On 9/12/05 3:45, in article slrndpj9lk.37a....@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben
Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: > A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are > wont to lurk before being officially released.
> On 9/12/05 3:45, in article slrndpj9lk.37a....@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben > Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: >> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
>> It works *really* well.
> Better than the Windows version? Excellent!
I'd tentatively have to say `about the same', to be honest. It's certainly faster on my Power Mac than it is on my three year old Dell laptop, but I'd rather expect it to be. :)
I have noticed that the full-screen mode would appear not to work (but this is an unofficial beta, after all, so one shouldn't expect miracles).
On 9/12/05 4:47, in article slrn.2005-12-09.16-38...@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben
Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: > Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com>: >> On 9/12/05 3:45, in article slrndpj9lk.37a....@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben >> Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: >>> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >>> wont to lurk before being officially released.
>>> It works *really* well.
>> Better than the Windows version? Excellent!
> I'd tentatively have to say `about the same', to be honest. It's certainly > faster on my Power Mac than it is on my three year old Dell laptop, but I'd > rather expect it to be. :)
I think my main problems with it were the slightly rubbish UI, but mostly the lack of high res imagery of the places I was interested in.
> I have noticed that the full-screen mode would appear not to work (but this > is an unofficial beta, after all, so one shouldn't expect miracles).
On 9/12/05 16:56, in article BFBF67DB.131D93%chrisr...@mac.com, "Chris Ridd"
<chrisr...@mac.com> wrote: >>>> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >>>> wont to lurk before being officially released.
>>>> It works *really* well.
>>> Better than the Windows version? Excellent!
>> I'd tentatively have to say `about the same', to be honest. It's certainly >> faster on my Power Mac than it is on my three year old Dell laptop, but I'd >> rather expect it to be. :)
> I think my main problems with it were the slightly rubbish UI, but mostly > the lack of high res imagery of the places I was interested in.
> On 9/12/05 4:47, in article slrn.2005-12-09.16-38...@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben > Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: >> Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com>: >>> On 9/12/05 3:45, in article slrndpj9lk.37a....@candide.bas.me.uk, "Ben >>> Shimmin" <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: >>>> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >>>> wont to lurk before being officially released.
>>>> It works *really* well.
>>> Better than the Windows version? Excellent!
>> I'd tentatively have to say `about the same', to be honest. It's certainly >> faster on my Power Mac than it is on my three year old Dell laptop, but I'd >> rather expect it to be. :)
> I think my main problems with it were the slightly rubbish UI,
Yep, it's still slightly rubbish. Or perhaps slightly less rubbish, I'm not sure -- I can't be bothered rebooting into Windows to check.
> but mostly > the lack of high res imagery of the places I was interested in.
My area is actually fairly good (though we have changed cars since they took their photo!) but the general lack of 3D-ified `buildings' outside of the US is a little annoying.
>> I have noticed that the full-screen mode would appear not to work (but this >> is an unofficial beta, after all, so one shouldn't expect miracles).
> You could demand your money back!
>> I believe Tiger is required, incidentally.
> Not a problem.
Well, I thought I should mention it, lest Ceresole et al. got themselves all excited unnecessarily. It's probably Safari's fault that it doesn't work on Panther, anyway.
Ben Shimmin wrote: > A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are > wont to lurk before being officially released.
For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
> Ben Shimmin wrote: >> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
> For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those > hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we > are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your > hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google > Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
This was posted yesterday, but dunno if the link still works:
> > For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those > > hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we > > are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your > > hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google > > Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
> This was posted yesterday, but dunno if the link still works:
> Ben Shimmin wrote: >> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
> For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those > hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we > are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your > hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google > Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote: > A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are > wont to lurk before being officially released.
> It works *really* well.
OK, stupid question time, I've been in google labs, google earth, google this that and the other, but can't find it....so where the bloody hell is it??? -- Jon B real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com
Martin <bitbuc...@idea-digital.com> wrote: > In article <slrn.2005-12-09.17-27...@candide.bas.me.uk>, > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> > David <ukmacpo...@creative-industry.co.uk>: > > > Ben Shimmin wrote: > > >> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are > > >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
> > > For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those > > > hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we > > > are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your > > > hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google > > > Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
Jon B wrote: > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
>> It works *really* well.
> OK, stupid question time, I've been in google labs, google earth, google > this that and the other, but can't find it....so where the bloody hell > is it???
Martin <bitbuc...@idea-digital.com> wrote: > In article <slrn.2005-12-09.17-27...@candide.bas.me.uk>, > Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
> > David <ukmacpo...@creative-industry.co.uk>: > > > Ben Shimmin wrote: > > >> A beta version is available from The Usual Places where such things are > > >> wont to lurk before being officially released.
> > > For the uninitiated, give us a clue as to the location of those > > > hallowed Places. I'll understand if you can't be direct or even if we > > > are not allowed to know until we've snatched the pebbles from your > > > hand. I've tried a, err, Google search and (even) looking on the Google > > > Earth site. But that was obviously too obvious.
i haven't played with google earth yet, very very fun. can see enought to see where i work and the red vans and the car of one of the blokes who has the same car he parks in the same place for years and years. also gives the shire size of the ebbwvale works can see how massive they where.
David <ukmacpo...@creative-industry.co.uk> wrote: > I'll understand [...] if we are not allowed to know until we've snatched > the pebbles from your hand.
What is this a reference to? I've googled but only found other knowing references to whatever it is that's being referred to.
> > > David <ukmacpo...@creative-industry.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > I'll understand [...] if we are not allowed to know until we've snatched > > > > the pebbles from your hand.
> > > What is this a reference to? I've googled but only found other knowing > > > references to whatever it is that's being referred to.
> > 1970's TV series Kung Foo.
> And the meaning? I've Googled further but still don't get it. Is it > something about not knowing the specifics of the deal until you've > agreed to it?
Ahh Grasshopper, it goes like this.... If I remember it correctly the kung foo student has to snatch pebbles from the hand of his teacher before the teacher closes his hand over them. If he manages that then he is considered to be some kind of kung foo master and can go out into the world and kick doors down.
On 12/12/2005, Jack Campin - bogus address wrote in message <bogus- 5F7D73.12424612122...@news.news.demon.net>:
> Anybody know if this *can't* work with Panther, for some reason?
> i.e. is there any hope that the Tiger-only limitation might be > lifted in some later version?
Yes, it (the test version) uses a Framework which isn't present in Panther. I don't know the programming details: it might be possible that the release version will work in both, but it's also possible that they're using some trick provided by Tiger than just isn't possible in Panther.
|
