Garmin GPS - Considering purchasing Vista HCX- comparing to 60CSX

Author

Considering purchasing Vista HCX- comparing to 60CSX

2008-03-12, 4:33 am

I'm considering purchasing the Vista HCX. I read online, maybe I
misinterpreted what was written, but is it true that you canNOT add City
Navigator Maps to the microSD card as well as download waypoints onto
the Vista HCX? I have a non current version of City Navigator and an
extra unused unlock code and I was thinking of downloading it to the
micro SD card.

Also, how's the reception and accuracy of the Vista HCX compared to the
older SiRF III 60CSX? Is there any negative criticism for the HCX?

Thanks

Keith

2008-03-12, 7:33 am

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:28:09 GMT, "JJ" <none@none.com> wrote:

>I'm considering purchasing the Vista HCX. I read online, maybe I
>misinterpreted what was written, but is it true that you canNOT add City
>Navigator Maps to the microSD card as well as download waypoints onto
>the Vista HCX? I have a non current version of City Navigator and an
>extra unused unlock code and I was thinking of downloading it to the
>micro SD card.
>
>Also, how's the reception and accuracy of the Vista HCX compared to the
>older SiRF III 60CSX? Is there any negative criticism for the HCX?
>
>Thanks

1. No not true
2. Quire comparaible, there used to be an Odometer bug, that seems to
have been fixed now ->
http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/...?TOPIC_ID=87583

2008-03-12, 3:33 pm

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:srfft31gb5no324
k8kv87d516lp55st6c3@
4ax.com...
: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:28:09 GMT, "JJ" <none@none.com> wrote:
:
: >I'm considering purchasing the Vista HCX. I read online, maybe I
: >misinterpreted what was written, but is it true that you canNOT add
City
: >Navigator Maps to the microSD card as well as download waypoints onto
: >the Vista HCX? I have a non current version of City Navigator and an
: >extra unused unlock code and I was thinking of downloading it to the
: >micro SD card.
: >
: >Also, how's the reception and accuracy of the Vista HCX compared to
the
: >older SiRF III 60CSX? Is there any negative criticism for the HCX?
: >
: >Thanks
:
: 1. No not true
: 2. Quire comparaible, there used to be an Odometer bug, that seems to
: have been fixed now ->
: http://www.gpspassion.com/forumsen/...?TOPIC_ID=87583

Thanks for the link to the forum and the clarification.

I am a little surprised at the screen size difference between the 60CSx
and HCx. You can really see it quite well in the link here:
http://www.gpspassion.com/pics/news/20080113_etrex.JPG and here:
http://tinyurl.com/yotqw7

There is still a small difference in the odometer in the pic. The 60CSx
is 5.71 km while the HCx is 5.67 km and total moving time including
elevation is off. Hmm. How much faster in screen display (processing
of maps/data) is the HCX over the 60CSx? I'm leaning now leaning more
toward the 60CSx or even 76CSx because it floats and the larger memory
card size and because of NMEA output.

Dan Anderson

2008-03-12, 3:33 pm

JJ wrote:
& #91;snip]
> Also, how's the reception and accuracy of the Vista HCX compared to the
> older SiRF III 60CSX? Is there any negative criticism for the HCX?

See: http://www.gpsmap.net/ CompareHikes...76
S.html

The odometer and moving time problems only apply to low
speeds. Fast walk, bike, and car travel are not problem areas.

The odometer on the Vista HCx currently seems to read slightly
high. The moving time is definitely low.

Vista HCx version 2.60 and MediaTek (GPS SW) version 2.60...

These are borderline hikes that aren't quite fast enough
but not really slow enough for a good test:

Miles Moving Total Total Moving Max
Avg Avg Time Time Speed

GPSmap 76Cx: 3.19 2.7 2.5 1:17 1:10 4.3
GPSmap 60Cx: 3.17 2.7 2.4 1:18 1:10 4.3
GPSmap 76S: 3.20 2.7 2.4 1:19:30 1:11:57 4.1
Vista HCx: 3.31 3.0 2.4 1:21 1:07 4.8

GPSmap 76Cx: 5.90 2.3 1.9 3:06 2:30 4.9
GPSmap 60Cx: 5.93 2.4 1.9 3:07 2:29 5.0
GPSmap 76S: 5.90 2.3 1.9 3:08:25 2:33:25 4.4
Vista HCx: 6.07 2.8 1.9 3:10 2:10 4.8

The total times are not equal because the 4 receivers
couldn't be started and stopped at exactly the same time.

The Vista HCx used to significantly under count the
distance when traveling less than about 2 mph.

--
Dan
(Email: dan at domain below )
(www.gpsmap.net)

Jack Erbes

2008-03-12, 10:33 pm

JJ wrote:
<snip>
> Thanks for the link to the forum and the clarification.
>
> I am a little surprised at the screen size difference between the 60CSx
> and HCx. You can really see it quite well in the link here:
> http://www.gpspassion.com/pics/news/20080113_etrex.JPG and here:
> http://tinyurl.com/yotqw7
>
> There is still a small difference in the odometer in the pic. The 60CSx
> is 5.71 km while the HCx is 5.67 km and total moving time including
> elevation is off. Hmm.

Were both of the odometers reset to zero at the same point in time?

Were both of them using the same setting for the track point collection
rate?

Both of those are things that can effect the displayed track length.

My 76Cx accumulates distance when I am not moving because it accumulates
the distances from each track point to the next. There is always going
to be some amount of distance between any two consecutive track points,
and that distance is accumulated.

If you have had a 76Cx (or any 60/76 Cx/CSx model) on for a while with
tracking on and track point collection on, you'll see a small tangle of
track lines when you zoom in to the max on the display.

Once you start moving the accumulated distance on the odometer goes to
the direction of travel but it is not in an absolute pure straight line
with no deviation from the rhumb line of the travel.

> How much faster in screen display (processing
> of maps/data) is the HCX over the 60CSx? I'm leaning now leaning more
> toward the 60CSx or even 76CSx because it floats and the larger memory
> card size and because of NMEA output.

I can't answer the question about the speed difference. But I have a
feeling it would be minor.

The 60/76 "x" series models have better antennas and outperform the
Vista at receiving weaker signals. They work better in heavy cover, in
inner city canyons, etc.

I find the 76's rectangular shape allows me to set it leaning against
things or propped up better. I was leery about having the buttons over
the display when I bought it (at the time I was using Magellan Meridians
with button locations that are much like the 60 series models). But I
quickly came to prefer the buttons over the display. Your thumb does
not block the display and the mass of the receiver is balanced over you
palm and more comfortably gripped. It is a hard thing to assess with
actually feeling it, but others here found the button location on the 76
series to be preferable to that on the 60 series after having used both.

For me, the SiRF III chip set and better sensitivity, plus the fact that
I tend to use these for a long time, would lead me to buying another
76Cx or 76CSx if I had to replace mine today. There is nothing better
on the market IMHO.

Jack

Ted Edwards

2008-03-13, 12:33 pm

JJ wrote:
> toward the 60CSx or even 76CSx because it floats and the larger memory
> card size and because of NMEA output.

I have a 76Cx and quite like it but card size is not a significant
factor. The cards shipped with either 60 or 76 series units is
ridiculously small by today's standards. I have two 2GB cards for fast
switching between different map sets with room on each for many days
worth of track logs.

Ted

2008-03-16, 3:33 pm

Jack Erbes wrote:[color=darkred
]

I hadn't considered the antennas. Since the 60CSx has an external
antenna then it should stand to reason that it should have better
reception under heavy cover or whatever compared to the 76CSx?

Ted Edwards

2008-03-16, 3:33 pm

JJ wrote:
> Jack Erbes wrote:
>
> I hadn't considered the antennas. Since the 60CSx has an external
> antenna then it should stand to reason that it should have better
> reception under heavy cover or whatever compared to the 76CSx?

I believe Jack was referring to an external antenna connected to the
unit via a thin cable. I have a GA 25MCX external antenna which sits on
the roof of the car or in a pocket in my hat. Makes a significant
improvement in both reception and convenience (the orientation of the
GPSR becomes irrelevent.

Ted

GSV Three Minds in a Can

2008-03-16, 3:33 pm

Bitstring <qHeDj.91156$pM4.82721@pd7urf1no>, from the wonderful person
JJ <none@none.com> said
>Jack Erbes wrote:
>
>I hadn't considered the antennas. Since the 60CSx has an external
>antenna then it should stand to reason that it should have better
>reception under heavy cover or whatever compared to the 76CSx?

The 60 and 76 models have a CONNECTOR for an external antenna (bring
your own), but even the internal antenna is a Quadrifilar Helix, (i.e. 4
wires wound in a spiral pattern) which seems to do better than the patch
antenna on the eTrex models. Theoretically people will tell you that the
patch should do just fine .. out in the real world it doesn't seem to.

However the real winner on the 60cX models is the Sirf3 chipset. My 60C
has the same antenna as the 60CX I now have (the same external antenna
at that) but kicks the 60C models into touch when it comes to
sensitivity .. and the 60C was already that much ahead of the older
eTrex models.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
11,020 Km walked. 2,118 Km PROWs surveyed. 38.3% complete.

Jack Erbes

2008-03-16, 10:33 pm

JJ wrote:
> Jack Erbes wrote:
>
> I hadn't considered the antennas. Since the 60CSx has an external
> antenna then it should stand to reason that it should have better
> reception under heavy cover or whatever compared to the 76CSx?
>

The antennas built into the 60CSx and the 76CSx are the same, described
in the detailed specs as "quad helix receiving antennas." And both of
those also have a MCX connector on the case that will let them use an
external antenna that could further increase signal reception. So I
would expect the performance of the 60CSx and 76CSx to be the same as
long as they were both using the same antenna.

The eTrex has a "built in patch" antenna. That is a small flat, square,
antenna that would be more directional and also would typically have a
lower receiving gain than the omni directional quad helix antennas.

Garmin does not go into any great detail or provide any performance data
that would quantify the difference in performance between the eTrex and
60/76 Cx/CSx models, but informal test by people here that have both has
borne out that the 60/76 Cx/CSx will work better than the eTrex in
"challenging" conditions.

I pretty much consider that the SiRF III chip set and better antenna
justify the extra cost of the 60/76 "x" models if you are looking for
the best performance.

I've be using my 76Cx for almost two years now and have never found a
need to connect an external antenna (I have a couple of them). I use it
in cars and boats, paying little attention of keeping it positioned or
oriented for best reception, carry it in a back pack or jacket or pants
pocket, drive with it in the cup holder on the console in the car (down
well below dash level) and it just keeps on working. It will lose
signals and the fix occasionally in tunnels, metal buildings, heavily
built reinforced concrete structures like parking garages, etc. But
most of the situations where I lose signal, having an external antenna
would not be of much benefit.

Jack

Ted Edwards

2008-03-18, 4:33 am

Jack Erbes wrote:
> I've be using my 76Cx for almost two years now and have never found a
> need to connect an external antenna (I have a couple of them).

I live in SW British Columbia, Canada. Driving through our mountain
valleys, I sometimes loose lock without the external antenna but have
never lost it with the external antenna. A friend who does a lot of
hiking in the jungle like conditions of the BC "Wet" Coast, he has had
the same experience comparing no external with one in a pocket in his
hat. YMMV. :-)

Ted

LinkBot