$250?? How about $100? That way, according to the business classes I had
you can get... wait for it... 3 GPS for the price of one.

I know that's a tough thing to imagine....

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:01:38 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Three times the cost of a non-map GPS isn't a price penalty?

This guy definitely was asleep during business 101.


Being top of the class is why I don't have to even think about spending
$350 for
a better, more useful tool, versus $250 for a bare bones, less useful
tool. If
you had even attended business 101, you would know that you can't save
your way
to prosperity.

BB.


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:00:03 +1100, OzOne wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:53:36 GMT,
scribbled thusly:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:53:02 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"

wrote:

Get a low-end Garmin. You don't need map functions, just the basics.
I still have my 12xl. It's great. Does everything you need to do.
You
don't need the 76 at this point, unless you're sure you want to drop
$300 or so.


The mapping units weigh the same as the non-mapping units, so there
is
no
performance penalty for the greatly enhanced units. If Ganzy could
use
foodstamps to buy a GPS, he'd think mapping was indispensable.

BB

But there's a price penalty.
Never seen the need for a mapping GPS when charts have so much more
detail.


The price penalty isn't really much to quible about, and the added
ability
more
than makes up for it. A mapping GPS is not a sub for charts, but a nice
addition. Especially since the electronic charts can be kept up to date
and
accurate much easier and cheaper. I carry one ashore with me as well
when
I
land.

BB


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.