GPS

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:18:49 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


Prometheus wrote:


In article , Ron Hunter
writes


Prometheus wrote:


In article , Ron Hunter
writes

--Cut----------


In short, you are really WAY off on this one.

You are amazing! We were discussing a connecting a GPS receiver to
a PC. The GPS Rx has only three data pins (TD, RD, GND), the start,
stop, data and parity are fixed, the cable with the correct
connectors if not supplied with it is on the hook next to it in the
shop, the supplied software sets the PC for these parameters and can
not be altered by the user. It is possible for the user to mismatch
the Bd rate and the protocol at the two ends, but that is because
the international standard for communicating with GPS devices has
been revised and your new receiver must be backward compatible. Have
you used a GPS with a PC? Have you used a GPS with other serial
equipment? I have, I connect them, they work; the work because
nothing needs changing.
Besides a sub-miniature Dee connector is far more rugged for field
use that a USB.
In short you have no idea.

I read the instructions for MY GPS for the transfer. I concluded that
it would be more trouble to set the thing up than I was willing to
deal with. Your system may be different. Mine was more trouble than
I was willing to deal with for the minimal gain. The software wad
indechipherable. Case closed.


Unfortunately there are badly written user manuals, there are also
people who can not comprehend a well written user manual, using USB does
not eliminate these problems.

N.B. A GPS receiver without a serial port is not NEMA compliant, a
laptop without a serial port is not NEMA compliant. If I wanted to use a
laptop with a GPS receiver I would buy one that has a serial port, in
fact I would want a serial port anyway.

It would cost the manufacture money to redesign the integrated circuit
to provide USB in addition to NEMA, the customer would have to pay for
that through increased price.

Fine, up the price $20 I will pay!


The adapter to do the job is only a few bucks. Get shopping!

The adaptor will NOT change the transfer rate!

wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:22:12 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:


Prometheus wrote:


In article ,
writes


On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:16:02 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:


* Strictly speaking "RS-232" only reefers to the 25 way sub-miniature
connector and not the electrical connexions to the pins which are other
standards.


Are you sure? I believe I heard years ago that it defined only
signal levels (and maximum supported distance criteria for copper) for
25 lines and was otherwise connector-agnostic.

I may well be wrong -- it happened once. A long time ago.


I think you could be right, it was along time ago for me also. I just
did a bit of research, it seems it was originally a nine wire system.


Yes, in a 25 pin connector. Wonder why... The 9-pin connector came later.


Because of the remaining signals not normally required for
simple communications. Nine (or fewer) pins are probably adequate for
95% of what's done with serial comms.

Probably 95% require only THREE wires, so most of the time there are 6
pins in even the smaller 9-pin D connector that are wasted, along with
the space on the device. That's who some companies don't put serial
connectors on laptops unless specifically requested.