I have been running Guide 7.o for about a week now (the new version just
shipped) and am very impressed. I had seen a friend's version of Guide 6.0
and that made my decision. It has a great database of catalogues. Very in
depth, and includes some not so well known and a lot that are not normally
included in some of the other packages out there. It does great rendering
of isophotes for nebulae and such, and the planets are bitmapped, including
showing the GRS in its proper (I suppose, I haven't actually done the math)
place.

You can position yourself anywhere, including Lat/Long on other planets to
watch eclipses and occultation of any solar system object. Jupiter's moons
are done also. The screen is easy to read, not gaudy, and is completely
customizable to show whatever you do or don't want.

I had it hooked up to my 8" Lx200 on the Friday after thanksgiving, and it
worked flawlessly. I had the cable from my Meade software, plugged it in
and told it what scope I had. Seconds later I was buzzing around the
heavens with the mouse. For the $90 I would heartily recommend it. It's a
great deal for great software.

I have also used Meade's Epoch 2000 and was not impressed at all. While it
includes the Hubble umpteen million star catalogue, it is very slim on
galactic catalogues and such. No isophotes rendered, and does no planetary
stuff or eclipses/occultations worth mentioning. Also, the interface is
very awkward, and the projection scheme leaves much to be desired.

I have seen TheSky, and although I liked it very much, a few things turned
me off. None of them were related to the software though. One was the
price (as you mentioned). While it looked like great software (especially
the features on the new version 5.0) the price really took it off my list
right away. The other thing was the advertising scheme used (or not used)
for the new version. Up until recently, I had seen almost no talk of the
new version, no advertising in the magazines that I saw, not even a blurb on
their own web site. There was just a deeply buried page a few levels into
the website that mentioned some of the new features. I am sure there were
reasons, but it really seemed like it the 'plan' was geared more toward
getting rid of all existing copies of version 4 before they wanted to let
people know about the new one. I don't like games like that. Perhaps it was
my imagination, or I just missed something, but...

Many of the shareware programs you mentioned I have also run or tested, none
of them were professional or complete enough for me to use on a permanent
basis. I am still running through all the features of the Guide 7.0, but so
far it beats the others hands down. If I had to choose a second package,
and price was no object, it would be TheSky 5.0. It really looks like it has
some great things built in.

Hope this helps...

Tony Kroes
Green Bay, WI
-----Original Message-----
To: astro, mapug, and shallow-sky mailing lists <astro, mapug, and
shallow-sky mailing lists>
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 6:46 PM
Subject: [M]: ?? Win32 software strengths


>(Posted to the "astro", "MAPUG", and "shallow-sky" mailing lists. Sorry
> for the duplication if you see this more than once, but I expect each
> group will have a different-but-relevant perspective on the issue.)
>
>First, I know it's only been shipping for a week or so, but has anyone
>out there tried "Guide 7" yet? Can you compare it to any other current
>packages?
>
>At the moment I'm waffling between Guide (which seems to be good
>at rendering nebulae and reasonable at Solar system modelling) and
>Starry Night Deluxe (which seems to excel at Solar system modelling
>and photo-realism, while lacking in areas like nebula outlines).
>Also, please let me know if my summaries of these products strengths
>and weaknesses are inaccurate in your opinion (and why).
>
>FWIW, I *think* I've already decided against Megastar (which seems to
>excel at database accuracy/cross-referencing), ECU, and SkyMap Pro for
>various reasons. And also against The Sky (level IV) mainly for price.
>
>Important features for my purposes: A easily-read, uncluttered display
>(with no "gaudy" rendering of star magnitudes); a reasonably deep and
>accurate object database; good rendering of extended object outlines;
>accurate modelling of solar system objects (including Jovian satellite
>and spot events, Lunar occultations, etc.); and control of an LX-200.
>(quite a small order, isn't it?!!!)
>
>I don't particularly care about it being a good observing planner/log
>or printing fancy star charts. Mainly I just want accurate ephemerides
>and visualization.
>
>Anyone with similar preferences out there? What do you use/like?
>Any other thoughts? TIA !!
>
> Mark
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: best eyepiece for LX200 10", Gene Horr
Next message: [M]: General MAPUG Questions, William D. Pappas
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: ?? Win32 software strengths, Rick & Melissa Keil
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: ?? Win32 software strengths, Ralph P. Pass III