Author Topic: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76  (Read 6588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2010, 23:04:45 »
Hardly needs anything but what I do at the cache. Makes it possible for me to log finds while traveling, from my Netbook.

No matter how you do it, you always need something in between the GPSr and geocaching.com to upload your logs (except for an iPhone, or similar technology). Fortunately, logging can wait a few hours/days, so I never miss my laptop, Mapsource and GSAK.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2010, 09:12:36 »

Hardly needs anything but what I do at the cache. Makes it possible for me to log finds while traveling, from my Netbook.

No matter how you do it, you always need something in between the GPSr and geocaching.com to upload your logs (except for an iPhone, or similar technology). Fortunately, logging can wait a few hours/days, so I never miss my laptop, Mapsource and GSAK.

Yes, you do need the computer to connect to the gc site, but only to make the connection if you have a new gen unit, nothing more.

To see how the legacy units might use the field notes I tried out my Legend this morning and in cache mode I can see a notes field but it's there so I can see notes the cache creator made, and there's no way for me to append anyting to either the cache or the calendar entry which is created when I mark the cache as found, so that's not what I would call "Doing this from the comfort of my 60CSx".

Anyway I am not writing this to create an argument; if the legacy models will do the same as the new gen, it's good to know, but I think new gen models are awesome and really do make possible many things we only dreamed of when all we had were the best legacy units like the 60/76/Legend HCx etc.

I won't be getting rid of my Legend, but I won't be using it often.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2010, 09:14:24 »
Not sure how I ended up with a double post...
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 09:17:11 by Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide »

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2010, 10:47:46 »
You seem to want to make a point with this post. All I can say is the new generation GPSrs only provides Chirp and Wherigo, with less useful features.

I don't want to carry two GPSrs, so I'm waiting for the 62 to be a real GPSr before switching to it. I can do without Wherigo (too complicated for the usual geocacher to create one) and Chirp (too expensive to be used a lot).

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2010, 16:13:55 »
You seem to want to make a point with this post. All I can say is the new generation GPSrs only provides Chirp and Wherigo, with less useful features.

I don't want to carry two GPSrs, so I'm waiting for the 62 to be a real GPSr before switching to it. I can do without Wherigo (too complicated for the usual geocacher to create one) and Chirp (too expensive to be used a lot).

Sorry, I've decided to stop feeding the trolls.

cron

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2010, 16:45:48 »
Sorry, I've decided to stop feeding the trolls.

Darn, this thread is a troll on its own. Wasn't it written in the sky? Anything with "VS" in the subject is doomed to have both camps bragging about what the others can't do (better than them). Back to first answer.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2010, 17:08:25 »
Another useful option the Oregon has is on the compass screen, the Dashboard feature. Specifically for geocaching, the "Geocaches Nearest" option shows you the regular compass as well as a smaller one which shows the location of the nearest cache. This is fun if you're out driving and want to see a summary of the closest cache, on a screen which updates itself as you travel along.

Here's a screen capture of the feature.



And screen shots are a cinch on the Oregon/62/Etc - there's an option built in to the gps to do so.


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 #22 on: December 05, 2010, 18:11:41 »
Anything with "VS" in the subject is doomed to have both camps bragging about what the others can't do (better than them).

Yes, the thread title is misleading.  Unless you're looking for some healthy debate, I *strongly* suggest you change the thread title to "My opinions of the new line of GPS units" or something along those lines.  I'm all for opinions (and I have strong ones of my own), but if you don't want other opinions that rebut yours, then simply state that fact.  Calling this a "VS" thread is misleading to newcomers.

Thanks.

Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2010, 19:14:46 »
Anything with "VS" in the subject is doomed to have both camps bragging about what the others can't do (better than them).

Yes, the thread title is misleading.  Unless you're looking for some healthy debate, I *strongly* suggest you change the thread title to "My opinions of the new line of GPS units" or something along those lines.  I'm all for opinions (and I have strong ones of my own), but if you don't want other opinions that rebut yours, then simply state that fact.  Calling this a "VS" thread is misleading to newcomers.

Thanks.

I don't mind strong opinions as long as they're based on fact. Just saying one is better than the other is not good enough if you can't do anything to prove it.

Or saying the other has no useful functions over and above what you personally think is important is also not good enough.

So, tell me again why the 60 is better; don't just say it is.

I'm prepared to listen but I won't accept intimidation just because you don't want to hear something you don't agree with. I have had many 60s, and they just don't interest me now that much better units are out there.

If you don't like the topic why are you reading it?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 19:16:26 by Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide »

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 #24 on: December 05, 2010, 20:01:49 »
I don't mind strong opinions as long as they're based on fact. Just saying one is better than the other is not good enough if you can't do anything to prove it.

As you know, and I have stated many times, I own both a 62 and (several) 60CSx units.  My opinions are just that, opinions.  They are based on my experiences with both units and I've gone through my review in length in my original thread.  The 62 has the potential to be a wonderful unit, but IMO (yes, MY opinion, that's all it is) it was released too early from Beta and needed more testers and quality control.

Or saying the other has no useful functions over and above what you personally think is important is also not good enough.

Never said that, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.  The "prettier, slower, buggier" statement is mine, and I stand by it, but it was only made in reference to the identical features as the 60 series.  I obviously could not compare "beaming" or "Chirp" against the 60, they simply do not exist.  But screen scrolling speed, stability, useful functions that permit finding caches beyond simple traditionals, those I can compare. My original thread was to compare the 62 to my existing 60, not to discuss the new features of the 62/ new world Garmins.    I believe you are actually doing an excellent job of this here. (yes, that is a compliment), just so long as you don't have an issue with someone jumping in and saying "I can do that with my 60/76/etc.., here's how".

Quote
So, tell me again why the 60 is better; don't just say it is.

Once again, I never said it was.  I never said the 62 better either.  The point of comparing the 60 to the 62 in my original thread, was that Garmin themselves were pushing the 62 as the replacement for the 60, but with some key features missing and the poor reliability of the software, I think they used that tag line a little too soon.  

Quote
I'm prepared to listen but I won't accept intimidation just because you don't want to hear something you don't agree with.

Intimidation?  Not sure where you got that.

Quote
I have had many 60s, and they just don't interest me now that much better units are out there.

Excellent.  Your opinion.  I prefer my 60, but do look forward to when Garmin fixes all the bugs in the 62, as I do want to use it more often.

Quote
If you don't like the topic why are you reading it?

'cause it's my job as moderator to do so, and the topic interests me.

In closing, despite what you may think, I do like my 62.  I would have returned it otherwise.  I am hopeful that Garmin fixes all of the bugs, and adds back in the missing features that were omitted (including PROPER proximity circles - the 62 has them, but they are not accurate).  I am however enjoying the new features such as Chirp and beaming, but without a rock solid base to rely on, to me they are only pretty curtains on a dirty window.  Yes, that's my opinion.

Please continue to post your incites on the new units, as they are interesting and informative to others, especially the screenshots (which you can do with a 60 BTW  :P, but you need Garmin software on your PC, you can't do it on the unit).

We'll meet someday at an event, have a beer and laugh about how silly we sound in these threads.   :D  Cheers!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2010, 20:06:09 by kirok »

Starkiller

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2010, 09:46:41 »
I particularly like and enjoy the ability to easily load google maps onto Oregons (and the rest of the left side of the VS). It's easy enough to create, manage, and even share. It's very handy in forests to choose your path so you avoid swampy areas, and link up to trails, etc.

GreyingJay

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2010, 11:33:52 »
Jekyll/Hide, that "nearest cache" display does look very compelling.  And, to your credit, these threads have got me looking at reviews of the newer units again.  While the reviews of the 300/400/etc series pretty much echoed my initial impressions, the 450/550 reviews seem much more positive. Although, again, the two or three reviews I read all compared the units to the 60csx, and all of them were able to mention a few features available on the 60csx series that are better or no longer available on the Oregon.

Give it another couple of firmware updates and the next time there's a really compelling sale there's a good chance I'll give a 450 a try.

I want to say again that my beef is with ALL manufacturers who release products without (apparently) doing full real-world usability testing with them, not just Garmin. 

Curious George

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2010, 13:38:52 »
I want to say again that my beef is with ALL manufacturers who release products without (apparently) doing full real-world usability testing with them, not just Garmin. 

Agree completely! I work in an IT related field and where I work after something has gone through various levels of internal testing we do extensive testing with real end users before it ever goes live.

In such a competitive field I could see real value in having new technology field tested in scenarios that end users would really be using them in. It may add a bit more time to a release date, but the savings in having to go back and redo something would more than make up for any costs involved. Developers could be working on the next pieces of functionality, instead of working on fixing bugs.


narcissa

  • Guest
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2010, 21:54:03 »
My main criticism of the older tech is that the retail prices are pretty outlandish considering how old the tech is. The 60CX or CSX is a sturdy, reliable unit with a great antenna... but it stills retails for more than $200. That's ridiculous.

I love having the paperless capability on my Oregon, and it's much easier to get caches onto it than previous devices were. That being said, I found several hundred geocaches with my two Magellans and I will always think of them fondly.

bluelamb03

  • Administrator
  • Big Time Cacher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Good hunting everyone!
Re: Oregon/Dakota/Colorado/62/78 VS Legend/60/76
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2010, 01:11:34 »
Odd, there's been no posts from the iPhone crowd?!

I know a couple of cachers who use the iPhone 4 exclusively for caching now. I wonder how that's going? Anyone?

I know from experience that the Geocaching.com app allows logs to be uploaded as they're written in the field, or sent in bulk later. Not 'field notes', logs - with photos attached and trackables moved. Talk about saving time.....

Still hanging on to that old 60Cx though....

Blue -
Without shared stories we are strangers.
- Sheila Mendonça