Garmin Oregon 450 vs Montana 600

[+BMndFul]

I recently lost a Oregon 450 to a home theft. I am trying to figure out if there are any performance difference between the Oregon 450 and the Montana 600. Anyone have any experience with both of them.? I liked the Oregon 450, but might upgrade to the Montana if it is an upgrade. I not interested in the Montana 650T with camera etc.

[yogazoo]

For starters the Montana is a giant leap forward in terms of customization and ease of use. The Montana also currently has over 20 new data fields and some redesigned dashboards. It can be used in landscape mode and will speak voice directions if you plug in your headphones or have an auto-mount.

 

It's also higher priced and bulkier than the Oregon 450.

 

I've had both units and using a 450 seems primitive to me now after using the Montana.

[+BMndFul]

For starters the Montana is a giant leap forward in terms of customization and ease of use. The Montana also currently has over 20 new data fields and some redesigned dashboards. It can be used in landscape mode and will speak voice directions if you plug in your headphones or have an auto-mount.

 

It's also higher priced and bulkier than the Oregon 450.

 

I've had both units and using a 450 seems primitive to me now after using the Montana.

 

Thanks for the reply. Outside of the ergo differences, is there a difference in performance while geocaching (signal lock, accuracy etc.?)

[yogazoo]

is there a difference in performance while geocaching (signal lock, accuracy etc.?)

 

I'm sure some people will have their opinions one way or the other but practically, especially for geocaching, they have the same accuracy. Same accuracy as any handheld that's not completely in beta. Both units will also typically have a sat-lock before the unit is even booted up.

 

One difference I think worth mentioning is that the Montana's processor appears to be a bit quicker. Screen redraws are snappier with alot of data enabled such as Birdseye Imagery, transparent maps over topo maps etc. I also have meat rolls for fingers and data entry is made easier on the Montana due to the much larger screen.

[+baloo&bd]

I recently lost a Oregon 450 to a home theft. I am trying to figure out if there are any performance difference between the Oregon 450 and the Montana 600. Anyone have any experience with both of them.? I liked the Oregon 450, but might upgrade to the Montana if it is an upgrade. I not interested in the Montana 650T with camera etc.

 

Oregon is much more geocaching friendly, I feel saddled with the Montana, which is really just a Nuvi made into a handheld and a poor geocaching implmentation. I think most that praise it do so because the have not experienced the 60, CO or OR series. The only real upgrade is the amount of caches it holds, which is something like 14K.

Edited December 1, 2011 by baloo&bd

[yogazoo]

I'd actually like to hear more about the differences in geocaching features between the Oregon 450 and Montana 6xx. It's true that my primary use for a GPS unit isn't geocaching so I'm guessing the OP (and myself) would be interested in hearing more details. Thanks in advance.

Edited December 1, 2011 by yogazoo

[+Styk]

I recently lost a Oregon 450 to a home theft. I am trying to figure out if there are any performance difference between the Oregon 450 and the Montana 600. Anyone have any experience with both of them.? I liked the Oregon 450, but might upgrade to the Montana if it is an upgrade. I not interested in the Montana 650T with camera etc.

 

Oregon is much more geocaching friendly, I feel saddled with the Montana, which is really just a Nuvi made into a handheld and a poor geocaching implmentation. I think most that praise it do so because the have not experienced the 60, CO or OR series. The only real upgrade is the amount of caches it holds, which is something like 14K.

It's true, everyone has different opinions of what qualifies as "the best". If owned and used for geocaching the 60C, 60Cx, Legend Cx, Legend HCx, colorado, oregon and now the Montana 600.

 

IMHO, best button operated GPS... 60Cx

best touch screen, Montana

 

Oregon Montana

dim display bright display

fits well in hand or pocket lil large for hand or pocket

hi res screen, small letters/icons low res screen, larger letters/icons

5000 geocaches 12000 geocaches

supports Wherigo does not support Wherigo

[+eusty]

I just went through the same exercise!

 

I went for the 450 as the 600 is too big/heavy and it was £170 more than the 450 ...ith not much to show for the money really.

 

[+coachstahly]

I have a 650t, but used to use my 60csx and got to play a few times with my friend's OR. I started out with my EVO, but quickly realized that some caches would need a much more durable piece of equipment. Looked at the reviews and bought a 60 csx based mostly on the reviews posted here. I use my units for geocaching primarily, navigation and hiking less frequently.

 

Loved it from the get-go. Learning to use the buttons took a bit, but wasn't too bad. Shortly after starting, I met my first geocacher and he had the OR. On and off we've gone out and I've had the opportunity to use it. Nice screen compared to the csx and liked the touch screen more than the buttons I was using.

 

Wasn't really considering upgrading until this came out. I liked the OR, but didn't feel it warranted my money to upgrade. The ability for the Montana to complement/replace our Nuvi was a tipping point for getting it. Unlike most of the posters that had problems (I'm guessing those that didn't have problems didn't post), mine was great from the start. No lock ups, no freezing, no crashes, able to do most anything that I knew how to do.

 

Biggest differences between the Montana and 60csx include larger/better picture screen, touch screen instead of buttons (personal preference), sat lock speed upon turning on, the rechargeable battery (could have bought rechargeable AAs, I know)and multi-profile ability to create separate profiles depending upon its intended use. The Montana got locks SO much faster than my csx. As to the accuracy between the two, I'd have to say the Montana has been better for me, particularly in low lying areas surrounded by higher earth features (canyons, gullies, ravines). I use both when placing hides to get as many readings as I can. Upon subsequent returns, the Montana, 9 times out of 10, has numbers that are closer to my first visit (and subsequent visits) to GZ. We're not talking big gaps here. In a traditional format, N xx xx.xxx, NEITHER GPS has numbers that differ much more than .010, but the Montana is rarely off by more than .005, while the csx sometimes fluctuates at the .010 end of the scale.

 

Since I don't have the OR, I can't make too many comparisons, but the ones that jump out at me are the multi-profile ability, the ability to REALLY customize each profile, and the screen in particular. The screen is amazing in bright light and large enough for those needing a little help to see things better. It really doesn't matter at which angle I view the screen. With my friend's OR, there were times I'd have to tilt the OR at the correct angle to be able to view the screen. I haven't played with it in a while, but remember that I liked using it while I was out.

 

Most people are hesitant about the size, but unless you have REALLY small hands, it's not THAT much of a factor. The csx is actually longer than the Montana, but the Montana is wider and heavier. The thickness of the two is just about the same.

 

My recommendation would be to buy the Montana over the OR, but ONLY if money isn't really an issue. At the time, money wasn't an issue, so purchasing the Montana wasn't a problem. If it were, I'd still be using my csx. The OR looks to be a fine unit, based on my infrequent uses, and it's cheaper as well.

[team tisri]

I recently lost a Oregon 450 to a home theft. I am trying to figure out if there are any performance difference between the Oregon 450 and the Montana 600. Anyone have any experience with both of them.? I liked the Oregon 450, but might upgrade to the Montana if it is an upgrade. I not interested in the Montana 650T with camera etc.

 

Oregon is much more geocaching friendly, I feel saddled with the Montana, which is really just a Nuvi made into a handheld and a poor geocaching implmentation. I think most that praise it do so because the have not experienced the 60, CO or OR series. The only real upgrade is the amount of caches it holds, which is something like 14K.

 

Really? I upgraded from a 60CSx to a Montana and haven't looked back.

[+Lieblweb]

We have the Oregon 450 and enjoy using it. If there's any complaints we (my husband) have with it - is probably more from the firmware. It shuts off from time to time especially when going back-n-forth between different screens. Sometimes it hangs up and you have to take the batteries out to reboot it. To help prevent the 'hang ups' - my husband has to totally wipe out all the data in it (waypoints, etc) and reload it with PQ's.

 

But other than that....It seems much more suited towards geocaching (not that we've used it for anything else).

[+coachstahly]

I recently lost a Oregon 450 to a home theft. I am trying to figure out if there are any performance difference between the Oregon 450 and the Montana 600. Anyone have any experience with both of them.? I liked the Oregon 450, but might upgrade to the Montana if it is an upgrade. I not interested in the Montana 650T with camera etc.

 

Oregon is much more geocaching friendly, I feel saddled with the Montana, which is really just a Nuvi made into a handheld and a poor geocaching implmentation. I think most that praise it do so because the have not experienced the 60, CO or OR series. The only real upgrade is the amount of caches it holds, which is something like 14K.

 

Completely disagree with these statements. The Montana and Oregon are both nice units, but to say that the OR is much more geocaching friendly and the Montana has a poor geocaching implementation is a stretch, to say the least. The larger and easier to read screen is better, the ability to customize to your liking is better, the storage, as you mention, is better and the multi-profile set-up, great for multi-use is better. All things considered, I'm more than happy with my unit. It doesn't mean the OR is a lesser unit. I wouldn't have purchased the OR to upgrade from my csx because I felt that it didn't do enough to warrant the money. The Montana however, did, in my opinion.

[+Cacheoholic]

Oregon is much more geocaching friendly, I feel saddled with the Montana, which is really just a Nuvi made into a handheld and a poor geocaching implmentation. I think most that praise it do so because the have not experienced the 60, CO or OR series. The only real upgrade is the amount of caches it holds, which is something like 14K.

 

I have 2 Oregons, 2 Colorados and a 60CSx (with SiRF) sitting in boxes beside me that I have used extensively for geocaching. I would sell any if someone flashed the cash. I much prefer my Montana 650 for geocaching and still use my nuvi for driving. The Montana will do everything an Oregon will do except Wherigo’s. The Montana has an amazing display and customization features that far exceed any of the 60 some GPSr’s I’ve owned. It seems large and fat at first (because of its huge display) but I’ve gotten used to it. I still use a nuvi because the Montana does not play mp3’s and have a FM transmitter.

[WrongwayUK]

I've had a Montana 650 for nearly three weeks now and also have a 60CSx. The Montana is fantastically customisable and the geocaching profile is brilliant. It is not a Nuvi modified for other uses. It's a very versatile GPSr on its own with Nuvi mode thrown in. I haven't owned an Oregon so can't really compare. But looking at the Oregon handbook, it looks like the Montana geocaching profile is based on the Oregon version but with more flexibility and space built into it. Beta upgrades are coming out frequently with very useful upgrades. For example in the last few weeks the Garmin dev team have added multiple customisable pages to the trip computer page which adds a who new dimension to versatility. That was from customer requests. I don't find the size objectionable at all. It's a price I am willing to pay for a good size clear screen.

[Barrikady]

Short and sweet.

 

I have owned a 60C, a 60Cx, a Colorado 300, an Oregon 300 and I now own a Montana 650.

 

The Montana is the best GPS I have owned. Period.

[yogazoo]

Short and sweet.

 

I have owned a 60C, a 60Cx, a Colorado 300, an Oregon 300 and I now own a Montana 650.

 

The Montana is the best GPS I have owned. Period.

 

Ditto on all accounts.

Edited December 1, 2011 by yogazoo

[+Frank Broughton]

cool, thanks for the info folks... have me interested in the 650!

[+c_dog]

Started with a 60CSx. Then a Colorado 400t. Then on to a Oregon 400t. For the last couple years, it was an Oregon 450 as the main unit. Found a couple thousand caches with each one. They are all fine units that were the bee knees for their day. Just started using a Montana 650t, and have to say that I wish that I had this one all along the way. The display Auto Orientation Lock and setup Shortcuts were worth the upgrade alone.

[team tisri]

Just to clarify my earlier comment. I had a 60CS, then upgraded to a 60CSx. I looked at the Oregon but found even under the fluorescent light in the shop I struggled to read the screen so ruled it out right there and then. I didn't like the Colorado's wheel-based entry approach so ruled that out too.

 

When I saw the 62 series come out I was tempted. I was all set to buy a 62st when the Montana was released. A fellow geocacher (you know who you are) met me and let me play with his Montana so I could see how it worked in the field, I could see how it worked in sunlight, in the shade and so on.

 

End result, I bought a Montana 650 and love it.

[+BMndFul]

One different I just found out about...is the Oregon is supported by Mac where the Montana is not. This creates a small problem for me. I like using my macbook pro while geocaching. I perform a query like 60 miles from my house, load the results into the Oregon, then export the cache data into Basecamp(on the macbook) with the topo 45k map from the Oregon. I now have a broad view of all the caches in my gps with street level detail. I plan my routes, read the descriptions, hints and general information with the macbook and take it with me in the car. I would lose that ability unless I switch to a PC based notebook (arg.)

Edited December 2, 2011 by Russ!

[WrongwayUK]

I am not sure what you mean when you say the Montana is not supported by the Mac. I am mac based and haven't had a problem so far. Basecamp is working on my Mac Pro, Macbook Pro and Mac Air.

Edited December 2, 2011 by WrongwayUK

[+BMndFul]

I am not sure what you mean when you say the Montana is not supported by the Mac. I am mac based and haven't had a problem so far. Basecamp is working on my Mac Pro, Macbook Pro and Mac Air.

 

Ok, great....If you do a comparison on REI website with the Oregon 450 and Montana 650 it reads Oregon windows/Mac compatible and the Montana only Windows compatible. I understood that to mean that the Montana was only windows compatible. That solve a potential problem for me.

 

I am looking forward to doing a parking lot demo with the montana. I like the larger screen and better anti glare in sunlight, since I also use my GPS while kayaking.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Russ!

[+coachstahly]

I use both my Mac and my laptop (GSAK) with my Montana

[WrongwayUK]

I am not sure what you mean when you say the Montana is not supported by the Mac. I am mac based and haven't had a problem so far. Basecamp is working on my Mac Pro, Macbook Pro and Mac Air.

 

Ok, great....If you do a comparison on REI website with the Oregon 450 and Montana 650 it reads Oregon windows/Mac compatible and the Montana only Windows compatible. I understood that to mean that the Montana was only windows compatible. That solve a potential problem for me.

 

I am looking forward to doing a parking lot demo with the montana. I like the larger screen and better anti glare in sunlight, since I also use my GPS while kayaking.

 

Must be a misprint. Basecamp is mac compatible, The only Montana/mac issue I have had is with beta updates which are issued as a .exe file. But with help on this forum there was a very good work around.