Microsoft Launches WorldWide Telescope

esocid writes "WorldWide Telescope, developed by Microsoft's research arm, knits together images from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and others. Windows users (only) can browse through the galaxy on their own or take guided tours of different outer-space destinations developed by astronomers and academics. The application allows viewing from different wavelengths such as X-ray, visible light, and hydrogen-alpha radiation. Business Week has a review and some background on the project, which has been in development for years. Google Sky beat them to the punch but Business Week opines that WWT's interface is superior."

but

[electrosoccertux (874415)]

But can it see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

Re:

[DuctTape (101304)]

But can it see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

Not on Linux.

DT

Re:but

[abolitiontheory (1138999)]

or the restaurant at the end of the universe?

Web 2.0?

[Thyamine (531612)]

The description says it's a "Web 2.0 visualization software environment". Shouldn't that be running in a web browser then? What's with having to download and install the application itself? Being on my Mac, I can't (probably wouldn't anyway) try it out to see what happens, but that description seems a bit misleading.

Re:Web 2.0?

[Dancindan84 (1056246)]

Welcome to the misuse of buzzwords. Every time someone uses "Web portal", "Web 2.0", "Enterprise", "Synergy" without knowing the meaning an angels wings fall off, killing a kitten. A buzzword get picked up by the media, which then drives PR to use it as often as possible to describe their product whether it fits or not, which is then reported on by the media and the vicious cycle continues until the next buzzword hits.

Most people would consider google sky a "Web 2.0" app. It's an interactive web based application that seamlessly runs in your browser. WWT is much more similar to google earth. It requires downloading a separate application that runs autonomously from your browser and just happens to use the net for data.

Re:

[PunditGuy (1073446)]

A browser is just a standalone application that happens to use the net for data. It can use integrated applications for things like RSS or Google Sky, or it can run standalone applications for things like RSS or WWT.

WWT is using the Web to synthesize data from multiple sources into an integrated, interactive user experience. How does that not qualify?

Re:

[alonsoac (180192)]

I would expect a Web 2.0 application to run in the browser. Any browser. For instace the Firefox on Linux I am using. If WWT does not run here then it is just a Windows application.

some quotes from the Wikipedia entry on web 2.0:

"In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, O'Reilly and John Battelle summarized what they saw as the themes of Web 2.0. They argued that the web had become a platform, with software above the level of a single device"

"According to Best the characteristics of Web 2.0 are:

Re:

[Serious Callers Only (1022605)]

.NET and Silverlight are not an attempt to make a better javascript, they're an attempt to tie the web so intimately to Windows that it becomes a requirement, just like IE before them.

Re:Web 2.0?

[Hatta (162192)]

Welcome to the use of buzzwords.

Fixed that for you. OP's mistake was assuming that "Web 2.0" had any meaning at all.

Re:

[OshMan (1246516)]

In web applications design, whether or not actually run in a browser, it is critical to be fully buzz word compliant. This single concept is the cornerstone of any solid marchitecture, and the key to successful venture capitalist enticement.

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

The description says it's a "Web 2.0 visualization software environment". Shouldn't that be running in a web browser then? What's with having to download and install the application itself? Being on my Mac, I can't (probably wouldn't anyway) try it out to see what happens, but that description seems a bit misleading.

That's OK. You don't need their app. Since celestia [shatters.net] is free software that runs on Windows, MacOS and Linux. If you're looking for a less powerful, but easier to use tool for just looking at the sky, stellarium [stellarium.org] also runs on all of the above platforms, and is also free software.

Enjoy!

Telescope or Printer

[shogun (657)]

Ok this is weird, if I run the self extracting installer it starts to install some Xerox printer drivers instead of the WWT. I think it gets its temp files mixed with the drivers that I installed a while ago, it appears to install fine if i manually extract somewhere else and run the setup.exe...

Re:Telescope or Printer

[Jugalator (259273)]

You probably have a setup.exe for your printer drivers in either %WINDIR% or %TEMP% (or elsewhere in the path, but the Windows directory is sometimes incorrectly used as a temp directory because apps blindly extract to "current directory" which may end up being that one, and otherwise, the temp dir use to be used)

I've had this happen before myself, and don't really know why it happens, but believe that for some reason it can't overwrite the setup.exe it tries to replace, or the installer extracting to its temporary directory is even stupid enough to not *try* to overwrite an existing setup.exe. *shrug*

Re:

[ChrisCampbell47 (181542)]

I recall something like this happening with the SETI@Home (BOINC? Distributed.net?) software in the early days. Running the installer would actually give you a Teletubbies screensaver. And, no, I hadn't recently tried out the Teletubbies screensaver :) It did have something to do with a clash in generic names, like "setup.exe".

I just played with both right now

[greymond (539980)]

MS's may be better but it required me to download and install their app where as Google Sky is just like Google Maps and runs in my web browser. I don't know if I'd actually compare these two products considering it's web app verse a 20mg install.

That said I personally lost interest with both about 5 minutes after playing with them. I'm not really a solar-system-space nut, but I'm sure those that are will love either.

Re:

[esocid (946821)]

The good thing with google sky is that it runs in both their webpage and through google earth. The only difference I think is they use different projection, Mercator or something like that, on the web based version.

Re:

[maxume (22995)]

You sure burned those guys.

"Better"

[Sarten-X (1102295)]

(not having read the article)

"WWT's interface is better"... but only on windows... So for the schools, third-world countries, etc. we've read about who are adopting Linux... Microsoft assumes they don't exist?

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

"WWT's interface is better"... but only on windows... So for the schools, third-world countries, etc. we've read about who are adopting Linux... Microsoft pretends they don't exist?

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:

[Jugalator (259273)]

No, neither pretends or assumes. They don't *care* they exist. It's clearly not cared for with the release of this app. Otherwise they would obviously have made e.g. a web application of it as well.

Thing they found out....

[Daimanta (1140543)]

The sky is blue. However, this might have something to do with the OS running this system.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Right. now BSOD == blue SKY of death!

BBC review

[kernowyon (1257174)]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7397811.stm [bbc.co.uk] which also mentions that you CAN run the Worldwide Telescope on a Mac.... as long as you run Windows on your Mac!
They quote Bill Gates who said he was hoping the project would -

"inspire young people to explore astronomy and science"

Presumably also requiring Windows is a mere co-incidence!
At least the Beeb article has the decency to mention the Open Source project Stellarium http://sourceforge.net/projects/stellarium/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:BBC review

[griffjon (14945)]

And, don't forget Celestia, which has a great UI and lets you fly around the universe very nicely!

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

While you're mentioning open source alternatives, Stellarium is also not just quite pretty, but apparently good enough to be used in some planetaria. The soon to be release version 0.10 will add some of the features (e.g. tiled high-res downloadable photos as sky textures) that are touted as great innovations of wwt.

Re:

[notaprguy (906128)]

Celestia and Stellarium are very nice but pale in comparison to WWT. Just try them out side by side. Seriously, it's easy (yes, you have to have Windows...). Celstia is at http://www.shatters.net/celestia/download.html [shatters.net] and Stellarium is at http://www.stellarium.org/ [stellarium.org]. Neither offers to rich visualizations, amazing high resolution images, easy navigation, great "guided tours," community features, ability to easily create your own tours and many other things. You're talking apples and oranges. I have used Cele

WWT and unexpected extras

[E-Lad (1262)]

I never would have expected it, especially in a MS product, but the folks who put the WWT app together also blessed it with ASCOM [ascom-standards.org] capabilities, so one may use the WWT app to drive a computerized telescope mount (aka, a "goto mount").

While there are [bisque.com] other [starrynightstore.com] ASCOM-enabled apps that astronomers have been using for years to point their optics (and manage dome robotics, and focusers, and cameras), I have to say that the basic mount control in WWT is a pretty cool tip of the hat towards to astronomy community in practical terms.

Re:WWT and unexpected extras

[Colonel Korn (1258968)]

I like Google Sky as a toy, but it wasn't able to replace Starry Night as a serious tool. It sounds like WWT may actually compete with the more useful applications, which is pretty cool.

Intrest in astronomy

[loudmax (243935)]

Since this product isn't available for my operating system, I can't check it our for myself, but I do hope it encourages interest in astronomy. There are valid reasons to bash Microsoft (the OOXML debacle [noooxml.org], for example). Putting out a free-as-in-beer science project for their customers only isn't one of them. If some of Microsoft's customers get to learn more about the sky, that's a good thing. I hope they enjoy it.

video of demo of this at TED talks

[Danny Rathjens (8471)]

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/224 [ted.com]

Mono

[Toreo asesino (951231)]

It's a .net 2 application, so might even work in Mono.

Anyone tried?

It looks really cool in Windows, for the record.

Zoomable 3D Space Model

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I want to see all this space imagery available in a 3D interface that's zoomable (and rotatable and translatable) so we can fly around these bodies in 3D. Jumping to addresses. And even a 4D interface, which lets us trace a path through spacetime, with dT 0, or just staying put as the objects travel around our viewpoint.

Celestia [shatters.net] is approximately what I'm talking about, but it seems really unfit for actually visiting a planet's surface - the skins are relatively lo-rez 2D textures, and the UI is inadequate

Re:harrumph

[griffjon (14945)]

Meh, I found the Outside "user experience" to be far too buggy, and if you're really fully engaged in just the looking upward part, you run the risk of wandering into an unsupported pile of sh|t -- not to mention dramatically increasing the likelihood of a fatal crash.

Re:

[value_added (719364)]

I found the Outside "user experience" to be far too buggy.

Works fine here. I just think it's overrated.

Not sure whether it's safe, though.

Re:

[esocid (946821)]

You must be more advanced than the rest of the human race, because as far as I know, 100% of the population can't see x-rays, hydrogen-alpha radiation, or microwaves. Ooooorrr at magnification from satellites that could set you on fire in under 0.25 seconds.

Re:

[idiotwithastick (1036612)]

It ain't free if you have to buy a computer to use it. It ain't free if you have to pay for internet service to use it. It ain't free if you have to buy food to get the energy to walk to the library to use it.

Re:

[MightyYar (622222)]

I think you missed his point. You can buy a computer from anyone, from Dell to your local computer shop to Walmart. You can get internet service from any number of DSL, cable, dialup, or wireless ISPs.

You buy Windows from Microsoft. End of story.

Google gets it, MS doesn't. Look at the Apple laptop mix at a college campus or local coffee shop and tell me that supporting platforms other than Windows is still not important when trying to go toe-to-toe with Google.

Re:

[the_humeister (922869)]

Uh, no you're reading too much into the original 12 word comment. "It ain't free if you have to buy Windows to use it." Technically you don't have to buy Windows to run it since you can hack Wine to run it. But then, you still need a computer, monitor, electricity, internet connection, etc. in order to run this program. So no matter how you look at it, the first comment is valid.

Re:

[mweather (1089505)]

I can get free computers from a charity and free wifi from just about anywhere. The windows OEM license that came with the computer, though, is nontransferable.

Re:

[the_humeister (922869)]

Let's see, I found a computer in a random office and took it home, use my neighbor's wireless access, and borrowed some bread from the baker. Not free? I don't know what you're talking about... -24601

Re:Good to see

[avandesande (143899)]

Ms could cure AIDS and release the patent to the public domain and people like you would still bitch about it.

Re:

[NotBornYesterday (1093817)]

I'm not saying I blame them. Heck, what they're doing is great, as far as they take it. I just have a different definition of "free" than MS does.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

Bullshit. If it costs $0, it's free. End of story.

Re:Not nearly that good...

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

Yeah, it runs on 90% (hell, I'll be generous to you, 80%) of PCs out there. That's soooooooooo useless.

Re:Not nearly that good...

[Liquidrage (640463)]

I don't really know if it's actually overstated at this point. I would be surprised if a lot of astronomers didn't push their data to it. That's one of the nice features of the software. Look, the twin kecks aren't controlled by Starry Night. But this can totally replace starry night for me it looks like, and as a repository I would absoltely love to have access to real time data and images from *professionals*.

Re:Not nearly that good...

[Liquidrage (640463)]

Yes, it's ASCOM compliant so it does allow mount control. As far as "really" as good. My initial impression is yes. I like it better. Easier to use. Tons of information. The interface is pretty smooth. I went after Eta Carinae first thing. Search went easy. I had several different images to flip through on the "zoomed in" detail view. Several options for research. Even the wiki link for that page. And, "drumroll" when I went to the wiki page for it, it respected FF as my default browser and used that for the browser. So far my initial impressions are very high. But I won't know for sure if it'll replace Starry Night for me until I get a viewing session outside with it.

Re:

[Z34107 (925136)]

Microsoft's evangelism team has been advising employees and partners to participate more in tech discussion sites. They're particularly encouraged to post positive comments about MS products. That's why you see a million "[MS product] works fine for me" posts whenever Microsoft breaks something.

Well, Windows 3.11 worked fine for my dad until last year. (He'd argue that it would still work fine if we let him plug the box back in ^.^)

Does this mean Microsoft will write him a check? And do I get a cut

Re:Good

[Liquidrage (640463)]

Take your "EVERY OS SHOULD BE FREE" tangent elsewhere.

You obviously don't do astronomy. I have single EP's that cost me $500. The worm gear in my mount costs more then XP. A simple piece of machined aluminum tubing that does nothing but serve as an adapter for me costs almsot as much as XP does. Hell, Starry Night that this will most likely replace for me costs more then XP does. Astronomy aint cheep. In software, sure there are some freebies. I've used Cartes du Ciel for a while but it is no where near as good as Starry Nights.

If this were MAC software would you be on some tangent about the cost of the OS and the hardware? I doubt it. You're just a confused fool on some tangent how they missed the target market when you're clearly not the target market.

I'm looking at this as potentially (will have to see) replacing a very expensive piece of software for me. Your complaints just aint valid.

Re:

[notaprguy (906128)]

Ummm.... I take it that you didn't bother to actually try out Worldwide Telecope. Because if you did, you wouldn't even begin to compare it to Stellarium. Stellarium is sort of neat but offers about 1/100000000th of what WWT has. It's not even fair to compare them. But at least look at WWT before you post this kind of nonsense. Others, you can download Stellarium from here: http://www.stellarium.org/ [stellarium.org]. It's kinda neat but...

Re:

[batkiwi (137781)]

Stellarium : WWTelescope :: lynx : firefox

Yes they both technically do the same "thing". But unlike firefox vs IE (where you can argue that not only is the open source solution "as good," but that it's actually BETTER) stellarium is not in the same realm as WWTelescope.