You are a Guest, please Join now to allow full access to the website and be part of our community. You can register by clicking the "Click Here to create an account" link at the top left of the page under our Logo
I have just got Autoroute 2006, and I have to say I was very disappointed in the GPS navigation side of it, in my opinion virtually useless. It was not my intention to use it for that purpose as I use Infomap Navigator, but I thought I would evaluate it.
Had I known what I know now, I would not have wasted my money on the 2006 version, but it is in my opinion by far the best route finder.
KenS
Last edited by KenS on Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
The following members of MHF thanked KenS for this posting
We were in the same dilemma with all the different types of GPS units around but settled on our laptop [running XP] and 'Navigator 4' - which gives spoken directions, I also have an older version of Autoroute which is faster and just bought Autoroute 2006 [which gives spoken directions] . . . I've not yet loaded this new Autoroute so cannot compare but I'm given to understand that it is superior to previous programmes. The GPS unit is a small card size which slips into the modem slot with an external aerial on a couple of metre long cable connected to the laptop GPS - in 'trials' we have found it to be spot on (although sometimes it tends to choose different roads than I otherwise would have taken - but that may well be me not programming or selecting the correct options . . . I guess the more you use it the better you become ! I certainly would not be without it now.
ps/
Got the new Autoroute 2006 on e-bay for £4.99 +p&p . . . .
______________________________________________________________ * As far as I know the info I post is correct - but to be on the safe side you are advised that (a) I´m not always correct and (b) I´m not always correct
The following members of MHF thanked vicdicdoc for this posting
"Why do some Sat nav systems cost £1,000's and others less than £300?"
Some of the expensive ones integrate the GPS receiver's output with wheel and/or steering wheel sensors. In theory this gives a more robust solution in dense, urban environments. In practice, since the US removed the deliberate 100m GPS error signal, it very rarely offers much assistance, but is more something that leads me to the second and main reason for the price differential, which is marketing.
Any GPS navigation device is predominantly a GPS receiver, computing hardware, software and mapping data. Optionally, a bluetooth data link as well. You can obtain a state-of-the-art solution including all these for ~£300 incuding street level west european maps. (Obviously if you have some of these already, typically computing hardware or a previous GPS receiver, the outlay would be much less). As far as I'm concerned anything much more than that NOW, for just navigation, is due to marketing/ excess profit. But that's what businesses offer and people have the choice to buy.
"Do the more expensive receive a better signal from the satellite?"
Not in general. In performance terms a SirfstarIII chipset is a better performer, but these are available on recent, cheap GPS receivers, too. The best thing you can do for performance is give the antenna a clear view of the sky.
"Are the maps better? "
No. Route mapping is primarily down to two original sources. Topological maps have more sources.
"Why and when should you upgrade?"
If the balance of extra functionality versus that withdrawn is worth the money to you.
Dave
The following members of MHF thanked DABurleigh for this posting
Bookmarks
Watched Topics
and 
Pat 
