Oregon 400t vs. 60CSx

[+Xantos10]

I had been using a Garmn 60CSX until it was stolen a few weeks ago and I replaced it with an Oregon 400t. As I looked for a new GPS, each model had it's pluses and minuses. Not sure why Garmin can't make one that has the good features of both but that is another issue. My 60CSX was very fast and accurate. However, it did not have a Paperless function as did the Oregon. I decided on the Oregon simply because of the Paperless feature. Was it worth giving up the quickness of the 60CSX? I think so. I really like being able to look for caches without taking around a huge notebook of papers. The Oregon has it's quirks concerning pointing me in the right direction to the cache, but I have learned to work around them. Also, all the fuss over not being to see the screen was overkill. I don't have any problem seeing the screen in any daylight condition. I do wish it had the same antenna as the 60 and I think there are some shortcomings with the chipset, but overall the Oregon 400t is one of the best Handheld GPSs on the Market. The 60CSX is definitely a workhorse of a GPS but technology is leaving it in the dust. I would highly recommend both of them, but for me, I think the Oregon has a slight advantage over the 60CSX.

 

So what's your opinion of the two GPSs???? Or is there another one you like best????

Edited July 29, 2009 by Xantos10

[+wkmccall]

I had been using a Garmn 60CSX until it was stolen a few weeks ago and I replaced it with an Oregon 400t. As I looked for a new GPS, each model had it's pluses and minuses. Not sure why Garmin can't make one that has the good features of both but that is another issue. My 60CSX was very fast and accurate. However, it did not have a Paperless function as did the Oregon. I decided on the Oregon simply because of the Paperless feature. Was it worth giving up the quickness of the 60CSX? I think so. I really like being able to look for caches without taking around a huge notebook of papers. The Oregon has it's quirks concerning pointing me in the right direction to the cache, but I have learned to work around them. Also, all the fuss over not being to see the screen was overkill. I don't have any problem seeing the screen in any daylight condition. I do wish it had the same antenna as the 60 and I think there are some shortcomings with the chipset, but overall the Oregon 400t is one of the best Handheld GPSs on the Market. The 60CSX is definitely a workhorse of a GPS but technology is leaving it in the dust. I would highly recommend both of them, but for me, I think the Oregon has a slight advantage over the 60CSX.

 

So what's your opinion of the two GPSs???? Or is there another one you like best????

 

Don't know about carrying a notebook around for paperless. I carry my cellphone for that.

Personally, I have no plans on moving away from my 60csx

You are also comparing two unites that have different jobs (so to speak).

[+RonFisk]

I had been using a Garmn 60CSX until it was stolen a few weeks ago and I replaced it with an Oregon 400t. As I looked for a new GPS, each model had it's pluses and minuses. Not sure why Garmin can't make one that has the good features of both but that is another issue. My 60CSX was very fast and accurate. However, it did not have a Paperless function as did the Oregon. I decided on the Oregon simply because of the Paperless feature. Was it worth giving up the quickness of the 60CSX? I think so. I really like being able to look for caches without taking around a huge notebook of papers. The Oregon has it's quirks concerning pointing me in the right direction to the cache, but I have learned to work around them. Also, all the fuss over not being to see the screen was overkill. I don't have any problem seeing the screen in any daylight condition. I do wish it had the same antenna as the 60 and I think there are some shortcomings with the chipset, but overall the Oregon 400t is one of the best Handheld GPSs on the Market. The 60CSX is definitely a workhorse of a GPS but technology is leaving it in the dust. I would highly recommend both of them, but for me, I think the Oregon has a slight advantage over the 60CSX.

 

So what's your opinion of the two GPSs???? Or is there another one you like best????

 

Don't know about carrying a notebook around for paperless. I carry my cellphone for that.

Personally, I have no plans on moving away from my 60csx

You are also comparing two unites that have different jobs (so to speak).

One question: If your 60 were to fail would you replace it with another 60 or possibly consider something else?

[+JBnW]

RonFisk, please excuse me butting into your question; I've already had to replace a 76 CSx, and selected a 76 CSx. Just use it for too many other tasks than caching, and the GPSr performance outwieghs built-in paperless features. And, yes, the OR and CO were already out, PN-40 was still "coming soon". If I had a choice again, I would most likely look at a Garmin, only because of the investment in map products. Nothing against the OR, CO, Dakota, PN-40, haven't really played with any of them, but I disagree that a "non-paperless" GPSr means one has to rely on paper print-outs. There are many other ways around that barn! Cheers!

[+subthemariner]

I have both units as well. I'm finally getting the bugs worked out of my Oregon 400t, except Oregon flouders in tree cover. The Oregon is more user friendly as well. If you can afford it, have both. It has been my experience that one may stop working at the worst time.

[+jeanne123]

Flounders under tree cover?? I thought those two units had the same chipset. Any idea why one would perform better than the other if that is true? I figure even the worst high-sensitivity receiver will be light years ahead of my old Map330, which gets totally lost in tree cover or urban canyons. Are we talking about a distance of a few feet, or about totally losing satellites?

 

I have both units as well. I'm finally getting the bugs worked out of my Oregon 400t, except Oregon flouders in tree cover. The Oregon is more user friendly as well. If you can afford it, have both. It has been my experience that one may stop working at the worst time.

[+subthemariner]

Flounders under tree cover?? I thought those two units had the same chipset. Any idea why one would perform better than the other if that is true? I figure even the worst high-sensitivity receiver will be light years ahead of my old Map330, which gets totally lost in tree cover or urban canyons. Are we talking about a distance of a few feet, or about totally losing satellites?

 

I have both units as well. I'm finally getting the bugs worked out of my Oregon 400t, except Oregon flouders in tree cover. The Oregon is more user friendly as well. If you can afford it, have both. It has been my experience that one may stop working at the worst time.

Fair question. My urban canyon experience is limited, however crawling on my belly in Florida swamp is not. My Oregon changes it's mind constantly in tree cover. Even if you set it on the ground, it will vary 3-25 ft. If doing a slow creep, lets say 400m., your trail looks likes your signing your name through the bushes. I'm only saying the 60 seems to be more constant. In the open they seem to be equal.

My point however is, I have had my gps stop working at the worst time possible. Not geocaching, but operating a fuel oil barge across the Gulf of Mexico. It happens. That's why I have three aboard at all times!

Best regards.

Capt. BP

[+Knight2000]

My 60CSX was very fast and accurate. Was it worth giving up the quickness of the 60CSX?

What is the quickness you are talking about? Have you upgraded the firmware on the Oregon? Once upgraded it works great and seems very fast.

[+EraSeek]

I have both an Oregon 400t and a 60cx. Generally I feel the 60cx is the best unit to date, and the Oregon400t the most convenient. I use both, and enjoy both.