[Loadstone] Impressions on GPS receivers (was: Built-in GPS)

Charlie charlie at loadstone-gps.com
Fri Nov 23 20:22:17 GMT 2007


Hi monty,

<monty at loadstone-gps.com> wrote:

> In my opinion and everyone seams to have their own, I would say that the 
> Royaltek 2XXX and the Holux M1000 seam to be the all around best.

I fully agree in terms of the Royaltek.

> Other receivers with non-SiRF chipsets have impressive specifications upon 
> first glance but in  practice they often fall down in areas relating to 
> slow speed.

That's correct. I tested a QStarz Q818 with MTK chipset and a Wintec with
Antaris chipset. The QStarz is a little bit more  sensitive than a Royaltek
RBT 2001 with SIRF III, the Wintec WBT 201 was a bit less sensitive than
the Royaltek RBT 2001. At low pedestrian speed oth, QStarz and Wintec, are
nearly unusable for fetching info about the current heading, the Royaltek
works absolutely fine at low speed.

So a few days ago I bought a new Royaltek RBT 2300 with an improved
SIRF III chipset and I'm very impressed. The RBT 2300 is the same as the
RBT 2200 but with a built in datalogger. The battery life is a bit better
than with the RBT 2001, both receivers use the same battery type, it's the
BL-4C from Nokia. (the BL-5C is a little bit thicker)
The sensivity of the new Realtek is also a little improved and the time to
first fix seems to bee significantly faster too. The battery life with the
original battery is about 8 hours (the RBT 2001 has about 6 hours).
If someone likes, he can buy a battery upgrade pack with a bibber battery
and a new battery door, then the battery life increases to about 17 hours.
Some dealers sell these receivers with this bigger battery and call these
receivers RBT 2210 and RBT 2310.

This Royaltek RBT 2300 is the very best receiver I came across until today,
but I haven't tested a Holux M1000 yet. The Holux GPSlim 236 is not as good
as the Royaltek RBT 2001... so I guess, the M1000 won't reach the quality
of the RBT 2300. ;-)

> What do others have to say on this topic?

This just are my 2 Cent...

regards,
Bert

-- 
Because of the bad readability in context.
> Why is "Text on top, fullquote at the bottom" so bad?
>> "Text on top, fullquote at the bottom"
>>> What's one of the most annoying things on the net?



More information about the Loadstone mailing list