Comments on: Review: MSN Virtual Earth

By: Duncan Riley

Duncan Riley — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:55:50 +0000

My 2 cents worth, they are both pretty piss poor for my neck of the woods, but what I dont get is why Microsoft didn’t integrate its maps from Mappoint into Virtual Earth? for example at http://www.mappoint.ninemsn.com.au
you get really good map coverage, but try Virtual Earth and nothing!

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:09:57 +0000

It seems GM only have names for places on the maps for USA, Canada or UK, while VE has most of the world covered. GM has much better sattelite images of exotic places of the world than VE.

By: Zoli Erdos

Zoli Erdos — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:24:15 +0000

Virtual Earth is “virtual” in more ways than one .. perhaps meaning “The Earth as seen by MS”? They wiped Apple’s HQ off the map … the Twin Towers in NYC are still there in their full glory though.

Btw, NASA has a very comparable product that noone seems to notice…

By: Jeremy C. Wright

Jeremy C. Wright — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:37:20 +0000

Yeah, now I can see that Google’s off too (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.536522,-100.971876&spn=0.004321,0.0 07308&t=h&hl=en).

Personally I love the hybrid maps both provide. I no longer use vector maps. I only use the hybrid views.

By: Stephan Segraves

Stephan Segraves — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:21 +0000

I still like the Google Hybrid overlays: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h

By: Stephan Segraves

Stephan Segraves — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:28:53 +0000

The GIS data kind of stinks. Their overlays of roads on the aerial photograph is consistently about 3-5″ off. I know that plotting those points exactly is hard and time consuming but hopefully it’s a problem that is quickly corrected.

By: Jeremy C. Wright

Jeremy C. Wright — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:27:40 +0000

I wasn’t comparing this to GE, though, since GE’s desktop software that didn’t pass my “7-day test”.

Good to know there are some cool features hidden inside it though

By: Rob Barac

Rob Barac — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:09:13 +0000

Correct you are Jeremy. GE is very different to GM.

By: Jeremy C. Wright

Jeremy C. Wright — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:06:45 +0000

3. Rotation?
5. I’m assuming you mean Google Earth, right, not Google Maps?

Or am I missing something?

Btw, yeah, I’m sure everyone knows this is all my opinion. Some of the things coming out for Virtual Earth are pretty cool already, and the way the Locate Me happens is killer (measuring WiFi signal strength and triangulating your location) (US only though).

And do you actually find it easier to click, drag, click, drag, click, drag than to just drag? Isn’t zooming easier in Virtual Earth?

Just curious, because I’ve never seen anyone else use it, so I’m not sure if what’s easy for me is easy for others.

By: Rob Barac

Rob Barac — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:58:58 +0000

Jeremy,

While I concede the points you make about dev opportunity, I need to disgaree with you on almost every other point from a user experience perspective.

1. I too live in a 5000 person town in the east of Canada and the resolution of the region was much better with GM than VE.
2. VE did not could not provide detailed enough images of my region and “bugged out” quite quickly to the holding images.
3. I love the camera rotation/field of view etc on GM
4. I find that UI easier to use on GM.
5. I love the 3d buildings in GM. I can drive over the Brooklyn bridge from my PC.

That said, some people prefer mac and others pc.