The War of the (Virtual) Worlds

[Darius Wey]

Originally Posted by powder2000

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.

[Darius Wey]

Originally Posted by powder2000

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&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]

Originally Posted by szamot

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jonathan1

-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&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]

Originally Posted by Martano

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 MS can't stand the competition.