| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » MS' WorldWideTelescope released...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com... |
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Monday evening Microsoft released the WorldWideTelescope (WWT).
One article about it can be read here:
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/12/
MNC510K233.DTL>
The WWT homepage is:
<http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/>
Click on [Download] at the upper right corner after it appears, and
be sure you're sitting down when you read the system requirements (for
both PCs and Macs) -- possible inherited bloat from Vista -- it's
not going to run on older systems and it seems to need 3D graphics.
Its database is 12TB and growing.
If your system can handle the load, WWT is a solution for cloudy
nights.
:-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Davoud... |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
thad wrote:
Yes, on Mac hardware *if* it is running Windows. In other words, there
is no Mac version.
This is not surprising, or particularly troubling, considering it's
something free from MS. Some Mac users are willing to run Windows on
their Macs if the software is sufficiently compelling. (Enables talking
directly to God, cures cancer, provides 100% accurate future stock
market info, that sort of thing.) I've heard from people who had an
early look at this software that is very good. But I need to spend my
cloudy nights processing my own images from the clear nights, even if I
don't have 12 TB from the world's finest observatory :--)
Davoud
Quote: If your system can handle the load, WWT is a solution for cloudy
nights.
:-)
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:00:30 -0700 (PDT), "thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com"
<thad at (no spam) thadlabs.com> wrote:
Quote: If your system can handle the load, WWT is a solution for cloudy
nights.
It looks like a pretty slick program. It runs fine on a several year old
machine with nothing more than an integrated graphics controller, and
half as much RAM as recommended. So I think the "minimum" hardware
requirements are overstated somewhat (that seems to usually be the case
for MS- except maybe for Vista, but who needs that?)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| TBerk... |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well, I came to it without yet seeing what the specs are, but on this
older system I use to access the Internet it never got past the 99%
loading... phase.
It used to be video games that got me to upgrade the hardware; (Doom,
Quake, etc).
Looks like it'll be less violent this time.
TBerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William R. Mattil... |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
Quote:
It looks like a pretty slick program. It runs fine on a several year old
machine with nothing more than an integrated graphics controller, and
half as much RAM as recommended. So I think the "minimum" hardware
requirements are overstated somewhat (that seems to usually be the case
for MS- except maybe for Vista, but who needs that?)
Chris,
Surprisingly enough it doesn't appear to run very well on a dual headed
Vista system <g> Screen is very jittery. Some functions work though. I'm
sure M$ will blame my video driver <lol>
Regards
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:23:09 -0500, "William R. Mattil"
<wrmattil at (no spam) ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Quote: Chris,
Surprisingly enough it doesn't appear to run very well on a dual headed
Vista system <g> Screen is very jittery. Some functions work though. I'm
sure M$ will blame my video driver <lol
Maybe <g>. From what I've seen, not much does run well on Vista-
certainly not as well as stuff runs on XP. I think MS produces some fine
software, though it usually takes them a few tries to get there (but the
WWT app seems very refined for a first beta).
To be clear about my earlier post, I tried WWT on two machines, one
similar to what MS recommends, and one quite a bit less, especially in
terms of the graphics controller and system memory. The more powerful
system clearly provided a smoother display, but while there was a little
choppiness in the low end system, the program remained very usable. The
problems (which is too strong a word) were minor and cosmetic.
I'd think the graphical computation requirements of WWT are less than
for Google Earth. The latter is a true 3D application; WWT, on the other
hand, is mainly doing 2D calculations.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:48 am
|
|