New offering from Casio

[Barry Rowland]

I get ads from Casio regularly.  I got this today, for anyone interested in some different colors. 

[Farmer X]

I like the look of the black one. So I looked it up on Casio's site. Being that it has Bluetooth, it's a hard pass from me. But I thank you for passing the information along!

[Barry Rowland]

Anytime Dan!    I'm not familiar with the Bluetooth option, so I have some reading to do so I'm up to speed.

[AzteCypher]

Why would you need bluetooth on a watch?

[AndyAaron]

To connect to your phone to get accurate time, maybe some notifications etc. I guess…

[PitCarver]

Nice, but I'm to old school when it comes to watches, I like an analog face with a large case.

[Farmer X]

I'm not that old-school. Yet the only thing I expect a watch to do that isn't related to timekeeping is illuminate. Anything else would be an unnecessary complication, in my book.

[AzteCypher]

I still use pocket watches so.... 

Though I have one digital watch that would allow me to change time zones when I used to travel.  Pretty handy.

I really did like the green color on that Casio, I just don't need the bluetooth feature.

[Barry Rowland]

I actually have a hard time taking advantage of the current, relatively simple G Shocks I have now.  I love that they have all the features that they do, but I can't usually access them except with guidance from one of my sons or YouTube 

[Tasky]

To connect to your phone to get accurate time, maybe some notifications etc. I guess…

My old GW-9400 Rangeman gets daily updates from the atomic clock, and is more accurate than any internet device I can imagine...

[buggs]

I actually have a hard time taking advantage of the current, relatively simple G Shocks I have now.  I love that they have all the features that they do, but I can't usually access them except with guidance from one of my sons or YouTube 

On the occasions I'm not carrying my phone (something I really look forward to in retirement), the last thing I need is another device tracking me.  Add to that I've largely given up trying to keep up with a large share of technology (I can do it, I prefer not to) I'm probably not going to own a G Shock.  Nice pieces, look well built, price not prohibitive, just not all that interested.  I don't need things that outperform me.   

[Farmer X]

I don't need things that outperform me.

Luckily for folks like us, there are still quite a few basic G-Shocks available. My DW-5600E tells time and has a single alarm, a countdown timer, and a stopwatch. There isn't much else to worry about.

[powernoodle]

I have become wholly addicted to the Casio solar/atomic flavors.  I could see using bluetooth to mimic the atomic function, but those watches are generally more spendy.

[ThundahBeagle]

...just not all that interested.  I don't need things that outperform me...

Where is pfsantos when his bat signal has gone off?

"That's what SHE said"

[Grant Lamontagne]

I'm not that old-school. Yet the only thing I expect a watch to do that isn't related to timekeeping is illuminate. Anything else would be an unnecessary complication, in my book.

I actually have a hard time taking advantage of the current, relatively simple G Shocks I have now.  I love that they have all the features that they do, but I can't usually access them except with guidance from one of my sons or YouTube 

This is a fascinating discussion unto itself- digital watches used to be so superior because you could do so much with them- the alarms, stopwatch, timer, backlight etc used to be so handy.  I will admit that I recall using my watches as flashlights in moments of desperation back in the good old days.

But even the most basic phones nowadays do this and so much more- do we still need that functionality in a watch?

Especially when your phone will do it by saying "Siri (or Okay Google) start a timer for six minutes" rather than pressing the B button four times to get to the timer function then press and hold C until the timer starts flashing and hit B six times until it reads six minutes, then hit C again several times as it cycles through the minutes and seconds, then stops flashing and then you hit A to actually start it and realize that you accidentally set it for six hours rather than six minutes and then you have to stop it and start all over again, but since B only advances it you have to hit it 18 times until it gets back to 00 after 23.....   

By the time you've set the damned thing your six minutes have been over for three minutes.   

I love my old Casio DW-5900.  It was the greatest watch I ever owned, and I always thought it was cool because it also told you what year it was.  That way, if you went into a coma, you'd know how long you were out!

You know, as long as you woke up during the day, because there was no light on the damned thing, so if you woke up to go to the washroom in the middle of the night you never knew if you had another three hours to sleep or if your alarm was going off in ten minutes.

Also, I think the years only went to 2020, so the watch has long since outlived it's expected lifespan and is still going strong, which you have to appreciate.

So what do you all think?  Are the various functions on a digital watch still pertinent today?

Def

[AndyAaron]

I think for Casio is hard to keep up with all the wearables people can buy today. Any Garmin or Apple watch can do even more task than classic G-Shocks. Hence Casio needs to come up with something to catch the interest. It may be bluetooth, notification or other functionality that young folks are looking for.
If one likes the design of new Casio I bet he can enjoy it anyway with all those functions set off and have even more battery life.
Smartphones and apps can beat traditional digital watch in terms of functionality but only if you have enough energy. Just try to go to forrest or to mountain hike for a week or more and the phone can become useless very soon.

[powernoodle]

Another factor with Bluetooth is how many Bluetooth connections your phone can handle.  I believe - though I could be wrong - that my Samsung Galaxy S10+ can have 2 simultaneous Bluetooth connections.  I am already using both of them - with Shokz bone-conducting headphones, and a constant glucose monitor.  So I would have to lose one of those to connect a Bluetooth watch, which I am not willing to do.

[AndyAaron]

My iPhone 12 can do at least three in the same time. Shockz and my computer headphones plus Garmin watch.
I assume that when it is not used it is in some standby mode waiting for the action.

[Farmer X]

I love my old Casio DW-5900.

The Walter?

As for the various functions on digital watches still being relevant, I'd say yes...up to a point. These days, I usually wear a watch only when I'm leaving the house or spinning up the dynamo on my hand-crank radio (it's easier to time a minute's worth of cranking that way). Taking the timer as an example, most of my use for a timer is in the kitchen. I can set a timer pretty quickly with the microwave. A stopwatch function, similarly, is something I don't have much use for. And I'm more inclined to use the alarm function on my phone. I'd probably sleep right through an alarm on a watch, as they're pretty quiet and shut off after 20 seconds.

Looking at Shockbase's advanced search function, there are myriad features I have no use for. Truthfully, an analog watch would work equally well for me. There is one reason I stick with digital: I like to see the time rendered as "16:40."

[Grant Lamontagne]

I believe it's the Casio DW-5900C-9 from your list.  You can see it in this thread:

https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,67264.0.html

In the early 90's I asked my Mom for this new tough watch for my birthday.  She was reluctant to buy it as I was hard on watches- and pretty much anything else that came near me, and it wasn't cheap.   

But, it was the only thing I wanted and so I got it.  It was massive on my extremely thin wrists, but I loved it and wore it for years.  Eventually when I moved to Toronto it was stolen out of my old VW Fox.  I was really upset about that, and a few years later when the internet became a thing I joined a forum called G Forces that was dedicated to G Shock collectors.  I described the watch as well as I could and someone said "Oh, that's a DW-5900.  I  have a spare one.  Give me your address and I'll send it to you."

I was amazed that someone would be that kind and I still have that watch to this day- although it does need a battery. 

Def

[Farmer X]

I think you're right. I'd consider getting a Walter if I wasn't so dead-set on my next G-Shock having a negative display.