He's talking about an 11 year old device of a 15 year old (long since discontinued) design, even flagship devices were less featureful then than some mid-market devices are now. Imagine expecting a review of such a device to be enticing to someone comparing modern options…

Also, not everyone with a GPS watch cares that much about heart rate. I am a runner (well, less so now that I used to be, but working on fixing that) and have a Feninx7, not for the health tracking features but for route tracking and the long battery life (for “ultra” events covering many hours or even multiple days).

That's just an old and not useful device.

GP is talking about a model that was released 14 years ago, and is closely based on one from 2009.

Seems to me that "still working well after more than a decade of use" is a more useful piece of info than "newer models include additional features".

Is a stone working after 1000 years? Yep, still a stone though.