Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Map Download Time

Expand Messages
  • Harlan Stockman
    ... wrote: [...] ... with ... much ... I didn t think the Garmin port was USB 2.0 -- I thought it was locked to the USB 1.x throughput. I have all USB 1.x
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In GarminGPSMAP60C_60CS@yahoogroups.com, "Gene" <GGenecline@a...>
      wrote:
      [...]
      > cbotta,annoyedone: I do have the slower standard usb. Not the 2.0
      > faster usb. I also have an older compaq w/350 cpu. I can live with
      > this if it is a normal thing. Hope to get a newer laptop to take
      with
      > me when I retire(ten months from now)with a much faster cpu and
      much
      > more hard drive storage. Thanks guys.

      I didn't think the Garmin port was USB 2.0 -- I thought it was locked
      to the USB 1.x throughput.

      I have all USB 1.x ports on my PCs, and it takes just minutes to
      download ~50 MB of maps. But all my CPUs are at least 1.4 GHz with
      fast memory and hard disks.

      If other devices are on the same USB port, and they are reserving
      some bandwidth, the download time may be a lot slower.
    • Jose
      Hi, It s even slower when you over pick the amount of maps (aka amounts chosen exceeds memory available). The computer must then calculate what to download.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        It's even slower when you 'over' pick the amount of maps (aka amounts
        chosen exceeds memory available). The computer must then calculate what to
        download. It's very slow!
        Regards,

        Jose

        ...... Original Message .......
        On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:24:04 -0000 annoyedone@... wrote:
        >--- In GarminGPSMAP60C_60CS@yahoogroups.com, "Gene" <GGenecline@a...>
        >wrote:
        >
        >> I just loaded 51 mb of maps into my 60C and it took almost forty
        >> min. I was using the usb cable that came with the gps.
        >
        >There are actually two phases to loading maps. The first phase is when
        >MapSource combines the selected maps (you'll see a "Building
        >Indexes.." message when this is occuring). It appears to be very CPU
        >intensive. The second phase is the actual download process (i.e.
        >communications with the GPS). Depending upon the map product/selection
        >the first phase can take longer than the second.
        >
        >Finally, the USB transfer rate is much less than the theoretical
        >maximum. I've *measured* it at about 307Kbytes/sec (i.e. phase two
        >only). This is still *much* (i.e. 42x) faster than the 115,200 baud
        >serial rate on non-USB units!!!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • cbottca
        Hmmm, you have a point there. Now that I check, I don t see any documentation that says the 60C is USB 2.0...don t know where I got the idea it was! Maybe from
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmmm, you have a point there. Now that I check, I don't see any
          documentation that says the 60C is USB 2.0...don't know where I got
          the idea it was! Maybe from comparing speed with my 2.0 camera, but
          that doesn't mean much.

          For the person who measured the transfer speed, that pretty much
          matches what I see, around 4 seconds per MB.

          There's no doubt the map indexing can take a while, very CPU/memory
          intensive, and it takes minutes on my 2.6GHz P4 for the ~50MB maps I
          tend to load.

          --- In GarminGPSMAP60C_60CS@yahoogroups.com, "Harlan Stockman"
          <hwstockman@y...> wrote:
          > I didn't think the Garmin port was USB 2.0 -- I thought it was locked
          > to the USB 1.x throughput.
          >
          > I have all USB 1.x ports on my PCs, and it takes just minutes to
          > download ~50 MB of maps. But all my CPUs are at least 1.4 GHz with
          > fast memory and hard disks.
          >
          > If other devices are on the same USB port, and they are reserving
          > some bandwidth, the download time may be a lot slower.
        • annoyedone@yahoo.com
          ... FYI, the USB 2.0 standard supports 3 data rates 1.5 Mb/s, 12Mb/s and 480Mb/s (USB 1.1 supports the first two as well).
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In GarminGPSMAP60C_60CS@yahoogroups.com, "cbottca" <cfraser@c...>
            wrote:

            > Hmmm, you have a point there. Now that I check, I don't see any
            > documentation that says the 60C is USB 2.0...

            FYI, the USB 2.0 standard supports 3 data rates 1.5 Mb/s, 12Mb/s and
            480Mb/s (USB 1.1 supports the first two as well).

            http://www.usb.org/info/usb_nomenclature

            Just because something is labelled "USB 2.0" doesn't mean it
            supports the fastest rate (as some have found out the hard way).

            As was determined the other day Garmin *is* using one of the USB 2.0
            standard "mini" connectors so they may well be USB 2.0 compliant.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.