in places like canyons or with a thick canopy, the 60cx or 60csx is a superior unit. That said, that was not the deciding factor for me. It was the rugged design. I'm hard on my gear and need things that can take a lickin.