Comments on: Virtual Earth from MSN

Virtual Earth from MSN

RonZ — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:11:39 -0800

Virtual Earth from MSN While I'm familiar with Google Maps it was fun again to play around with Microsoft's response that was just released. In summary, allows you to pan/zoom around the US, and with a click of a button, see aerial/satellite imagery. This stuff is just soooo cool! ;-)

By: MrLint

MrLint — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:16:56 -0800

what exactly does this blurring BS accomplish?

By: superfem

superfem — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:22:05 -0800

By: shoos

shoos — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:24:46 -0800

At least you can zoom with the scroll wheel.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:36:46 -0800

If you're in Canada, it's like Google Maps, without what makes Google Maps cool (like aerial photos).

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:45:21 -0800

M$ seems to have better resolution... the level of detail is amazing when you get right down. But I like Google's interface better.

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:52:13 -0800

what exactly does this blurring BS accomplish? It keeps you from seeing the Capitol's big, hairy wang.

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:53:17 -0800

Shame if you don't live in the States.

By: sourbrew

sourbrew — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:53:26 -0800

Yeah their resolution is really nicer. I think i actually prefer their interface, although i could do without the pop up adds thrown in. This has that classic microsoft shine that looks so slick at first you want to use it, and then eventually end up hating them for. On pimping the new ajax comment window to a friend, i realized that it supports img tags... not that i feel the need to use them much if ever do to the ludicrous number of mefites with dial up, however that is snazzy.

By: jonson

jonson — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:53:58 -0800

It keeps you from seeing the Capitol's big, hairy wang. Who knew Microsoft was Japanese?

By: schmedeman

schmedeman — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:55:48 -0800

I wish Google at least had labels on cities in Europe, like MS does. Despite Google's lack of labels, I've managed to explore London, Paris, Florence and Rome from the air, but have been unable to locate some other towns, particularly if they don't have those areas of detailed satellite imagery. The MS version, however, has the labels but no detailed satellite pictures of Europe. Can't someone manage to do both?

By: rafter

rafter — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:57:20 -0800

Has my town in black and white only. Sorry, they lost me right there. I do like the closer-zoom, though, and the scroll-wheel control. I wonder why Google doesn't let you zoom any closer (bandwidth?) — they have the imagery (you can get much further in with Google Earth).

By: rafter

rafter — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:00:21 -0800

Also, while Google earth might not have roadmap data outside of much of the US (I didn't check), they have the "go to" functionality for cities the world over, as well as labels for mountains/bodies of water, et cetera. I wonder why they don't integrate the data on Google Maps? It'd be a start.

By: pmbuko

pmbuko — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:08:18 -0800

Is it just me, or is Google Maps at least twice as fast? (using Firefox on a Mac)

By: xthlc

xthlc — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:08:54 -0800

Ah, yes. MS MapPoint has always had much nicer-looking / accurate maps and a much crappier implementation than their competitors. We're seeing it again with Virtual Earth, although they also apparently have a poorer cacheing / load balancing architecture set up (the tile load times seem to be much more uneven than with Google Maps). I prefer Google's clean interface for everyday use, but I'll probably use VE when I want a screenshot / printable map.

By: xthlc

xthlc — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:12:58 -0800

Holy crap, check out Locate Me. Granularity is a little high right now, but it seems to work well if you're near multiple wifi points. I knew the Intel Research folks were working on something like this, but I didn't think it would make it into a product so soon.

By: superfem

superfem — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:15:15 -0800

Time lapse photography... Before and After 9/11.

By: schmedeman

schmedeman — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:17:12 -0800

Okay, I know the thread is about MS VE, but I just downloaded and ran Google Earth and found not only my house, but, depending upon when the satellite picture was taken, my car in the driveway. In color, no less. Now that is way cool.

By: gyc

gyc — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:19:24 -0800

M$ seems to have better resolution... the level of detail is amazing when you get right down. But I like Google's interface better. I agree with that. The resolution is much better than google, at least for my town, but it's just so clunky and unpleasant to use, part of which might be because Microsoft seems to want to punish anyone not using MSIE on Windows.

By: xthlc

xthlc — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:20:28 -0800

Hm, they also integrate major local data directly into the maps. My company name appears superimposed on our office building. Not so sure that's a good thing -- it's neat, but it'll be a bitch to keep up-to-date. I do like the fact that they save your last location in a cookie.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:20:46 -0800

Why is Manahattan so low res? The images above my house in L.A. are much clearer...

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:37:50 -0800

Anyone know if you can do a remix version of this yet? I've got a GoogleEarth XML file (multiple points plotted by latitude/longitude) that I'd love to try out on MSN, as it's based entirely in Europe, and seeing the actual town names would be a big bonus...

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:47:25 -0800

Google probably--this is just a guess--keeps the better imagery for Google Earth because they can charge for that.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:55:25 -0800

San Diego is in B&W, and as superfem has demonstrated, some of the images haven't been updated in four years. Google Earth has color everywhere, is spherical, and gives a much better image of my apartment. And dirtynumbangelboy--Google Earth is free.

By: rmannion

rmannion — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:07:55 -0800

Very cool! I'm also amazed at the resolution in my area. What a long way things have come since Terraserver...

By: keijo

keijo — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:15:50 -0800

It really seems to depend on where you are. Google Earth seems to be much more detailed and in colour in Minnesota, for example. And I really like the new Google hybrid view. But YMMV.

By: HSWilson

HSWilson — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:30:07 -0800

They only have Vegas in B&W, and the image seems to be pretty old. Are most of their satellite images older than Googles?

By: lundman

lundman — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:41:47 -0800

Sorry, but that's pretty pathetic. Tokyo has only a country-wide (about 50%) zoom. The interface keeps getting stuck on moving around or something. Keyhole, NASA and Google all at least have Tokyo to pretty damn nice level. Virtual "Earth" is the usual Virtual "America". Pathetic! :)

By: rzklkng

rzklkng — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:02:38 -0800

Meh, I'm waiting for Yahoo Universe. I saw this yesterday, after seeing Scoble scoop Microsoft. This was the best MS could do, given that they owned Terraserver for a decade while Google owned Keyhole for a year or so? And I'm going to guess that there won't be a community like Keyhole BBS or an API to accompany it...

By: moonbird

moonbird — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:23:44 -0800

It loaded in a really ugly way on Firefox, but oh so nice in IE. Meh. Coincidence? (I'll stick with Google)

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:40:54 -0800

This is really friggin' glitchy. I keep getting unloaded tiles, and it's not nearly as fast as Google Maps. I guess we know who's got the better coders.

By: robliberal

robliberal — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:43:43 -0800

I use aerial maps for real estate and I have to say MSN looks so much better than Google. I tried it on some of the same places I have used in Google and the quality is much better.

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:12:41 -0800

Sorry, it seems that MSN only has better resolution in a few places, compared to quite a lot of others where it's worse, or even in black & white. On all my past home towns (all good-sized), Google's display of them was far better. And they couldn't even show my alma mater in color! (a state university of 15,000+ students... who cares about that, right?) It seems like they *only* care about the largest of cities \ attractions, and everyone else can go hang themselves. Typical Microsoft attitude, really. And needless to say, the interface horribly glitchy and nasty on a non-IE browser. (Opera here) And that "zooming" effect is just lame. Just admit you're loading tiles and don't try to distract us with Super Nintendo-grade special effects. OK, gah. The more I play with this, the more annoyed with it I get.

By: fungible

fungible — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:24:09 -0800

Yes, well, Microsoft is evil. Google is cool (although they have great potential for evil.) So there.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:27:08 -0800

It probably looks better on IE, but it's not actually worth the risk inherent in using IE.

By: fungible

fungible — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:32:45 -0800

And now it doesn't work at all. Is it cause I'm on a Mac? Hmmmmm.

By: trey

trey — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:12:21 -0800

Yes, I'm sure that Microsoft owns all of the satellites and airplanes that took the photos.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:27:29 -0800

At first it seems that MS's version beats Google's since it labels locations helpfully. Then you see that Google responded to MS by adding a "hybrid" version of their maps (satellite imagery + labels) within the last 24 hours... How impossibly coincidental... :) Haven't you guys seen earth.google.com yet? It's currently only available for PC, but it blows all of this away.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:32:47 -0800

And they couldn't even show my alma mater in color! (a state university of 15,000+ students... who cares about that, right?) uh, yeah, actually. who cares about that.

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:44:41 -0800

Well, Jimmy, apparently Google does. Since they show virtually everything in color and don't pick & choose.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:02:34 -0800

On one hand, they actually have CT in hi-rez, which is better than Google can do. On the other hand, some of the tiles refused to come up and just hung. Also, it's weird how it tries to zoom in from the highest zoom level, and then bounces back because it can't.

By: _sirmissalot_

_sirmissalot_ — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:15:39 -0800

The operation timed out when attempting to contact virtualearth.msn.com.

By: enrevanche

enrevanche — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:05:06 -0800

Won't load at all for me, in Firefox or IE.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:53:46 -0800

I went to go look for something in Canada, but alas, if you zoom in on the border, Canada disappears. I also think the 3D stuff in Google Earth (mountains, modelled buildings, etc.) is so much cooler. Yes, my house is more detailed in this, but half the time the tiles don't render. Looks like Microsoft has some catching up to do (as usual).

By: dmd

dmd — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:24:37 -0800

Funny, all I get is "Too Many Connections".

By: artlung

artlung — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:25:49 -0800

It's great for a beta! (Is is a beta?) Stuff I like -- * the interim zoom, where the tiles actually get resized before the tiles come in, makes for some nice smoothness. Don't like -- *slowness overall. First time I went to the page missing tiles on the map of the US. *off the coast of California at most of the closer zoome there are big black, and white, and nophoto images that really detract from the feel of looking at the coast. *my town is in black and white, kind of cuts down on the overall feel. like, show me where it's green at least so I can read the map easier. *Directions -- if I pull up my address and the little widget comes up that says "Drive to" and I click that, it opens up a whole new window? Why, exactly? I was able to put my address in inside the map view, why can't I put my "from" or "to" location in as well? It's a nice start, but clearly Google is ahead in terms of interface elegance. It's interesting to read the comments praising the detail of the maps, that's not something I noticed, but perhaps this will spur better detail on competitors.

By: fungible

fungible — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:13:24 -0800

I finally got it to work (and I mean that loosely) on a Windows PC in my office. But now Boing Boing says that someone noticed that on "Virtual Earth", if you look up Apple's headquarters, it appears that the building's been obliterated. Whatever. Microsoft, and their interface, sucks.