Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Earth Beta for Mac

Posted by Zonk on from the hooray-for-earth dept.

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."

7 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. by SineOtter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Looks pretty similar to the Windows version to me- Albeit with aqua tabs at the top.

  2. Re:I really don't care what it looks like... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. Using a standardized toolkit also has many nice perks like that drag-and-drop *always* works.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  3. Re:I really don't care what it looks like... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, 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.

    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 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.

    like the constant waste of space at the top of the display for the menu.

    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.

    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!

    How does the presence or lack of features make a difference to the interface?

  4. Re:For similar functionality with more focus on sc by tricorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another interesting program is Celestia. 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).

  5. Google Earth for Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I downloaded Google Earth (Beta) 3.1.0171.0 build 12/1/05 (from MacUpdate) and it works well. Blazingly fast, as compared to a PC in medium resolution mode (512 x 512). Still a beta though, no printing, email, web etc. but it really flys!

  6. Re:I really don't care what it looks like... by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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 UI department needing a bit of a beating. :)

    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.

    No. Because the window that has the focus is on top, so it can never be obscured by any other window, GIMP's or otherwise. That's why window-based menus can never get in each other's way.

    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.

    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.)

    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 just about since there were mice and GUIs, though, and that could be a factor.

    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.

  7. NASA WorldWind and alike on MacOS X by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is indeed really great news. Let's not forget the open NASA WorldWind project also has Java/OpenGL versions in development for MacOS X and Linux and that WorldWind itself has been forked into Punt.

    If you're serious about geospatial, you might be interested in joining us :-)

    --
    Animoog.org