Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Gerald Sylvester wrote
I would be willing to bet that Garmin shares a significant amount of
code between their panels and their handhelds, at least when it comes to
the 396.

Handhelds like the Garmin Forerunner? As I said, the big difference
between certified and non-certified is the behind the scenese design
and testing. If it isn't tested, it leaves a LOT of room for
potential problems that Garmin might know about but doesn't
want to spend $$$$ and additional testing to fix.

For the 396, yes, I agree. 90% of the code is the same but that
doesn't guarantee that it works nor is compatible with the hardware.
Your system yes through trial and error. For the one manufactured
next week with the different chipset (I'm completely making this up
and have no inside knowledge at all....I could have named any
handheld GPS unit), maybe not.

Sure, there is no
certification document with which handhelds must comply, but I just
don't think it's worth losing any sleep over, or even giving much though
to, for enroute navigation. I just don't care.

would you care if a handheld you are using decides to improperly
calculate the route to all waypoints 200 or more miles away?
I'm sure you would. What about if the manufacturer knows about this
and doesn't tell you about it? I'm sure you would.

Ever wonder why US Part 121 and 135 operators spend hundreds of
thousands and more to get certified GPS systems when the $25 00
Garmin 396 can do the same. All comes down to liability.

I wish I could afford the 396 as it seems to be a great unit.

Gerald