I've always used Google Maps when looking for addresses or places and it's been a pretty good experience. The satellite images are really cool, and they even have relatively high resolution imagery for my location on the Canadian east coast. Now, Microsoft absolutely hates it when some other company enjoys some success in the consumer computer market, so they set out to challenge Google Maps with Live Local, neé Virtual Earth. I had checked it out a couple of times but never found it very compelling.

At a recent event in Halifax, however, a Microsoft presenter mentioned Live Local again (in passing really, it wasn't relevant to the presentation) so I decided to give it another look-see today. And here we have another fine example of how Microsoft often fails to live up to the competition. In the two pictures below you can see one image from Google Maps and another from Live Local (bonus points for whoever can identify the location - Darth Mac is excluded, of course). You will notice that the Google Maps version comes in a much higher resolution. You will also notice that Microsoft apparently forgot to pay their satellite imaging bill, and half the image is missing. Good job, guys.

To be fair, there are scenarios where Local Live has the edge. Check out this posting for a different perspective. There's more to Local Live than just satellite imagery, but I saw half my region missing and I stopped looking right away. I live in the most populous region east of Montreal in Canada and Microsoft didn't think it was worthwhile to get detailed satellite photos here. In the words of my former drill sergeant, "GET IT TOGETHER, MICROSOFT!"

So, in the meantime, I will continue to ignore Live Local (or Half-Dead Local as I'm now calling it) and stick with good ol' Google Maps.