60csx vs 62st upgrade

[+007BigD]

Im sure many who have upgraded to a 62st from a 60csx has feelings about it and far as I can tell, outside of the wear on the buttons, it seems to be a significant upgrade. I love the simplicity and useability of my 60csx vs the Oregon and Colorado's and it recently dissapeared from my truck in my cache bag, so im lookin to replace it.

 

Seems as tho the 62st is based on the 60's simplicity, but has more advanced features, better receiver abilities even and after researching here the abilities to store descriptions and hints, which is nice.

 

Everyone happy with the overall use and function of their 62's? Is it the same user friendly rock solid unit as the I know the 60csx as? Would you reccomend a 62 upgrade vs the 60csx to a die hard 60csx user?

 

Thanks for the help ...I think its the right choice, but tryin to justify the price difference vs a product I know I can use well and works well.

Edited January 19, 2012 by 007BigD

[+Timpat]

Everyone happy with the overall use and function of their 62's?

Yes!

Is it the same user friendly rock solid unit as the I know the 60csx as?

Yes!

Would you reccomend a 62 upgrade vs the 60csx to a die hard 60csx user?

Yes! It IS the right choice.

[+007BigD]

Yes! It IS the right choice.

 

lol, we know where you stand Thanks I already feel better

[team tisri]

Im sure many who have upgraded to a 62st from a 60csx has feelings about it and far as I can tell, outside of the wear on the buttons, it seems to be a significant upgrade. I love the simplicity and useability of my 60csx vs the Oregon and Colorado's and it recently dissapeared from my truck in my cache bag, so im lookin to replace it.

 

Seems as tho the 62st is based on the 60's simplicity, but has more advanced features, better receiver abilities even and after researching here the abilities to store descriptions and hints, which is nice.

 

Everyone happy with the overall use and function of their 62's? Is it the same user friendly rock solid unit as the I know the 60csx as? Would you reccomend a 62 upgrade vs the 60csx to a die hard 60csx user?

 

Thanks for the help ...I think its the right choice, but tryin to justify the price difference vs a product I know I can use well and works well.

 

From what I can tell the 62 will give you the same as the 60 in terms of uer interface while adding things like Chirp support, paperless caching and the ability to hold 5000 caches rather than 1000 waypoints (I know you can faff about with custom POI on the 60 but it seems like more of a faff than it's worth)

 

I was all set to upgrade my 60 to a 62 but then the Montana came out so I bought that instead. A friend has a 62 and loves it, and as a 60 user I can see how anyone familiar with the interface would love it too.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I have both but the 62S is what I now use.......I REALLY like and highly recommend it.

[+geobc]

I upgraded from my 60CSx to a Montana 600. I love the Montana's big screen and landscape orientation, but I miss the 60's straightforward user interface. I was planning on selling my 60CSx but might just keep it, instead. If you aren't desperately craving a bigger screen, I think you'll be happy with the 62.

 

GeoBC

[+luvvinbird]

There's really something to be said of the old adage, "they don't make 'em like they used to". Easy to use, accurate, reliable and no finicky or "sticky" problems like I occasionally experience with my 62s and Oregon 450. It's still my favourite handheld, just as my 1992 VW Jetta was my favourite car. But it was time to move on and I stepped into the new era of paperless and other cache-complimenting features. Sadly, the Jetta passed away but I think I'll be long gone before my 60CSx expires.

[seldom_sn]

Don't forget that the 62s has raster map support (Birdseye and KMZ). Not possible with the 60CSX.

Edited January 19, 2012 by seldom_sn

[+W7WT]

There's really something to be said of the old adage, "they don't make 'em like they used to". Easy to use, accurate, reliable and no finicky or "sticky" problems like I occasionally experience with my 62s and Oregon 450. It's still my favourite handheld, just as my 1992 VW Jetta was my favourite car. But it was time to move on and I stepped into the new era of paperless and other cache-complimenting features. Sadly, the Jetta passed away but I think I'll be long gone before my 60CSx expires."

 

About a year ago We bought a 78s (same as the 62s) for me and a 60CSx (on sale) from REI for the wife. My 76CSX had lost the power from the car outlet. Maybe, I should have used the 78s longer but what got me was Arlene's (the wife) 60CSx was outdoing the 78s in finding GZ. I sent the 78s back to REI and got myself the 60CSx. We also have the Nuvi 550 for routing and paperless information. For now we are happy with the combination. In a few years I am sure we will be getting the Montana or the latest Garmin handheld.

Edited January 19, 2012 by W7WT

[+Egnix]

I bought a 62s after 4 years with a 60csx. The 60csx worked as good as it did on day one, so I was afraid the upgrade wouldn't be worth the money. However, having the cache information on the unit and being able to log field notes on the 62s has made it well worth it. I wish I had upgraded sooner. Sure, I miss some aspects of the 60csx, but it would hard to go back to.

[GeoBobC]

I have both, and greatly prefer the 60 series over the 62.

[seldom_sn]

I have both, and greatly prefer the 60 series over the 62.

Care to give some reasons?

[GeoBobC]

I have both, and greatly prefer the 60 series over the 62.

Care to give some reasons?

My needs may be different than most, but I prefer the 60 series over the 62 series. There are too many good things about the 60 that are missing on the 62. Some may consider them minor. Here are a few examples, not necessarily in order of importance. (1) Track log accuracy: the 60Cx and 60CSx I have both outperform the 62s in track log accuracy. I've run some trails since 2000 and have 20 or more track logs of some of them. When I look at ten years of tracks and see the 62 tracks falling outside the range of the others, that's not good. Most of my tracking is done in heavy tree canopy. (2) Track log viewing capability: with the 60, you can turn the track on, then off, then on again and so forth. You can see the individual recorded track segments. With the 62 series the track log is on, or off. When it is off you cannot see the previously recorded tracks. Yes, yes - you can save the "current track" but it's a real pain if you're doing it multiple times. (3) Alphabetic name search: on the 60 series you can display waypoints and POIs sorted alphabetically; on the 62 series it's "nearest" only, or a search by name. If I know a waypoint starts with "T", I would like to see all the waypoints that start with T. It can't be done on the 62 without seeing waypoints with a a "T" anywhere in the name. (4) custom POI names do not display on the map. You can see the icons, but no names. Go figure: what good is a POI if I don't know what it is? (5) Display: I find the display of the 60 easier to read in daylight. (6) Battery life: not a scientific study by any means, but my impression is that battery life on the 62 is not as good. (7) Finding waypoints/POIs near another waypoint/POI. It can be done on the 62s it's just more complicated. (8)No battery life display present on the map page. You can get it with a push of the power button, but what should that be necessary? (9) Squeeky buttons. (10) Sticky issue. (11) Etc.

 

None of these may be showstoppers, but added together they just make the 62 less functional for me. The way I see it, the 60 design was nearly perfect. They've added a lot of features to the 62, but dumbed down or eliminated some of the things that made the 60 such a great unit. Personally, I'd rather have very accurate track log recording more than Birdeye imagery.

 

I do like certain features of the 62: the ability to have multiple .img files is wonderful.

[+007BigD]

I have both, and greatly prefer the 60 series over the 62.

Care to give some reasons?

My needs may be different than most, but I prefer the 60 series over the 62 series. There are too many good things about the 60 that are missing on the 62. Some may consider them minor. Here are a few examples, not necessarily in order of importance. (1) Track log accuracy: the 60Cx and 60CSx I have both outperform the 62s in track log accuracy. I've run some trails since 2000 and have 20 or more track logs of some of them. When I look at ten years of tracks and see the 62 tracks falling outside the range of the others, that's not good. Most of my tracking is done in heavy tree canopy. (2) Track log viewing capability: with the 60, you can turn the track on, then off, then on again and so forth. You can see the individual recorded track segments. With the 62 series the track log is on, or off. When it is off you cannot see the previously recorded tracks. Yes, yes - you can save the "current track" but it's a real pain if you're doing it multiple times. (3) Alphabetic name search: on the 60 series you can display waypoints and POIs sorted alphabetically; on the 62 series it's "nearest" only, or a search by name. If I know a waypoint starts with "T", I would like to see all the waypoints that start with T. It can't be done on the 62 without seeing waypoints with a a "T" anywhere in the name. (4) custom POI names do not display on the map. You can see the icons, but no names. Go figure: what good is a POI if I don't know what it is? (5) Display: I find the display of the 60 easier to read in daylight. (6) Battery life: not a scientific study by any means, but my impression is that battery life on the 62 is not as good. (7) Finding waypoints/POIs near another waypoint/POI. It can be done on the 62s it's just more complicated. (8)No battery life display present on the map page. You can get it with a push of the power button, but what should that be necessary? (9) Squeeky buttons. (10) Sticky issue. (11) Etc.

 

None of these may be showstoppers, but added together they just make the 62 less functional for me. The way I see it, the 60 design was nearly perfect. They've added a lot of features to the 62, but dumbed down or eliminated some of the things that made the 60 such a great unit. Personally, I'd rather have very accurate track log recording more than Birdeye imagery.

 

I do like certain features of the 62: the ability to have multiple .img files is wonderful.

 

Interesting... I wonder if there is a setting to apply a name to the POIs? Are uploaded waypoints in this category? Will the waypoints and caches uploaded not be labled?

 

My only issue I ever had with my 60csx was when id zoom in on maps, id have to shut my unit off then on again to see any tracks...it would freeze at the zoomed in position, but I think it may have been related to the installed maps.

 

Thanks for the input here everyone, I really appreciate it and am almost ready to get a 62 Found a refurb 62st for 357, which is much better than 559.

 

Anyone else have unamed waypoints on their 62? Can it be fixed if that is the case, or that just POI's? thanks again

Edited January 21, 2012 by 007BigD

[GeoBobC]

Waypoint names display fine; only custom POI names do not display. That's Garmin's answer, by the way: turn your custom POIs into waypoints.

[+007BigD]

Waypoint names display fine; only custom POI names do not display. That's Garmin's answer, by the way: turn your custom POIs into waypoints.

very nice, thank you... ordering my new unit now. pretty stoked about that too!