- Size. As you can see, it is much smaller and sleeker than my old 205:And, thus, I think it is a better fit for a small wrist like mine, and I think for many women in general, this new size would be a better, less cumbersome fit. This is a huge plus in this device's favor.
- It's simplicity. The Garmin Forerunner 110 is only designed for running, so it's settings are simple. When running, it simply displays distance, overall time, and pace. And despite the fact that the watch face is smaller than the 205, I still find it easy to read while running.
- Garmin Connect. This is the software that comes with it; and when you upload your run history, it gives you all kinds of information, including a Google map of your run, an elevation map, as well as the basic break down of your distance, time, pace, calories, etc. I never used the software much with my 205, and I think this software is more user-friendly and really doesn't require much on the user's part.
- Quick satellite lock-in. So far, I haven't had to wait more than 30 seconds for it to locate and lock-in satellites. Sometimes, with my old 205, I would wait nearly 5 minutes for a signal.
- The price. I got the "unisex" model with the HR monitor and it retails for $199.99 (I got it a little cheaper because I had a discount code for the retailer I bought it from, but still, it is pricey). For the limited features, I think this is too expensive. Especially since you can find a 205 or 305 on Amazon or eBay for less than $100 and both models provide way more features. Of course, the point of this model is for its stripped down approach, and it is marketed as an "entry-level" GPS-enabled sports watch. It's features are stripped down, but because the price isn't, I feel as though it is over-priced.
- Viewing the run history. My biggest complaint about this watch is that when you finish a run, and save it, you can go back and immediately see your run's overview (distance, overall time, and average pace), but you cannot see each lap. Major fail, in my opinion. You can see each lap once you upload the info to Garmin Connect, but it cannot be viewed on the watch itself. I honestly think Garmin really missed the mark on this point. Since even beginning runners may be doing intervals, tempo runs, or other speedwork in which they will want to immediately have access to the more detailed breakdown of their run. For me, it's not a huge deal -- I'll adjust to waiting until the info is uploaded, but still, I am used to being able to scroll through each mile right after completing a run, and to not have that feature on the watch feels weird to me.
- Pace display. As you run, the pace displays your mile's average pace, not your current pace. Get that? The average pace, not the current pace. So, if you had been running a 9 min/mile, but then you speed up to a 7:30 mile, it won't tell you that you're running at a 7:30 pace; instead, it will average the two paces and that's what the pace calculator will display. Again, very bad for any kind of speedwork.
For me, I feel as though the pluses and minuses pretty much even out, and I especially like the new size of the 110, so on the whole, I am happy with it; however, I don't think I would recommend it. Especially not to any of you, most of whom are experienced runners who are used to the features of GPS-enabled sports watches. In theory, I would recommend it to a newbie runner or a runner who is just testing out running with a GPS-enabled watch, but, honestly, unless the price drops significantly, I wouldn't recommend it to a new runner.
New runners should learn to invest money in good shoes and appropriate clothing. Gagedtry is really secondary, in my opinion. If this watch cost $60, yeah, I would be telling all runners (especially women who would appreciate its size, I think) to go out and get it. But for $200? It should do more.