Upcoming Streets on 2011.10

The 1490T will show upcoming cross street's name on the map, but not on the top bar.

Just went from FL to SC.As stated in earlier post the 265 has always showed upcoming streets on the map and intersections without zooming in.Not sure if this is new but don't believe it was there before.In the Green bar it always showed the street for the next turn.It appears to be more info there now.For example off 95 to a hotel in Florence SC.Green bar shows exit xxx US 52 (Florence).Don't remember the city being there enclosed.Also appears to be more detail coming off the off ramps as far as the arrow guiding to correct lane.

I kept my 7x0 and returned the 765T for that reason. I did like its fancier graphics though, but you can't have everything I guess.

I think we need to be more specific in this thread. Not only are people mentioning different models and map updates, but it appears some are talking about navigation mode while others are referring to free driving. My 7x0 says "[street name] Ahead" in the green bar when not navigating and the instructions for next turn when it is.

Agreed.

The whole "displaying upcoming cross streets" issue is referring to what is being displayed in the green information bar at the top of the map screen when you are NOT navigating a route and are simply driving around with no destination set. On newer units such as the xx5 & 1xxx series, the green bar displays the street you are currently on. With older units, the green information bar displays the next upcoming cross street.

That's correct Dorkus. Having owned both I can vouch for that using them side-by-side. However, previous posters in this thread kept saying things like "My green bar shows the next turn" and confusing the discussion topic.

I did like the 7x5 series displaying the street you are on when driving freely rather than next upcoming cross street. Makes more sense to me. Having them both made it hard to decide which to return, but the bugs in my 765T, though minor, made it hard to return one with no bugs at all.

As far as the upcoming cross streets being displayed on the map itself, this has always been the case for my units...they have always displayed them. The deciding factor of what is being displayed is dictated by the firmware of the unit, not the map data. The map data contains *all* streets and all other data (railroad tracks, bodies of water, etc) regardless of version. It's up to the firmware coding on the GPS itself that enables/disables what gets displayed on the map screen (or elsewhere).

I realize it is the model unit itself which determines those differences, but tell me: What causes two different models to route the exact same itinerary entered at the exact same time differently? I found this to be the case at times when using both simultaneously.

Goofy is in charge of the routing engine.

are involved in routing results. None of the GPS's try every possible route on complex routes. Faster processors may try more possibilities in obtaining their results than slower processors, and therefore get a different result.

I updated by maps yesterday. Took it out this morning and did not see any change. Some street names it shows on the map and some it doesn't.

I've been waiting for 3 hours now and I have DSL. I never imagined it could take this long.

I just have 1.3Mbps DSL. It took me 4 hours to download and about an hour to update the unit.

4 hours implies to me that you are paying for "up to 1.3Mbps' but got only about 150Kbps average during the download. (assuming it was of a similar size to 2010.40)

I think your calculations are off Ozme52. The file size is 2,331,729,785 bytes which is 18,653,838,280 bits. 4 hours is 14400 seconds.
18653838280 / 14400 = 1295405 bits per second or approximately 1.29 Mbps.

I don't think bandwidth is sold in bits per second.

I think it's bytes per second, but I may be wrong.

Regardless of how it's sold, my 150 Kbps estimate was meant to be in bytes (mea culpa,) which would be 4.5 hours (but I was assuming a slightly smaller file.)

My math is rarely wrong but my techno-speak clearly needs improvement.

P.S. This makes us both right!!

1.3 million bits per second is about 150 thousand bytes per second.

My download speed most of the time reads 1.29 million bits per second and about 155 thousand bytes per second. A byte is typically 8 bits.

Just a terminology mistake on my part... We are in agreement in the speed of the download though.

Mine is worse... (satellite access) so I used a friend and he was getting download speeds averaging 300 Kilobytes per second and my download (of 2010.40 which was 2.02 Gigabytes) was just under 2 hours, which is how I estimated you were getting 150-ish Kilobytes per second.

Internet bandwidth is typically sold and mesaured in bits (Kb or Mb). The generally accepted standard abbreviations are
kbps or Kbps = kilobits per second
kBps or KBps = KiloBytes per second

Here is one reference for this: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2388

and another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units