6 ms·

Actually this feels just as sluggish as the full version. Where exactly do you guys see/feel the improvement?

pmontra 10y ago
I also find it slower. Could it be that the full version uses hardware acceleration and the lite one is all on the CPU? The other big difference is that zooming in with the lite version takes me to aerial photos which look infinitely better than the weird 3D interpolated pictures of the full version (Earth view). I'd like to get that as a default in Earth.
mjhagen 10y ago
The Lite version is much slower on my ancient Core 2 Duo E8400 w/ GeForce 210. Which I'd think would be the kind of specs this feature was aimed at.
pcr0 10y ago
I agree, it's slower for me too, on a recent MBP. I think the main improvement they're targeting is lower data usage rather than performance improvements but I'm still surprised at how much worse it performs. Seems like a bug to me, hopefully it will be fixed.
shubb 10y ago
It looks like this lite version loads all the map imagery as images (tiles) from the server. This compares to full version which uses Javascript to render some of the roads and symbols as some kind of vector drawing on top of less detailed map tiles. I'd expect the Full version to require slightly less data transfer and behave better when zooming in and out rapidly. When you zoom in on a vector drawing it still looks sharp, so you just have to wait for more detailed roads to appear. Whereas in Lite mode, you'd zoom in and stare at a blury tile until the higher resolution one loaded. I'd expect Lite to work better in a browser or network that just can't cope with a web application. Old versions of IE, weird embedded browsers in smart TVs, that sort of thing. Given what it is, I wouldn't expect it to work better.
- greggman 10y ago
  Actually the full version uses more data, it turns out vectors take more data than jpeg tiles, at lease for urban areas. The big differences excluding 3d features are things like * you can rotate the map * zoom is continuous * the map can be customized on the fly to make it more relevant to your search. So for example a road can be highlighted for one search vs a different road highlighted for a different search. Different buildings/roads get labelled etc. This was all covered to Google I/O when the current version of Google maps was released 4 years ago
jordache 10y ago
Are you referring to the zoom in/out? There is no longer tweening between the start/end zoom level, so the incremental redraw of the map feels very choppy. I suppose on a low powered device, the former could less performant. However, having experience g-map in browser on even several generations old iPhones and Android, I have to imagine this lite mode is targeted at devices even older than that!

I also find it slower. Could it be that the full version uses hardware acceleration and the lite one is all on the CPU? The other big difference is that zooming in with the lite version takes me to aerial photos which look infinitely better than the weird 3D interpolated pictures of the full version (Earth view). I'd like to get that as a default in Earth.

mjhagen 10y ago

The Lite version is much slower on my ancient Core 2 Duo E8400 w/ GeForce 210. Which I'd think would be the kind of specs this feature was aimed at.

pcr0 10y ago

I agree, it's slower for me too, on a recent MBP. I think the main improvement they're targeting is lower data usage rather than performance improvements but I'm still surprised at how much worse it performs. Seems like a bug to me, hopefully it will be fixed.

shubb 10y ago

It looks like this lite version loads all the map imagery as images (tiles) from the server. This compares to full version which uses Javascript to render some of the roads and symbols as some kind of vector drawing on top of less detailed map tiles. I'd expect the Full version to require slightly less data transfer and behave better when zooming in and out rapidly. When you zoom in on a vector drawing it still looks sharp, so you just have to wait for more detailed roads to appear. Whereas in Lite mode, you'd zoom in and stare at a blury tile until the higher resolution one loaded. I'd expect Lite to work better in a browser or network that just can't cope with a web application. Old versions of IE, weird embedded browsers in smart TVs, that sort of thing. Given what it is, I wouldn't expect it to work better.

greggman 10y ago
Actually the full version uses more data, it turns out vectors take more data than jpeg tiles, at lease for urban areas. The big differences excluding 3d features are things like * you can rotate the map * zoom is continuous * the map can be customized on the fly to make it more relevant to your search. So for example a road can be highlighted for one search vs a different road highlighted for a different search. Different buildings/roads get labelled etc. This was all covered to Google I/O when the current version of Google maps was released 4 years ago

jordache 10y ago

Are you referring to the zoom in/out? There is no longer tweening between the start/end zoom level, so the incremental redraw of the map feels very choppy. I suppose on a low powered device, the former could less performant. However, having experience g-map in browser on even several generations old iPhones and Android, I have to imagine this lite mode is targeted at devices even older than that!