Author Topic: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76  (Read 6589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« on: December 03, 2010, 08:49:45 »
I thought rather than taking over other threads, this discussion deserved its own home.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I get the impression that most of those who say the new gen is slower, clunkier, buggier but prettier don't actually own one of the units they're disparaging. They saw someone else having problems with one of the new units, and got their initial impressions, before they were used to the new method, and don't have first hand experience of their own. It does help to own one of the units rather than "borrow one for a while".

Now I grant you that the Colorado seems to have been the model with the most problems, some still unresolved with no relief in sight, but the Oregon and Dakota are awesome, imho. The higher resolution screens, very fast text input through touchscreen keyboards, multiple map capabilities, beaming ability, standardized mounting system and all the other features make for a really fun and functional toy.

I agree, proximity circles are useful, but they are there on the 62/78 series, so that's another modern alternative.

I also agree that the 60/76/LegendHCx etc were great in their day, and are still the best option for some people, but they are not the best for me anymore.

And I remember buying my 60 and 76CSx units for well over $500 each, and they stayed expensive for a long time so to see these new units down to $220 so soon in their life cycle is also awesome. $229 for a 450 Oregon? It's a steal! $179 for a Dakota 20? Wow!
« Last Edit: December 03, 2010, 09:25:29 by Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide »

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2010, 09:21:57 »
I don't think there's a need to try to convince people one model is better than another (these fanboys threads never ends).

You take the tool that works best for you (and your needs) and you'll be happy.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2010, 09:33:01 »
I don't think there's a need to try to convince people one model is better than another (these fanboys threads never ends).

I agree, but the discussion goes on in other threads anyway, and this way it wouldn't take over other threads.

You take the tool that works best for you (and your needs) and you'll be happy.


Again, I agree, but people need to make an informed decision, based on feedback from people who actually use the units in question.

This is not intended to bash one model or another - if anyone truly feels the 60/76/Legend is better they are welcome to discuss it but I'd prefer it if their opinions were based on their own experience with the models they are discussing. Not hearsay, etc.

portera

  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Yes, I probably should be working...
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2010, 09:54:04 »
What I know for sure...

On my canoe trip in September, caching in Temagami with my brother who owns an Oregon 550.

1) His Oregon never crashed once. My Colorado crashed at least 6 times (which wasn't bad, considering how often it freezes some days).
2) His Oregon could sit propped up on the seat in front of him and navigate properly. Mine had to sit perfectly flat, which made it impossible to see. (2-pole vs. 3-pole compass)
3) He had never seen his unit freeze when loading large GPX files. Mine does almost every time.
4) He has a lot more flexibility on what he sees when he is navigating than I do with my Colorado.
5) Entering notes is WAY faster on the touch screen.


GreyingJay

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2010, 12:37:51 »
You are correct that I do not own an Oregon or 62, and I admit this means I cannot provide a true "user's perspective".  However, does this not lead to a chicken and egg problem when trying to evaluate if a unit will meet my needs?  I'm not going to buy a unit until I'm convinced that it is worth the investment, yet I cannot determine this fairly without owning and using one.  While I agree that it may be premature to judge a unit based on "hearsay", I don't dismiss first-hand feedback from my friends who do own them.

As I alluded to in the other thread, perhaps it is my engineering background that causes me to be inordinately picky about gadgets. However, I am not above admitting mistakes or errors in judgment. When the Apple iPad was first released, I scoffed and criticized just like everyone else. I went to Best Buy to play with one (and, admittedly, to laugh at it) yet within minutes of using it, I admitted that I misjudged -- and I walked out of the store with one.

Anyway, as long as the device does what you want it to do, at a price you're willing to pay, then more power to you. And you are right, Dr. Jeckyl, that prices keep falling as technology keeps improving.  I'm sure the next generation units ("Montana"?) will be even better.

And I do apologize for hijacking that other thread. :(

kirok

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 691
  • "To boldly find what no cacher has logged before!"
    • Binthair Challenge
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2010, 18:06:29 »
I own a 62 and have expressed my opinions of it at length in my initial review thread here: http://canadascapitalcachers.ca/forum/index.php?topic=30.0, which I abandoned when it was taken over by pictures of motorcycle mounts.  I don't see a need for me to go into it further in yet another thread.

I still use the 62 for day-to-day traditional caches that require little interaction with the unit and for Chirp, but until the firmware matures, my flawless 60 will still be my main unit.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2010, 00:52:37 by kirok »

lacwitt

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2010, 11:33:35 »
I've got my old style 76 and vista, and if anyone upgrading feels like getting rid of an "old clunker" let me know.  I've always rather owned older stuff, I'd rather break/lose a $100 vista than a $400 whatever, and they still work the same for me (get me to the general area).  I can't do chirps, but then again, I don't really care that much.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2010, 11:41:14 »
I've got my old style 76 and vista, and if anyone upgrading feels like getting rid of an "old clunker" let me know.  I've always rather owned older stuff, I'd rather break/lose a $100 vista than a $400 whatever, and they still work the same for me (get me to the general area).  I can't do chirps, but then again, I don't really care that much.

Good point. One of the guys at work really wants to sell a 76CS cheaply.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2010, 20:19:40 »
Field Notes Option in the Oregon - What a Time Saver!

I'd read about this in the past and promptly forgotten to try but today I did and it's amazing how useful this feature of the Geocaching site really is. Here's how it's described on the site:

"Garmin - Colorado and Oregon GPS Receivers - While Geocaching with the Garmin Colorado or Garmin Oregon you can upload your geocache finds directly from the device once you return back from your day geocaching. Click here to upload Field Notes from your Garmin Colorado or Garmin Oregon."

Airedales and I had found a few caches in the last few weekends with our Oregons and marked them as found in the Geocaching section of the gps, and found a few more today so when we got home I tried this out and it found 24 caches in the fieldnotes on the gps which I had not yet logged, and once I uploaded the notes to the site, they were a shortcut to the actual caches I'd found, and it took me minutes rather than an hour to post all the finds! What an excellent feature! Here's where you'll find it on the GC site: http://www.geocaching.com/my/fieldnotes.aspx

And I'm happy to report that the 62 also has this very useful feature, though it's not mentioned on the Geocaching site. Here's a screen shot of the file which gets uploaded, and the contents of the file.





cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2010, 22:00:03 »
Field Notes Option in the Oregon - What a Time Saver!

I second that! I discovered that feature about three weeks ago (darn, I should have done more research before). Since then. I'm logging all my finds with the Field Notes (even when I find only a few caches).

But... Yep, I'm doing this from the comfort of my 60CSx.

Field Notes is just a file format to send your caches to Groundspeak, so I wrote a macro to just do that: take whatever caches I found (or DNFed) and send my logs online to geocaching.com. It's much easier to log multiple finds with that interface. And it changes the status of the caches in GSAK on-the-fly as the file gets exported. Can't ask for more!

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2010, 22:05:00 »
Field Notes Option in the Oregon - What a Time Saver!
But... Yep, I'm doing this from the comfort of my 60CSx.

Field Notes is just a file format to send your caches to Groundspeak, so I wrote a macro to just do that: take whatever caches I found (or DNFed) and send my logs online to geocaching.com. It's much easier to log multiple finds with that interface. And it changes the status of the caches in GSAK on-the-fly as the file gets exported. Can't ask for more!

Are you using the 60 as the input to the field notes or creating a comma delimited file externally/manually?

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2010, 22:15:04 »
Are you using the 60 as the input to the field notes or creating a comma delimited file externally/manually?

As far as I know, there's no way to access it directly on the GPSr, so you first need to export in CSV from Mapsource. That's one more step in the process, but it saves so much time when logging (by just clicking on the "Compose Log" link) that it's well worth it even for 3-4 caches.

I might have a look if it's possible to extract it directly from the GPSr. Maybe...

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2010, 22:22:14 »
Are you using the 60 as the input to the field notes or creating a comma delimited file externally/manually?

As far as I know, there's no way to access it directly on the GPSr, so you first need to export in CSV from Mapsource. That's one more step in the process, but it saves so much time when logging (by just clicking on the "Compose Log" link) that it's well worth it even for 3-4 caches.

I might have a look if it's possible to extract it directly from the GPSr. Maybe...

The question was "Are you using the 60 as the input to the field notes or creating a comma delimited file externally/manually?". In other words, how do you put info into the field notes? The Oregon/Colorado/62/78 allow you to type field notes "in the field" so when you upload the file to the GC site, it's already got your log note to add.

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2010, 22:37:35 »
In other words, how do you put info into the field notes? The Oregon/Colorado/62/78 allow you to type field notes "in the field" so when you upload the file to the GC site, it's already got your log note to add.

I import the waypoints in Mapsource from the GPSr and export that in CSV format. This is what the macro will start with.

Personally, I always write the time in the description (this would be my "field notes"), so it gets to the macro. The icon will provide a good guess about a "found" cache or a "dnf/unnatempted" one. The macro will let you choose the time/date/comment/etc for each cache anyway (but it will pre-fill the fields for you with the info it could find).

There are two ways to use Field Notes. You can either upload a bare file and compose your logs online for each cache (or use a dummy sentence for all the caches), or you can use one of several macros that will let you create a detailed log before uploading the file. Then all you need to do is to click on "Compose Log", "Submit", and so on. As the time/date is included in the file, it will fill the date and type of log for you automatically.

The only difference between my macro and the other ones is that mine will create the file from the Mapsource export instead of reading a filter in GSAK (which doesn't have some details).

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2010, 22:46:10 »
In other words, how do you put info into the field notes? The Oregon/Colorado/62/78 allow you to type field notes "in the field" so when you upload the file to the GC site, it's already got your log note to add.

I import the waypoints in Mapsource from the GPSr and export that in CSV format. This is what the macro will start with.

Personally, I always write the time in the description (this would be my "field notes"), so it gets to the macro. The icon will provide a good guess about a "found" cache or a "dnf/unnatempted" one. The macro will let you choose the time/date/comment/etc for each cache anyway (but it will pre-fill the fields for you with the info it could find).

There are two ways to use Field Notes. You can either upload a bare file and compose your logs online for each cache (or use a dummy sentence for all the caches), or you can use one of several macros that will let you create a detailed log before uploading the file. Then all you need to do is to click on "Compose Log", "Submit", and so on. As the time/date is included in the file, it will fill the date and type of log for you automatically.

The only difference between my macro and the other ones is that mine will create the file from the Mapsource export instead of reading a filter in GSAK (which doesn't have some details).

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write this out. If I didn't have an alternative, I'd probably give your method a try. But I like my alternative a lot. Hardly needs anything but what I do at the cache. Makes it possible for me to log finds while traveling, from my Netbook.