Google Earth Beta for Mac

Google Earth Beta for Mac 64

Posted by Zonk on Friday December 09, 2005 @01:12PM 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."

Google Earth Beta for Mac

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Load All Comments

Search 64 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:1, Insightful)

by uiucmatse ( 855687 ) writes:

Whew, that is ugly. It looks like, I dunno, Limewire.

The tabs that haven't been used since 10.2, the cheesy movement controls, the ugly shiny candy headers on Places and Layers...

Well, at least it's not metal.
- Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2)
  
  by mapinguari ( 110030 ) writes:
  
  Maybe the screenshot was taken with the app running on 10.2.
  - Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Insightful)
    
    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @01:42PM (#14221066) Journal
    
    No, take a closer look at the title bars - they are the newer style which came in with 10.3, so the demo machine must be running at least 10.3 but still using 10.2-style controls. The only other time I've seen an app this ugly on a Mac, Qt was to blame - I hope this isn't the reason here, because if it is then looking ugly will be the least of its problems (Qt messes up the feel a lot worse than it messes up the look).
    
    - Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2, Informative)
      
      by Anonymous Coward writes:
      
      Yup, it includes libqt.3.dylib. So yes, the controls are done via Qt/Mac. (I'm running 10.4.)
      
      The "feel" seems OK, but the look is pretty bad -- the menus are also non-standard, including weird checkboxes, icons, etc.
      
      Hey, it's a beta, so I'm gonna cut it some slack. I haven't seen if Qt/Mac v4 offers better controls, but I'm willing to remain optimistic. At the very least, if they use Qt, we'll see similar Windows, Linux and Mac versions of all the Google apps, all released at similar times.
    - - Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Informative)
        
        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes: on Saturday December 10, 2005 @06:41AM (#14227539) Journal
        
        Apple implement the OpenStep specification - a cross platform spec for development of GUI applications. Sun also provided an implementation at one point, and the GNU project provides one in the form of GNUstep, which runs happily on all UNIX variants I've encountered and only slightly less happily on Windows. I, and many others, have no problems developing cross-platform apps which look and feel native on OS X.
        
  - Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:3, Interesting)
    
    by SineOtter ( 901025 ) writes:
    
    Looks pretty similar to the Windows version to me- Albeit with aqua tabs at the top.
    - Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Funny)
      
      by byolinux ( 535260 ) * writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @02:21PM (#14221449) Journal
      
      Looks pretty similar to the Windows version to me
      
      I think that's what they meant when they said ugly. ;)
      
- I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)
  
  by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @01:58PM (#14221229) Homepage Journal
  
  ...I'm just happy to see it. While I enjoy pretty, what actually matters to me is functionality and reliability. And in this case, simply availability — this has been beta under Windows for quite some time already.
  Too much focus on pretty can result in the "Hollywood Effect" —beauty without value, or worse, beauty that impacts value... like recent media player designs or the incredibly bad Kai's interfaces of yore. I've had enough of that kind of craziness.
  
  - Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Interesting)
    
    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:56PM (#14222511) Homepage
    
    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 [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)
      
      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) writes:
      
      No, I think you *are* talking about pretty. The "conventions of the OSX interface" aren't nearly as important to me as they are to you. And a media player that is decently skinnable (mplayer comes to mind) can hopefully have any UI you want it to, and the first one it should have is the system standard one, but that in no way should preclude it also having any weird-assed interface that pleases the user.
      The fact is, there is more than one way to be usable. I have no, and I mean zero, problem, us
      - Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)
        
        by JonathanBoyd ( 644397 ) writes:
        
        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 click
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)
        
        by JonathanBoyd ( 644397 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @10:50PM (#14225999) Homepage
        
        And my exact point is that this affects its value not at all. The only thing that will affect its value here is if the user, that is, me, or you, decides to take an attitude that we're unwilling to use it because it is inconsistant.
        
        The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient. For instance, most of the time when I'm typing, I'm using my Mac and the cursor selects whatever line is in the middle of the text cursor. Part of my work, however, involves doing an announcement sheet for church every week in Corel Draw on Windows. For some unexplained reason, it selects whatever line is under the bottom third of the cursor. This drives me nuts because my instinct is select with the middle of the cursor and end up selecting the wrong line quite a bit of the time.
        It also has a bizarre convention whereby if you drag select from somewhere on a line to the start of it, then make changes to the formatting of the line, it will also select the carriage return on the previous line and apply formatting to it. Consequently I often have to drag select to the 2nd letter of a line, then shift-left cursor select the first letter. After 14 weeks of use, I have come to loath this program because it does not follow the conventions that I'm accustomed to. Arguably, it's just plain bad design, rather than inconsistency, but I think the inconsistency is still a factor.
        You missed my point entirely.
        
        Indeed I did. I apologise. Thought you were talking about clicking a window in the foreground application. My bad.
        Say you're using Finder. So a Finder window is active ... Now you have to click again, on the same button, to get the result you should have already had.
        
        That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI design. One more mark against inconsistency ;^)
        The menu at the top uses considerable vertical space, all the time, which is unusable for all applications. You can't get a window to cover the menu bar. At least, I can't in 10.3.9.
        
        Can't in 10.4.3 either, which I'm fairly happy about. Wouldn't want to lose sight of my menubar. It's fairly full. It's only a wee bit of vertical space, especially compared to the resolution of modern screens. Though if you're using multiple monitors, then you only need a menubar on one screen and can avoid them entirely on others, thereby saving space.
        Windows may, or may not, require a menu. For some (dialogs, for instance) a YES or NO or even simply OK is all the UI they need. This can be true of much more complex applications as well; if the developer is allowed to make that choice, of course
        
        True, but document windows all seem to have them, which irritates me greatly in Windows. Though the inconsistency in multi-document and single-document interfaces annoys me more. And the inefficient taskbar. And the way that opening multiple files belonging to one program sometimes loads the files into separate windows in one instance of the application, while launching several instances of the application in other cases. And not being able to open a bunch of files by double-clicking on a selected group. But I'm getting a bit off-subject here. I find Windows stressful. It just gets in the way so much.
        If a menu is embeddded in a window, say, application A, and there is no menu at the top of the screen, then application A may be dragged to the top of the screen, thus providing menu-on-top functionality if you like it.
        
        Only really works
        Read the rest of this comment...
        
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2, Insightful)
        
        by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) writes:
        
        The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient.
        
        I see your point, though this doesn't affect me the way it does you.
        That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI desi
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)
        
        by JonathanBoyd ( 644397 ) writes:
        
        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 U
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Informative)
        
        by Smurf ( 7981 ) writes:
        
        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.) [. . .] So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the d
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2)
        
        by good soldier svejk ( 571730 ) writes:
        
        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.) [. . .] So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the dis
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1)
        
        by catdriver ( 885089 ) writes:
        
        Anyway, thanks for a pleasant discussion.
        
        Likewise. :-)
        
        Wait a second... this is Slashdot! You guys can't have a civilized discussion where you respect each others' differences! We won't stand for it!
        
        Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2)
        
        by dave1212 ( 652688 ) writes:
        
        Inconsistency severely affects an app's usability, since things don't work as you expect.
        
        This eventually leads to bad reviews, negative word-of-mouth, and less sales. I would say inconsistency affects an app's usability a great deal.
        
        Myself, I would choose interface compliance over feature bloat.
  - Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1)
    
    by muchmusic ( 45065 ) writes:
    
    following a few simple interface guidelines would suffice - it doesn't have to be gaudy like the Kai or flashy like first person shooter game menus - this is a crazy mix of interfaces from 10.2, 10.3 and Windows XP - style buttons. This isn't anywhere near ready for primetime usage unless it's been camoflauged to throw sneaks off the scent.
- Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:1)
  
  by cacepi ( 100373 ) writes:
  
  Whew, that is ugly. It looks like, I dunno, Limewire.
  
  Could be worse; could be Internet Explorer.
  
  Who cares? One less reason to use the PC!
  
  Now if you can only enable monospaced text editing in GMail, Google, I'll be your friend for life.
- I don't know... (Score:1, Flamebait)
  
  by uradu ( 10768 ) writes:
  
  It looks about as cheesy as the rest of Mac OS X, past or present. Candy buttons are candy buttons, regardless of degree of shine.
- 10.2? (Score:2)
  
  by antdude ( 79039 ) writes:
  
  I wonder if that means it will work under Mac OS X 10.2? I am still running 10.2.8 on my old PowerBook G4 (1 Ghz; 512 MB of RAM). I am just cheap and lazy to upgrade. :)
- Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2)
  
  by macmurph ( 622189 ) writes:
  
  It looks a lot better than the old days when a big companie's Mac version looked like, I dunno, nothing, nada, and zip.
google earth beta download (Score:5, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @02:02PM (#14221263)

well you dont have to wait for it http://mypersonalgetaway.com/ [mypersonalgetaway.com]

- Re:google earth beta download (Score:4, Informative)
  
  by aclarke ( 307017 ) writes: <spam@@@clarke...ca> on Friday December 09, 2005 @02:09PM (#14221331) Homepage
  
  Very very cool. I have it running on my computer right now. Runs great on my 1.67 powerbook. AWESOME, thanks!
  
One other Google port that would be nice. (Score:2, Interesting)

by WhiteBandit ( 185659 ) writes:

One other Google port that I would love to see for OS X would be Picasa [google.com]. Such a great program for organizing and keeping track of your photos (much better than iPhoto in my opinion).
- Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:3, Informative)
  
  by discstickers ( 547062 ) writes:
  
  Because they bought an existing Windows product?
- Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:1, Flamebait)
  
  by shodson ( 179450 ) writes:
  
  Uh, probably because they wanted to reach an audience of 90+% of the computing planet instead of trying to adhere to some technology religious standard.
- Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:4, Informative)
  
  by dr.badass ( 25287 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:52PM (#14222479) Homepage
  
  why did they choose windows first, instead...of a solution that was cross platform, like Java or python or perl?
  
  Google didn't develop it from scratch. They bought up a company called Keyhole. Google Earth is basically a free version of Keyhole's $400 product, which is now "Google Earth Pro".
  
- They bought it. (Score:1)
  
  by Grincho ( 115321 ) writes:
  
  Google didn't write it; they bought it as a Windows-only program [newrecruit.org] from somebody else.
- Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:2)
  
  by outZider ( 165286 ) writes:
  
  Because they wanted it to be fast? Cripes, the last thing I want running on my PC or my Mac is some bloated Java/Python/Perl app. :P
torrent please? (Score:1)

by jasongetsdown ( 890117 ) writes:

where can I get it? I don't see any useful links in the article or on the google earth page.
- Re:torrent please? (Score:1)
  
  by nuggetman ( 242645 ) writes:
  
  check digg
For similar functionality with more focus on sci (Score:5, Informative)

by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) writes: on Friday December 09, 2005 @03:29PM (#14222216) Homepage

There is Earthbrowser on OS X (and win32) for ages. I don't think it is same with Google earth but it is much more educational and fun program.

They now added satellite photos feature so makes it more cool.

It is installed on many schools,universities but doesn't make it "boring". Especially on hurricane season. ;)

Check yourself

http://www.earthbrowser.com/ [earthbrowser.com]

- Re:For similar functionality with more focus on sc (Score:4, Interesting)
  
  by tricorn ( 199664 ) writes: <sep@shout.net> on Friday December 09, 2005 @07:56PM (#14224729) Journal
  
  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).
  
Does it require 10.4? (Score:1)

by Glenstorm ( 117502 ) writes:

I tried to use it on a PB running 10.3.9 and it never appeared in the dock after double clicking. . . Usual behavior for those apps that require 10.4.
- Re:Does it require 10.4? (Score:1)
  
  by swissfondue ( 819240 ) writes:
  
  Yes. But it does work well on my G4 1ghz.
  Here is another download link: rapidshare [rapidshare.de]
download (Score:5, Informative)

by tezbobobo ( 879983 ) writes: on Saturday December 10, 2005 @04:31AM (#14227253) Homepage Journal

SHIT! I waited half a day for someone to list the download site - and noone did!

If you want to download it, here it is. [macupdate.com]

Google Earth for Mac (Score:2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward writes:

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!
- Re:live.com anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
  
  by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) writes:
  
  This story is about the OS X version of Google Earth. MSFT's answer does not work on Safari which is the dominant browser on OS X. Maybe you are confusing Google earth with Google Maps [google.com]? In any event, I cannot see how decades old aerial photography can compare with recently updated (within last two months) satellite imagery. If you were to try Google Earth, you would find that it sports higher resolution imagines than their google maps service.
flash based google earth (Score:1, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward writes:

This website has google earth as well as msn virtual earth accessable via web browser, so it is compatible with mac, linux, what ever has a flash enabled browser

http://www.flashearth.com/ [flashearth.com]
NASA WorldWind and alike on MacOS X (Score:5, Interesting)

by Lord Satri ( 609291 ) writes: <alexandrelerouxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday December 10, 2005 @01:34PM (#14228863) Homepage Journal

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

If you're serious about geospatial, you might be interested in joining us [slashgisrs.org] :-)

What took so long? (Score:2)

by bjb ( 3050 ) * writes:

If the application was written in QT, why didn't we see this sooner? Isn't that the whole idea of using QT - to get a cross platform set of GUI components so that you only really need to worry about the program logic underneath?
I guess its possible that if the Windows version is using DirectX and the "other" versions are using OpenGL, that could be the cause for delay. However, I think QT might abstract the GL library anyway?
Well, its about time anyway.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:1, Insightful)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Insightful)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2, Informative)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Informative)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:3, Interesting)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:5, Funny)

I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Interesting)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1, Interesting)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:5, Insightful)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2, Insightful)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Interesting)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:3, Informative)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:2)

Re:I really don't care what it looks like... (Score:1)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:1)

I don't know... (Score:1, Flamebait)

10.2? (Score:2)

Re:Fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch. (Score:2)

google earth beta download (Score:5, Informative)

Re:google earth beta download (Score:4, Informative)

One other Google port that would be nice. (Score:2, Interesting)

Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:3, Informative)

Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:1, Flamebait)

Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:4, Informative)

They bought it. (Score:1)

Re:why did they choose windows first, instead... (Score:2)

torrent please? (Score:1)

Re:torrent please? (Score:1)

For similar functionality with more focus on sci (Score:5, Informative)

Re:For similar functionality with more focus on sc (Score:4, Interesting)

Does it require 10.4? (Score:1)

Re:Does it require 10.4? (Score:1)

download (Score:5, Informative)

Google Earth for Mac (Score:2, Interesting)

Re:live.com anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

flash based google earth (Score:1, Informative)

NASA WorldWind and alike on MacOS X (Score:5, Interesting)

What took so long? (Score:2)

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Slashdot Top Deals