<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Garmin Oregon Beta 2.99 Available &#8212; Not Recommended</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/</link>
	<description>The Garmin Outdoor GPS Information Resource</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:13:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Garmin Oregon 3.01 Beta Software - GPS Fix</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-535</link>
		<dc:creator>Garmin Oregon 3.01 Beta Software - GPS Fix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:47:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-535</guid>
		<description>[...]  Not much to write about here, but Garmin has just posted a 3.01 Oregon beta with a fix for the shutdown failures introduced in 2.99.  The problems were severe enough in 2.99 that we recommended Oregon users [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Not much to write about here, but Garmin has just posted a 3.01 Oregon beta with a fix for the shutdown failures introduced in 2.99.  The problems were severe enough in 2.99 that we recommended Oregon users [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kris</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-534</link>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-534</guid>
		<description>3.01 Beta released 7-1-2009.  So much for 3.0 being final.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3.01 Beta released 7-1-2009.  So much for 3.0 being final.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-526</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-526</guid>
		<description>The Whereigo function isn&#039;t any better either. Locked up over and over where my Colorado 300 worked fine.
This release is a big dissapointment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Whereigo function isn&#8217;t any better either. Locked up over and over where my Colorado 300 worked fine.<br />
This release is a big dissapointment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-519</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-519</guid>
		<description>Stick with 2.98 for now.  It has lots of miles on it and the GPS accuracy is about as good as any release available right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stick with 2.98 for now.  It has lots of miles on it and the GPS accuracy is about as good as any release available right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thom</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-518</link>
		<dc:creator>Thom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-518</guid>
		<description>I downloaded the 2.99 update for my Oregon 300, before I checked here. Now I see that 2.8 is better, than 2.98 that I replaced it with, where it concerns accuracy. I&#039;m really getting confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I downloaded the 2.99 update for my Oregon 300, before I checked here. Now I see that 2.8 is better, than 2.98 that I replaced it with, where it concerns accuracy. I&#8217;m really getting confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HHL</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-517</link>
		<dc:creator>HHL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-517</guid>
		<description>@ Frabrizio:
This forum’s Lingua Franca is definitely English.

Frohes jagen. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Frabrizio:<br />
This forum’s Lingua Franca is definitely English.</p>
<p>Frohes jagen. <img src='http://www.gpsfix.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gpshiker</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-514</link>
		<dc:creator>gpshiker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:39:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-514</guid>
		<description>In term of positioning accuracy in Yosemite Valley which is considered tough terrarin for GPS receivers, I do find out Colorado 300 (2.8?) is doing better job than Oregon 200 (2.98) after comparing the track logs of both on Upper Yosemiet Fall Trail. Oregon 200 jumped more seriously as matther of fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In term of positioning accuracy in Yosemite Valley which is considered tough terrarin for GPS receivers, I do find out Colorado 300 (2.8?) is doing better job than Oregon 200 (2.98) after comparing the track logs of both on Upper Yosemiet Fall Trail. Oregon 200 jumped more seriously as matther of fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gpshiker</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-513</link>
		<dc:creator>gpshiker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-513</guid>
		<description>I just returned from the Yosemite Valley trip and found the elevation profile reading in my Oregon 200 witn 2.98 was total in error. It reported more than 8,000 feet in elevation gain but was actually only 4,200 feet. I do hope 2.99 fixes the issue. Will go back to Yosemite later this week to check it out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just returned from the Yosemite Valley trip and found the elevation profile reading in my Oregon 200 witn 2.98 was total in error. It reported more than 8,000 feet in elevation gain but was actually only 4,200 feet. I do hope 2.99 fixes the issue. Will go back to Yosemite later this week to check it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabrizio</title>
		<link>http://www.gpsfix.net/garmin-oregon-beta-299/comment-page-1/#comment-512</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabrizio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gpsfix.net/?p=773#comment-512</guid>
		<description>Grazie prima di tutto per le spiegazioni che voi date ma purtroppo ho gia scaricato sul mio oregon la versione beta 2.99 eho riscontrato crash che voi dite spero che garmin provveda subito con un altro aggiornamento per rimediare a questo inconveniente
Un saluto

Fabrizio</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grazie prima di tutto per le spiegazioni che voi date ma purtroppo ho gia scaricato sul mio oregon la versione beta 2.99 eho riscontrato crash che voi dite spero che garmin provveda subito con un altro aggiornamento per rimediare a questo inconveniente<br />
Un saluto</p>
<p>Fabrizio</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
