Garmin Oregon vs. Colorado vs. Dakotas?

[+trippy1976]

So, these all appear to be virtually the same products with differences in form factors, but I'm sure there is more to it.

 

I'm looking to update my GPS. I was looking primarily at the Oregons and in the 200 level, I want a good caching feature, bright screen, durable unit, and ability to load maps and route. I have a 60Cx right now and love it, but it's seen better days so I want to step up.

 

I've been scared off the colorados - not many of the people I know personally gave these units high marks.

 

But I don't know anyone with an Oregon and have their feedback and I can't really divine what makes a Dakota different from the Oregon and Colorados... It looks like the Dakota is just a new entry level unit, the baby Oregon. True?

 

So at this point, I'm pretty set on an Oregon 200. But confirmation of my assumption about the Dakota would be helpful and anyone who has personal input on their experience with any of these units would be helpful. I'm searching the forum too but I figured I'd post out.

[+RonFisk]

So, these all appear to be virtually the same products with differences in form factors, but I'm sure there is more to it.

 

I'm looking to update my GPS. I was looking primarily at the Oregons and in the 200 level, I want a good caching feature, bright screen, durable unit, and ability to load maps and route. I have a 60Cx right now and love it, but it's seen better days so I want to step up.

 

I've been scared off the colorados - not many of the people I know personally gave these units high marks.

 

But I don't know anyone with an Oregon and have their feedback and I can't really divine what makes a Dakota different from the Oregon and Colorados... It looks like the Dakota is just a new entry level unit, the baby Oregon. True?

 

So at this point, I'm pretty set on an Oregon 200. But confirmation of my assumption about the Dakota would be helpful and anyone who has personal input on their experience with any of these units would be helpful. I'm searching the forum too but I figured I'd post out.

 

Navigate to this web site and draw your own conclusions: http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/

[+Red90]

There is nothing wrong with the Colorados. As they were the "first" of this style to come out, they suffered from poor initial firmware. This was mostly fixed by the time the Oregons came out, so the Oregons "seemed" better. The firmwares of all units got past the buggy stage a long time ago.

 

There are some differences in the software on the units and much of it is personal preference. You will find people that prefer the Oregons and some that prefer the Colorados. Dakotas are smaller units similar to the Oregons, but without some features.

[+facade66]

Hi,

 

Compared to a 60CSX with the little joypad data entry system, page, enter &menu keys

 

The colorado is a real pain to enter data with its scroll wheel, you also click & roll to get to the screens.

The oregon is better with its touchscreen, but you can't see it outside very well, nigh on useless on my 'bike.

Page selection is always via the main menu icons, not as easy as a vista or 60.

 

Being a luddite, I also find it a lot more difficult to get data in and out of the oregon/colorado. With the USB plugged in, they don't work. On a vista or 60 you can see a waypoint or track appear when you upload it, which I like.

 

The paperless feature is nice, but I can't just swap pages from hint to compass, I have to navigate a set of menus.

 

Basically, I have access to a 60SCX a vista a colorado and an oregon (just got it at Christmas) and I always pick up the vista.

[+Red90]

The paperless feature is nice, but I can't just swap pages from hint to compass, I have to navigate a set of menus.

 

You can on a Colorado.

 

Your post is a good example of someone giving an opinion that does not know how to use the units fully. It is important to first know all the little tricks and shortcuts.

[+ecanderson]

It is important to first know all the little tricks and shortcuts.

It is perhaps more important -- well, it'd be spiffy, anyway -- if Garmin would produce a manual worthy of their products, and not rely on 3rd party Wiki pages and a forum like this to document their products' operation. It's one thing to be "modern" and produce a crap paper manual and then put the real goods on the CD, but they're not giving you any additional documentation on the CD! Edited January 4, 2010 by ecanderson

[+Ladybug Kids]

The oregon is better with its touchscreen, but you can't see it outside very well, nigh on useless on my 'bike.

Try Setup>Map>Advanced Map Setup>Shaded Relief>Do Not Show to increase the contrast on the Oregon. This setting makes the Oregon much easier to read in bright daylight.

 

I'm plenty pleased with my Oregon 300. It survived a thirteen hour day of caching at 0° F on a single set of rechargeable batteries last weekend, the user interface is intuitive (out of the box, maps loaded, to first cache find in less an thirty minutes), and Garmin consistently upgrades the firmware and software.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Ladybug Kids

[+fegan]

The colorado is a real pain to enter data with its scroll wheel, you also click & roll to get to the screens.

The oregon is better with its touchscreen, but you can't see it outside very well, nigh on useless on my 'bike.

 

Can you define 'better' for us?

 

I own a Colorado 400t and have used my friend's Oregon 400t a few times. Except for entering field note comments, I actually prefer the Colorado's Rock 'n Roll interface and simply keep my comments short when logging visits.

 

Having tried both, if I were buying today and given the choice between a Colorado 400t or an Oregon 400t, I would still go with the Colorado 400t.

 

As always...YMMV

[min68]

I had experience with Dakota 20, Colorado 300 and 60CX

To me Colorado text input is nightmare, not acceptable at all. (Can you image to input ONE letter you have to repeat an operation for dozens of times?)

 

To compare Dakota 20 and 60CX:

 

60CX wins: better visible screen, higher sensitive.

In my basement 60CX locks stable but Dakota lost lock from time to time. When locked, I read the accuracy for 5 times, average of 60CX is 9m, Dakota is 22m.

 

Dakota Wins: easy use touch screen, running much faster .

Using same map on both units, time needed (m=minute, s=second)

1, searching certain POI: Dakota =9s; 60CX=34s

2, Auto-route calculation:

1) 36km: Dakota=4s, 60cx=20s

2) 1200km: Dakota=19s, 60CX=1m40s

3) 5020km: Dakota=34s, 60CX="Memory Error" after 2m12s

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

The Dakota screen is somewhat brighter than the Oregon. It's the first of these that I could really use on a bike. My review of the Dakota 20...

http://gpstracklog.com/2009/10/garmin-dakota-20-review.html