the oldest usable garmins
As time goes on and more people realize that navigation on a phone is complete garbage, they're turning to Garmins. I own a bunch of them. Got the newer stuff with the 53, 66 and 76 (yes, I do own all three), older stuff that goes as far back as two decades ago, and many models in between that.
Over the years, I've seen things happen with all the screens I have as they age. Some are definitely better than others.
But before I get into that, I'll answer this question: What is the oldest usable Garmin?
Answer: Garmin nuvi 200*
Yes, there is an asterisk there, because this is a conditional answer.
The conditions are:
- It absolutely has to be a white-sticker serial and not a gray-sticker.
- A 32GB microSD memory card and no larger is absolutely required to store the map data.
- The map data absolutely has to be OpenStreetMap and not Garmin-issued.
- You absolutely have to know how to get GPS coordinates for locations.
- You have to know how to punch coordinates in manually to get anywhere.
When people read over those conditions, they usually run away screaming.
Whatever. Not my problem. I put in the effort and figured all this stuff out myself, and if I can do it, so can anyone else.
Technical crap aside, the reason a nuvi 200 series has stood the test of time is because of the simplicity of how it was made. Most of them have no Bluetooth, meaning no stupid phone is ever involved that would screw things up. None of the 200 series models ever had that nasty rubberized coating crap on the case. The mounting clip for it is thick and sturdy. It never had a proprietary cradle, meaning it absolutely works when powered by a Garmin charger cord or generic USB power cable (which matches the Garmin cord pinout so the board doesn't get fried).
With a white-sticker 200 series model, I can still get GPS accuracy of under 40 feet. True, that's not as good as newer models that get accuracy of 10 feet or fewer, but considering the age of a 200 series, anything under 40 is still really good.
Where 4.3-inch "widescreen" models are concerned, the nuvi 42 still works well. It's actually a redesigned nuvi 40, but what makes it nice is the case redesign. The 40 had a power button that liked to crack off as it aged, and the 42 fixed that. Also, finding replacement circle-style mounting clips for it is really easy (and cheap).
For the 5", nuvi 52 and Drive 52. Similar model number, but years apart. The nuvi 52 is just a 5-inch version of the 42. Drive 52 is much more advanced, some are still on Amazon at the time I write this, and it was the very last matte screen model from Garmin.
Capacitive screen 5" models are hit-or-miss. Best of the lot was the nuvi 2599 for brightness and legibility, but the screen can go wonky on it over time.
6" matte models never had truly bright daylight-readable screens, unfortunately. I'm talking about nuvi 65, 66, 67, 68. And the capacitive screen models didn't fare out much better. The only truly good daylight readable capacitive model is the current generation DriveSmart 66.
7" models is when things got good for capacitive, starting with the DriveSmart 61. Very nice. With the DriveSmart 65, whether you get true daylight readability or not directly depends if it's a "with Alexa" model or not. If it's not, slightly dimmer. If it is, full brightness. Doesn't matter if you use the Alexa feature or not, because the brightness is what matters. The current generation DriveSmart 76 is also truly daylight readable.
Back to the 200... is it okay to use now?
This is the oldest of the old for usable, so let's talk a little more about this.
200 series nuvi models are very, very plentiful. Tons of them available for cheap on eBay, and tons of people have one kicking around in the garage or put away in a closet.
Assuming it's a white-sticker 200 (meaning the serial number printed on the bottom is literally on a white sticker and not gray) where the USB port isn't wrecked, a proper power cord is used, new 32GB card is acquired, OSM maps are installed to said card, and some locations are manually saved using GPS coordinates to Favorites list (like Home, maybe a few stores, bank, whatever), yes, okay to use...
...as long as you're realistic when using it.
Being realistic means being comfortable that a 200 series is just an A-to-B navigator. No phone crap, no Bluetooth, no Wi-Fi, no traffic reporting, no ability to create custom routes, no ability to send/receive locations, minimal options. It is its own island, so to speak.
A 200 will get you there. Sometimes you'll have to ignore the directions it gives when you know a better way and let it recalculate the route a few times. Sometimes the GPS signal will cut out when entering a large parking garage (but will get it right back when back out in the open). Sometimes you'll notice it's a little slow. But again, it will get you there.
The nuvi 200 series is old, but yes, still works when set up properly.
it's now dangerous to edit text in windows
It is legitimately dangerous to edit plain text in Windows now. Yes, you could be forgiven for thinking I'm completely making that up, but unfortunately I'm not.
Microsoft incredibly found a way to break Notepad so bad that one of the very recent 'updates' for it resulted in the software having a remote code execution vulnerability. That is INSANE.
I could understand (but not condone) if this happened with a web browser. But a text editor, and frickin' NOTEPAD of all things? Really? Yeah, really.
You might think okay, just use Notepad++ and then and all is well, right?
Wrong.
Notepad++, a software I used to swear by, had its updater compromised for six months.
Never in all my life have I ever seen anything like this happen on any operating system in the history of personal computers for text editor software.
Again, I really have to drive home the point that this crap happened with text editors, meaning not document editors. Decades ago, macro viruses used to happen to Microsoft Word, and that goes all the way back to 1995. But Word is a fully featured documented editor. Again, I'm talking about text editors.
I dodged this disaster just by good timing
I switched my secondary computer from Win11 to Win10 IoT LTSC recently, and did put Notepad++ on it.
The timing of when I did that was amazing, because I had installed Notepad++ a day after v8.9.1 was released after all the security stuff was taken care of.
I've since uninstalled Notepad++ and won't go back. The only text editor on my Win10 now is notepad.exe, as in the old one that never had a problem before Microsoft 'updated' it...
...although I may consider Kate, since that's my go-to text editor in Linux, and a Windows version does exist for it. I'm very used to Kate at this point.
the spam solution i can't use
I decided to regex everything to keep my email inbox clear of spam, but I have looked into other options.
There is one and only one way that is absolutely guaranteed way to stop all spam, and it's on-the-fly email aliasing.
What this basically means is that everybody, be it a person or business, gets a separate alias address to email you with. With on-the-fly aliasing, you can create an alias whenever you want and immediately start using it. Also, if any alias starts getting spammed, you can delete the alias, make up another one, and that spam problem is solved instantly.
But there are three huge problems with this, even though it absolutely does work to stop spam.
First, with an alias service, you're putting trust and faith that the service won't be blocked anywhere or suddenly close shop. Doesn't matter if it's Firefox Relay, addy.io or any of the others. Just because they work now doesn't mean they won't in the future.
Second, using aliases can turn into a management mess in short order.
With the existing web/email hosting setup I have, I could, if I wanted to, configure on-the-fly email aliases. The nerdy technical details of it is that I would set one master address as a catch-all such as me@example.net, and then use some regex magic so me[anything]@example.net would deliver email to me@example.net. Also, I can send mail for any alias I make, so if I had mesocialmedia@example.net, I can send as that address. And should any alias get spammed, I can filter it right out with regex and create another alias on-the-fly instantly. Not a problem... except it is. More on that in a moment.
Is this the same as plus addressing? Pretty much, except my aliases would work anywhere since some sites don't allow email addresses with a plus in them. Social media is a good example. Some social media sites would allow me+socialmedia@example.net while others would spit back an error on attempt to use that for an account email address.
Even with "100% compatible" addresses, micromanaging is a very real thing when using email aliases. Yeah, you're still using just one email account since all the aliases deliver email there, but now you have to keep track of all the aliases being used.
Setting up aliasing is easy, but switching over every account to a separate alias is the very tedious, very annoying part.
If I have an account at Big Ass Bank using me@example.net and want to change that to mebank@example.net, I have to login and do the song and dance of changing the email address, get the verification email, confirm, and okay, then I can use it.
But then I have to do the same thing for every frickin' account I have. Not quick. That could take the better part of a week to get all that done.
For giving out email addresses in person, I'd have to carry around a field notes wallet. On one of the pages I'd have a few short words written down for email alias use (sky, cloud, sun, moon, star, etc.), then cross one out whenever it gets used. True, field notes wallets are cool and damned handy for having a right-now way of jotting down a note wherever I am. But for email alias management, it's a little ridiculous to use a notepad to help manage it all. (Then again, if you consider it a good idea, go for it.)
Any why do the aliases have to be managed like that? It's so I don't accidentally use one twice, because if I did, and the alias starts getting spammed later, two people or two accounts are affected if I delete it. I'm not going to remember which two they were, so to avoid that trap, every alias has to be for just one account or one person.
Third, dealing with The Email Cabal isn't fun. At all.
The Email Cabal are those "free" email providers that start with G, H, O or Y. You know what those are. And they don't like it when people send messages using aliases even when all the checks and balances are "OK". The alias service could be free of all blacklists, have proper SPF/DKIM/DMARC/whatever configured and whatever, but it doesn't matter. You try to send any message using an email alias to a cabal-run email address, and it could be false-flagged as spam at any time.
Oh sure, you can receive emails all day, but sending to any email address run by the cabal is a totally different story. Not only do you have to worry about whether the alias service will stay up and running, but also worry about whether the cabal is "in a mood" that week or not. Ridiculous.
100% effective to stop spam, but...
Let's say you have no intention of sending mail as an aliased address and just want to receive. Let's also say you're relatively confident that the company who runs the alias service won't screw you over. Okay, fine.
There's still that whole micromanaging thing going on that cannot be avoided. Every time you use an alias, that's effectively adding another email address into your life that you have to keep track of.
Ultimately, just the thought of micromanaging email steered me away from using email address aliases.
Is aliasing worthless?
No.
Aliasing doesn't work for me, but I understand people like having a handful of "throwaway" email addresses that they can use whenever they want to receive newsletters or whatever. As long as it's just a few addresses, that's manageable. And by a few, I mean fewer than 10. Going anywhere beyond that into double digit territory is where the micromanaging creeps in, and that would be bad.
progressives vs. bifocals and trifocals
I'm due for another eye exam. Haven't done it yet, but soon will. For the last two eye exams I've had, it was recommended to me to get progressive lenses. I said no both times because I didn't feel I needed them. But now I'm at the point where I might.
A question then popped into my mind:
"Wait a second.. how come bifocals were never recommended to me?"
After having that thought, I did some research on this, and found out why they were recommended in the first place.
I could, if I wanted to, get myself some cheap peepers, which they even make for bifocals. I'm glad those exist because the price is certainly nice, but I don't think they'd work very well for my vision situation. Prescription eyeglasses is the better option...
...but not progressives, because I'm certain I'd hate them.
Here are the three huge issues with progressives:
First, the zones.
Progressives are called what they are because the magnification literally progresses as you go down the lens. All well and good, but there are the spots in the lens where the progressions start and end, i.e. from zone to zone. This is where distortions can happen and things can get out-of-focus.
Think of the lens magnifications divided into regular/medium/high (i.e. distance, reading a computer screen, reading a book). The transitions from regular-to-medium and medium-to-high zones are where the distortions can happen, as well as the periphery.
The only way to mitigate the distortion crap is to spend huge (as in anywhere from $600 up to 4 figures for just for the lenses, never mind frames) to get computer-algorithmically crafted lenses that better fine tune the zones.
But even after getting all that done and spending a mint to get it, it's no guarantee you'll get distortion-free progressive lenses.
Second, peripheral vision may become completely useless.
With progressives, there's always the risk that the outer edges of the lens may be completely worthless for seeing anything. Smaller lenses probably don't have this issue, but for larger ones (which I do prefer), uh, yeah, problem.
It is typical that on progressives, the outer edges have less optical power, which can lead to seeing distortion, which leads straight to can't-see-shit peripherally.
Third, a set progressive lenses is a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Wearing progressives is like wearing a set of eyeglasses that has 20 different levels or more of magnification spread out over the lens.
Great, right? Not really. The problem is that progressives do not make any one particular distance truly view in focus. Single magnification is always sharper.
Compared to bifocals and trifocals...
Bifocals give you two magnification levels, and trifocals three. Easy enough to understand. There is a pronounced line on the lens where the magnification begins and ends. Also, peripheral vision is not wrecked since it's really easy to see where the bi/tri part ends, and there isn't anything wacky going on with the magnification level at the edges.
Adaptation
Some adapt to how progressives work, while others give it the good ol' college try, never quite fully adapt, and junk them for bifocals or trifocals instead.
More importantly, what nobody says after wearing progressives for the first time is, "I can see perfectly." That doesn't happen. You have to learn how to see again. Why? You have to get used to those zone-to-zone distortions, because they will be there.
What really ticks me off...
...has nothing to do with progressives themselves, but rather that eye doctors all say the same thing. "Yeah, you need progressives. Everyone loves 'em. Really."
Absolutely no mention of bifocals even though they were always an option. The progressives are "recommended" purely as a cash grab because they're always more expensive. That is why the eye doctor always "recommends" those and bifocals are never given a mention.
What I've decided...
...is that since my prescription isn't that strong, I'll get the exam, and then buy two sets. One single vision set, and the other bifocals just to see if I can get along with them.
If the bifocals irk me, then I may entertain the idea of progressives. But I'm certainly not spending a grand for that computer-algorithmically fine tuned lens crap, as I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make that much of a difference.
With progressives, it's the distortions and peripheral vision I'd be most concerned with. I could probably get used to the distortions, but if I couldn't see anything peripherally at the outer edges of the lens, that's a no-sale.
mid-to-late 2000s cadillac navigation systems
This actually isn't just about Cadillac but all luxury cars from the 2005-2012 era.
I'm an unabashed Garmin GPS nerd, and own way too many Garmin nuvi, Drive and DriveSmart screens. Example: I own 3 of 4 of the current line, Drive 53, DriveSmart 66 and DriveSmart 76, with the only one I don't have being the DriveSmart 86). And that's just the newer stuff. I have many older ones going all the way back to the mid-2000s.
And this brings me to navigation systems luxury cars and trucks of that era were using.
Updating the maps on a navigation system offered by Cadillac or any other luxury brand is basically impossible. And what really ticks me off are the reasons why. There are two.
First, the map data is DVD-based, and I know exactly why. It's because all the luxury automakers went cheap. SD and CompactFlash storage obviously did exist, and either could have been used instead of DVD. But nope, didn't happen.
Second, the map data was engineered to such an ultra-proprietary degree that it was never even considered the nav system might be used beyond a lease term. They were all engineered as a one-and-done. "Update map data? What? Are you NUTS?!"
I can take any Garmin nuvi from the late 2000s, generate new data images from OpenStreetMap data and update the maps. Not a problem. Been doing it for years at this point. The exact same should be possible on a 2005-2012 luxury car nav system, except it isn't. Those systems are completely locked to DVD-only, completed locked to ultra-proprietary map data, and there's not a damned thing that can be done about it.
Now you know why Android head units sell. You either take apart your mid-to-late 2000s luxury car interior and install one of those, or you just buy a Garmin like one mentioned above and go with that.
This makes me wonder how long it's going to take before an automaker releases a car with no screens and uses that as a selling point. To be more specific, no touchscreens. I know the backup camera has to exist because of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111. But there isn't any requirement for infotainment nor a touchscreen to be present. Automakers could junk that crap if they wanted to. And they should.