The Garmin 496...a teenager's review

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:43:43 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Refresh rate relates directly to power. Ideally, the box would offer
options (ie. rapid refresh, more power consumption vs. slow refresh,
longer battery life). That may be a "didn't think of it", I suppose, but
I'd be surprised since this is standard in laptops.

But I believe that inertia weighs heavily at Garmin. I asked once whether
they'd ever have the IFR-friendly flight plan entry of the 480 on the
430/530 line. I was told that they'd probably not do this as it was
considered "more difficult".

Another place where having an option (ie. waypoint entry or airway entry)
would be a Good Thing.

Still, I'm suspicious that none of the other vendors have leaped past
Garmin. That suggests that there's a part of this equation I'm missing.
Perhaps the development costs to "get it completely right" would render
the unit too expensive given the small audience?

I presume that all those little game-box things sell well more than
aviation GPS units.

- Andrew



Ahhh!!!! Whatever!!! The modern displays draw a fraction of the power they
did just 3 years ago and the resolution is 2 to 3 time better. Garmin is
using older cheaper displays. If they spent an extra $50-$100 per unit on
better displays of the same size power drain would be less and resolution
would be better. Don't get me started on cpu speed and flash storage very,
very, minimal costs in these units. As for the XM weather it is just a
software program on the unit and the data is available.

http://www.seattleavionics.com has XM weather requires a receiver but it
works.

http://www.xmradio.com/weather/hardw...lutions_av.xmc

I am done for the day laters.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 14:43:26 -0700, NW_Pilot wrote:

Ahhh!!!! Whatever!!! The modern displays draw a fraction of the power they
did just 3 years ago and the resolution is 2 to 3 time better.

Are you attempting to disagree with me? I didn't write about "displays"
but "refresh rates". These are orthogonal issues.

Garmin is
using older cheaper displays.

Proof?

If they spent an extra $50-$100 per unit on better displays of the same
size power drain would be less and resolution would be better. Don't get
me started on cpu speed and flash storage very, very, minimal costs in
these units. As for the XM weather it is just a software program on the
unit and the data is available.

Ah, you sound like the typical IT customer: "it's just software; get
coding. Be done next week."

I wonder why it's so easy to believe that software is so easy to build.
Its massless or invisible nature?

http://www.seattleavionics.com has XM weather requires a receiver but it
works.

http://www.xmradio.com/weather/hardw...lutions_av.xmc

Yet Garmin stands alone. Why?

In fact, though, this isn't quite true. I myself am *still* stuck at
"Garmin 496 vs. Cheetah 190". So there *is* competition.

Anyone have any insights on the 190, esp. how it compares to the 496? On
balance, the Cheetah appears the better product. But I wonder how stable
it is, running as I expect it is on some Microsoft platform. In theory,
at least, the dedicated nature of the Garmin should yield a more
trustworthy platform.

My 430s have never crashed, for example (excluding one hardware issue).

- Andrew