The War of the (Virtual) Worlds

[Darius Wey]

<img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/wey-20050725-WOTW.jpg" /><br /><br />This discussion is definitely a bit off-topic, but it's an interesting one with Microsoft and Google now fighting it out in... "War of the Worlds". By now, a colleague, a friend, a pet or even a stranger has pointed you to <a href="http://earth.google.com/">Google Earth</a> or the browser-friendly <a href="http://maps.google.com/">Google Maps</a>. Both allow you to zoom right in to any place in the world and search for people's houses, ATMs, your local McDonald's, and much more (yes, the possibilities are endless). But there's more! Enter <a href="http://virtualearth.msn.com/">MSN Virtual Earth</a>, Microsoft's search and mapping alternative. <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jul05/07-24VirtualEarthBetaPR.mspx">Officially launched as a beta just a few hours ago</a>, MSN Virtual Earth combines MapPoint and MSN technology to deliver a fast, easy-to-use mapping solution for the end user. Naturally, both have a heavy emphasis on the USA, but I've found Google's solution to have much better international support than its counterpart (for now). Living in Australia, you can probably already tell which of the two I prefer, but given the fact that MSN Virtual Earth is still a beta, I'm willing to give it time to mature and develop into a fully-functional product before I make that decision again.<br /><br />So, the question is this: "who has the better Earth?" International readers will probably pick Google's offerings, while those of you based in the USA may go both ways. Let the poll decide! ;)<br /><br /><b>Links:</b> <a href="http://earth.google.com/">Google Earth</a> / <a href="http://maps.google.com/">Google Maps</a>; <a href="http://virtualearth.msn.com/">MSN Virtual Earth</a>

[MitchellO]

Google. Their's is soooo cool, and can peak in on australia!

[OSUKid7]

After watching the Channel 9 Interviews Virtual Earth Team (http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=71140) yesterday, I was really looking forward to Virtual Earth, but it really doesn't stack up to Google...yet. Both Google's and Microsoft's "Earths" are still in Beta. For now, I'll probably still use Google Maps for directions, and Google Earth for fun -- spinning the globe. ;) But the stuff I saw in that video yesterday really made me like MSN Virtual Earth, so I'll keep checking back with it, and hopefully Microsoft will get it to work a little better.

[Duncan]

OK - so the MSN version is only beta - but it's a bit pants really - isn't it? Better that they'd have waited than rushing to unveil it now and impressing no-one.

[Ken Mattern]

I prefer Google but if I want geography I use NASA's World Wind http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/. It's open source software that lets you zoom just about anywhere, some areas to extreme detail, and you can rotate the satellite view to get a 3D view of the landscape.

[Martano]

Virtual Earth crashes Firefox for Mac. Not Google maps

[Kursplat]

I used to use Expedia all the time for directions. Now I use Google Maps. I especially love the ability to zoom in to level I want and then just grab the map and drag it around. This is SOOOOOOOO much nicer then moving around a full page at a time.

[Kowalski]

google earth for fun, and google maps for real posotion finding.
microsoft map services are promising though

[lapchinj]

MS usually plays catch up very well and in the end either ends up with the only package available or a very good product, but they do catch up. I try to stay away from MS when I have the option since thier products are for MS only. I do a lot of work across different platforms and I can't afford to learn 2 products that do essentially the same thing so I'll use a non-MS product even if it's a little short on bells and whistels.

Even though MS will probably catch up I think that Google has always been a rock solid bunch of products and I don't think that by me staying with Google that I'll miss very much in terms of what the world has to offer.

Jeff-

[powder2000]

I didn't vote. For me, google works just fine. Why do I need to install another product whether it's MS or not? I have never been dissatisfied with googles stuff and I don't feel I need much more. I am also a bit weary of more MS stuff. Why not just stick with a certain set of markets and do them the very best you can? With all the Vista news coming out, it seems they should be putting their efforts there instead of competing in yet another arena. Don't get me wrong, I have no real beefs with MS, I just would rather they concentrated more on their os than a mapping/search program.

[Darius Wey]

Why do I need to install another product whether it's MS or not?

MSN Virtual Earth is browser-based which means zero installation. However, I can see where you're coming from about having to sample another product when the first works just fine for you.

[disconnected]

Google is fine at home, but at work we're not allowed to install anything, so I'll be looking at MSN Virtual Earth.

[szamot]

Google Earth rules! It seems to me MS is not even on the same planet with this - nice try though.

[Jonathan1]

Google. For several reasons.

-First off Google’s satellite images are in color.
-Secondly Google’s satellite images have much more detail.
-Third it “appears” that Google cache’s more of the map so moving around is a bit smoother on Google then on MSN.
-Forth the street lines on Google’s map is much more pronounced when viewing the satellite images. I think this is mainly due to B&amp;W vs. color. I don’t consider this a superficial thing.
-Most importantly, Google’s imagery is relatively up to date. MS’s stuff has open fields that have long ago disappeared. The met center where the MN North Stars use to play is still up. I think that went bye bye 10 years ago. The Mall of America is still being constructed! 8O

Call me petty but I don’t want MS polluting another industry. So even if MS gets better then Google my loyalties will remain with Google. I use windows because practically speaking it’s where the industry is. But when possible I will choose alternatives. FireFox for my browser. OpenOffice for my Office Suite. MS Outlook 2004 for my e-mail, MS search bar for local searches, and Google for everything else.

Is Google going to get thrashed in the long run? Yep. Bet money MS’s is going to pull another browser war and integrate most of their search functions into Vista so everyone who gets Vista will end up being lazy and just use it killing Google. It may take 6 years but Google is dead in the long run. The joys of being a monopoly (Not a bad word.) OS manufacturer. Free distribution of your wares to everyone. And Google has? Well name brand I guess. Let’s see if that is good enough to hold MS at bay long term.

[Jonathan1]

Google Earth rules! It seems to me MS is not even on the same planet with this - nice try though.

Keeping in mind that it IS beta for now and just about all MS products take at least 3 generations to get it to an OK level.

[Janak Parekh]

Google is fine at home, but at work we're not allowed to install anything, so I'll be looking at MSN Virtual Earth.
Virtual Earth is actually closer to Google Maps, and both are browser-based. It's a shame the names are so confused...

--janak

[applejosh]

Well, MSN's thing didn't render my office location (arial map), but Google's did. Good enough for me right now.

[alabij]

Like everything Microsoft. It's got a simple cool GUI. But also like everyhting MS, its got its limitations especially since right now you can only zoom to US street levels.
However, trust Microsoft to pump it up with features and charge a premium for it.

Off topic: The best consumer free app from MS has to be Windows Media Player 10

[jefito]

-First off Google’s satellite images are in color.
-Secondly Google’s satellite images have much more detail.

You should also note that though many of Google's satellite images are in color, not all of them are (see Windham, NH) , and of those that are, not all have particularly good detail (see the area near Windsor, NH for the contrast between Google's good and bad color imagery, then compare it to the same area in MS's site, and you'll see that the b/w imagery has a lot more actual detail than the bad color imagery in Google).

Oh yes, you should also note that some of the color imagery that Google delivers is actually false-color. Prettier? Maybe. More useful? I'm not so sure.


-Forth the street lines on Google’s map is much more pronounced when viewing the satellite images. I think this is mainly due to B&amp;W vs. color. I don’t consider this a superficial thing.

I think that this is intentional -- it's a philosophical difference in how to overlay vector data over imagery. They use transparency of their road features (it's not a B/W vs. color thing), making it a bit more subtle approach. Since the satellite imagery is pretty much useless in most consumer scenarios, I don't mind MS's more subtle display -- I'd usually run without the imagery anyways. Moreover, they do some nice things with their vector data, like try to plop the county and state information in the maps (at least down to a certain zoom level), something that Google doesn't seem to do. MS also does some interesting tinting of park areas in the imagery.


Call me petty but I don’t want MS polluting another industry. So even if MS gets better then Google my loyalties will remain with Google. I


I won't call you petty, but the idea that Microsoft is "polluting another industry" by putting out a browser-based service seems pretty silly. Microsoft has been in the mapping industry since well before Google was even around. They've also been delivering satellite imagery online since well before Google bought Keyhole Maps.

As far as cool factor goes, Google Earth has it over both of these sites, in spades.

[MitchellO]

Virtual Earth crashes Firefox for Mac. Not Google maps

Are you surprise? You are trying to run MS website in Firefox (not IE), and on Mac (not windows) :mrgreen: I think it might be a design :D MS can't stand the competition.

[lapchinj]

...It may take 6 years but Google is dead in the long run...I don't think so (or rather I really hope not) since there is too much innovation being developed there. I think that they have the resources and talent to stay one step ahead of MS in their field. But it is hard to say no when MS offers the top brass of competing products wages, benifits and development environments for some of the coolest R&amp;D going on in the world. So we can't even say that so and so sold out to the devil since it would be hard for the biggest geek to say no to such offers. Realizing all this I still think that Google has a good chance of being around for my grandchildren.

Jeff

[emuelle1]

My vote is for Google, for now. I called up my neighborhood on both. MSN's map move response was very slow, and half the time won't display properly without reloading the page. The picture is also blurry. I couldn't even make out my house. Google's response is much faster and their images are much clearer. I could make out my house and yard, though I couldn't see my pool. No problem.