Snow Leopard on iPad?
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Wes Groleau on 8 May 2010 23:51 On 05-08-2010 21:20, Your Name wrote: > You forgot the joking smiley. Fools like Loser Larry might actually > believe you otherwise. :-) Naah, his research is complete. He shut down his netbook and went outside to play. -- Wes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken
From: Wes Groleau on 9 May 2010 00:36 On 05-08-2010 17:28, Your Name wrote: > A true computer OS will never be touchscreen compatible - human fingers are > simply too fat for precise usage of tiny buttons, selecting text, etc. on > high resolution displays. At best the OS on a touchscreen computer will Obviously, if you want to depend on fingers, you adjust display resolution, icon size, and/or text size. All three have been doable in Mac OS for ages. Does that make it not a "true" computer OS? (Mac Haters, FOAD) At least one of the items I mentioned in another post lets you use a stylus OR fingers. And if I can write Chinese on an iPhone with my index finger, I can certainly write English on an iMac. > allow you to manipulate bigger objects (e.g. rotate photos) and use > custom-written touchscreen-friendly software. The mouse / trackball and even > the cumbersome trackpad (the even worse "mini joystick" seems to have > vanished, thank goodness!) will all be around for a long time yet. :-) That detestable stick is still driving HP laptop users nuts. (at least this user.) And the #$%^*%^&^&$% cap pops off the thing at least once a day. Since I don't own the computer, I feel obligated to find the thing and stick it back on. -- Wes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken
From: Wes Groleau on 9 May 2010 00:42 On 05-08-2010 21:33, Your Name wrote: > Touchscreen is great for simple tasks, but useless for complex and or > fiddly ones, especially on high-resolution displays, and especially when > that display is basically a vertical surface. Prolonged use would be > AWFUL! I never heard any complaints from my wife, who used one six to eight hours a day for years. Of course, if she had to type on a full keyboard mounted vertically, she probably would have complained. :-) But ten-key, no problem. Confirmed by my own experience in occasional use. I can do ten-key vertically just as easily as horizontally. Having used both light-pens and touch screens occasionally for years, I've always been puzzled why neither (until now) ever seem to catch on. -- Wes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken
From: Wes Groleau on 9 May 2010 00:45 On 05-09-2010 00:36, Alan Baker wrote: > Their acoustic touchscreens are pretty cool. The screen itself is only > glass through which they pass high frequency vibrations from transducers > located on the edges, so there's nothing that wears out. Nothing on the computer, anyway. But the dog is on his last nerve. :-) -- Wes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken
From: Your Name on 9 May 2010 01:42
"Wes Groleau" <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote in message news:hs5e41$h0b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 05-08-2010 17:28, Your Name wrote: > > A true computer OS will never be touchscreen compatible - human fingers are > > simply too fat for precise usage of tiny buttons, selecting text, etc. on > > high resolution displays. At best the OS on a touchscreen computer will > > Obviously, if you want to depend on fingers, you adjust display > resolution, icon size, and/or text size. All three have been doable > in Mac OS for ages. Does that make it not a "true" computer OS? > (Mac Haters, FOAD) <snip> Except people don't want their 27" iMac running at a resolution of 200x300. :-) |