<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Garmin Colorado 300 vs old Garmin 60CS : First impressions review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/</link>
	<description>Talk on computers, photography, electronics etc</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Riaan</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-1897</link>
		<dc:creator>Riaan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-1897</guid>
		<description>I am interested in the Colorado. Please watch this youtube clip and 

give me feedback:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJyt3RFycsE&#38;feature=related

I am particularly concerned about the following 2 issues:
1. They say that your position is updated to slowly, making it hard to navigate on foot. Apparently the GPS position calculation is very accurate, but in this video the field journalist using it could not navigate due to the mentioned problem.
Please comment on this.

2. With the etrex series you were able to move the cursor around in the map mode with the coordinates of the cursors position displayed the whole time you move it around on the map. This way you could quickly match up the coordinates to a point that you are interested in, mark that point and goto it. According to the review in the above video the 
field journalist did not use such a function on the colorado. I thought that the colorado would have that function as an option. I know you can move a cursor around on the map, but can it be configured to display the coordinates of the position that the cursor is pointing at while moving the cursor around?

Please send all opinions and info to riaanpilot@hotmail.com.
Any advice will be greatly appreciated!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am interested in the Colorado. Please watch this youtube clip and </p>
<p>give me feedback:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJyt3RFycsE&amp;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJyt3RFycsE&amp;feature=related</a></p>
<p>I am particularly concerned about the following 2 issues:<br />
1. They say that your position is updated to slowly, making it hard to navigate on foot. Apparently the GPS position calculation is very accurate, but in this video the field journalist using it could not navigate due to the mentioned problem.<br />
Please comment on this.</p>
<p>2. With the etrex series you were able to move the cursor around in the map mode with the coordinates of the cursors position displayed the whole time you move it around on the map. This way you could quickly match up the coordinates to a point that you are interested in, mark that point and goto it. According to the review in the above video the<br />
field journalist did not use such a function on the colorado. I thought that the colorado would have that function as an option. I know you can move a cursor around on the map, but can it be configured to display the coordinates of the position that the cursor is pointing at while moving the cursor around?</p>
<p>Please send all opinions and info to <a href="mailto:riaanpilot@hotmail.com">riaanpilot@hotmail.com</a>.<br />
Any advice will be greatly appreciated!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-1701</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-1701</guid>
		<description>Hi, 
With regards to the Colorado 300. Is there a "find street address" (when navigating city streets) option on the Colorado 300. As I understand, this option allows you to navigate to a particular address like a In Car GPS. I'm pretty sure the GPS60csx has this option (as per the manual) but could not find this option in the Colorado manual</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
With regards to the Colorado 300. Is there a &#8220;find street address&#8221; (when navigating city streets) option on the Colorado 300. As I understand, this option allows you to navigate to a particular address like a In Car GPS. I&#8217;m pretty sure the GPS60csx has this option (as per the manual) but could not find this option in the Colorado manual</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-515</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-515</guid>
		<description>@Edu:

Hmm, it depends on your preferences.

Self, I love the extra pixels I get from the Colorado 300 compared to the 60CS(x), because it makes it easier to get a wider overview while still seeing the details. This makes the Colorado 300 my choice for hiking.

However, the pixels are smaller on the Colorado than on the 60CS(x), so if I had to wear glasses to see things up close, I'd rather go with the 60CSx. Also, if you're gonna put your unit on your bike's handlebars and see the details while riding, go with the one with larger pixels.

Also, take into account what's being said about the battery capacity above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Edu:</p>
<p>Hmm, it depends on your preferences.</p>
<p>Self, I love the extra pixels I get from the Colorado 300 compared to the 60CS(x), because it makes it easier to get a wider overview while still seeing the details. This makes the Colorado 300 my choice for hiking.</p>
<p>However, the pixels are smaller on the Colorado than on the 60CS(x), so if I had to wear glasses to see things up close, I&#8217;d rather go with the 60CSx. Also, if you&#8217;re gonna put your unit on your bike&#8217;s handlebars and see the details while riding, go with the one with larger pixels.</p>
<p>Also, take into account what&#8217;s being said about the battery capacity above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edu</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-514</link>
		<dc:creator>Edu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-514</guid>
		<description>Hi, I am looking to get a new GPS(hiking) and can you recomended one, please
Colorado 300, Oregon 300 or 60CSx. ??????

Thanks
Edu
ealcaniz@gmail.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I am looking to get a new GPS(hiking) and can you recomended one, please<br />
Colorado 300, Oregon 300 or 60CSx. ??????</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
Edu<br />
<a href="mailto:ealcaniz@gmail.com">ealcaniz@gmail.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-339</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-339</guid>
		<description>Yes, I've noticed that it lasts significantly shorter than the 60CS too. However, I think it lasts longer on rechargeable NiMH than on alkaline batteries. The drawback with the rechargeables, though, is that they auto-decharge 1% or so each day you carry them in your backpack on the hike... :-/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;ve noticed that it lasts significantly shorter than the 60CS too. However, I think it lasts longer on rechargeable NiMH than on alkaline batteries. The drawback with the rechargeables, though, is that they auto-decharge 1% or so each day you carry them in your backpack on the hike&#8230; :-/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torgrim Rygnestad</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-337</link>
		<dc:creator>Torgrim Rygnestad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:27:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-337</guid>
		<description>Hi.
Did anyone notice that the battery-life is very very short. For me they last about 5-6 hours on my hike up in the mountains. I not used the gps much during the days, just a look now and then and no "playing" around.
A CS60 that my buddy bring not have to get new batteries during this week, 5 days hike.
I returned mine, make no sense to bring tons of batteries on a hike.
btw...batteries I use is Duracell.


Torgrim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi.<br />
Did anyone notice that the battery-life is very very short. For me they last about 5-6 hours on my hike up in the mountains. I not used the gps much during the days, just a look now and then and no &#8220;playing&#8221; around.<br />
A CS60 that my buddy bring not have to get new batteries during this week, 5 days hike.<br />
I returned mine, make no sense to bring tons of batteries on a hike.<br />
btw&#8230;batteries I use is Duracell.</p>
<p>Torgrim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lars-Haakon</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Lars-Haakon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-73</guid>
		<description>Hi nice review dude! I just bought myself a Colorado 300 for my 3 month journey from Nordkapp-Trondheim. I was wondering if the maps that are pre-installed will do or if I will have to buy more detailed (Topo maps)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi nice review dude! I just bought myself a Colorado 300 for my 3 month journey from Nordkapp-Trondheim. I was wondering if the maps that are pre-installed will do or if I will have to buy more detailed (Topo maps)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-10</guid>
		<description>The (newer) Topo Pro maps are meant for Garmin GPSs with color display, while the older Topo Classic maps were made at the time where most (or all) Garmin GPSs had b/w display. You can still use Classic with newer color display GPSs, but the Pro maps have enhanced coloring for such use.
I'm not sure whether the newer Topo Pro are compatible with older b/w GPSs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The (newer) Topo Pro maps are meant for Garmin GPSs with color display, while the older Topo Classic maps were made at the time where most (or all) Garmin GPSs had b/w display. You can still use Classic with newer color display GPSs, but the Pro maps have enhanced coloring for such use.<br />
I&#8217;m not sure whether the newer Topo Pro are compatible with older b/w GPSs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aero</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Aero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:47:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-9</guid>
		<description>Question besides the subject: can you tell me what the difference is between the Classic topo Norway maps and the Pro version? My Norwegian is to bad to understand.

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question besides the subject: can you tell me what the difference is between the Classic topo Norway maps and the Pro version? My Norwegian is to bad to understand.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: serge cohen</title>
		<link>http://blog.akilles.org/2008/02/29/first-impressions-garmin-colorado-300-vs-garmin-60cs/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>serge cohen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.akilles.org/?p=4#comment-8</guid>
		<description>je possede un garmin gpsmap 60cs
j'ai eu le meme probleme avec le connecteur usb et en fait c'est la soudure sur la carte mere qui était en cause
j'ai fait ressouder et ça marche très bien
j'ai quand meme envie de changer pour un colorado avec la carte topo de france</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>je possede un garmin gpsmap 60cs<br />
j&#8217;ai eu le meme probleme avec le connecteur usb et en fait c&#8217;est la soudure sur la carte mere qui était en cause<br />
j&#8217;ai fait ressouder et ça marche très bien<br />
j&#8217;ai quand meme envie de changer pour un colorado avec la carte topo de france</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
