Another frustrating Colorado update... #%$@%#*& !

[GParrini]

Another Colorado update (2.9) and yet nothing about the single two most awaited features:

 

- Track Manager

- Waypoint Averaging

 

I really can't understand why a device that focuses so much in geocaching misses these two tools that are so important to geocachers in my view.

 

In most cases accuracy is of greatest importance when PLACING a cache and have an enormous, uncategorized, hard to mantain Track list isn't too friendly either.

 

I don't know about you guys but this really pisses me off...

Edited December 10, 2008 by GParrini

[+geodarts]

Waypoint averaging and a fix for the Wherigo caches that the Colorado does not handle.

[+Timpat]

Another Colorado update (2.9) and yet nothing about the single two most awaited features:

 

- Track Manager

- Waypoint Averaging

 

I don't know about you guys but this really pisses me off...

I totally agree! I can't tell you how many times I have emailed and phoned techsupp asking for these two utilities that even my ole' blue Legend has. The upstart Oregon came with the Track Manager! Wake up Garmin, a lot of geocachers are looking at, and buying, the Delorme PN-40.

[+ADS1]

Another Colorado update (2.9) and yet nothing about the single two most awaited features:

 

- Track Manager

- Waypoint Averaging

 

I don't know about you guys but this really pisses me off...

I totally agree! I can't tell you how many times I have emailed and phoned techsupp asking for these two utilities that even my ole' blue Legend has. The upstart Oregon came with the Track Manager! Wake up Garmin, a lot of geocachers are looking at, and buying, the Delorme PN-40.

 

I must also agree. I have never owned anything but a Garmin GPS, starting with the 12XL, Vista, Vista C, 60CSx, and now the Colorado. It appears to me that Garmin has given up on the Colorado. For those of us who try to buy on the leading edge of Garmin products, I feel it was very unfair to follow the Colorado with the Oregon and then not support the Colorado in the manner in which is expected from Garmin owners. I really like Garmin, but they have done those of us who jumped out and purchased the Colorado a big injustice. Still love my Garmins, but I did just purchase a Delorme PN 40. When companies get too big, they sometimes lose customer service. Garmin is getting close to gaining this reputation in my humble opinion. Please understand that I love my Garmin GPS units.

[GParrini]

 

I totally agree! I can't tell you how many times I have emailed and phoned techsupp asking for these two utilities that even my ole' blue Legend has.

 

That is exactly what annoys me the most..

 

I think people that want these features must become much more vocal about it.

 

C'mon people... talk about it in the forums, call support, e-mail Garmin. That's what made they drag their gigantic *ss and at least tried to fix the "drifting" problem...

Edited December 10, 2008 by GParrini

[+RonFisk]

I've had 5 Colorado 400t's. All with different problems and have talked to Garmin numerous times about the shortcomings of the Colorado. It seems to me that most of these problems should have been addressed by now. In February it will have been one year and we still have a inferior piece of equipment. Where are all the fixes that we were promised? I'm finally getting fed up and going back to my 60CSx which is the last decent GPSr made by Garmin. My next gps purchase won't be a Garmin product. My biggest gripe is that Garmin doesn't seem to care. I have never seem any type of feedback from them on this or any other forum.....

Edited December 10, 2008 by RonFisk

[yogazoo]

Those with Colorado's who feel they've been jipped I recommend you call Garmin and demand a unit replacement with an Oregon. I did and I couldn't be happier.

Edited December 10, 2008 by yogazoo

[+Red90]

Those with Colorado's who feel they've been jipped I recommend you call Garmin and demand a unit replacement with an Oregon. I did and I couldn't be happier.

 

Oh yah, it is wonderful... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=209409

 

[yogazoo]

I know, I know. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire but still I'm happy-ER. Looks like Garmin decided to save a few bucks and go with the rookie programmers. For whatever reason Garmin is really sucking in the handheld market of late.

[+KJcachers]

We looked at Garmins but decided to upgrade our backup Magellan to a DeLorme PN-40. We were using a PN-20 as our main GPSr and with all the enhancements on the PN-40 as well as the great customer service and active rolls in message board forums from DeLorme we just decided to go all DeLorme. PN-40 as our main and PN-20 as the backup.

[+RRLover]

I know, I know. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire but still I'm happy-ER. Looks like Garmin decided to save a few bucks and go with the rookie programmers. For whatever reason Garmin is really sucking in the handheld market of late.

I think they(Garmin) got a good deal on all the coders that Magellan's cut loose, and I don't mean the european contingent.

 

Norm

Edited December 10, 2008 by RRLover

[GParrini]

Those with Colorado's who feel they've been jipped I recommend you call Garmin and demand a unit replacement with an Oregon. I did and I couldn't be happier.

Yes, but they are different products. The Colorado is the only with an external antenna jack and I think the Oregon is more on the recreational side than the Colorado. Besides that, the Oregon algorithm tends to favor stability on the track instead of precision by averaging more times before marking a moving trackpoint. There are reports of the Oregon "cutting corners" because of that. I think the Oregon is *not* the "next Colorado" (someone who who owns both can see that) they are complimentary products to different markets and I think they should be kept in the same level of maintenance... **That** is what I think Garmin is overlooking...

[+splashy]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=206710

 

Once again, sent Garmin an Email telling them WE ARE NOT HAPPY

after 2 faulty upgrades for Colorado and Oregon

 

Now please make averaging available on these units.

[Dosido]

I still think you Garmin guys are missing the boat. Coming to the CO from an Explorist, the thing I really want is the ability to load 5 bazillion gpx files to the unit/SD card, and have a file manager to select the active GPX file.

 

Track manager would be cool, but waypoint averaging doesn't really matter to me - I only hide caches every couple of months anyway.

 

That said, yeah, I too would like a substantive firmware update!

[Braff-n-MandaRue]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

[MtnHermit]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

How dare you. This thread is only for rants.

[+Tequila]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

 

Garmin has enough of them in the returns bin that surely they were able to make ONE good one.

[yogazoo]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

 

This high-road vs low-road sarcasm grows tiring. Most folks in here are simply trying to get answers. Obviously frustrated, they may be precieved as "haters". Simply a perception. I'll bet most here like their Colorado's and Oregons to some degree otherwise they would have sold them a long time ago. Let's face it some people, for their uses, love it. Others, who became acustomed to certain features being present are otherwise miffed a bit at their exclusion. In case you missed it there is a long page of ISSUES on both Wiki pages. For some those issues don't matter and others they do. Dont percieve those who take issue with the issues to be whiners.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

After reading through the list of issues peope are having with the most recent Oregon update, I decided to "test" my Colorado with this update to see if I could reproduce any of their problems.

 

I found that the 3D View problem that appeared in this release of the Oregon update also appears in this release of the Colorado update. I now have the "sky blue" screen when I go into 3D View. It worked once, but that was it...

[+StarBrand]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

 

This high-road vs low-road sarcasm grows tiring. Most folks in here are simply trying to get answers. Obviously frustrated, they may be precieved as "haters". Simply a perception. I'll bet most here like their Colorado's and Oregons to some degree otherwise they would have sold them a long time ago. Let's face it some people, for their uses, love it. Others, who became acustomed to certain features being present are otherwise miffed a bit at their exclusion. In case you missed it there is a long page of ISSUES on both Wiki pages. For some those issues don't matter and others they do. Dont percieve those who take issue with the issues to be whiners.

...and likewise please do not take issue with those of us that DO like our Colorado units and have trouble understanding why some are so adament that the units are somehow defective because they do not include features of a different model line.

[GParrini]

This high-road vs low-road sarcasm grows tiring. Most folks in here are simply trying to get answers. Obviously frustrated, they may be precieved as "haters". Simply a perception. I'll bet most here like their Colorado's and Oregons to some degree otherwise they would have sold them a long time ago. Let's face it some people, for their uses, love it. Others, who became acustomed to certain features being present are otherwise miffed a bit at their exclusion. In case you missed it there is a long page of ISSUES on both Wiki pages. For some those issues don't matter and others they do. Dont percieve those who take issue with the issues to be whiners.

Exactly.

 

I started this thread because I love my Colorado (honestly, I do). If I thought it was a piece of junk I would get rid of it instead of come here to complain.

 

The point is: only because I like my CO I need it to be feature complete. And we are not talking about mind-blowing extravagant new features like satellite imagery...

 

I am just asking for a lousy Track Manager and Waypoint Averaging !!!

[+g-o-cashers]

After reading through the list of issues peope are having with the most recent Oregon update, I decided to "test" my Colorado with this update to see if I could reproduce any of their problems.

 

I found that the 3D View problem that appeared in this release of the Oregon update also appears in this release of the Colorado update. I now have the "sky blue" screen when I go into 3D View. It worked once, but that was it...

 

I tried 3D View on the CO yesterday and it worked but I didn't try it twice. BTW, this is an old issue on the Colorado which was fixed a while ago.

 

GO$Rs

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

After reading through the list of issues peope are having with the most recent Oregon update, I decided to "test" my Colorado with this update to see if I could reproduce any of their problems.

 

I found that the 3D View problem that appeared in this release of the Oregon update also appears in this release of the Colorado update. I now have the "sky blue" screen when I go into 3D View. It worked once, but that was it...

 

I tried 3D View on the CO yesterday and it worked but I didn't try it twice. BTW, this is an old issue on the Colorado which was fixed a while ago.

 

I have just done a little more playing with this and here is what I have see so far:

• The first time I enter 3D View after a new power cycle on any profile it seems to work but may take 10-30 seconds to display
  
• It seems to work on the Recreational, Marine & Fitess profiles every time but with about a 10 second delay
  
• The profiles that I have changed any settings on only appear to work once per power-on session
  

[+Red90]

I'm happy with my CO as well, but there are bug and they should be fixed.

 

Things like the track archiving system does not work properly. Since 2.40 or so the Geocaching symbols for some types are incorrect (OK at least half of the symbols). There are lots of little things. I'd like to see them fix everything, then you can complain about adding features.

 

Also both the OR and the CO should have the same features. Someone high up in Garmin really needs to wake up. Their reputation is being destroyed and it will catch up with them.

[+rockymtn8iv]

I had to go to my 'ole yellar dinosaur e-trex to find my last cache because my new colorado couldn't seem to hold onto a satellite signal. They both said "weak signal" but at least the e-trex "proved" itself again. I wouldn't trust the colorado in a backwoods emergency. Why is the new technology less reliable than the old?? That is my question.

[+Renegade Knight]

I think I must have a defective Colorado. I actually like it and don't much to complain about with it. There has to be something wrong with mine since I like it.

 

Your GPS is fine. It just doesn't do the job that a lot of people expect their GPS to do. A GPS is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. We all have a job for it to do else we would not have one. Either your expectations are simpler, your use different, or you don't know any different. None of those is broken. However neither are the expections of others where the Colorado falls short.

 

Garmin as a company should be looking at the 80/20 rule or maybe the 90/10 rule. The Colorado seems closer to the 50/50 rule. That opens the door for others to kick Garmins butt with their own GPS.

 

What I mean by the 80/20 rule is 80% of customers have everthing they want. 20% are missing something be it minor or major. No GPS will ever hit 100% because if it did, it would annoy 80% of users by being too complex.

[GParrini]

Garmin as a company should be looking at the 80/20 rule or maybe the 90/10 rule. The Colorado seems closer to the 50/50 rule. That opens the door for others to kick Garmins butt with their own GPS.

 

What I mean by the 80/20 rule is 80% of customers have everthing they want. 20% are missing something be it minor or major. No GPS will ever hit 100% because if it did, it would annoy 80% of users by being too complex.

 

Totally agree. But they are so close to changing this that would be plain stupid not to do...

[Braff-n-MandaRue]

 

Your GPS is fine. It just doesn't do the job that a lot of people expect their GPS to do. A GPS is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. We all have a job for it to do else we would not have one. Either your expectations are simpler, your use different, or you don't know any different. None of those is broken. However neither are the expections of others where the Colorado falls short.

 

 

Glad you explained that to me, my mind full of simple expectations couldn't figure that out.

 

Actually... I knew what the Colorado was before I bought it, I read the advertisements, the reviews, etc., and it came exactly as advertised.

 

I kind of see a lot of the arguments about track management and waypoint averaging as pointless. They weren't advertised as having it, so why should I expect they will ever change it.

 

It's kind of like buying a car without a radio in it. I make the decision to buy the car with no radio. Should I later complain about the car not having a radio? Even though I bought it knowing the car would not include the radio. I suppose I should complain to the company and demand that they give me a radio for the car, even though it's my fault for buying the model without the radio, even though they sale models that have a radio and I could have bought any one of those.

 

Garmin already sold GPSr's with the features asked for, it would have been just as easy to buy one of those.

 

Edit: Fixing the problems that they came screwed up with, that's different, like working the bugs out.. Kinda like when they re-call a car because it might suddenly burst into flames or something.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Braff-n-MandaRue

[GParrini]

I kind of see a lot of the arguments about track management and waypoint averaging as pointless. They weren't advertised as having it, so why should I expect they will ever change it.

 

It's kind of like buying a car without a radio in it. I make the decision to buy the car with no radio. Should I later complain about the car not having a radio? Even though I bought it knowing the car would not include the radio. I suppose I should complain to the company and demand that they give me a radio for the car, even though it's my fault for buying the model without the radio, even though they sale models that have a radio and I could have bought any one of those.

 

Garmin already sold GPSr's with the features asked for, it would have been just as easy to buy one of those.

 

Sorry, lame argument to compare two different industries.

 

The electronics industry led the consumer to get used with a different process: The hardware and the software are two different parts of the product. The marketing pressure makes the hardware engineering department to get the hardware PLATFORM ready ASAP an then the product is released, bugs and all. Then, with the product on the market, the software engineers start to collect market feedback (exactly what is going on here) and decide to fix the outstanding bugs and to drive the system (hardware + software) to what the market asks.

 

If industries thought like you, you would still be using the Windows XP released in 2001 or whatever other obsolete OS.

 

Manufacturers have a RESPONSABILITY with the consumers, especially because Garmin expects we continue to buy their maps and stuff.

 

Besides, the market is a moving target and Garmin cannot launch a new, monolithic product, everytime they want to compete. They have to iterate their current platform and drive it to the better response, it makes much more sense from an economic point of view.

Edited December 11, 2008 by GParrini

[+Renegade Knight]

 

Your GPS is fine. It just doesn't do the job that a lot of people expect their GPS to do. A GPS is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. We all have a job for it to do else we would not have one. Either your expectations are simpler, your use different, or you don't know any different. None of those is broken. However neither are the expections of others where the Colorado falls short.

 

 

Glad you explained that to me, my mind full of simple expectations couldn't figure that out....

 

Apparently not or you wouldn't have said that. Some people carry a leatherman, I carry a pocket knife. My expecations are simpler and the knife meets them. I don't need the multi tool. Needs would have been a better word to use.

 

To build on your car anology though.

I go to the passenger side to let in my date like a gentleman would. What? No Key slot? Now I can't do a basic thing I thought I could do. Yeah, it's my fault for assuming that car maker would follow a 100 year old convention. It's also my fault for liking the simplicity of a key and not liking to carry around the remote. Yet there I am, having to appologize to my date because my new car didn't do what every car I have ever seen in my entire life did. When I looked at a Jeep recently I forgot to check for the keyhole on the passenger side. I'll have to remember to do that.

 

When I looked at the Colorado full of anticipation at a GPS that was finally worth the upgrade, I did try out the basics. That's why I gave it back to the sales rep, dissapointed. I don't use 90% of the crud on my GPS. The 10% I do use is important. That too is simple.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+KJcachers]

This high-road vs low-road sarcasm grows tiring. Most folks in here are simply trying to get answers. Obviously frustrated, they may be precieved as "haters". Simply a perception. I'll bet most here like their Colorado's and Oregons to some degree otherwise they would have sold them a long time ago. Let's face it some people, for their uses, love it. Others, who became acustomed to certain features being present are otherwise miffed a bit at their exclusion. In case you missed it there is a long page of ISSUES on both Wiki pages. For some those issues don't matter and others they do. Dont percieve those who take issue with the issues to be whiners.

Exactly.

 

I started this thread because I love my Colorado (honestly, I do). If I thought it was a piece of junk I would get rid of it instead of come here to complain.

 

The point is: only because I like my CO I need it to be feature complete. And we are not talking about mind-blowing extravagant new features like satellite imagery...

 

I am just asking for a lousy Track Manager and Waypoint Averaging !!!

 

then buy a DeLorme!

[GParrini]

then buy a DeLorme!

 

Hey, I have been in their website... It appears they have a pretty solid product... Those videos are impressive, especially about precision, fast boot and high sensibility. And those maps are really cheap...

[+RonFisk]

The Colorado is designed to be a geocaching tool. As such it should have track management and waypoint averaging. There are many other functions it could have as well, but if you depend on sales literature and sales persons you are wasting your time. The main complaint is that it's been out almost a year and after many suggestions and complaints, less than 10% of the problems have been resolved.

[MtnHermit]

The Colorado is designed to be a geocaching tool.

Really, says who. I've always thought of the Colorado a a general purpose handheld GPS. Geocaching is but one of many capabilities. After all why would it have wireless cadence and heart monitoring, are those for geocaching?

 

As such it should have track management and waypoint averaging.

Why is track management important to geocaching? I've never seen a track used in a geocache, have you?

[+StarBrand]

....

As such it should have track management and waypoint averaging.

Why is track management important to geocaching? I've never seen a track used in a geocache, have you?

I was wondering the same thing. I might be missing something maybe but in nearly 7 years of doing this - I have never used or needed to use any kind of "track" or track manager to find any cache I have been to.

 

Lots of good discussion and arguments as to why averaging just does not add much value to a set of coordinates. Basically - if you have a poor signal or 'spread' on the satellites - you are just averaging 'bad' data. If you have a good lock/signal and have good geometry in the spread of the satellites then a single reading is good enough.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why is track management important to geocaching? I've never seen a track used in a geocache, have you?

It's not important for finding a cache.

If you ride though it's handy to see where you went. If you map trails it's important as well.

If you are a hunter it handy to help you find your way back where you went last time.

If you are an artist, they have track art now.

 

It's one of those "other" uses for a GPS that some cachers also enjoy, as well as a lot of non cachers.

[+StarBrand]

...Why is track management important to geocaching? I've never seen a track used in a geocache, have you?

It's not important for finding a cache.

If you ride though it's handy to see where you went. If you map trails it's important as well.

If you are a hunter it handy to help you find your way back where you went last time.

If you are an artist, they have track art now.

 

It's one of those "other" uses for a GPS that some cachers also enjoy, as well as a lot of non cachers.

The Colorado can do all of that.

[+qlenfg]

By track management, you mean the ability to pick one of several tracks, highlight that track, and follow your path back from whenst you came?

[+Teddy2k]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't WANT to manage all my tracks on my Colorado.... I want to manage them on my computer (in my case, I keep them all stored in MapSource). Same with geocaches.... I don't WANT to manage them on the GPSr other than to mark them is found/not found/etc.... I manage them in GSAK.

[+Timpat]

The point of the Track Manager is to allow the viewing of multiple saved tracks, and assigning different colors to them, all together on the map screen. All mapping grade Garmin hand helds have had this utility, even the Oregon, except the Colorado.

 

This is very handy for hiking where many trails are present, or you have bushwhacked and saved your tracks, and want to view them all in relation to each other. I want to repeat, even the Oregon came with this utility.

[+StarBrand]

The point of the Track Manager is to allow the viewing of multiple saved tracks, and assigning different colors to them, all together on the map screen. All mapping grade Garmin hand helds have had this utility, even the Oregon, except the Colorado.

...

hmmm - lets see........ I own all of the following

 

Garmin Legend Blue - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Rino 120 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Venture Cx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Legend HCx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin GPSMap 60C - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Colorado 300 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Oregon 200 - oh there it is - never use it

[GParrini]

hmmm - lets see........ I own all of the following

 

Garmin Legend Blue - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Rino 120 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Venture Cx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Legend HCx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin GPSMap 60C - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Colorado 300 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Oregon 200 - oh there it is - never use it

 

Oh, c'mon... I can't imagine someone being this awkward... if you don't need it, fine... but the fact that you don't need it doesn't mean nobody in the world shouldn't. I can make a very good use of a Track Manager and Waypoint Averaging, so?

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

hmmm - lets see........ I own all of the following

 

Garmin Legend Blue - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Rino 120 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Venture Cx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Legend HCx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin GPSMap 60C - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Colorado 300 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Oregon 200 - oh there it is - never use it

 

Check again. You should be able to display multiple saved tracks on them (and change their color on the color units). Except for the Colorado, of course!

Edited December 23, 2008 by Redwoods Mtn Biker

[+StarBrand]

hmmm - lets see........ I own all of the following

 

Garmin Legend Blue - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Rino 120 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Venture Cx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Legend HCx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin GPSMap 60C - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Colorado 300 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Oregon 200 - oh there it is - never use it

 

Oh, c'mon... I can't imagine someone being this awkward... if you don't need it, fine... but the fact that you don't need it doesn't mean nobody in the world shouldn't. I can make a very good use of a Track Manager and Waypoint Averaging, so?

My question was - (if you look above) - how is it useful to Geocaching?? Since many posts in this very thread indicate it is a strongly desired tool specifically for Geocaching.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - no ad or website or statement from Garmin ever tried to label either the Colorado or Oregon as upgrades or replacemnts for the 60CSx. Therefore the 60CSx is probably a better tool for those desiring features it has that are not found on the Colorado. No need to continually deride the Colorado for not being what anybody at Garmin said it was.

[MtnHermit]

hmmm - lets see........ I own all of the following

 

Garmin Legend Blue - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Rino 120 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Venture Cx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Legend HCx - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin GPSMap 60C - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Colorado 300 - mapping unit - nope - no track manager

Garmin Oregon 200 - oh there it is - never use it

You must be quite the Geek when you have all those strapped to your belt in the field. Perhaps you use a bandoleer?

 

I'll bet you've never been lost.

[+StarBrand]

Ok Ok - I can admit when I am wrong.

 

Most of the above listed units do indeed have a menu item under which you can save your track. I have never used it and I guess I didn't really think of that as any kind of "manager". I have always loaded my tracks into a computer when I am interested in them.

 

I apologize......

[+Red90]

With all due respect, the track management system on the older units was useless. 20 tracks of 500 points each served no useful purpose.

 

What we have now is better, even with the bugs. Unlimited 20000 point tracks. Once they fixed it like the Oregon, it will be leaps and bounds better than the old units.

[+TotemLake]

With all due respect, the track management system on the older units was useless. 20 tracks of 500 points each served no useful purpose.

 

What we have now is better, even with the bugs. Unlimited 20000 point tracks. Once they fixed it like the Oregon, it will be leaps and bounds better than the old units.

With all due respect, when technology was where it was at then, that 500 point track was amazing stuff. Don't sneeze at what proved to be an appropriate stepping stone to developing today's technology.

[+Red90]

With all due respect, when technology was where it was at then, that 500 point track was amazing stuff. Don't sneeze at what proved to be an appropriate stepping stone to developing today's technology.

 

Maybe in 1996 when handhelds first started making mainstream. But not in 2006 when the 60csx came out. It was a horrid joke. It is for all respects useless. That is the MAIN reason I started up a trail mapping project. If Garmin had its act together, it probably never would have happened.

[+TotemLake]

With all due respect, when technology was where it was at then, that 500 point track was amazing stuff. Don't sneeze at what proved to be an appropriate stepping stone to developing today's technology.

 

Maybe in 1996 when handhelds first started making mainstream. But not in 2006 when the 60csx came out. It was a horrid joke. It is for all respects useless. That is the MAIN reason I started up a trail mapping project. If Garmin had its act together, it probably never would have happened.

In 2006, Garmin had finished designing the GPS software to work with a new compression format for the maps they were licensing for the GPS units. As a company you prioritize what is more important. IN this case, making sure the units worked with the new compression formats was more critical. Not increasing track point levels.