Garmin 496 compared to the 396

[Jon Kraus]

I know some of you guy's either traded in your 396's for the new
cream-of-the-crop 496 or just bought a 496 because the time was now right.

My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396? I mean it was only last
year that folks were nutting all over themselves and their new 396's as
the neatest thing since sliced bread.

The reason I'm asking is because I have ordered a 396 for 2.2 AMU's but
am wondering if I'll really feel like I missed out because I didn't go
with the 496 at 2.8 AMU's. What say you?

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ UMP

[Dan[_1_]]

I think this really depends upon if you are going to use it in the
car... I am reluctant to carry around a 2.8 AMU box in the hot sun in
my vehicle on a regular basis... I bought a 396, but haven't actually
seen the 496....

--Dan


Jon Kraus wrote:
> I know some of you guy's either traded in your 396's for the new
> cream-of-the-crop 496 or just bought a 496 because the time was now right.
>
> My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
> 496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396? I mean it was only last
> year that folks were nutting all over themselves and their new 396's as
> the neatest thing since sliced bread.
>
> The reason I'm asking is because I have ordered a 396 for 2.2 AMU's but
> am wondering if I'll really feel like I missed out because I didn't go
> with the 496 at 2.8 AMU's. What say you?
>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ UMP

[Jon Kraus]

That was one of my reasons for going with the 396 too. I already have
the Garmin Street Pilot for my car and wasn't planning on ever using the
396 for anything other than the XM Weather and as a backup to our panel
mounted 430 IFR box.

Dan wrote:

> I think this really depends upon if you are going to use it in the
> car... I am reluctant to carry around a 2.8 AMU box in the hot sun in
> my vehicle on a regular basis... I bought a 396, but haven't actually
> seen the 496....
>
> --Dan
>
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>>I know some of you guy's either traded in your 396's for the new
>>cream-of-the-crop 496 or just bought a 496 because the time was now right.
>>
>>My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
>>496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396? I mean it was only last
>>year that folks were nutting all over themselves and their new 396's as
>>the neatest thing since sliced bread.
>>
>>The reason I'm asking is because I have ordered a 396 for 2.2 AMU's but
>>am wondering if I'll really feel like I missed out because I didn't go
>>with the 496 at 2.8 AMU's. What say you?
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>'79 Mooney 201
>>4443H @ UMP
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Dan" > said:
>I think this really depends upon if you are going to use it in the
>car... I am reluctant to carry around a 2.8 AMU box in the hot sun in
>my vehicle on a regular basis... I bought a 396, but haven't actually
>seen the 496....

Why do you need the 496 to use in the car? I've got the car kit for the
296, and other than the fact that I have to load the card with detail maps
I understand that I have exactly the same capability as the 496.

I've got to say, it's great when you get out of the plane and toss the GPS
into the rental car, punch in the address of your hotel, and it just takes
you there.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Get with the program, jeffrey. No one is 'wrong' on Usenet. They are
either 100% totally correct, or they are 'a lying, scum sucking weasel.'
There is no in-between. -- Garrett Johnson

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> Why do you need the 496 to use in the car? I've got the car kit for the
> 296, and other than the fact that I have to load the card with detail maps
> I understand that I have exactly the same capability as the 496.

I suspect that the 496 is a better deal over the 396 for auto use
because it includes the "car kit" and City Navigator pre-loaded. With
the exception of those "early adopters" of the 396 last year, everyone
else has to pay for the "car kit" if they purchase a 396.




JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
> 496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396?

I've only played with the 396 a little, and the 496 for about 15 hours
of actual, in-flight use, so my comments are limited.

One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

Here's what I mean: When you "slew" the cursor around the screen on
our 496, trying to (for example) get some METARs from airports ahead,
the whole damned screen disappears for a second, while it "re-draws".
(This, of course, would be entirely unnecessary if Garmin would only
produce a unit with a usably-sized, portrait-oriented screen. But
that's a dead horse.)

We have found that this kind of constant slewing is our regular motus
operandi while on long x-country flights (the 496 is on the co-pilot's
side, so that they have their heads down), and it's something you just
have to learn to live with. If you want to check the weather ahead,
it's going to be slew...wait...slew...wait. It's like running the
latest version of Flight Simulator on an old Pentium I....

We've tried "decluttering" the screen, and turning down the detail, to
no avail -- so perhaps it has something to do with the XM uplink?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jonathan Goodish > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> Why do you need the 496 to use in the car? I've got the car kit for the
>> 296, and other than the fact that I have to load the card with detail maps
>> I understand that I have exactly the same capability as the 496.
>
>I suspect that the 496 is a better deal over the 396 for auto use
>because it includes the "car kit" and City Navigator pre-loaded. With
>the exception of those "early adopters" of the 396 last year, everyone
>else has to pay for the "car kit" if they purchase a 396.

Does it really include the car kit? Even the talking power cable? Well,
that accounts for $250 of the $600 difference between the 396 and the 496.
So I repeat the question: Why do you need the 496 for use in the car when
for $450 less you can have the 396 with a car kit?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Reliability went through the floor, tunnelled its way to the centre of
the Earth, and perished in the magma.
-- Saundo

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
> > 496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396?
>
> I've only played with the 396 a little, and the 496 for about 15 hours
> of actual, in-flight use, so my comments are limited.
>
> One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
> refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
> go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

Mike Granby has provided some rather thoughtful analysis of the
real-world performance difference between the two units, but from what
I've gathered, it isn't too significant. A Google Groups search should
provide the relevant discussions.

In either case, the only good solution that I've found is to zoom out,
then pan over, and zoom back in. That will eliminate the need to scroll
over long distances. You can also go to the route page, select a way
point, and get weather that way. If I want a big picture, I just zoom
out; very little scrolling required.



JKG

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

<snip>

>>One this is certain, however: If the 496's agonizingly slow screen
>>refresh rate is REALLY "exponentially better" than the 396's, I would
>>go absolutely nuts trying to use the 396 in-flight.

I have the 396, haven't seen the 496 yet. I agree, a faster screen refresh would
be an improvement, but I don't find it "agonizing".

<snip>

> In either case, the only good solution that I've found is to zoom out,
> then pan over, and zoom back in. That will eliminate the need to scroll
> over long distances. You can also go to the route page, select a way
> point, and get weather that way. If I want a big picture, I just zoom
> out; very little scrolling required.

I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.

DB

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> >I suspect that the 496 is a better deal over the 396 for auto use
> >because it includes the "car kit" and City Navigator pre-loaded. With
> >the exception of those "early adopters" of the 396 last year, everyone
> >else has to pay for the "car kit" if they purchase a 396.
>
> Does it really include the car kit? Even the talking power cable? Well,
> that accounts for $250 of the $600 difference between the 396 and the 496.
> So I repeat the question: Why do you need the 496 for use in the car when
> for $450 less you can have the 396 with a car kit?

Yes, it does, though I can't say that I'm very fond of the talking power
cable.

$600-$250 = $350. I guess for $350 more, you get the taxi diagrams,
AOPA directory, slightly better terrain resolution, and a slightly
faster update rate.

I agree, I'm not sure that it's worth it, especially since you can get
used 396 units (with the auto kit) for under $2k.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
> trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.

How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
out?

Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.

If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
-- wherever "there" is.

The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
slow refresh rate.

Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
in a readable format at a usable zoom level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jonathan Goodish > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> >I suspect that the 496 is a better deal over the 396 for auto use
>> >because it includes the "car kit" and City Navigator pre-loaded. With
>> Does it really include the car kit? Even the talking power cable? Well,
>> that accounts for $250 of the $600 difference between the 396 and the 496.
>> So I repeat the question: Why do you need the 496 for use in the car when
>> for $450 less you can have the 396 with a car kit?
>
>Yes, it does, though I can't say that I'm very fond of the talking power
>cable.

I am, but my wife frequently unplugs it.

>$600-$250 = $350. I guess for $350 more, you get the taxi diagrams,

I guess I need coffee.

>AOPA directory, slightly better terrain resolution, and a slightly
>faster update rate.

I think we're in agreement then that the person who said you need the 496
instead of the 396 if you're going to use it in the car is mistaken,
right?

I'm pretty happy with my 296, which I bought earlier this year on eBay. I
kind of wish I'd waited until the 496 came out and drove down the used
prices on the 296 and 396 - I might have ended up with the 396 then. But
then I would have had to use my old 195 on my spring flights, including
the flight to Pinkneyville, and I wouldn't have had the Auto mode while
driving around Pittsburgh.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It's not 'I don't do Windows', it's 'I know nothing about Windows,
and it generally explodes when I get near it'.
-- Matt McLeod

[Maule Driver]

I have to admit, I'm still in the honeymoon phase with my 'old' 396 with
autokit. But isn't it great that we're fussing about the need to
zooming out and guessing where a weather reporting station before
zooming in to get the weather? All overlaid on a combined Nexrad and
cloud cover image. I mean, doesn't it all beat calling Fligh****ch and
trying to jot down some facts while hand flying in some choppy soup?

I gotta get an autopilot so I can more fully enjoy playing with this
thing while motoring along. "Honey, would you prefer the 60s or 70s
music channel now? The US Open broadcast just ended, I'm sorry you
missed listening to Phil self destruct but I muted it when you went to
sleep"

Heck, my panel mount 300XL seems like a stone tablet now... talk about
refresh time!

Loving it all

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
>>trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.
>
>
> How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
> out?
>
> Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
> like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.
>
> If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
> disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
> is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.
>
> If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
> zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.
>
> Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
> cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
> disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
> zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
> -- wherever "there" is.
>
> The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
> slow refresh rate.
>
> Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
> incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
> in a readable format at a usable zoom level.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> I think we're in agreement then that the person who said you need the 496
> instead of the 396 if you're going to use it in the car is mistaken,
> right?

You don't "need" the 496 if you want to use the device in the car, but a
brand new 396 + auto kit narrows the price gap between the 396 and 496.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
> out?
>
> Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
> like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.
>
> If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
> disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
> is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

Presumably you know approximately where Joliet is in IL, correct? You
can zoom out, then position the cursor over the approximate location,
zoom in a little more (now you see IL), position the cursor more
accurately, and zoom in further. No scrolling required.

Alternately, if Joliet is in your flight plan route, simply go to the
route page and select it to see the weather at that point in your route.
No scrolling required.

If you had an instrument rating you'd probably be more concerned with
the NEXRAD image and convective activity than enroute surface
observations, and that information can be obtained without zooming in to
the individual airport. Also, don't forget about NRST weather.

I haven't tried it, but I'll bet if you turned off terrain shading on
the base map, scrolling performance would improve significantly.


JKG

[Mike Spera]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>My question is for those of you that have tried out both systems. Is the
>>496 REALLY worth .6 AMU's more than the 396?

The main money difference is the addition of the auto kit. The added
features are the runway layouts for larger airports (that I don't
frequent) and the AOPA directory (in a font size that I would find
impossible to read). The big book does fine for me. Oh yeah, the
"faster" screen refresh.

When I looked around, I saw that recent "factory refurbished" Magellan
auto units can be had for $500 or less with a warranty. I thought that
may make better sense than trying to "secure" my new $2300 396 Garmin
unit once I arrived at my destination. There is NO WAY you would leave
the Garmin in the car while parked in downtown Chicago. So, what are you
supposed to do with it? Carry it around? If they stole a $500 auto unit,
I would be ****ed off at around level 4. Ripping off my 396 (or 496)
would put me around a "9" on the PO Meter.

Others find the delay/blankout and awkward slew annoying. So far, it is
only a minor inconvenience. Guess I don't fly far enough away (Hey, its
a 140, where the heck am I gonna go?)

So, if you really WANT the auto kit and can USE the runway diagrams and
AOPA catalog, the numbers may add up to buy the 496.

I was not too concerned that the 496 came out a couple of weeks after
the 396 purchase. Had I known, I would likely still buy the 396.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I also use the zoom-out, pan, zoom-in technique and that works much better than
>>trying to scroll over long distances while zoomed in.
>
>
> How do you get around the problem of detail disappearing when you zoom
> out?

I don't get around it, I just don't see it as a serious problem.

> Example: Flying to Michigan, we wanted to see what the weather was
> like in Joliet, IL -- an area of questionable weather.
>
> If you zoom out so that you don't have to "slew" (or scroll), Joliet
> disappears. You then have to put your cursor where you *think* Joliet
> is, and hit the "zoom in" button to see it again.

Yep. Not too hard.

> If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
> zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

> Worse, not all airports are weather reporting stations -- and those
> cute little triangles (that indicate XM weather reporting) also
> disappear when you zoom out. Now, you're stuck selecting an area and
> zooming in on it, hoping that there will be a reporting station there
> -- wherever "there" is.

XM doesn't get to decide which airports report weather. As far as I know, any
airport that reports SAs shows up on the XM display. Is your experience different?

> The only solution we've found is to slew around, and put up with the
> slow refresh rate.

You could demand a refund, then take the money and go buy the unit that works
better.

> Ultimately, the solution will come when Garmin (or Lowrance)
> incorporates weather into a larger display that can display everything
> in a readable format at a usable zoom level.

While we're waiting, I'll just enjoy my 396.

Dave

[Jay Honeck]

> > If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
> > zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.
>
> Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Yes. For $3000, I should be able to demand any cheese I'd like.

Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
of insufficient processing power.

It's a design flaw.

Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
currently the only show in town.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
> crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
> too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
> of insufficient processing power.

That isn't the only work-around, as pointed out by myself and others.
For some reason, you apparently refuse to acknowledge the alternatives,
which work fairly well.



> It's a design flaw.

No, it's not. I'm sorry, but while I wish the 396/496 screen was
perhaps twice as big, that still wouldn't solve the "problem" of having
to scroll around. And, I don't believe that the mass aviation market
wants a 7" or 10" or 12" screen in a portable GPS.



JKG

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
> currently the only show in town.

vistanav also provides XM weather. It looks like a waaaay bigger bigger
display, too.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out where to put that big a display in my airplane.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> > Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
> > currently the only show in town.
>
> vistanav also provides XM weather. It looks like a waaaay bigger bigger
> display, too.

If you read my original posts, you'll know why I considered -- and
rejected -- all the tablet-PC-based versions.

Basically it came down to price for a flash-memory based system. $4K-
$5K was just too much, and they were futzy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
> > crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
> > too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
> > of insufficient processing power.
>
> That isn't the only work-around, as pointed out by myself and others.
> For some reason, you apparently refuse to acknowledge the alternatives,
> which work fairly well.

Something that works "fairly well" isn't what I expect in a $3,000
piece of equipment the size of my son's PSP. Zooming out causes the
target you are searching for to disappear, as that tiny little screen
"declutters" itself. If it DIDN'T do that, all you would see was a
giant glob of gibberish, with the airport names entangled with one
another.

The only solution to that problem is video screen acreage -- period.
The screen is simply too small, and the landscape orientation doesn't
let you see far enough ahead without slewing.

> > It's a design flaw.
>
> No, it's not. I'm sorry, but while I wish the 396/496 screen was
> perhaps twice as big, that still wouldn't solve the "problem" of having
> to scroll around. And, I don't believe that the mass aviation market
> wants a 7" or 10" or 12" screen in a portable GPS.

Check the sales of Lowrance's Airmap 2000c. THAT is a usably-sized
screen -- and they were selling like hot-cakes at OSH.

Don't get me wrong -- XM weather is awesome, I absolutely love flying
with it, and the 496 is a nice, robust unit. But as soon as Garmin (or
anyone else) comes out with a larger screened version, you'll see
hundreds of 396s/496s on Ebay, overnight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
> > > currently the only show in town.
> >
> > vistanav also provides XM weather. It looks like a waaaay bigger bigger
> > display, too.
>
> If you read my original posts, you'll know why I considered -- and
> rejected -- all the tablet-PC-based versions.

well, I thought I did read them, but that was, what, >four days ago.
You expect me to remember that far back? :-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Something that works "fairly well" isn't what I expect in a $3,000
> piece of equipment the size of my son's PSP. Zooming out causes the
> target you are searching for to disappear, as that tiny little screen
> "declutters" itself. If it DIDN'T do that, all you would see was a
> giant glob of gibberish, with the airport names entangled with one
> another.

Zooming out--even to hundreds of miles--still shows the state outlines,
and presumably you know where your "target" is in the appropriate state.
Zoom out, position the target on the appropriate location, zoom in, and
repeat progressively until you've acquired your target. Alternately, if
your target is in your flight plan route, just select it and hit "enter"
to view the weather. It isn't "perfect," but I'm not sure of a better
solution; you would need something like a 46" wide-screen to maintain a
practical high detail display over long distances.



> Check the sales of Lowrance's Airmap 2000c. THAT is a usably-sized
> screen -- and they were selling like hot-cakes at OSH.

The AirMap 2000c has a slightly larger screen, but actually displays
LESS on that big screen because of its lower resolution. The big
selling point to the Lowrance units is price. However, I suspect that
Garmin far outsells Lowrance with portable aviation GPS units.

One point I will give to Lowrance is that they have the screen oriented
the right way. I don't care so much what's on my sides as I do what's
in front of me, and the Garmin units are lacking with the landscape
orientation of the display.



> with it, and the 496 is a nice, robust unit. But as soon as Garmin (or
> anyone else) comes out with a larger screened version, you'll see
> hundreds of 396s/496s on Ebay, overnight.

That's always the case, and it has nothing to do with a larger screen.
There are plenty of 396 units on the used market because folks want the
"latest and greatest."

I would love to see a larger screen version of the 396/496, but it can't
be so large that it is cumbersome, and even a screen twice the size as
that of the 396/496 will still require some manipulation to see
conditions over longer distances. It is always going to be a compromise.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> I would love to see a larger screen version of the 396/496, but it can't
> be so large that it is cumbersome, and even a screen twice the size as
> that of the 396/496 will still require some manipulation to see
> conditions over longer distances. It is always going to be a compromise.

On this, we agree.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Butler[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>If you set detail levels to so that Joliet doesn't disappear at that
>>>zoom level, you can't see it, cuz it's buried in too many airports.
>>
>>Would you like some cheese with that whine?
>
>
> Yes. For $3000, I should be able to demand any cheese I'd like.
>
> Face it -- Garmin just hasn't kept up with the competition in the
> crucial area of display design. Worse, the only work-around to using a
> too-small display -- slewing around -- doesn't work very well because
> of insufficient processing power.
>
> It's a design flaw.
>
> Fortunately for Garmin, if you want XM weather in a box, they are
> currently the only show in town.

Yes, exactly. So they can extract whatever price we are willing to pay. We both
voted with our wallets. When the competition comes out, Garmin will either adapt
or die.

Anyway, all designs are a compromise. Bigger displays demand more power, bigger
batteries, shorter battery life, faster processors (which in turn demand more
power...). A bigger display mounted on a yoke hides the instruments behind it. A
bigger display increases manufacturing cost.

It's all driven my the manufacturer's desire to maximize the bottom line,
including his perception of customer demand. I think Garmin pretty much hit the
sweet spot with this design, and I think that's been reinforced by their
marketing susccess. You may disagree. OK. You're free to vote often with your
wallet.

[Mike Spera]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I would love to see a larger screen version of the 396/496, but it can't
>>be so large that it is cumbersome, and even a screen twice the size as
>>that of the 396/496 will still require some manipulation to see
>>conditions over longer distances. It is always going to be a compromise.
>
>
> On this, we agree.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Thank God! I thought I was going to have to separate you two!

(Insert big silly grin here).

Cheers,
Mike

[Montblack[_1_]]

""I would love to see a larger [.....], but it can't be so large that it is
cumbersome, and even a [.....] twice the size as [.....] will still require
some manipulation to see [......] longer [......]. It is always going to be
a compromise.""

"On this, we agree."

> Thank God! I thought I was going to have to separate you two!
>
> (Insert big silly [....] here).


My thoughts, exactly. :-)


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> > On this, we agree.
>
> Thank God! I thought I was going to have to separate you two!
>
> (Insert big silly grin here).

Shoot, Jonathan and I are just gentleman sparring partners. It's that
Butler guy we've got to keep an eye on...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"