I'm not gonna defend (or bash) HB for Ethernet's functionality for 2 reasons...
1. I don't have definite HB reasoning in their decision
2. I don't even own two HB units to connect together
I will offer my opinion on what may have been their reasoning...
*Interlink makes a "2 unit HB setup" more complicated (more hardware)...
*Future HB innovations are more conducive to Ethernet functionality...
*Ethernet allows more total waypoint capacity shared than Interlink...
I agree with the idea that having the actual waypoint data physically stored in each separate unit would be beneficial for the way some would want to manage their waypoints..(if I had 2 units I would want the wps on each unit)...
If I had to guess... I would say HB sees no problem with both units being on constantly to allow the sharing of the wps in each separate unit into a total wp capacity of more than double the capacity of wps usable with Interlink...
Is there an easy solution..?? I don't know...because I don't have 2 units....
Is there a workable solution...?? Maybe someone will chime in with their experience in wp management with Ethernet....
Is Ethernet better than Interlink...??
In some ways (to some users) ...probably so....
In some ways (to other users) ....probably not....
I would like to see the HB units allow physical transfer of wp data and more total wp capacity...like someone mentioned the HDS units allow.....
Maybe in a future update if there is enough uproar on the boards about it...
I don't hear the bass boys complaining about it (on the other boards I watch)...so you tell me....do you think they listen to crappie fishermen...??
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/fishi...-hb-donut.html
Rickie