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
Pup Patrol Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 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. Why are you ranting on Groundspeak's forum? Have you actually made any effort to get your message to the company that you're ranting about? I don't think that Garmin peruses the forums of other companies looking for customer complaints. B. Quote Link to comment
+Red90 Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 And from someone that does not geocache. Random rant day. Quote Link to comment
+geodarts Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Why are you ranting on Groundspeak's forum? Have you actually made any effort to get your message to the company that you're ranting about? I don't think that Garmin peruses the forums of other companies looking for customer complaints. B. I assume because the Garmin forums do not address handhelds and users with questions about them sometimes get directed to come here. I have seen other posts discussing display resolution and imitations with handheld gpsrs, so the topic does not seem that random to me. Open letters printed or posted over various media is a time honored tradition to express frustration or dissatisfaction, so perhaps the OP is hoping to create a dialogue or spur other handheld users to complain to Garmin. But I agree that the chances of garmin listening to complaints on a Groundspeak forum seems next to nothing so at least this should be copied and sent directly to the company. Quote Link to comment
MtnHermit Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 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. In a perfect world you'd be correct, the tech world isn't simple or perfect. Take your HD phone into bright sunlight, can you see anything? The large Garmin pixels (reflective LCD) use that sunlight to increase contrast, your HD phone is at the same time unreadable. A GPS screen is intend to be viewed outdoors, your phone is primarily used indoors, their screens are optimized for those uses. 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?Again a tradeoff for ability to swap in the field. Never seen a AA rechargable Li-Ion battery. You can also purchase alkaline AAs virtually anywhere. Imperfect but flexible. 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. The single biggest factor determining runtime is pixels, takes CPU power to twist all those bits. Another argument against your HD Garmin. Always been curious why the incredible pixel race in phones, seems it's a spec simply to entice gullible buyers to upgrade to no purpose. Get out and enjoy the world instead of whining in your HD office. Quote Link to comment
+Mineral2 Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I can understand high resolution displays on phones. They're incredibly beautiful for viewing photos, watching videos, and playing games, which is what many people use their smartphones for. Even text is nicer to read on a high resolution display. But what the OP fails to understand is that a GPS is first and foremost NOT an entertainment device, but an actual tool for navigation and data collection. In fact, many of the features on modern GPS devices are completely unnecessary to the function of the GPS, including the "crappy" screen resolution, color, ability to display maps, processor speed, etc. Why, you ask? There are plenty of people (researchers for example) who are still using early generation eTrex models that don't map, don't display color, and have an incredibly low resolution screen to collect geographic data out in the field. Quote Link to comment
Grasscatcher Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Proof positive of the fact that all the bells and whistles are not needed, is that my Garmin 12XL will STILL direct me to a set of coordinates absolutely just as quickly and accurately as ANY of my other five GPSs. NO Color NO maps NO mSD card NO Camera NO Compass Quote Link to comment
+on4bam Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Proof positive of the fact that all the bells and whistles are not needed, is that my Garmin 12XL will STILL direct me to a set of coordinates absolutely just as quickly and accurately as ANY of my other five GPSs. NO Color NO maps NO mSD card NO Camera NO Compass Only 100 WPs (If I recall correctly). No paperless caching. Mine also still works. From 1999 on I have used it for a few years in combination with ham radio for APRS. I must admit my Oregon 600 is more user friendly though. Quote Link to comment
Grasscatcher Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Proof positive of the fact that all the bells and whistles are not needed, is that my Garmin 12XL will STILL direct me to a set of coordinates absolutely just as quickly and accurately as ANY of my other five GPSs. NO Color NO maps NO mSD card NO Camera NO Compass Only 100 WPs (If I recall correctly). No paperless caching. Mine also still works. From 1999 on I have used it for a few years in combination with ham radio for APRS. I must admit my Oregon 600 is more user friendly though. Yep, that was even BC / BG....Befpre Caching or Before the Game.....Good ole days.... I use my 76CSx for APRS with a Ram holder on ATV & Snowmobile. Quote Link to comment
Ron-in-Oz Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Gidday OP, looks like I'm the only one who reads manuals ... from the Montana 600 OM (owners manual ... 1) The battery pack is Lithium ion and 2) Installing AA Batteries ... Instead of the Lithium Ion battery pack you can use alkaline, NiMH or lithium ... (http://static.garmin.com/pumac/Montana_600_OM_EN.pdf) Ron ... in Oz Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.