Oh, yeah? Wait 'til You see Microsoft's Tablet!
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: The New Apple Tablet - $499!
Next: iPad is supercool
From: Jochem Huhmann on 28 Jan 2010 09:00 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> writes: > Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for > touch screen on real computers. Just that touchscreens are not really useful on "real computers". Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Jochem Huhmann on 28 Jan 2010 09:05 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie(a)pixelmemory.us> writes: > It's what the customer says it is because that's where Apple's money > comes from. I would never buy an iPad because of the locked-down > environment it runs in. Do you *really* think that the majority of (potential) customers care a bit about that? For them this is a feature. And even I am not so sure about it being that a bad thing. For many people a "computer" is a tiny part of their lives and they're just too happy to have someone else care for it and have some walled garden to enjoy themselves in. Neither the iPod nor the iPhone seems to have suffered much from that locked-in environment. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: VAXman- on 28 Jan 2010 11:18 In article <lloydparsons-2747C9.06522628012010(a)port80.individual.net>, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> writes: >In article <00dd10c2$0$23824$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> Jolly Roger wrote: >> >> >> Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS for >> >> touch screen on real computers. >> > >> > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely >> > mistaken. >> > >> >> >> I don't think it is an "oversight". It is obvious Apple made a conscious >> decision on this. But whether this decision is right or wrong, only time >> will tell. The multi touch technology can be significantly more >> productive than a mouse. >> >> Consider iWork. They now have a version with multi-touch on the iPad, >> and the "old" legacy version on OS-X. >> >> If Microsoft and PC vendors start to push for touch screen computers and >> start to gain market share, Apple will be left behind with an old >> product line that doesn't support touch screen. >> >That's a big IF considering how long touch screen computers have been >around with little market penetration. Years ago I used to sell the >Compaq T1100 (I think that's the model), a touchscreen laptop, to >nursing homes as a way for those making rounds to take notes. They >loved it, but it was very costly to implement because wireless >networking at the time was very expensive and not very good. That model >didn't last long. > >Now I own an HP Touchsmart 300 which is a touchscreen desktop. For >almost everything you normally do on a desktop computer at home, the >touch is nearly worthless as the apps really don't work well with it. >Mostly because of small icons and menu selections, but also the onscreen >keyboard is mostly suitable for children (the last ones you want playing >around on a touchscreen!). Funny you mention this. I purchased an ASUS Netbook EeePC 1005HA and installed Ubuntu on it, and gave it to my ten year old for Christmas. It's disgusting. I could clean it every morning and by day's end, it is just as disgusting as was before cleaning it. I can't imagine what its screen would look like if it was _necessary_ to touch it. My bank installed NEW ATMs. They are completely touch screen. I have yet to use it that I have not been frustrated by it misreading what I intended to do. The same thing at the pharmacy with their fully touch screen enabled prescription acknowledgment and credit/debit card system. I guess it's a nice idea for some or somethings, but trying to wedge in this technology where it doesn't fit just does not make sense to me. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people. -- Billy Ray Valentine
From: Lloyd Parsons on 28 Jan 2010 11:26 In article <00A98394.1D3D29C5(a)SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > In article <lloydparsons-2747C9.06522628012010(a)port80.individual.net>, Lloyd > Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> writes: > >In article <00dd10c2$0$23824$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > >> Jolly Roger wrote: > >> > >> >> Microsoft supports touch screen on Windows 7. So Apple is behind MS > >> >> for > >> >> touch screen on real computers. > >> > > >> > ...and if you think that's an oversight on Apple's part, you're likely > >> > mistaken. > >> > > >> > >> > >> I don't think it is an "oversight". It is obvious Apple made a conscious > >> decision on this. But whether this decision is right or wrong, only time > >> will tell. The multi touch technology can be significantly more > >> productive than a mouse. > >> > >> Consider iWork. They now have a version with multi-touch on the iPad, > >> and the "old" legacy version on OS-X. > >> > >> If Microsoft and PC vendors start to push for touch screen computers and > >> start to gain market share, Apple will be left behind with an old > >> product line that doesn't support touch screen. > >> > >That's a big IF considering how long touch screen computers have been > >around with little market penetration. Years ago I used to sell the > >Compaq T1100 (I think that's the model), a touchscreen laptop, to > >nursing homes as a way for those making rounds to take notes. They > >loved it, but it was very costly to implement because wireless > >networking at the time was very expensive and not very good. That model > >didn't last long. > > > >Now I own an HP Touchsmart 300 which is a touchscreen desktop. For > >almost everything you normally do on a desktop computer at home, the > >touch is nearly worthless as the apps really don't work well with it. > >Mostly because of small icons and menu selections, but also the onscreen > >keyboard is mostly suitable for children (the last ones you want playing > >around on a touchscreen!). > > Funny you mention this. I purchased an ASUS Netbook EeePC 1005HA and > installed Ubuntu on it, and gave it to my ten year old for Christmas. > It's disgusting. I could clean it every morning and by day's end, it > is just as disgusting as was before cleaning it. I can't imagine what > its screen would look like if it was _necessary_ to touch it. > Oh yeah! Kids, you gotta love 'em when you don't want to strangle them!! :) > My bank installed NEW ATMs. They are completely touch screen. I have > yet to use it that I have not been frustrated by it misreading what I > intended to do. The same thing at the pharmacy with their fully touch > screen enabled prescription acknowledgment and credit/debit card system. > > I guess it's a nice idea for some or somethings, but trying to wedge in > this technology where it doesn't fit just does not make sense to me. Yes, it is a nice idea that doesn't work nearly as well in actual use as it does on paper. My HP misses a finger now and then and I've calibrated it to me since I'm the only one using it. But for what I wanted it for, it works great! I use MusicReader software for displaying my sheet music on my organ. It allows me to have bigger notes for aging eyes and I can store all those books and sheets of music I've collected over the years. But even with just me using it, I have to clean the screen nearly every day or it gets hinky about reading the touches.
From: Davoud on 28 Jan 2010 11:46
Kevin McMurtrie: > The iPhone was revolutionary because it made a pocket-sized touch-screen > both elegant and commonplace. Making an iPhone bigger is not impressive > and maybe even counter-productive. Making a larger iPhone that runs on > any GSM network as long as it's AT&T is just pissing customers off. I know that I risk being expelled from the AT&T Wireless Dogma Club for saying this, but AT&T's 3G wireless works very well for my wife and me where we need it -- the Washington, D.C. to New York corridor and, in my experience, the Chicago area including western suburbs, Des Moines, the Pittsburgh area, an Amtrak trip from Washington, D.C. to Charleston, S.C. The following is pure coincidence, and says nothing about AT&T or Verizon service quality: The AT&T signal at our exurban home between Baltimore and Washington is better than the Verizon signal. So burn me at the stake. Davoud -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |