XM question for Garmin 396/496 owers

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:EFFsk.258766$TT4.124426@attbi_s22...
Note to newbies: Honeck dogged Garmin until he realized the 496 beat the
crap out of anything else that would tell him where the hairy stuff was,
then he had to buy one.

Wow -- is that even English?

I don't know who you are, "F-Guy", but I calls 'em as I see 'em. I've
owned and flown behind half a dozen GPS's, from Magellans to Lowrances,
from AvMaps to Garmins -- and I'm here to tell you that the 496 is an
incredibly over-priced piece of crap, with ONE major, unequivocally
outstanding feature -- seamless, built-in XM satellite weather.

Were it not for XM capability, the 496 would be an almost laughably bad
GPS. It would also no longer be made, as no one would have bought it.
Sadly, because there is no other logical alternative, I won't fly without
it on board -- but the moment AvMap or Lowrance matches Garmin's XM
capability, the 496 will be on Ebay.

Whoever he is, he described you pretty accurately. Garmin has a superior
GPS you any of the others you mentioned, and yes I've used or owned all the
ones you mentioned and numerous panel mounts like the Kings and Apollos.
That's why Garmin outsells all the rest put together even before the 396 was
introduced and exponentially so afterward. If any of the rest were worth
having, they would have had a XM interface years ago. So you are certainly
entitled to your opinion, but it's clearly in the minority.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
I don't know who you are, "F-Guy", but I calls 'em as I see 'em. I've
owned and flown behind half a dozen GPS's, from Magellans to Lowrances, from
AvMaps to Garmins -- and I'm here to tell you that the 496 is an incredibly
over-priced piece of crap, with ONE major, unequivocally outstanding
feature -- seamless, built-in XM satellite weather.

Were it not for XM capability, the 496 would be an almost laughably bad GPS.
It would also no longer be made, as no one would have bought it. Sadly,
because there is no other logical alternative, I won't fly without it on
board -- but the moment AvMap or Lowrance matches Garmin's XM capability,
the 496 will be on Ebay.

I've had a Garmin for 3 years that I still adore. It hasn't fallen short
in any area, AFAIC. But I'm curious, Jay, since you've used them all ...
what specifically do the others have that's so much better than the
Garmin?

I've had a Garmin for 3 years that I still adore. It hasn't fallen short
in any area, AFAIC. But I'm curious, Jay, since you've used them all ...
what specifically do the others have that's so much better than the
Garmin?

I've posted this here before, but for the record:

1. Screen Size.
As with so many things, screen size really, REALLY matters in a GPS. Garmin
falls far short in this regard. If you've ever flown with a Lowrance 2000c,
or an AvMap, the Garmin 396/496 is almost unusable.

2. Processing speed.
Because the screen on the 496 is so damned small, you can't see any details
(like obstructions, antennas, etc.) unless you are zoomed in. Of course, if
you are zoomed way in, checking the METAR at the next airport ahead means
that you have to scroll your cursor off the top of the screen (following the
course line) in order to run your cursor across that little METAR symbol.
(Which, in the 496, is how you access airport weather at each reporting
station.)

In the 496 (which supposedly has a far faster processor than the 396) this
is an exercise in extreme frustration. You scroll your cursor off the edge
of the screen, toward your target airport, and the screen will go completely
blank. Then, you wait.

Count to four, sloooowly. The screen redraws, and maybe -- MAYBE -- your
cursor is somewhere near where you left off. However, if you left your
finger on the scroll button when it went blank, God only knows where your
screen will redraw, cuz the unit keeps scrolling even though the screen has
gone blank.

So, you quickly develop the habit of stopping zooming when the screen goes
blank. Of course, if you're zoomed in -- and you're next weather reporting
station is, say, fifty miles ahead -- you may have to go through this
ridiculous exercise half a dozen (or more) times. That doesn't sound like
much, but if you're in marginal VFR, or flying toward deteriorating
weather, waiting 20 seconds (or more) to access the weather ahead is
unacceptable. Especially if you want to know, say, the results from the
closest five AWOS's ahead.

So why not just zoom out before scrolling, you ask? Seems logical -- except
that you're back to fighting the limitations of that ridiculously small
screen. When you zoom out, the screen (by necessity) must "declutter"
itself, or it would be a solid mish-mash of airports. Thus, after you zoom
out, the airport you were looking for just DISAPPEARS! You're left
guessing approximately where that airport was on the now zoomed-out screen
(so that you can hopefully zoom back IN to try to find it), which -- if
you're in unfamiliar territory -- is not easy. It's a total cluster-**** of
a set up, and Garmin can ONLY cure this by making the screen the size of,
oh, I don't know -- how about that same as ALL THE OTHER GPS's ON THE
MARKET?

Of course, if you don't fly cross country flights, this limitation won't
matter to you. Of course, that begs the question: If you don't fly cross
country flights, why would you need to spend 3 AMUs to get on-board weather?

3. Screen Orientation
Any aviation GPS needs to be oriented "portrait", to show what's coming.
The 496 (descended from automobile GPS's) can only be displayed in
"landscape" mode. Thus, you've got a GREAT view of what's going past you on
the sides, and a limited view of what's actually ahead. Dumb.

It's a really bad compromise, and -- unless you've flown behind a true
aviation GPS like the 2000c or the AvMap (which can be displayed in either
mode) -- you can't begin to appreciate how dumb the 496's layout is.

Don't get me wrong -- the 496 has many good features. Obviously they are
the only show in town for integrated weather, and having that on board is
worth every level of frustration I've outlined -- for now. I wouldn't have
shelled out the $$ if I didn't believe it to be the best portable weather
display on the market -- which surely isn't saying much, but there you have
it.

Other nice features:
The built-in AOPA directory is incredibly handy. We travel a lot, and use
it for everything from finding hotels to restaurants. The built-in airport
diagrams makes taxiing at strange (larger) airports a breeze, although that
damned little screen makes it a continual "zoom in/zoom out" exercise.

The automobile functionality is where the 496 really shines. The unit is
obviously a very well thought-out automotive GPS first and foremost, and it
works best in your car. The landscape screen is fine for driving maps, and
the voice (we call her "Bitchin' Betty") that tells you exactly where to
turn really takes the stress out of driving around strange cities.

XM music is really, really nice to have. We already had a CD player, but XM
gives you a nearly infinite number of music choices, all piped through the
stereo intercom. (Which, when played through the new Lightspeed Zulus, is
truly amazing. Audiophile quality, really.)

So it's really a mixed bag, but the bottom line is this: The 496 design is
an excellent automotive GPS that was forced into service as an aviation GPS.
They then gobbed integrated weather onto a less-than-optimal design, which
means that in order to make the unit work as designed you have to do a LOT
of button mashing. The processor simply can't keep up with the demands of
overlaying/displaying all that information while scrolling, so overall
usability suffers.

This is the main reason we panel docked it on the CO-pilots side of the
plane. Over there, the co-pilot can go through the "zoom in/zoom out"
cha-cha, check the weather ahead, set up the XM music, and generally screw
around with the unit. Meanwhile, the pilot navigates by using the
yoke-mounted Lowrance 2000c, which is a superior aviation GPS in every
regard.

BTW, the Lowrance cost less than 25% of what we paid for the 496. If you
don't want/need weather on board, I can't recommend this unit enough.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay, thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough answer to my
question. I hadn't seen your previous review of the 496. I haven't done
the kind of long/far x-c flying that requires having weather on board,
so I haven't had the weather-related needs from the GPS. I've heard the
complaint about the small screen and also about seeing the color screen
in the sun, but I haven't experienced problems in either of those areas.
A friend showed me the Lowrance, and I have to agree, the size of that
screen is terrific; but in a small, tandem-seat cockpit, there isn't as
much room, either...the Garmin fits perfectly. I'm not sure where I
could put the Lowrance and have it be as out of the way yet readily
visible. I'd love to try the Lowrance or AvMap one day, though.

Thanks again.



Jay Honeck" wrote:
I've had a Garmin for 3 years that I still adore. It hasn't fallen short
in any area, AFAIC. But I'm curious, Jay, since you've used them all ...
what specifically do the others have that's so much better than the
Garmin?

I've posted this here before, but for the record:

1. Screen Size.
As with so many things, screen size really, REALLY matters in a GPS. Garmin
falls far short in this regard. If you've ever flown with a Lowrance 2000c,
or an AvMap, the Garmin 396/496 is almost unusable.

2. Processing speed.
Because the screen on the 496 is so damned small, you can't see any details
(like obstructions, antennas, etc.) unless you are zoomed in. Of course, if
you are zoomed way in, checking the METAR at the next airport ahead means
that you have to scroll your cursor off the top of the screen (following the
course line) in order to run your cursor across that little METAR symbol.
(Which, in the 496, is how you access airport weather at each reporting
station.)

In the 496 (which supposedly has a far faster processor than the 396) this
is an exercise in extreme frustration. You scroll your cursor off the edge
of the screen, toward your target airport, and the screen will go completely
blank. Then, you wait.

Count to four, sloooowly. The screen redraws, and maybe -- MAYBE -- your
cursor is somewhere near where you left off. However, if you left your
finger on the scroll button when it went blank, God only knows where your
screen will redraw, cuz the unit keeps scrolling even though the screen has
gone blank.

So, you quickly develop the habit of stopping zooming when the screen goes
blank. Of course, if you're zoomed in -- and you're next weather reporting
station is, say, fifty miles ahead -- you may have to go through this
ridiculous exercise half a dozen (or more) times. That doesn't sound like
much, but if you're in marginal VFR, or flying toward deteriorating
weather, waiting 20 seconds (or more) to access the weather ahead is
unacceptable. Especially if you want to know, say, the results from the
closest five AWOS's ahead.

So why not just zoom out before scrolling, you ask? Seems logical -- except
that you're back to fighting the limitations of that ridiculously small
screen. When you zoom out, the screen (by necessity) must "declutter"
itself, or it would be a solid mish-mash of airports. Thus, after you zoom
out, the airport you were looking for just DISAPPEARS! You're left
guessing approximately where that airport was on the now zoomed-out screen
(so that you can hopefully zoom back IN to try to find it), which -- if
you're in unfamiliar territory -- is not easy. It's a total cluster-**** of
a set up, and Garmin can ONLY cure this by making the screen the size of,
oh, I don't know -- how about that same as ALL THE OTHER GPS's ON THE
MARKET?

Of course, if you don't fly cross country flights, this limitation won't
matter to you. Of course, that begs the question: If you don't fly cross
country flights, why would you need to spend 3 AMUs to get on-board weather?

3. Screen Orientation
Any aviation GPS needs to be oriented "portrait", to show what's coming.
The 496 (descended from automobile GPS's) can only be displayed in
"landscape" mode. Thus, you've got a GREAT view of what's going past you on
the sides, and a limited view of what's actually ahead. Dumb.

It's a really bad compromise, and -- unless you've flown behind a true
aviation GPS like the 2000c or the AvMap (which can be displayed in either
mode) -- you can't begin to appreciate how dumb the 496's layout is.

Don't get me wrong -- the 496 has many good features. Obviously they are
the only show in town for integrated weather, and having that on board is
worth every level of frustration I've outlined -- for now. I wouldn't have
shelled out the $$ if I didn't believe it to be the best portable weather
display on the market -- which surely isn't saying much, but there you have
it.

Other nice features:
The built-in AOPA directory is incredibly handy. We travel a lot, and use
it for everything from finding hotels to restaurants. The built-in airport
diagrams makes taxiing at strange (larger) airports a breeze, although that
damned little screen makes it a continual "zoom in/zoom out" exercise.

The automobile functionality is where the 496 really shines. The unit is
obviously a very well thought-out automotive GPS first and foremost, and it
works best in your car. The landscape screen is fine for driving maps, and
the voice (we call her "Bitchin' Betty") that tells you exactly where to
turn really takes the stress out of driving around strange cities.

XM music is really, really nice to have. We already had a CD player, but XM
gives you a nearly infinite number of music choices, all piped through the
stereo intercom. (Which, when played through the new Lightspeed Zulus, is
truly amazing. Audiophile quality, really.)

So it's really a mixed bag, but the bottom line is this: The 496 design is
an excellent automotive GPS that was forced into service as an aviation GPS.
They then gobbed integrated weather onto a less-than-optimal design, which
means that in order to make the unit work as designed you have to do a LOT
of button mashing. The processor simply can't keep up with the demands of
overlaying/displaying all that information while scrolling, so overall
usability suffers.

This is the main reason we panel docked it on the CO-pilots side of the
plane. Over there, the co-pilot can go through the "zoom in/zoom out"
cha-cha, check the weather ahead, set up the XM music, and generally screw
around with the unit. Meanwhile, the pilot navigates by using the
yoke-mounted Lowrance 2000c, which is a superior aviation GPS in every
regard.

BTW, the Lowrance cost less than 25% of what we paid for the 496. If you
don't want/need weather on board, I can't recommend this unit enough.

In article JJKsk.314227$yE1.47214@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

So, you quickly develop the habit of stopping zooming when the screen goes
blank. Of course, if you're zoomed in -- and you're next weather reporting
station is, say, fifty miles ahead -- you may have to go through this
ridiculous exercise half a dozen (or more) times. That doesn't sound like
much, but if you're in marginal VFR, or flying toward deteriorating
weather, waiting 20 seconds (or more) to access the weather ahead is
unacceptable. Especially if you want to know, say, the results from the
closest five AWOS's ahead.

Quit whining and learn how to use the thing! You have had it three years
now and still haven't learned the following:

1) Press the NRST button
2) Bump the rocker switch on tab to the right (WX)
3) Scroll down the list of closest airports and select any with the
flag indicating there is a METAR.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
In article JJKsk.314227$yE1.47214@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

So, you quickly develop the habit of stopping zooming when the screen
goes
blank. Of course, if you're zoomed in -- and you're next weather
reporting
station is, say, fifty miles ahead -- you may have to go through this
ridiculous exercise half a dozen (or more) times. That doesn't sound
like
much, but if you're in marginal VFR, or flying toward deteriorating
weather, waiting 20 seconds (or more) to access the weather ahead is
unacceptable. Especially if you want to know, say, the results from the
closest five AWOS's ahead.

Quit whining and learn how to use the thing!

Hah! Never happen. He has to keep carping about the 496 - his insatiable
ego requires that it be inferior to the ones he bought first.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:EFFsk.258766$TT4.124426@attbi_s22:

Note to newbies: Honeck dogged Garmin until he realized the 496 beat
the crap out of anything else that would tell him where the hairy
stuff was, then he had to buy one.

Wow -- is that even English?

I don't know who you are, "F-Guy", but I calls 'em as I see 'em.
I've owned and flown behind half a dozen GPS's, from Magellans to
Lowrances, from AvMaps to Garmins -- and I'm here to tell you that the
496 is an incredibly over-priced piece of crap, with ONE major,
unequivocally outstanding feature -- seamless, built-in XM satellite
weather.

Were it not for XM capability, the 496 would be an almost laughably
bad GPS. It would also no longer be made, as no one would have bought
it. Sadly, because there is no other logical alternative, I won't
fly without it on board -- but the moment AvMap or Lowrance matches
Garmin's XM capability, the 496 will be on Ebay.



God you're an asshole.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:EFFsk.258766$TT4.124426@attbi_s22:

Note to newbies: Honeck dogged Garmin until he realized the 496 beat
the crap out of anything else that would tell him where the hairy
stuff was, then he had to buy one.

Wow -- is that even English?

I don't know who you are, "F-Guy", but I calls 'em as I see 'em.
I've owned and flown behind half a dozen GPS's, from Magellans to
Lowrances, from AvMaps to Garmins -- and I'm here to tell you that the
496 is an incredibly over-priced piece of crap, with ONE major,
unequivocally outstanding feature -- seamless, built-in XM satellite
weather.

Were it not for XM capability, the 496 would be an almost laughably
bad GPS. It would also no longer be made, as no one would have bought
it. Sadly, because there is no other logical alternative, I won't
fly without it on board -- but the moment AvMap or Lowrance matches
Garmin's XM capability, the 496 will be on Ebay.



God you're an asshole.


Bertie


Don't worry, you still have him beat hands down.

..... or hands in pants, in your case.

"Ramsey" @##@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:EFFsk.258766$TT4.124426@attbi_s22:

Note to newbies: Honeck dogged Garmin until he realized the 496
beat
the crap out of anything else that would tell him where the hairy
stuff was, then he had to buy one.

Wow -- is that even English?

I don't know who you are, "F-Guy", but I calls 'em as I see 'em.
I've owned and flown behind half a dozen GPS's, from Magellans to
Lowrances, from AvMaps to Garmins -- and I'm here to tell you that
the
496 is an incredibly over-priced piece of crap, with ONE major,
unequivocally outstanding feature -- seamless, built-in XM satellite
weather.

Were it not for XM capability, the 496 would be an almost laughably
bad GPS. It would also no longer be made, as no one would have
bought
it. Sadly, because there is no other logical alternative, I won't
fly without it on board -- but the moment AvMap or Lowrance matches
Garmin's XM capability, the 496 will be on Ebay.



God you're an asshole.


Bertie


Don't worry, you still have him beat hands down.

.... or hands in pants, in your case.




Awwww, you really got me there lameoh boi.



Bertie

"Shirl" wrote in message
...
Jay, thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough answer to my
question. I hadn't seen your previous review of the 496. I haven't done
the kind of long/far x-c flying that requires having weather on board,
so I haven't had the weather-related needs from the GPS. I've heard the
complaint about the small screen and also about seeing the color screen
in the sun, but I haven't experienced problems in either of those areas.
A friend showed me the Lowrance, and I have to agree, the size of that
screen is terrific; but in a small, tandem-seat cockpit, there isn't as
much room, either...the Garmin fits perfectly. I'm not sure where I
could put the Lowrance and have it be as out of the way yet readily
visible. I'd love to try the Lowrance or AvMap one day, though.

What you should understand is that Jay's opinion regarding the 496 is very
much in the minority. Everyone else I've heard of would never consider
going from a Garmin product to any of the others he mentioned. The
interface to the 496 is far more intuitive than any of the others he
mentioned, and as you've already noted, screen size (which is his biggest
complaint) is a non-issue. The scrolling issue is also not a problem for
those who are more concerned with flying the airplane than screwing with a
GPS. Set the thing up and forget about it. Use the nearest function if you
need METAR updates.

I've flown with lots of Garmin products including some of their older
products, 296, 430, 530, MFD, and G1000. The great thing about Garmin
products is if you can learn one of them, you are way ahead of the game when
you move on to another. If you have any aspirations about moving up to an
IFR GPS equipped aircraft, this is a big plus as Garmin has the vast
majority of market share there as well. As far as Lowrance goes, you learn
one of them and you might know how to get around in another, but their
product line currently consists of a whopping 2 and no panel mounts. As
they haven't updated their product line in quite some time, I don't really
see Lowrance being in the aviation market in a few years. AvMap even has
less market share.

ADS will bring a lot of changes to the GPS market in the coming decade.
Garmin always stays on the cutting edge of things and you can look for them
to implement first. Lowrance and others don't even have XM weather which
has been around for years. PFD/MFD avionics are the shape of things to come
and Garmin is way ahead in that game as well.