Would that help without a network connection, which was mainly what was being discussed?

You can rest assured that I do not take decisions to spend money lightly. I keep the GSM radio off unless I need it, the same for GPS radio. I gave the n900 onboard GPS a fair shot, and with the GSM radio off or GSM service not available, it just was not worth it to try to use the onboard GPS. If it works OK for you, good for you.

I also have an n800, and the bluetooth GPS is much more practical for me with the n800 than a USB GPS. It is also useful with laptops.

Nothing fancy about it, but it is SIRF III, which outperforms many of my other GPS only handheld devices.

As a practical matter, GPS devices with parallel receceivers have an easier time obtaining and holding a fix than than GPS devices with a multiplexed receiver. There are also significant differences in sensitivity among GPS receivers.

I do pay enough attention to where I am and what I see and what the GPS says and how that changes to adjust the trust that I put in the GPS at any moment.

No, I have not.

I have been using hand held GPS for over 15 years and watch how that improves. I do occasionally go years without getting a new GPS and have never tried to use every GPS there is, but I have used enough to see big differences in indoor performance, urban canyon performance, and forest performance. Around here there are portions of redwood forests where no GPS works at ground level, so it is a matter of which ones lose signal first or last and regain signal first or last. Also GPS units that maintain fix, but only for 3 or 4 satellites under these conditions do not have enough accuracy, for example, adding roads to openstreetmap.

For a number of reasons, I sometimes have as many as 3 GPS with me. In those cases, I see the differences among GPS under exactly the same conditions.

I can only shake my head that you shake your head over years of direct experience.

That is simply not true. In addition propensity to be obscured in normal use is another valid comparison among units.

it is all about battery. n900's unit is designed so that your device can use the gps longer than couple hours. some external gps units have approx half the battery capacity n900 has I'd quess so imagine giving 50% battery capacity away just to get better gps, would that be ok?

just use the gsm for couple seconds, then n900 outperforms every single sirf III equipped unit when cold started 10 to nil.....

Of course my bluetooth GPS receiver lasts 20+ hours on a single charge (yes while on, not standby). That saves significant battery life on my N900 using bluetooth instead of the onboard GPS.

Under normal conditions, the bluetooth GPS will achieve an initial fix in usually less than 1 minute, despite not having been used for several weeks. It also has a significantly stronger fix and "floats" far less than my N900 GPS. Using GPX view on a golf course, my bluetooth GPS normally shows 5-10 ft error. The N900 GPS (while standing still, earpiece up, etc) varies from 15-70 ft error. This is under essentially identical conditions (middle of open fairway).

While the N900 may be faster to get a lock using network, waiting less than a minute for a better more stable lock, doesn't perceptibly change my life. I'll wait.

Given the title of this thread, I should have made it clear that I am not faulting the n900 GPS. The results of power management for the wifi and gps on the n900 are pretty amazing. But the limitations of the GPS are enough that it is worth it to me to use an external gps, whose battery lasts over 10 hours. The whole thing is pretty small, a little longer and thicker, but narrower than a compact flash card.

The very quick fix with a GSM data connection is amazing, exceeded only by how dramatically slower than a mid 1990's single receiver GPS the n900 is when there is no internet connection.

@ j.s

No problems from me, I agree with your follow up response. We're saying the same things. I started a relatively long Navy career doing electronic warfare in 1991 - ELINT - satellite / radar in the majority. Don't be too quick to shake heads sir, better to shake hands and talk shop. : )

I'm seriously convinced there is a hardware fault with some phones, as this is like the 30th thread I've read that goes along the lines of:

A. "N900 GPS Suxxors!"
B. "No it doesn't, works fine for me"
C. "Yes it does Suxxors!"
A. "See? Is Suxxxors!"
B. "But it works for me, ergo A + C are idiots"

Is it not possible that some revisions of the N900 got dodgy GPS hardware fitted, which would explain the varying results people are getting (reception and A-GPS aside).

The first rule for this club is that the n900 can have no fault.

Don't know if it's placebo, but having GPSJinni open at the same time seems to help.

Or maybe it just because I can watch the flashy satellite graphs while waiting for them to get a signal.

I have taken the n900 to my local nokia repair centre and got a text this morning saying they cant fix it so its off to nokia ..... presume there is a fault .....

question is how many times does the phone have to go in for repair before you get a replacement ???