Google Earth Beta for Mac 64
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."
One other Google port that would be nice. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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.
Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1, Interesting)
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. Running under X. 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, like the constant waste of space at the top of the display for the menu. Just because something is standard, doesn't mean it's good, and that's a fact.
Look at quicktime. It's standard, but it's crippled. Can't save movies (unless you pay extra) can't deal withy mpeg (unless you buy the add-on), yet it's a nice, standard Mac application. Comes to this, other software, even with a non-std interface, kicks quicktime's butt because it does the things you need it to do. And this is an Apple product! Kai's stuff was a problem not because it was non-standard, but because it was flipping inscrutible. Not just a little different, but other-planet, non-carbon-based-lifeform, no-rosetta-stone different.
Don't get me wrong — I love my Mac — but I don't love it because everything works the same. I love it because mostly, everything actually works. That's the real advantage it has over windows and linux, at least for me. That and not having to turn inverted backflips with a twist (usually in a CLI) to get an application installed (linux) or having to reboot three times if I so much as install a text file under windows (ok, obviously exaggerating, but youy get my drift.)
I reiterate, I don't care if Google earth uses OSX conventions. It's not important, in fact, it is trivial in the literal sense. What is important is that the Mac no longer lacks the functionality. Well, when we can run it, anyway... up until today, all I knew was from the Google page, which says "we're working on it" which isn't very enlightening or encouraging.
Finally, as a developer, I can tell you that the more of the core of an application is cross-platform, the easier it is to port, and the less it will depend upon, or otherwise utilize, a particular platform's standards. It'll probably look most like the platform is was designed upon, but even that isn't a given, especially if there are new UI ideas in the application. You can certainly go too far (Kai's!) but you can also not go far enough (GIMP) where the ported-to OS actually degrades the applications functionality, as happens with the brain-dead window activation approach that I've seen in so many Mac applications.
I well remember the first time I used Photoshop on the PC and found that the menus were acting quite Mac-like... they weren't PC menus at all. Adobe had gone and written their own menu handler so that the Mac menu code (I presume) would no have to be changed at all. The end result was a bit of disorientation (about ten seconds worth) for me, and then on I went, getting work done, in no way seriously inconvenienced. And why? Because it worked. Was it Windows standard UI? No. Did it matter? Nope. Not a bit. All it did was tell me I was working with a port.
So cheers to Google for just getting the job done. :)
Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's completely inconsistent with standard Mac GUI conventions.
It'd be pretty annoyed if clicking on a window didn't activate it. If it's a toolbar that shouldn't be activated, then it should be a toolbar, not a window.
I prefer one easy to find menu bar to multiple menu bars in multiple windows, wasting a lot more space and taking more effort to reach.
How does the presence or lack of features make a difference to the interface?
Re:For similar functionality with more focus on sc (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Google Earth for Mac (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, if you bring up the print dialogue, switch to another app so Safari goes to the background, then click on print, or cancel, or whatever, the button will activate without further clicks. Same goes for the bookmark bar. It just doesn't count links on the page as buttons, which I approve of.
Having aid that, are you aware that cmd-clicking on background UI elements allows you to trigger them without switching app focus? If I cmd-click on a link in Safari, it will go and load the link in a new tab without switching focus. I would use this every once in a while to scroll a background window or click a background button when I want to keep working in the current front app.
But the point isn't about menus being obscured - after all, you can't obscure the OS X menu bar. It was about wastage of space and if you have more than one window on screen, then each one with a menu will waste space. e.g. working in the GIMP requires you to have several windows open, IIRC, each with a menubar.
One quick finger or hand movement moves the cursor straight to the top of the screen. Thanks to the acceleration present, this takes very little time. Aiming for a particular spot on screen, however, usually means two movements - one relatively quick one to the right area, then a slower one to the precise area, occasionally because I've overshot.
I've been mousing since the days of the Atari STE, which is long enough to be fairly competent. Besides, if that were a factor, it would imply that you need years of experience to use the GUI you prefer effectively, making it the worst choice for new-comers to a computer, or for irregular users.
NASA WorldWind and alike on MacOS X (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're serious about geospatial, you might be interested in joining us [slashgisrs.org]