iPad, G2, ALL touch screens are disgusting, filthy products
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Can't get a sharp picture
Next: another cool shot
From: Rich on 29 May 2010 03:37 "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in news:Qp6dnV20c60o8p3RnZ2dnVY3goydnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> On 27/05/10 10:05 PM, RichA wrote: >>> And yet they look so pristine in the commercials... >>> Like on Star Trek, all the touch-screen computer and ship control.. >>> They probably went through more Windex than anti-matter. >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870471700457526860244057 >>> 4716.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird >> >> I think it's strange that styluses seem to be taboo. They worked well >> on the Palm and Windows Mobile PDAs, and on the tables running the >> Microsoft Tablet OS. They allowed you to draw, sign things, and kept >> the screen clean. > > My take is that groping for a stylus is enough of a pain (and the tiny > screens so ugly) that those things were usable only by the perversely > motivated: the "I'm more high-tech than you" crowd hell-bent on > proving they've got the right idea. But watching my friends use their > iPods/iPhones/whatever, it's clear that they represent an multiple > order of magnitude improvement in usability over anything previous. > Flipping amazing. (And this is from a dyed-in-the-wool Mac hater who > bought a Kindle before the iPad came out just to spite Apple (the > Kindle UI is horrible; getting to a reference number to click it is > almost impossible; it's a major disaster, but I love the thing since I > can buy gobs of books and not have to throw any away).) > > So get over it and wash your hands more often: touch screens are > worlds better than anything else. > > Maybe safe-solvent soaked screen-wipes will become a big business<g>. > It's a $900 device that falls short of the average $300 netbook in terms of capability.
From: Jeff R. on 29 May 2010 03:42 "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:5O2dnTHOOMe0WZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > It's a $900 device that falls short of the average $300 netbook in terms > of capability. Would please direct me to a $300 netbook using a touch-screen with the same facilities? (Two-finger zoom, scroll, rotate...) Oh, yes... and a similar form factor... like... y'know.... *thickness*! -- Jeff R. (No? Then how about a $900 netbook...)
From: nospam on 29 May 2010 04:02 In article <4c00c550$0$17175$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R. <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: > "Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:5O2dnTHOOMe0WZ3RnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > It's a $900 device that falls short of the average $300 netbook in terms > > of capability. > > Would please direct me to a $300 netbook using a touch-screen with the same > facilities? (Two-finger zoom, scroll, rotate...) and an ips displays. netbooks have far worse displays. > Oh, yes... and a similar form factor... like... y'know.... *thickness*! and one with a built in gps, compass and no-contract 3g radio, with 10+ hour battery life. how well does that netbook work when rotated to portrait orientation?
From: Chris Malcolm on 29 May 2010 06:52 In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote: > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> On 27/05/10 10:05 PM, RichA wrote: >>> And yet they look so pristine in the commercials... >>> Like on Star Trek, all the touch-screen computer and ship control.. >>> They probably went through more Windex than anti-matter. >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268602440574716.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird >> >> I think it's strange that styluses seem to be taboo. They worked well on >> the Palm and Windows Mobile PDAs, and on the tables running the Microsoft >> Tablet OS. They allowed you to draw, sign things, and kept the screen >> clean. > My take is that groping for a stylus is enough of a pain (and the tiny > screens so ugly) that those things were usable only by the perversely > motivated: the "I'm more high-tech than you" crowd hell-bent on proving > they've got the right idea. But watching my friends use their > iPods/iPhones/whatever, it's clear that they represent an multiple order of > magnitude improvement in usability over anything previous. Flipping amazing. > (And this is from a dyed-in-the-wool Mac hater who bought a Kindle before > the iPad came out just to spite Apple (the Kindle UI is horrible; getting to > a reference number to click it is almost impossible; it's a major disaster, > but I love the thing since I can buy gobs of books and not have to throw any > away).) > So get over it and wash your hands more often: touch screens are worlds > better than anything else. > Maybe safe-solvent soaked screen-wipes will become a big business<g>. I don't understand why anyone should have a problem with touchscreen hygiene who doesn't have to disinfect money before touching it. -- Chris Malcolm Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: Mike Russell on 29 May 2010 09:13
On 29 May 2010 10:52:30 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote: > I don't understand why anyone should have a problem with touchscreen > hygiene who doesn't have to disinfect money before touching it. They actually may. OCDC is a fairly common problem affecting thousands of people, and has only been diagnosed in the last several decades. The cost of making fun of these people can be very high, in human terms, and IMHO not worth the couple of laughs we may get. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com |