Garmin GPS - If you had to choose: Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or No S?

Author

If you had to choose: Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or No S?

Kingston

2007-09-15, 3:33 pm

I am really having a tough time in deciding which unit I should get. I
have the older Etrex Legend and I like the unit but the screen is way
to small for me. I plan to use it in auto navigation as well when I
don't plan to connect or lug around my laptop when travelling with my
laptop. But, I will eventually save up and probably get the Nuvi 7xx
series.

Now, I am considering the new Vista HCSx for it's price point but I
think the screen is too small. I havent seen the new version but the
old Vista's display is the same. I think that is too small? I read
somewhere that the 60 or 76 CSx units display is low res and to view
it should be viewed farther away. I am not sure what that is suppose
to mean.

So, I am considering the following models Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or
No S with the 60/76 series. I would prefer to get one with Egnos but
I need a GPS with SirFIII that I can use with my Mapsource software.

Any suggestions/comments please.

Thanks

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

Bitstring < fccoe3lpo1tct7npa81d
7vo5lo6eigk9m2@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Kingston <hatespam@nospam.com> said
>I am really having a tough time in deciding which unit I should get. I
>have the older Etrex Legend and I like the unit but the screen is way
>to small for me. I plan to use it in auto navigation as well when I
>don't plan to connect or lug around my laptop when travelling with my
>laptop. But, I will eventually save up and probably get the Nuvi 7xx
>series.
>
>Now, I am considering the new Vista HCSx for it's price point but I
>think the screen is too small. I havent seen the new version but the
>old Vista's display is the same. I think that is too small? I read
>somewhere that the 60 or 76 CSx units display is low res and to view
>it should be viewed farther away. I am not sure what that is suppose
>to mean.
>
>So, I am considering the following models Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or
>No S with the 60/76 series. I would prefer to get one with Egnos but
>I need a GPS with SirFIII that I can use with my Mapsource software.
>
>Any suggestions/comments please.

I'd still go for the 60 or 76 (depending which one you like the
ergonomics of .. this is a holy war sort of issue, like which end to
open an egg), and the 'S' model if you think you need barometric
altitude (the compass is not worth the hassle, really).

These nominally do EGNOS, but actually it still mostly doesn't work.
Garmin say 'because EGNOS is not yet in production', EGNOS (well, the
ESA) say 'WTF are they on about' (or french words to that effect). My
personal belief is that it only works when the EGNOS birds are also
sending ranging data (i.e. when a regular old style 60C would show a
filled in bar); when they are only sending correction data the 60CX
models toss it away .. just a theory I can't test, because I no longer
have a 60C.

I have a 60CSX and am well pleased, but I use the S (barometric height)
when out surveying things .. if I didn't I'd just go with the 60CX.
Rumour has it the new ones all come with 128MB memory cards, presumably
because 64MB cards are now antiques.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

Jack Erbes

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

Kingston wrote:
> I am really having a tough time in deciding which unit I should get. I
> have the older Etrex Legend and I like the unit but the screen is way
> to small for me. I plan to use it in auto navigation as well when I
> don't plan to connect or lug around my laptop when travelling with my
> laptop. But, I will eventually save up and probably get the Nuvi 7xx
> series.

I have the 76Cx and I like the slightly larger display (eTrex = 1.7"x
1.3", 60/76Cx/CSx = 2.2" x 1.5").

> Now, I am considering the new Vista HCSx for it's price point but I
> think the screen is too small. I havent seen the new version but the
> old Vista's display is the same. I think that is too small? I read
> somewhere that the 60 or 76 CSx units display is low res and to view
> it should be viewed farther away. I am not sure what that is suppose
> to mean.

No way is the 60/76 "x" series display low res. It is crisp and sharp
and has very good daylight brightness. If you're in direct sun, you can
turn the back light off (to save batteries) and see it very well by just
holding it at the right angle.

Many people impugn the 60/76Cx/CSx models for their suitability for use
in an automobile but I suspect that those people have never actually
used one there. The map page is not what makes that work so well in the
car, it is the turn preview page and the route pages that make it work
so well.

The turn preview page tells you, in a large easily read font, what road
you are going to, the distance to it, and a graphic showing the type of
turn upcoming. The route page lists the turns, the distance and time to
them, and shows an icon for the type of turn.

With the tones turned on, it will make different sounding, clearly
audible, initial and final warnings for the maneuver. I think you have
to be a little on the silly, stubborn, or just plain stupid side to find
those models to be anything but the most versatile GPS receiver
available and good for use in an car.

That said, it is not a large unit with a display that will impart
graphic mapping details to you at a glance and that will talk words to
you. That would be a different kind of GPS receiver and, and although
better for use in a car, it would be much less versatile than the 76Cx.

I use my 76Cx all the time like this:

1 - Get in a rental car, find and navigate to a place to turn the rental
car in.

2 - Get in a taxi and, if necessary, tell the driver how to best get to
a potentially obscure/unknown address.

3 - Then I change the mapping from City Navigator to BlueChart, change a
couple of other settings, get in a very expensive boat, and navigate it
through narrow twisting passages and around any number of shoals and
ledges. These are trips of up to 200 NM or so and sometimes 50-60 NM
miles off shore.

When I get home, if there are any questions about times, places, speeds,
or elevations, I have every single track point collected for the entire
trip stored on the microSD card and available for review off of the GPS
receiver. And I can look at the tracks of the routes traveled displayed
over any of the MapSource mapping packages I happen to own (City
Navigator, MetroGuide, U.S. Topo, and BlueChart).

There is no other single GPS receiver that will do all that as well in a
handheld package with a pair of AA cells for power and no need for
external antennas or power. I do use external power in the car and on
boats to maximize battery life and allow full time use at full
brightness in the shaded daylight of cars and pilot houses.

> So, I am considering the following models Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or
> No S with the 60/76 series. I would prefer to get one with Egnos but
> I need a GPS with SirFIII that I can use with my Mapsource software.

I'd recommend the 60/76 Cx/CSx and like the 76 better than the 60. The
76 balances in the hand better and is more easily used without shifting
your grip. Also, it's rectangular shape lets it lay on and prop up
against the places I use it.

Jack

Larry G

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

On Sep 15, 5:41 pm, Jack Erbes <jac...@midmaine.com> wrote:
> Kingston wrote:
>
> I have the 76Cx and I like the slightly larger display (eTrex = 1.7"x
> 1.3", 60/76Cx/CSx = 2.2" x 1.5").
>
>
> No way is the 60/76 "x" series display low res. It is crisp and sharp
> and has very good daylight brightness. If you're in direct sun, you can
> turn the back light off (to save batteries) and see it very well by just
> holding it at the right angle.
>
> Many people impugn the 60/76Cx/CSx models for their suitability for use
> in an automobile but I suspect that those people have never actually
> used one there. The map page is not what makes that work so well in the
> car, it is the turn preview page and the route pages that make it work
> so well.
>
> The turn preview page tells you, in a large easily read font, what road
> you are going to, the distance to it, and a graphic showing the type of
> turn upcoming. The route page lists the turns, the distance and time to
> them, and shows an icon for the type of turn.
>
> With the tones turned on, it will make different sounding, clearly
> audible, initial and final warnings for the maneuver. I think you have
> to be a little on the silly, stubborn, or just plain stupid side to find
> those models to be anything but the most versatile GPS receiver
> available and good for use in an car.
>
> That said, it is not a large unit with a display that will impart
> graphic mapping details to you at a glance and that will talk words to
> you. That would be a different kind of GPS receiver and, and although
> better for use in a car, it would be much less versatile than the 76Cx.
>
> I use my 76Cx all the time like this:
>
> 1 - Get in a rental car, find and navigate to a place to turn the rental
> car in.
>
> 2 - Get in a taxi and, if necessary, tell the driver how to best get to
> a potentially obscure/unknown address.
>
> 3 - Then I change the mapping from City Navigator to BlueChart, change a
> couple of other settings, get in a very expensive boat, and navigate it
> through narrow twisting passages and around any number of shoals and
> ledges. These are trips of up to 200 NM or so and sometimes 50-60 NM
> miles off shore.
>
> When I get home, if there are any questions about times, places, speeds,
> or elevations, I have every single track point collected for the entire
> trip stored on the microSD card and available for review off of the GPS
> receiver. And I can look at the tracks of the routes traveled displayed
> over any of the MapSource mapping packages I happen to own (City
> Navigator, MetroGuide, U.S. Topo, and BlueChart).
>
> There is no other single GPS receiver that will do all that as well in a
> handheld package with a pair of AA cells for power and no need for
> external antennas or power. I do use external power in the car and on
> boats to maximize battery life and allow full time use at full
> brightness in the shaded daylight of cars and pilot houses.
>
>
> I'd recommend the 60/76 Cx/CSx and like the 76 better than the 60. The
> 76 balances in the hand better and is more easily used without shifting
> your grip. Also, it's rectangular shape lets it lay on and prop up
> against the places I use it.
>
> Jack

Jack .... it sounds like the 76 when used in an auto has some
different features that help compensate for it not "talking" to you.

Would you stick by your support of the 76 ... in heavy urban traffic?

that's the big difference I see... In heavy urban traffic... I'm not
comfortable looking away from the traffic even for a couple of seconds
sometimes so I very much find the voice guidance as necessary...

all other things being equal.. the 76csx is by far the best unit I've
ever owned and very versatile to boot... no contest... on comparing
with other units... in my view... with the possible exception of auto
nav in heavy traffic.

Kingston

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:41:25 -0400, Jack Erbes <jacker@midmaine.com>
wrote:

:
:I'd recommend the 60/76 Cx/CSx and like the 76 better than the 60. The
:76 balances in the hand better and is more easily used without shifting
:your grip. Also, it's rectangular shape lets it lay on and prop up
:against the places I use it.

Personally, I like the looks of the 60 but the size of the display is
paramount...bigger is better for me. So, in that respect I like 76.
However, doesn't the 76 use a patch antenna unlike the 60 which uses a
different type where you get good reception even if not right side up?

Kingston

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:21:08 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can <
:
:I'd still go for the 60 or 76 (depending which one you like the
:ergonomics of .. this is a holy war sort of issue, like which end to
:open an egg), and the 'S' model if you think you need barometric
:altitude (the compass is not worth the hassle, really).

Too bad, I thought I would like the compass feature but if it has bugs
or is a pain then, why bother.

Doesnt the 60 have issues like the batteries coming loose and causing
power interruptions? Any other issues with the 60/76 series?

Ted Edwards

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

Kingston wrote:
> Personally, I like the looks of the 60 but the size of the display is
> paramount...bigger is better for me. So, in that respect I like 76.
> However, doesn't the 76 use a patch antenna unlike the 60 which uses a
> different type where you get good reception even if not right side up?

I have a 76Cx and am very happy with it other than a few minor
complaints. It looks like a patch from the outside but I'm not sure it
really is. However, for most purposes it provides more than adequate
reception. On car trips, I use an external antenna (a GA25 MCX) on the
car roof. On hikes the external antenna goes in a pocket in my hat.
This allows me to stick the GPS in a pocket and only actually hold it
when I want to read it.

There has been a lot of discussion re the barometric altimeter. I'm in
the the group that claims it isn't much good. I also have over 2000
hours flying light aircraft, almost half of which is IFR. You are
kidding yourself if you think you can read an aircraft quality altimeter
to better than about 20 feet and that's when you are in the vicinity of
an airport that gave you an altimeter setting. I recall one car trip
from Seattle eastbound. I had an aircraft altimeter mounted in the car.
I set it in Seattle at an airport and stopped at a Forestry office
after about two hours east on a pleasant summer day. They had a
surveyed altitude for their office. My car altimeter was over a hundred
feet out.

As to the compass, if I am going into unfamiliar country, I carry a
pocket compass and a paper map as backups. My 76Cx will pick up my
direction of travel in only a few paces.

Ted

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

Bitstring < 42poe35mr4o5c78heisl
7f8u5kc9jmkbpb@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Kingston <hatespam@nospam.com> said
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:41:25 -0400, Jack Erbes <jacker@midmaine.com>
>wrote:
>
>:
>:I'd recommend the 60/76 Cx/CSx and like the 76 better than the 60. The
>:76 balances in the hand better and is more easily used without shifting
>:your grip. Also, it's rectangular shape lets it lay on and prop up
>:against the places I use it.
>
>Personally, I like the looks of the 60 but the size of the display is
>paramount...bigger is better for me. So, in that respect I like 76.
>However, doesn't the 76 use a patch antenna unlike the 60 which uses a
>different type where you get good reception even if not right side up?

as far as I know .. but check with the Garmin website ..

The display is the same on both units
The antenna is the same on both units (but hidden in the casing of the
76)
The only difference is the ergonomics (where the keys are, the
size/shape of the handset), and the 76 models used to ship with a bigger
memory card (and probably a better card retention mechanism, iirc, not
that most people take cards in/out often) but I think the 60s now have a
128MB card too.

The Garmin barometric altimeter continuously corrects to GPS height if
the unit is turned on and has a satellite lock, so it really just
smooths the GPS altitudes. Will not be 100ft out unless somethign really
whacky is happening.

The magnetic compass needs calibrating when you change batteries, and
needs the unit held level. In most cases taking two steps in a direction
works better (using the GPS compass feature). You'll have a regular
magnetic compass anyway of course, in case the GPS quits on you.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

Sam

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:[color=darkred
]

The display size for the 60 is: 3.8 x 5.6 cm
The display size for the 76 os 4.1 x 5.6 cm

Therefore, the 76 has a slightly larger screen. The antenna for both
the 60CSx is Built-in quad-helix receiving antenna. The antenna for the
60CSx is external so you should get a bit better performance from the
external antenna. The 60 CSx has a $50 rebate but a few years ago the
76 CSx had a $100 rebate. I doubt if we shall see that again.

Happy Trails

2007-09-15, 10:33 pm

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:52:51 GMT, Ted Edwards
<Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:

>Kingston wrote:
>
>I have a 76Cx and am very happy with it other than a few minor
>complaints. It looks like a patch from the outside but I'm not sure it
>really is.

Check the specs in your manual.

My 76csx says it's a "Built-in quad helix, remote antenna capability."

I'm sure yours is the same.

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2007-09-16, 7:33 am

Bitstring <8p%Gi.185473$rX4.151707@pd7urf2no>, from the wonderful person
Sam <nospam@nospam.com> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
>The display size for the 60 is: 3.8 x 5.6 cm
>The display size for the 76 os 4.1 x 5.6 cm
>
Yep, I concur, the 76 screen is a whole 0.1" wider according to Garmin.
However the resolution is the same (160 pixels across).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

Ted Edwards

2007-09-16, 12:33 pm

Happy Trails wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:52:51 GMT, Ted Edwards
> <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Check the specs in your manual.
> My 76csx says it's a "Built-in quad helix, remote antenna capability."
> I'm sure yours is the same.

That is what I recall but I was two lazy to go get the manual. :-)

Ted

Happy Trails

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

NNTP-Posting-Host: w9POeApsf7bWlZgHbQEb
Yw.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.640
Bytes: 1319
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.satellite.gps.garmin:19824 sci.geo.satellite-nav:424223 alt.satellite.gps:100086

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:52:49 GMT, Ted Edwards
<Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:

>That is what I recall but I was two lazy to go get the manual. :-)
>
>Ted

two lazy?

Are you perchance schizophrenic?

Hinkle

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

I bought the 76CSx and have been quite pleased with it, other than I had to
send it back to Garmin for a slight problem. I got it because I wanted
mapping capability, as well as the additional storage provided by an SD
card. It works quite well. I can set it on the center console of my
truck and it seems to keep an accurate location.

Then my son got the Vista HCx. It is a dynomite little unit. The screen
is slightly shorter than the 76 but just about as wide. I decided I needed
one for hiking as it is so much smaller and lighter that I can wear it on a
lanyard around my neck.

Re the compass and altimeter: they must be calibrated and the proceedure
is not difficult. However, since I have no particular need to know exactly
what my altitude is I have not messed much with the altimeter function. I
have observed, however, that when driving, when I pass one of those altitude
signs alongside the road (i.e. Elevation 4000 feet) the GPS is usually only
a few feet off. Once the compass is calibrated, it will act as a regular
magnetic compass and the "needle" will point to north. The only benefit I
can personally derive from this is that I can take a sight on a distant
object (mountain top, etc.) and it will keep me on track to get to that
object. I always carry a map and a magnetic compass when hiking in strange
areas. Accuacy on a good magnetic compass is probably better because of
more degree markings on the dial.

I got a SanDisk 2 gig chip for storage. Far too big for practical use.
File maintenance is a bear. I should have gotten 3 or 4 smaller chips.

The 76 will do a few more things.

Ralph

Kingston

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:28:32 -0700, "Hinkle"
< ralphcompton@earthli
nk.net> wrote:

:I bought the 76CSx and have been quite pleased with it, other than I had to
:send it back to Garmin for a slight problem. I got it because I wanted
:mapping capability, as well as the additional storage provided by an SD
:card. It works quite well. I can set it on the center console of my
:truck and it seems to keep an accurate location.
:
:Then my son got the Vista HCx. It is a dynomite little unit. The screen
:is slightly shorter than the 76 but just about as wide. I decided I needed
:one for hiking as it is so much smaller and lighter that I can wear it on a
:lanyard around my neck.
:
:Re the compass and altimeter: they must be calibrated and the proceedure
:is not difficult. However, since I have no particular need to know exactly
:what my altitude is I have not messed much with the altimeter function. I
:have observed, however, that when driving, when I pass one of those altitude
:signs alongside the road (i.e. Elevation 4000 feet) the GPS is usually only
:a few feet off. Once the compass is calibrated, it will act as a regular
:magnetic compass and the "needle" will point to north. The only benefit I
:can personally derive from this is that I can take a sight on a distant
:object (mountain top, etc.) and it will keep me on track to get to that
:object. I always carry a map and a magnetic compass when hiking in strange
:areas. Accuacy on a good magnetic compass is probably better because of
:more degree markings on the dial.
:
:I got a SanDisk 2 gig chip for storage. Far too big for practical use.
:File maintenance is a bear. I should have gotten 3 or 4 smaller chips.
:
:The 76 will do a few more things.

Thanks Ralph,

Can you compare the screen on the on the Vista vs the 76CSx? as far as
information shown? I am not concerned about the resolution.

I am still undecided though. It seems to me that the external antenna
on the 60CSx and the $50 rebate from Garmin is the way to go but the
screen is a little bit larger (1cm) on the 76 and that can hold a bit
more info on the little device.

Still very confused.

K.

Kingston

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

Can someone post or provide me with a pic with any of these models
showing the base map for comparison screen size and what is shown on
the screen? I found this on gpspassion but it only shows the trip
screen:

http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/...chpage=4#611646

Klatch

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

"Kingston" <hatespam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4qfre3tg68i81fh
tkfj95ufc9jt4h6j0pu@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:28:32 -0700, "Hinkle"
> < ralphcompton@earthli
nk.net> wrote:

>
> I am still undecided though. It seems to me that the external antenna
> on the 60CSx and the $50 rebate from Garmin is the way to go but the
> screen is a little bit larger (1cm) on the 76 and that can hold a bit
> more info on the little device.
>
> Still very confused.
>
> K.
The two units have the same antenna. The extra volume of the 76CSX case
around the antenna allows it to float. That is the only difference.
Neither has an "external antenn", but both will accept one.

Jack Erbes

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

Larry G wrote:
<snip>
> Jack .... it sounds like the 76 when used in an auto has some
> different features that help compensate for it not "talking" to you.
>
> Would you stick by your support of the 76 ... in heavy urban traffic?

Yes, if I wanted to have the flexibility of use at the distant end. I
think the user has to use it wisely but I don't think it is any more
time consuming or dangerous than a big display with audible prompts.

> that's the big difference I see... In heavy urban traffic... I'm not
> comfortable looking away from the traffic even for a couple of seconds
> sometimes so I very much find the voice guidance as necessary...

On my last trip I navigated to and then through Boston with mine. Right
through the infamous Big Dig (complete with a snarly street level detour
in downtown Boston) I went from I-95 to US-1, then I-93 and then on to
MA-3 and MA-6 to Hyannis.

It took numerous glances at the 76Cx laying on the console at moments
when it was safe to do that. But I doubt that I spent any more time
with my eyes off of the road than I would have with the biggest dash mount.

> all other things being equal.. the 76csx is by far the best unit I've
> ever owned and very versatile to boot... no contest... on comparing
> with other units... in my view... with the possible exception of auto
> nav in heavy traffic.

I don't think it takes two seconds for me. If feel I can spare the same
amount of time (one second or so? less than two for sure) I'd need to
glance at my speedometer and instruments, I can glance down at the 76Cx
(laying on the console). I can see at a glance that my next turn is to
go South on I-93 to Braintree or whatever and that it is 6 miles away.
Everything I need to know.

If I want to see the same info on the Map page, I have to wait until I
get about .5 or .3 miles from the turn and then it will make an alarm
sound and display the info mentioned above. So I think it is best to
leave the 76Cx on the turn preview page and see that info all the time.

When I hear the initial warning sound, I can glance down again and see
that same info again and the turn is now 0.5 or 0.3 miles distant (the
distance seems to vary with speed). Along with the info mentioned above
is a nice graphic image of the turn that has detail like the road you
want (highlighted) shown maybe crossing some other lanes/roads you do
not want. All that puts a good mental snapshot of the maneuver in my mind.

So then I am looking at or changing lanes, reading signs, maybe dodging
cars, but have my turn spotted. And when I hear another chirp or squawk
as I'm making the turn, I know that everything is right on track and
generally don't even look down again.

At rotaries, it tells me before well before I get to it and again on the
way in that I want to take the 2nd exit to the right. And if I enter,
pass one road exiting the rotary, and take the next one, I get the right
road.

Some visual confusion can/will occur as I look at things in the real
world but I can still do it with my head up and eyes out of the car if I
have the intended maneuver in mind. And if conditions allow, another
glance is okay too.

Having the voice prompts and a bigger display *is* usually a better way.
I do not argue that at all. If I were going spent long periods of
time in my vehicle or the same vehicle I'd enjoy a better unit. I have
a small camera case I can carry my 2610 in, I'd consider taking it with
me on longer road trips as long as it was not going to be a burden to
carry around. I use it on a bean bag mount so it is very easily moved
around.

But if my goal was versatility or my budget limited me to owning a
single receiver for everything and everywhere, a good handheld would be
the choice.

> all other things being equal.. the 76csx is by far the best unit I've
> ever owned and very versatile to boot... no contest... on comparing
> with other units... in my view... with the possible exception of auto
> nav in heavy traffic.

I think you have it characterized perfectly. It will work for some of
us and maybe not for others, or maybe some of the time and not always.

Jack

Jack Erbes

2007-09-16, 10:33 pm

Kingston wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:41:25 -0400, Jack Erbes <jacker@midmaine.com>
> wrote:
>
> :
> :I'd recommend the 60/76 Cx/CSx and like the 76 better than the 60. The
> :76 balances in the hand better and is more easily used without shifting
> :your grip. Also, it's rectangular shape lets it lay on and prop up
> :against the places I use it.
>
> Personally, I like the looks of the 60 but the size of the display is
> paramount...bigger is better for me. So, in that respect I like 76.
> However, doesn't the 76 use a patch antenna unlike the 60 which uses a
> different type where you get good reception even if not right side up?

As someone else mentioned, they both have the same quad helix antenna
and as far as I know the receiving performance is identical.

And the specs on one of thee Garmin pages indicates the 76Cx/CSx display
is larger but I think that is a mistake and that the displays are
exactly the same as far as quality and the illuminated/pixelized viewing
area.

I think someone at Garmin measured part of the surrounds on the display
one model and not on the other. The Garmin web pages, specs, comparison
page data, etc., are not free from errors and inconsistencies.

Jack

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 4:33 am

Kingston wrote:
<snip>
> ..the
> screen is a little bit larger (1cm) on the 76 and that can hold a bit
> more info on the little device.

The pixel counts are the same, I think the viewable areas are exactly
the same on both and that Garmin has made a mistake in describing them.

Jack

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 4:33 am

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
<snip>
> Yep, I concur, the 76 screen is a whole 0.1" wider according to Garmin.
> However the resolution is the same (160 pixels across).

The pixel counts are the same, I think the viewable areas are exactly
the same on both and that Garmin has made mistakes in measuring and/or
in describing them.

If I take a good quality LCD caliper and lay it atop a 76Cx display
there is nothing that aligns with a 41mm (4.1cm) measurement.

Nor is there anything that aligns with the 38mm (3.8cm) dimension.

Nor is there anything that aligns with the 56mm (5.6cm) dimension.

There is a viewing frame in the outer case (probably made by masking off
an area on the interior of a transparent plastic case and painting the
interior) that is more like 38.8mm wide. Down below that is a black
framed area that surrounds the pixels that illuminate and change color.

I think the black frame and the illuminated area that it surrounds are
the actual display. That illuminated area inside the black frame is
about 36.5mm wide and 55mm high.

I'm a retired machinist of sorts. I own and have used precision
measuring tools of many types for some years. I'm not a rookie at
measuring things. And I stoutly maintain that there is nothing on
either the 60 or 76 that is consistent with the stated dimensions.

But I have held a 76Cx next to a 60Cx at West Marine, with both units
powered up and at full brightness, and I think the illuminated areas of
the displays on the 60 and 76 Cx/CSx models are exactly the same size
and of the same quality in every respect.

Jack

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 4:33 am

Kingston wrote:
> Can someone post or provide me with a pic with any of these models
> showing the base map for comparison screen size and what is shown on
> the screen? I found this on gpspassion but it only shows the trip
> screen:
>
> http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/...chpage=4#611646

The downloadable/viewable online Owner's Manual has color images of all
the pages if that will work for you:

http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/ GPS...n
ual.pdf

Jack

nospam

2007-09-17, 4:33 am

In article < vI0bw8BItH7GFAea@fro
m.is.invalid>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:

> The Garmin barometric altimeter continuously corrects to GPS height if
> the unit is turned on and has a satellite lock, so it really just
> smooths the GPS altitudes. Will not be 100ft out unless somethign really
> whacky is happening.

my experience is very different. i have a 60cs and the reported
altitude is rarely correct. apparently, i have driven underground on
numerous occasions. i've watched my altitude change from 100ft above
sea level to 100ft below sea level on a flat road when the weather
changed to rain.

when i descended pikes peak in colorado, i watched the barometer report
that the air pressure was 40 inches (i was so stunned, i took pictures
of the gps unit). obviously, the gps did not expect the altitude to
change from ~14k to ~6k in a short time so it assumed the air pressure
was much higher than it really was. you'd think it would notice that
the gps altitude was changing fairly quickly, but i guess it didn't do
that. as a result, the altitude it reported was wrong. in fact, even
after being on the top of pikes peak for an hour, the gps was *still*
about 100ft off.

on airplanes, it reads 6k-7k, regardless of how high the plane is. i
want to know how high the plane is, not what the cabin altitude is.

under no circumstances will my next gps will have a barometer in it
unless it can be fully disabled.

Larry G

2007-09-17, 7:33 am

On Sep 17, 2:50 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <vI0bw8BItH7GF...@from.is.invalid>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
>
> <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> my experience is very different. i have a 60cs and the reported
> altitude is rarely correct. apparently, i have driven underground on
> numerous occasions. i've watched my altitude change from 100ft above
> sea level to 100ft below sea level on a flat road when the weather
> changed to rain.
>
> when i descended pikes peak in colorado, i watched the barometer report
> that the air pressure was 40 inches (i was so stunned, i took pictures
> of the gps unit). obviously, the gps did not expect the altitude to
> change from ~14k to ~6k in a short time so it assumed the air pressure
> was much higher than it really was. you'd think it would notice that
> the gps altitude was changing fairly quickly, but i guess it didn't do
> that. as a result, the altitude it reported was wrong. in fact, even
> after being on the top of pikes peak for an hour, the gps was *still*
> about 100ft off.
>
> on airplanes, it reads 6k-7k, regardless of how high the plane is. i
> want to know how high the plane is, not what the cabin altitude is.
>
> under no circumstances will my next gps will have a barometer in it
> unless it can be fully disabled.

re: accuracy of altitude - NOT!

On a recent 18-day river trip - on a river that has substantial loss
of gradient - at each night's camp - I recorded a waypoint and
recorded the altitude - and compared the altitude with the previous
night - which was usually 20 or so miles upstream.

I was suspecting that the numbers were not very accurate but became
totally convinced on the night that the altitude on the unit was
HIGHER than the previous night - 20 miles upstream.

Anyone who paddles rivers knows that they flow downstream and lose
altitude in the process.... and even though this section of river did
not have rapids - the maps showed it dropping on the order of 2 feet
or so per mile so over 20 miles - we should have lost around 40 feet
of altitude - but the unit insisted that our altitude was HIGHER than
the previous camp - 20 miles upstream.

I know that Jack spends a fair amount of time on boats at sea and
would wonder what he has observed.... one would think that the
altitude at sea level would be shown ... if not zero ... relatively
close to zero.

Terje Mathisen

2007-09-17, 7:33 am

Jack Erbes wrote:
> Larry G wrote:
> But if my goal was versatility or my budget limited me to owning a
> single receiver for everything and everywhere, a good handheld would be
> the choice.

I agree.
>
>
> I think you have it characterized perfectly. It will work for some of
> us and maybe not for others, or maybe some of the time and not always.

I have owned multiple GPSs over the years, currently I am using a 76CSx
for pretty much everything, except that a very cheap Quest (with
downloadable maps for both US & Euro) is left permanently in my car.

When traveling abroad, I tend to bring both of them along, the 76 is
just so very much better both in urban canyons and under foliage, while
the Quest does have one advantage in the form of the spoken directions.

My initial plan was to do everything with just the 76CSx, but when I
bought it I got the chance to add on the Quest as well, for a price I
couldn't resist.

The need to keep a PC around to download new maps to the Quest is a
non-issue for me, since I always carry a laptop anyway.

Terje

>
> Jack

--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Larry G

2007-09-17, 10:33 am

On Sep 17, 7:43 am, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathi...@hda.hydro.com>
wrote:
> Jack Erbes wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have owned multiple GPSs over the years, currently I am using a 76CSx
> for pretty much everything, except that a very cheap Quest (with
> downloadable maps for both US & Euro) is left permanently in my car.
>
> When traveling abroad, I tend to bring both of them along, the 76 is
> just so very much better both in urban canyons and under foliage, while
> the Quest does have one advantage in the form of the spoken directions.
>
> My initial plan was to do everything with just the 76CSx, but when I
> bought it I got the chance to add on the Quest as well, for a price I
> couldn't resist.
>
> The need to keep a PC around to download new maps to the Quest is a
> non-issue for me, since I always carry a laptop anyway.
>
> Terje
>
>
>
>
> --
> - <Terje.Mathi...@hda.hydro.com>
> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

I had a thought.... and that was ... if GPS units would benefit from
Wi-Fi in that they could, in effect, automatically update.. whenever
they were within range of a wi-fi hot spot.... would do away with the
need for a PC?

naw... that would be way to simple.. right?

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 10:33 am

Larry G wrote:
<snip>
> I had a thought.... and that was ... if GPS units would benefit from
> Wi-Fi in that they could, in effect, automatically update.. whenever
> they were within range of a wi-fi hot spot.... would do away with the
> need for a PC?
>
> naw... that would be way to simple.. right?
>

If might work. We pay an annual subscription fee and and the GPS
receiver downloads the mapping from wireless linked servers as you go.

But I'm thinking you'd need most or all of the hardware and capabilities
that are in the average wireless equipped laptop to do it. That might
tend the GPS receivers a little larger. :> )

Jack

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 10:33 am

Larry G wrote:
<snip>
> I know that Jack spends a fair amount of time on boats at sea and
> would wonder what he has observed.... one would think that the
> altitude at sea level would be shown ... if not zero ... relatively
> close to zero.

My experiences are similar to yours. I'm not sure that the GPS
elevation data are meaningful for anything more getting than rude
approximations of altitudes or seeing trends in altitude changes.

On the delivery I just did I can look at a track log with 9,998 track
points collected from the boat and over 230-odd nautical miles. They
were collected with settings of distance and at .02 NM intervals (50
points per NM).

Looking at the track in MapSource I can see the length and can
approximate the elevations from the display. I would eyeball estimate
the altitude variation extremes as ranging from -15 to +55 for the
distance. MapSource's track profile capabilities are limited, I can't
really do anything meaningful with the track from MapSource. I can look
at it, eyeball stuff off of the display, zoom in on the track (but not
control what part of the track I'm zooming in on).

I could copy and paste portions of the track into smaller new tracks in
MapSource to further play with the profile and stuff. But I quickly
decide that this is a job for GPS Utility (GPSU, I'm currently using
V4.82). GPSU is a much more powerful software for track analysis and
review.

In GPSU, I can look at the track in much more detail, isolate points or
portions of the track, and regenerate it to new tracks with smoothing
(averaging a user selected number of points).

I am sure there many things to be done in GPSU that are beyond my
current knowledge of the software as I've not spent any time at all
looking at tracks in anything but a birds eye view.

But if I have GPSU generate a new track and smooth it by averaging 40
points at a time, I see an much more meaningful display of the track
with the variations smoothed out.

I'd best describe the track elevation for that trip as averaging out to
about 20-25 feet above sea level for the 230 NM trip. Sounds like a
geoid, no? And the extremes were about 18 feet below and 54 feet above
sea level.

If anyone would like to study or play with that track I can send it to
them by email. It is about 235 kb in size as a *.gdb file, by using
GPSU I can save and send it as just about any useful file type known to
mankind.

Jack

Dan Anderson

2007-09-17, 12:33 pm

Jack Erbes wrote:
> If anyone would like to study or play with that track I can send it to
> them by email. It is about 235 kb in size as a *.gdb file, by using
> GPSU I can save and send it as just about any useful file type known to
> mankind.

If you send it to me, I'll run it through one of my programs.
The GDB file is fine and better if you zip it.

Send to:
dan
[at]
the domain name below (without the www, of course)

--
Dan
(www.gpsmap.net)

Roger Green

2007-09-17, 12:33 pm

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

>
> I have a 60CSX and am well pleased, but I use the S (barometric height)
> when out surveying things .. if I didn't I'd just go with the 60CX.
> Rumour has it the new ones all come with 128MB memory cards, presumably
> because 64MB cards are now antiques.

I just received my new 60csx, and was pretty sure they still had a 64MB card. So I opened it up and......it's a 128MB ! (The specs on the Garmin website still say 64MB on Sept 17).

I agree that the barometer/compass is no big deal for most applications, but where I bought my unit from (Comparemaster) the difference in price is only US$19.00, so I got the csx. Both the the barometer and compass seem to work as advertised, so for $19.
00 extra it's a no-brainer.

Roger

Dan Anderson

2007-09-17, 3:33 pm

Kingston wrote:
> So, I am considering the following models Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or
> No S with the 60/76 series. I would prefer to get one with Egnos but
> I need a GPS with SirFIII that I can use with my Mapsource software.

The Legend HCx and Vista HCx have a MediaTek chipset not
a SiRF III chipset.

--
Dan
(email change 2001 to 2004)
(www.gpsmap.net)

2007-09-17, 3:33 pm

Jack Erbes wrote:
> Larry G wrote:
> <snip>
>
> My experiences are similar to yours. I'm not sure that the GPS
> elevation data are meaningful for anything more getting than rude
> approximations of altitudes or seeing trends in altitude changes.
>
> On the delivery I just did I can look at a track log with 9,998 track
> points collected from the boat and over 230-odd nautical miles. They
> were collected with settings of distance and at .02 NM intervals (50
> points per NM).
>
> Looking at the track in MapSource I can see the length and can
> approximate the elevations from the display. I would eyeball estimate
> the altitude variation extremes as ranging from -15 to +55 for the
> distance. MapSource's track profile capabilities are limited, I can't
> really do anything meaningful with the track from MapSource. I can look
> at it, eyeball stuff off of the display, zoom in on the track (but not
> control what part of the track I'm zooming in on).

I use Mapsource to look at tracks and their profiles all the time. You
can zoom an to any part of a track (to about 1"=70 feet) or profile
(6"=0.1 miles). You can measure the grade on the profile between any
two points and can adjust the vertical scale to your desired
preferences. And, you can have the track points displayed on the
profile if you like.

> I could copy and paste portions of the track into smaller new tracks in
> MapSource to further play with the profile and stuff. But I quickly
> decide that this is a job for GPS Utility (GPSU, I'm currently using
> V4.82). GPSU is a much more powerful software for track analysis and
> review.
>
> In GPSU, I can look at the track in much more detail, isolate points or
> portions of the track, and regenerate it to new tracks with smoothing
> (averaging a user selected number of points).
>
> I am sure there many things to be done in GPSU that are beyond my
> current knowledge of the software as I've not spent any time at all
> looking at tracks in anything but a birds eye view.
>
> But if I have GPSU generate a new track and smooth it by averaging 40
> points at a time, I see an much more meaningful display of the track
> with the variations smoothed out.
>
> I'd best describe the track elevation for that trip as averaging out to
> about 20-25 feet above sea level for the 230 NM trip. Sounds like a
> geoid, no? And the extremes were about 18 feet below and 54 feet above
> sea level.
>
> If anyone would like to study or play with that track I can send it to
> them by email. It is about 235 kb in size as a *.gdb file, by using
> GPSU I can save and send it as just about any useful file type known to
> mankind.
>
> Jack

2007-09-17, 3:33 pm

I've used a 76CS (similar to the 76CSx or 60CSx) for nearly two years
now and find it to be a very nice compromise if you only use one GPS. I
use it for running/walking/hiking, cycling and in my car. The top row
of photos at:

http://arthurhass.fotopic.net/c901941.html

show the setups for auto and cycling with a Gilsson antenna with a four
foot cable. I also velcro the antenna to a cap, or my cycling helmet
(if not navigating). I now mount the antenna inside the car on a velcro
strip in the center of the dash near the front of the windshield. It
works perfectly. The display is a little small, but positioned as shown
in the photos, it is pretty close to the driver. Once or twice
(depending on speed) prior to a turn, it zooms in and shows great detail
of upcoming intersections with a very distinct arrow showing the
direction of travel including the turn.

The barometric altimeter is far superior to the GPS altimeter in my old
GPS III+. And, it can be set to auto-calibrate or not - your choice. I
find it very accurate if calibrated. If you don't know the altitude (or
pressure) to calibrate, you can use the GPS altitude - usually about
25-50 feet high.

I would not consider this to have a low resolution screen.

I would think that the 60CSx or 76CSx would meet your needs nicely. The
only thing missing for auto navigation is the voice prompt, but these
units beep and change display by zooming to the intersection.

I've had a few issues with the auto-routing, but no disasters.
Sometimes it doesn't provide the "best" route.

The issue with the battery being loose can easily be solved by inserting
a layer or two of paper towel on top of the batteries before closing the
cover. I've done this for many years (with my III+ and 76CS) and never
had a problem.

I have never used the compass :(

Arthur Hass
Reston, VA

Kingston wrote:
> I am really having a tough time in deciding which unit I should get. I
> have the older Etrex Legend and I like the unit but the screen is way
> to small for me. I plan to use it in auto navigation as well when I
> don't plan to connect or lug around my laptop when travelling with my
> laptop. But, I will eventually save up and probably get the Nuvi 7xx
> series.
>
> Now, I am considering the new Vista HCSx for it's price point but I
> think the screen is too small. I havent seen the new version but the
> old Vista's display is the same. I think that is too small? I read
> somewhere that the 60 or 76 CSx units display is low res and to view
> it should be viewed farther away. I am not sure what that is suppose
> to mean.
>
> So, I am considering the following models Vista HCSx or 60Csx/76CSX or
> No S with the 60/76 series. I would prefer to get one with Egnos but
> I need a GPS with SirFIII that I can use with my Mapsource software.
>
> Any suggestions/comments please.
>
> Thanks

Jack Erbes

2007-09-17, 3:33 pm

Ed wrote:
<snip>
> I use Mapsource to look at tracks and their profiles all the time. You
> can zoom an to any part of a track (to about 1"=70 feet) or profile
> (6"=0.1 miles). You can measure the grade on the profile between any
> two points and can adjust the vertical scale to your desired
> preferences. And, you can have the track points displayed on the
> profile if you like.
>

Okay, I might be conceptually handicapped on the MapSource track
filtering and panning scheme. I spent some time trying to figure it out
once and declared it not worth the trouble to try to use.

Maybe it is good and I just don't understand it.

Jack

Dan Anderson

2007-09-17, 10:33 pm

Kingston

2007-09-18, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:33:52 -0230, Roger Green <rcgreen@mun.caNOJUNK>
wrote:
:
:I just received my new 60csx, and was pretty sure they still had a 64MB card. So I opened it up and......it's a 128MB ! (The specs on the Garmin website still say 64MB on Sept 17).
:
:I agree that the barometer/compass is no big deal for most applications, but where I bought my unit from (Comparemaster) the difference in price is only US$19.00, so I got the csx. Both the the barometer and compass seem to work as advertised, so for $19
.00 extra it's a no-brainer.

That's a good price, but they also carry the 76 CSX for the same
price. What made you decide to get the 60 vs 76?

Kingston

2007-09-18, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:09:38 -0400, Jack Erbes <jacker@midmaine.com>
wrote:

:The downloadable/viewable online Owner's Manual has color images of all
:the pages if that will work for you:
:
:http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/ GPS...n
ual.pdf

Thanks Jack, I was looking for a side-by-side comparison of the screen
and basemap between the 76 or 60 vs the Vista HCX.

Kingston

2007-09-18, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:24:05 -0400, Ed <edATridersiteDOTorg> wrote:

:I've used a 76CS (similar to the 76CSx or 60CSx) for nearly two years
:now and find it to be a very nice compromise if you only use one GPS. I
:use it for running/walking/hiking, cycling and in my car. The top row
:of photos at:
:
:http://arthurhass.fotopic.net/c901941.html
:
:show the setups for auto and cycling with a Gilsson antenna with a four
:foot cable. I also velcro the antenna to a cap, or my cycling helmet
:(if not navigating). I now mount the antenna inside the car on a velcro
:strip in the center of the dash near the front of the windshield. It
:works perfectly. The display is a little small, but positioned as shown
:in the photos, it is pretty close to the driver. Once or twice
:(depending on speed) prior to a turn, it zooms in and shows great detail
:of upcoming intersections with a very distinct arrow showing the
:direction of travel including the turn.
:
:The barometric altimeter is far superior to the GPS altimeter in my old
:GPS III+. And, it can be set to auto-calibrate or not - your choice. I
:find it very accurate if calibrated. If you don't know the altitude (or
:pressure) to calibrate, you can use the GPS altitude - usually about
:25-50 feet high.
:
:I would not consider this to have a low resolution screen.
:
:I would think that the 60CSx or 76CSx would meet your needs nicely. The
:only thing missing for auto navigation is the voice prompt, but these
:units beep and change display by zooming to the intersection.
:
:I've had a few issues with the auto-routing, but no disasters.
:Sometimes it doesn't provide the "best" route.
:
:The issue with the battery being loose can easily be solved by inserting
:a layer or two of paper towel on top of the batteries before closing the
:cover. I've done this for many years (with my III+ and 76CS) and never
:had a problem.
:
:I have never used the compass :(
:
:Arthur Hass
:Reston, VA

Thanks Arthur, much appreciated. How do you find the external
antenna, does it eat up more battery power on the gps then using it
without one and is the reception much better using an external when
positioned inside your dash?

Kingston

2007-09-18, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:19:09 -0600, Dan Anderson
< danderson2001@hotmai
l.com> wrote:

:The color eTrex models have a screen that is shorter than the
:old b&w models. The menu bar at the top of the b&w was eliminated
:for lack of screen space. So you have to cycle through the pages
:in one direction.
:
:The color screens on the 76 and 60 series is a lower resolution
:than the older 76 series b&w. However I wouldn't call the color
:screens low resolution. Look at a 12 series receiver to see a
:low resolution screen. You do get fewer data fields on the new
:color 76 models as compared to the old 76. I zoom to the 80 ft.
:scale on a 76Cx to be comparable to the 120 ft. scale on the 76S.
:
:At this point, I consider the SiRF III, used in the 76Cx, 60Cx, etc.
:to be a better chipset than the MediaTek chipset used in the
:eTrex H series but, for most users, it doesn't make much of
:a difference.
:
:I've posted a tracklog comparison here:
:
:http://www.gpsmap.net/ CompareHikes...76
S.html

Thanks, so I won't get the new HCx or ones with the MediaTek chipset.

Now can someone help with the decision to get either the 60CSx or the
76 CSx? As posted earlier the current $50 rebate is very nice and the
bonus 128 MB card is great if there is fresh new stock; otherwise I
guess I am SOL and stuck with the 64 MB card if I choose the 60. The
60 and 76CSx without rebate are the same price at most retailers.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Bitstring < 91d0f39s7n2udj4bmj7r
0umng5se834r86@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Kingston <hatespam@nospam.com> said
<snip>
>Thanks, so I won't get the new HCx or ones with the MediaTek chipset.
>
>Now can someone help with the decision to get either the 60CSx or the
>76 CSx? As posted earlier the current $50 rebate is very nice and the
>bonus 128 MB card is great if there is fresh new stock; otherwise I
>guess I am SOL and stuck with the 64 MB card if I choose the 60. The
>60 and 76CSx without rebate are the same price at most retailers.

I doubt you'll find many 60c(s)xs with the 64MB card these days. However
the 60/76 choice is, as I said way upthread, religious/personal. Go see
them both, try them both, and then decide .. nobody can do it for you.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

For the 76CS the external antenna is much better than without - it never
looses a fix. I'm not sure how that might relate to the 76CSx.

When positioned inside on the dash, it works just as well as when
outside on the roof - I really can't tell any difference. I'm sure the
external antenna uses slightly more juice, but it still gets about 10
hours on freshly recharged AAs. With the power save option, I'm sure it
would get more than that, but I never use it. Of course it doesn't
matter in the car using external power and when hiking or cycling ten
hours is plenty unless your a real animal ;-)

If you get a Gilsson, get the one with the 90-degree connector:

http://tinyurl.com/2h798j

Kingston wrote:

> Thanks Arthur, much appreciated. How do you find the external
> antenna, does it eat up more battery power on the gps then using it
> without one and is the reception much better using an external when
> positioned inside your dash?

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Bitstring < M7ydnaQ1IJgp0W3bnZ2d
nUVZ_t2inZ2d@comcast
.com>, from the
wonderful person Ed < edATridersiteDOTorg@
?.?.invalid> said
>For the 76CS the external antenna is much better than without - it
>never looses a fix. I'm not sure how that might relate to the 76CSx.
>

Well I still use one (on the car roof, in my Tilley hat) with the 60CSX,
so it continues to get the best possible fix when in my pocket, in the
cupholder, whatever, but actually it doesn't need one (the old 60C did,
which is why I have them). I might get an extra satellite that way, and
a slightly stronger signal (in my pocket is a fairly bad place,
blocking-wise), but it doesn't actually lose lock no matter what I do (I
even had the external antenna in my hat upside down for a while - the
60CSX still worked, albeit detectably more poorly!).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

Sam

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

"Kingston" <hatespam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cjc0f3t2kdsg0gn
iqhfte8eje3t8k748q2@
4ax.com...
: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:09:38 -0400, Jack Erbes <jacker@midmaine.com>
: wrote:
:
:
::The downloadable/viewable online Owner's Manual has color images of
all
::the pages if that will work for you:
::
::http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/ GPS...n
ual.pdf
:
: Thanks Jack, I was looking for a side-by-side comparison of the screen
: and basemap between the 76 or 60 vs the Vista HCX.

Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/32cw58

Terje Mathisen

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

Kingston wrote:
> Thanks, so I won't get the new HCx or ones with the MediaTek chipset.
>
> Now can someone help with the decision to get either the 60CSx or the
> 76 CSx? As posted earlier the current $50 rebate is very nice and the
> bonus 128 MB card is great if there is fresh new stock; otherwise I
> guess I am SOL and stuck with the 64 MB card if I choose the 60. The
> 60 and 76CSx without rebate are the same price at most retailers.

This is easy:

If you're going to use it (at least part of the time) on a boat, get the
76, otherwise the 60.

I sail a few weeks every year, so I have an old 76S and a new 76CSx. My
sister, who also owns a boat, has a 76C, while my brother who likes
mountain hikes went for the 60CS. (Both the 76C and the 60CS was bought
before the CSx series came out.)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

LinkBot