If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter writes Fine, up the price $20 I will pay! A lot of people will not. That's why companies make more than one model of a device. |
#542
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Jeremy Nixon writes And that's sad, when the industry refuses to make things people want and are willing to pay for. Though I think I now understand why, with all these people who insist that anything anyone might want to use a GPS unit for that deviates from the Sacred Way That Shall Not Be Questioned must be wrong in what they want. When you refuse to do a job the way that works because it is not fashionable then it is very misguided. Fashion has nothing to do with it. If I have a GPS with mapping ability and wish to update the mapping to better display a local area (a common feature in these devices), and the selected data is 40 megabytes, the 'industry standard' data transfer is serial at 9600bps. That would require almost 12 hours to do the transfer. If done at USB 1.1 rates, the transfer would take about 30 minutes. If done at USB 2.0 rates, the transfer would take just 2 or 3 minutes (based on current device rates). Now you may consider a 12 hour serial transfer appropriate, but I certainly DON'T. |
#543
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Jeremy Nixon writes And that's sad, when the industry refuses to make things people want and are willing to pay for. Though I think I now understand why, with all these people who insist that anything anyone might want to use a GPS unit for that deviates from the Sacred Way That Shall Not Be Questioned must be wrong in what they want. When you refuse to do a job the way that works because it is not fashionable then it is very misguided. Fashion has nothing to do with it. If I have a GPS with mapping ability and wish to update the mapping to better display a local area (a common feature in these devices), and the selected data is 40 megabytes, the 'industry standard' data transfer is serial at 9600bps. That would require almost 12 hours to do the transfer. If done at USB 1.1 rates, the transfer would take about 30 minutes. If done at USB 2.0 rates, the transfer would take just 2 or 3 minutes (based on current device rates). Now you may consider a 12 hour serial transfer appropriate, but I certainly DON'T. |
#544
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:14:24 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: Jeremy Nixon wrote: Big Bill wrote: So you're saying that the reason people (who, according to you, want to buy them) won't buy a GPS is because they can't figure out how to use a serial port? Nope. I'm saying that's part of it; it's a symptom of the fact that GPS manufacturers aren't making units for normal people. And I can see why, when there are all these folks who so strongly insist that people should not be allowed to have one that works the way they would want it to, and should instead have to adapt to the technology. Worse, that they should adapt to ancient techonolgy that is nor appropriate to the needs of today. And yet, look at all the people who have broadband available to them, and still use dialup. I suppose you think that's because they can't figure out that connector they only need to plug into the back of their computer? Just like a serial cable plugs in? Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" Except that Ethernet/USB connectors are standard, no buying an adapter to make it fit the connector on the equipment, and require no tools to attach it. |
#545
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:17:48 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: They have always been, and I have been dealing with them for about 37 years! I read the instructions that came with the program I bought to transfer data to my GPS and I was stumped at the first decision, which protocol to use, and what settings I needed to set in the COM: port to do the connection, since each was different. I probably could have leaped that hurdle had the program not been written in a totally non-intuitive way, and the instructions looked like they were written by the programmer. It was hopeless. When a modern interface exists for data transfer between my computer and a GPS, then I will buy a new one, not before. Interestingly enough, we just got a Streetpilot III. It worked right out of the box. Nop tweaking needed, the instructions were just fine. It does use a serial port; HORRORS! it worked forst time, no confusion, no wondering how it should be set up. Maybe you're just not trying the right GPS. Would USB be easier? Maybe. Is serial up to the job? Obviously. Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" Do you want to spend 12 hours transferring detailed mapping information and database information? If so, fine, but if I am to spend $1300 on a device, it will have a MUCH faster way to transfer data, period. |
#546
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:17:48 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: They have always been, and I have been dealing with them for about 37 years! I read the instructions that came with the program I bought to transfer data to my GPS and I was stumped at the first decision, which protocol to use, and what settings I needed to set in the COM: port to do the connection, since each was different. I probably could have leaped that hurdle had the program not been written in a totally non-intuitive way, and the instructions looked like they were written by the programmer. It was hopeless. When a modern interface exists for data transfer between my computer and a GPS, then I will buy a new one, not before. Interestingly enough, we just got a Streetpilot III. It worked right out of the box. Nop tweaking needed, the instructions were just fine. It does use a serial port; HORRORS! it worked forst time, no confusion, no wondering how it should be set up. Maybe you're just not trying the right GPS. Would USB be easier? Maybe. Is serial up to the job? Obviously. Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" Do you want to spend 12 hours transferring detailed mapping information and database information? If so, fine, but if I am to spend $1300 on a device, it will have a MUCH faster way to transfer data, period. |
#547
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martindale wrote:
Ron Hunter writes: Yes, in a 25 pin connector. Wonder why... The 9-pin connector came later. The standard provides for connections to very complex modems that have wires dedicated to phone ringing and answer, that have a secondary low-bit-rate data channels, and out-of-band flow control. A *full* implementation of an RS-232 port with all the options would take more than 9 pins. On the other hand, 9 pins is enough for what PCs do with a serial port. Dave Ahh, yes, that simple, easy to use connector. If you only knew how many of them I have connected (after wiring them myself) over the years. And THAT is one reason that I will never use one again. |
#548
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Martindale wrote:
Ron Hunter writes: Yes, in a 25 pin connector. Wonder why... The 9-pin connector came later. The standard provides for connections to very complex modems that have wires dedicated to phone ringing and answer, that have a secondary low-bit-rate data channels, and out-of-band flow control. A *full* implementation of an RS-232 port with all the options would take more than 9 pins. On the other hand, 9 pins is enough for what PCs do with a serial port. Dave Ahh, yes, that simple, easy to use connector. If you only knew how many of them I have connected (after wiring them myself) over the years. And THAT is one reason that I will never use one again. |
#549
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|