Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Earth Beta for Mac

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 09, 2005 01:12 PM
from the hooray-for-earth dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Apple
Thijs van As writes "AppleInsider reports that Google is developing a Google Earth version for Mac OS X. From the screenshots it looks similar to the Windows version, which is out since June 2005. The OS X version uses OpenGL rendering." From the article: "Earlier this month, a pre-release version of Google Earth for Mac OS X that uses OpenGL rendering reportedly began making the rounds overseas. The 40MB application packs a hefty set of preferences, allowing users to tweak detail and color, and control the speed of their 'flights.' Google Earth interfaces with Google's Web-based mapping service, Google Maps, in providing local search results and driving directions. However, sources say Google Earth for Mac OS X includes a superior set of satellite imagery when compared to the Google Maps Web service, offering additional clarity and a deeper zoom function."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Earth Beta for Mac 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • google earth beta download (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2005, @02:02PM (#14221263)
    well you dont have to wait for it http://mypersonalgetaway.com/ [mypersonalgetaway.com]
  • One other Google port that I would love to see for OS X would be Picasa [google.com]. Such a great program for organizing and keeping track of your photos (much better than iPhoto in my opinion).

  • For similar functionality with more focus on sci (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ilgaz (86384) on Friday December 09 2005, @03:29PM (#14222216) Homepage
    There is Earthbrowser on OS X (and win32) for ages. I don't think it is same with Google earth but it is much more educational and fun program.

    They now added satellite photos feature so makes it more cool.

    It is installed on many schools,universities but doesn't make it "boring". Especially on hurricane season. ;)

    Check yourself

    http://www.earthbrowser.com/ [earthbrowser.com]

    • Another interesting program is Celestia [shatters.net]. I haven't tried any, but there are apparently lots of available high-resolution images available for various parts of the Earth as well as higher-resolution images for some of the other planets. The controls for moving around aren't intuitive, but it is a lot of fun to go zooming around the galaxy (and even some nearby galaxies, rendered as grayish-looking 3-d blobs).

  • download (Score:5, Informative)

    by tezbobobo (879983) on Saturday December 10 2005, @04:31AM (#14227253) Homepage Journal
    SHIT! I waited half a day for someone to list the download site - and noone did!

    If you want to download it, here it is. [macupdate.com]
  • This is indeed really great news. Let's not forget the open NASA WorldWind [nasa.gov] project also has Java/OpenGL versions in development for MacOS X and Linux [csoft.net] and that WorldWind itself has been forked [slashgisrs.org] into Punt [sourceforge.net].

    If you're serious about geospatial, you might be interested in joining us [slashgisrs.org] :-)
    • Maybe the screenshot was taken with the app running on 10.2.
      • No, take a closer look at the title bars - they are the newer style which came in with 10.3, so the demo machine must be running at least 10.3 but still using 10.2-style controls. The only other time I've seen an app this ugly on a Mac, Qt was to blame - I hope this isn't the reason here, because if it is then looking ugly will be the least of its problems (Qt messes up the feel a lot worse than it messes up the look).

        • Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yup, it includes libqt.3.dylib. So yes, the controls are done via Qt/Mac. (I'm running 10.4.)

          The "feel" seems OK, but the look is pretty bad -- the menus are also non-standard, including weird checkboxes, icons, etc.

          Hey, it's a beta, so I'm gonna cut it some slack. I haven't seen if Qt/Mac v4 offers better controls, but I'm willing to remain optimistic. At the very least, if they use Qt, we'll see similar Windows, Linux and Mac versions of all the Google apps, all released at similar times.

          • Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Informative)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday December 10 2005, @06:41AM (#14227539) Homepage Journal
            Apple implement the OpenStep specification - a cross platform spec for development of GUI applications. Sun also provided an implementation at one point, and the GNU project provides one in the form of GNUstep, which runs happily on all UNIX variants I've encountered and only slightly less happily on Windows. I, and many others, have no problems developing cross-platform apps which look and feel native on OS X.
      • Looks pretty similar to the Windows version to me- Albeit with aqua tabs at the top.

    • I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fyngyrz (762201) on Friday December 09 2005, @01:58PM (#14221229) Homepage Journal
      ...I'm just happy to see it. While I enjoy pretty, what actually matters to me is functionality and reliability. And in this case, simply availability — this has been beta under Windows for quite some time already.

      Too much focus on pretty can result in the "Hollywood Effect" —beauty without value, or worse, beauty that impacts value... like recent media player designs or the incredibly bad Kai's interfaces of yore. I've had enough of that kind of craziness.

      • Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by moosesocks (264553) on Friday December 09 2005, @03:56PM (#14222511) Homepage
        We're not talking about 'pretty' here. The main gripe the mac community has with programs like this is that they do not follow the conventions of a normal OS X user interface. A 'pretty' media player would have the same problem.

        The strength of the Cocoa and Carbon windowing toolkits has allowed many first-rate applications to be developed without requiring the developers to resort to creating their own (ugly) controls. Windows has been guilty of this on many accounts, and microsoft's only beginning to make up for it with .NET. It's not uncommon to see custom UIs in Windows such as Winamp, GEarth, iTunes, Trillian, etc.... because the standard UI controls available are simply not sufficent to create a usable, streamlined application that's also visually appealing.

        In contrast, GEarth could operate just fine using standard OS X controls and conforming to the OS X UI Guidelines [apple.com]. Using a standardized toolkit also has many nice perks like that drag-and-drop *always* works.

          • The fact is, there is more than one way to be usable. I have no, and I mean zero, problem, using the GIMP under OSX because the interface is 100% functional.

            But it's completely inconsistent with standard Mac GUI conventions.

            In fact, most of the problems the GIMP has on the Mac are a consequence of OSX, for example, clicking on a window doesn't do what it should based on the UI element clicked upon, instead, it'll activate the window, which is just plain bad UI design

            It'd be pretty annoyed if click

              • Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by JonathanBoyd (644397) on Friday December 09 2005, @10:50PM (#14225999) Homepage

                And my exact point is that this affects its value not at all. The only thing that will affect its value here is if the user, that is, me, or you, decides to take an attitude that we're unwilling to use it because it is inconsistant.

                The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient. For instance, most of the time when I'm typing, I'm using my Mac and the cursor selects whatever line is in the middle of the text cursor. Part of my work, however, involves doing an announcement sheet for church every week in Corel Draw on Windows. For some unexplained reason, it selects whatever line is under the bottom third of the cursor. This drives me nuts because my instinct is select with the middle of the cursor and end up selecting the wrong line quite a bit of the time.

                It also has a bizarre convention whereby if you drag select from somewhere on a line to the start of it, then make changes to the formatting of the line, it will also select the carriage return on the previous line and apply formatting to it. Consequently I often have to drag select to the 2nd letter of a line, then shift-left cursor select the first letter. After 14 weeks of use, I have come to loath this program because it does not follow the conventions that I'm accustomed to. Arguably, it's just plain bad design, rather than inconsistency, but I think the inconsistency is still a factor.

                You missed my point entirely.

                Indeed I did. I apologise. Thought you were talking about clicking a window in the foreground application. My bad.

                Say you're using Finder. So a Finder window is active ... Now you have to click again, on the same button, to get the result you should have already had.

                That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI design. One more mark against inconsistency ;^)

                The menu at the top uses considerable vertical space, all the time, which is unusable for all applications. You can't get a window to cover the menu bar. At least, I can't in 10.3.9.

                Can't in 10.4.3 either, which I'm fairly happy about. Wouldn't want to lose sight of my menubar. It's fairly full. It's only a wee bit of vertical space, especially compared to the resolution of modern screens. Though if you're using multiple monitors, then you only need a menubar on one screen and can avoid them entirely on others, thereby saving space.

                Windows may, or may not, require a menu. For some (dialogs, for instance) a YES or NO or even simply OK is all the UI they need. This can be true of much more complex applications as well; if the developer is allowed to make that choice, of course

                True, but document windows all seem to have them, which irritates me greatly in Windows. Though the inconsistency in multi-document and single-document interfaces annoys me more. And the inefficient taskbar. And the way that opening multiple files belonging to one program sometimes loads the files into separate windows in one instance of the application, while launching several instances of the application in other cases. And not being able to open a bunch of files by double-clicking on a selected group. But I'm getting a bit off-subject here. I find Windows stressful. It just gets in the way so much.

                If a menu is embeddded in a window, say, application A, and there is no menu at the top of the screen, then application A may be dragged to the top of the screen, thus providing menu-on-top functionality if you like it.

                Only really works

                • The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient.

                  I see your point, though this doesn't affect me the way it does you.

                  That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI desi

                  • No, it's an OSX thing. I just opened finder, clicked into a directory so the window was well and truly focused and so on, then clicked a link in Safari which was visible below the finder window. Safari came to the top and the window became active, but the link was not followed. These are both about as native OSX app as you can get. This happens all over the place. If you watch for it, I think you'll find it soon enough. Anyway, this isn't so much a poster child for consistancy as it is for someone in the U

                  • Huh. Well, I'll buy your argument if you'll tell me how you get to the top of the screen in an instant. I can't, as far as I know -- it's further to roll the mouse to the top than it is to the top of a window, barring the single exception where the window is at the top anyway (in which case it takes just as long.) [. . .] So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the d

    • I wonder if that means it will work under Mac OS X 10.2? I am still running 10.2.8 on my old PowerBook G4 (1 Ghz; 512 MB of RAM). I am just cheap and lazy to upgrade. :)
    • It looks a lot better than the old days when a big companie's Mac version looked like, I dunno, nothing, nada, and zip.
    • This story is about the OS X version of Google Earth. MSFT's answer does not work on Safari which is the dominant browser on OS X. Maybe you are confusing Google earth with Google Maps [google.com]? In any event, I cannot see how decades old aerial photography can compare with recently updated (within last two months) satellite imagery. If you were to try Google Earth, you would find that it sports higher resolution imagines than their google maps service.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.