dictum9 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) First, the resolution just kills me. Way too low. The resolution is where cell phones were in 2004. Garmin is way behind on this point. Compare a Montana with any 'smart phone', what a difference. 4" and 272 x 480 resolution does not cut it in 2015. They can keep the screen at 4" or slightly bigger but gotta double or quadruple the pixels for a much sharper image. My phone is HD 1080p and it's painful to look at Montana. Second, the NiMH cell with only 2000 mAh and 7.4Wh is wholly unacceptable either. Need something at least 3-4 times that capacity (to support the higher pixels). The main point here is the NiMH technology has been obsolete for more than a decade -- all laptops for example moved from NiMH cells to Li-Ion. Why is Garmin embracing obsolete technology? Lithium-Ion is the way to go, say 2x18650 round cells with the ability to run primary Lithium CR123A cells. At the very least, have a dual option of 2x18650 cells or 4xAA. The 3xAA option is weird, it's an odd number, I would very much prefer 4 for greater runtime and higher voltage. Lithium-Ion 18650 cells have a much higher capacity of 3500 mAh per cell and come at 4.3V. So do the math: 3500*2*4.3=28wh, a 4-fold increase in runtime with just slightly more weight/bulk. The current runtime is not sufficient, I've had a Garmin 60CSx and that thing got far longer runtime than Montana and on fewer cells. Garmin, are you listening, need to make major upgrades to the current line of "on the trail" equipment. Edited August 20, 2015 by dictum9 Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.