Garmin 496 compared to the 396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

In article om,
"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

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article om,
"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