I think as others have stated, the trackpad is a better option for touch applications on a desktop, but that's just my opinion. My thought is 1) why would you want to touch your screen? (desktop screens IMO are treated differently) 2) what's the added benefit of a touch screen vs a more conveniently place trackpad? which leads to 3) why would you want to put your monitor in that position every time you want to use a touch app? Wouldn't it be better that the touch app worked in a dashboard-esque environment that you would just use the trackpad for? I guess if the screen were touch sensitive Apple wouldn't have to sell a trackpad, but then again, Apple wouldn't have to sell you a trackpad.
That's the key - it runs BOTH operating systems - at once. How would it switch? Not by screen orientation - that's awkward. It would probably be completely dependent on which app you selected. The user would not know which OS they were using at any given time. They would only know that certain apps accepted keyboard and mouse (because they needed them!) and some did not. All Mac Apps would run as usual, but iPad apps (optimized for the device) would run as well.
So, you're typing into Word, but then you want to look at some photos. You select iPhoto and start moving them around with your hand on a BIG screen. It's natural and intuitive. Of course you want/need a keyboard for Word, and of course you (generally) do not for iPhoto. Of course you do not need to touch the screen in Word, but you do want to in iPhoto (resize, rotate, move images). Therefore this new iMac gives you exactly the functionality you need, when you need it.
The Finder would be adapted so that it behaved more like like IOS, to take advantage of the touchscreen. It would be running under Mac OS as usual, but you could move files around by hand and resize icons as you would using iOS. (Except you'd still be able to use the touchscreen and keyboard. And have a menu bar.) Vendors of traditional Mac applications would likewise have the option of adapting their apps so they could take advantage of touch, but it would not be mandatory. Developers could afford to wait and see if the platform catches on, but Apple would not be in a place where they were waiting/hoping that apps for their product would be developed (since they already exist).
I don't know but now that I am, why don't you keep me off and try listening for a change instead of thinking you are so correct in your beliefs that you don't need to hear another opinion. Unless you work for Apple Inc, you don't know jack anymore than I do pal.
I had to laugh. Sop is always so positive but he does seem to need dragging along on this one.
I disagree (obviously). As previously stated, I have no doubt that Apple will release this sort of tech in a way that is viable and useful (positive statement). But I personally can?t see how this is more useful than making the trackpad have a UI output or how physically moving the display every time you want to switch transitions is a benefit to the user. Is it okay for me not to be able to see into the future for once?
There's a big difference between Apple and MS Here. MS is devoted to Windows, and has a lot of problems with backwards compatibility. They have no imagination. They've had since 2000 to come up with a workable touch tablet version of Windows, but they've blown it so far. Win Mobile was never successful as a stylus operated OS either.
But Apple has iOS, which unlike Win Mobile, or any other of MS's mobile OS's, is a UNIX, heavy duty OS. MS's mobile OS's are nowhere near as powerful, and they aren't the slightest bit compatible either, because they aren't based on Windows, despite their names.
An advantage Apple has here is that ARM chips, no matter what their incarnations will be in the future, will never be as powerful as Intel's desktop chips, now that Apple is using them for its iMacs. This means that iOS apps, running in emulation, will always run at, or ABOVE their iOS speeds when running on a desktop, and probably even on a laptop. These apps could evolve for a new platform.
This, in addition, means that Apple can integrate iOS with its mother OS, being that the main difference is the desktop, and not the underlying OS.
I can see apps running on the iMac very well, using touch. I can also see desktop apps beginning to use some of the iOS touch methodologies as well, combining them in a way that MS simply cannot do with Windows.
I can also see, in the future, the two OS's being combined in a way that will easily, and naturally allow all input methods to work in an equal way.
When that happens, software companies will follow.
I believe that's one reason we didn't see OS X at the developers conference last june. I feel sure that Apple is doing a lot of work on that, and likely decided to do so after unexpected large sales from the iPad popped up. Apple has said that those sales were much higher than they expected, and are speeding up, which is not the usual situation after the first adopters get theirs. This likely influenced them, and pushed 10.7 back. There are a lot of little birds flying around me, and sometimes their song is too pretty not to listen to.
This, along with all the patents lately, should give one pause.
I'm very much in agreement. Despite how loudly some Mac fans can whine, this year's iOS news and developments have been far more interesting and successful than a preview of 10.7 would have been.
Also, it goes without saying that the longer 10.7 takes to come out, the better it will be. 10.6 is really good, as is, and aside from dozens of house cleaning items I could list, there isn't anything major that I'm waiting for to be part of Mac OS.
iOS has become really exciting with 4.2, and the possibilities just keep getting more and more endless.
In fact, I firmly believe that developers still haven't fully taken advantage of iOS 3.0's feature/API list, let alone iOS 4.
I think as others have stated, the trackpad is a better option for touch applications on a desktop, but that's just my opinion. My thought is 1) why would you want to touch your screen? (desktop screens IMO are treated differently) 2) what's the added benefit of a touch screen vs a more conveniently place trackpad? which leads to 3) why would you want to put your monitor in that position every time you want to use a touch app? Wouldn't it be better that the touch app worked in a dashboard-esque environment that you would just use the trackpad for? I guess if the screen were touch sensitive Apple wouldn't have to sell a trackpad, but then again, Apple wouldn't have to sell you a trackpad.
I'd simply say try to imagine all the apps that don't yet exist that will require a large touch screen. The lack of imagination being exhibited here is the problem. I remember the same argument against a GUI, a mouse and lately an iPad.
New uses and associated apps will quickly appear to take advantage and those apps simply are not possible without this next step. Trying to imagine current apps used on a large touch screen may indeed lead one to see it as an unnecessary if not down right uncomfortable step.
Plus I don't think anyone believes Apple would abandon the OS X as is rather this is an optional path and of course may be of no use or interest to many. That's not to say it might not be for others.
I don't know but now that I am, why don't you keep me off and try listening for a change instead of thinking you are so correct in your beliefs that you don't need to hear another opinion. Unless you work for Apple Inc, you don't know jack anymore than I do pal.
When your best input on an article is Great, Fingerprints on the Glossy Macs now Too,
Its hardly surprising that you'd be on one or many ignore lists.
The great thing about forums is that there are plenty of people to talk to, discuss, etc. When one person appears to detract from the forum experience, its best to ignore them.
And each individual person has their own level of knowledge and expertise. Some people's comments are good as hearing them from an Apple engineer, in terms of accuracy.
And some people are actually 12 or 13 years old. Their opinions, are, well, that of 12 or 13 year olds.
Maybe I am an old fogey, but note that I did state what I think is a more viable concept and did not discount these patents, in fact I asked for ideas to help me understand what Apple would have in mind for the SW.
I?m a terrible person to talk to because my window of usage between my iPhone and 13? MBP was too small to make an iPad a useful addition to my computing needs? That seems a little harsh, especially considering that I use a touch-based phone and have have been wanting more touch-based features on my Macs for years now.
Anyway, I have an iPad WiFi-3G en route with a delivery slated for tomorrow. I actually have need now for an eReader. Was going to get a Kindle for the low price of $139 whilst waiting for the G2 iPad but they aren?t readily available.
You won't regret it. The iPad screen, while lame compared to the iPhone's retina display, is certainly easy to read.
I'm not sold on the idea as a solution for the iMac. To me it looks like the patent was designed for the iPad, not the iMac.
You may well have hit the nail on the head there. It maybe a large iPad indeed and nothing to do with iMac and OS X changes (sadly). However, with all that extra space why not use a more powerful processor and then if that is there why not have OS X too? Tantalizing thoughts ....
I disagree (obviously). As previously stated, I have no doubt that Apple will release this sort of tech in a way that is viable and useful (positive statement). But I personally can’t see how this is more useful than making the trackpad have a UI output or how physically moving the display every time you want to switch transitions is a benefit to the user. Is it okay for me not to be able to see into the future for once?
Absolutely as an old fogey, you are allowed a cloudy vision once in a while.
I am jealous you are getting another iPad, I had to return mine to a client grrrr. I still reach for the screen on my MBP, so many things are far easier with a finger directly than a track pad!
That hinge that allow bringing down the screen to the touchscreen position will just be a source of complaints from customers. I have never seen a non-counterbalanced hinge that with constant use doesn't loosen in time. And without a counterbalance, imagine what the weight of the base should be to prevent the monitor/CPU from tipping into the desk when in the touchscreen position. The second hinge at the back of the monitor will also loosen up in time.
Well a similar, if not identical concept worked flawlessly on the G4 iMac arm. Perhaps the balance issue could be addressed by putting the computer in the base, leaving just the lightweight screen to pivot up and down.
I remember the desk in TRON. Virtual keyboard, touch UI. We still haven't reached that vision.
IMHO, a drafting table-like display would be very interesting. For a long time we had big CRT monitors sitting on flat desks. Now that displays have gone flat, it's time to start seriously experimenting with different desk layouts/configurations. I'd like to try my monitors at 30°-60° but most stands don't bend over that far and/or won't let you lower the display to the desk surface.
As some have pointed out, some apps lend themselves to touch manipulation (Photo organizing), some don't (Word processing). The keyboard & pointing device (mouse, trackpad, trackball) works because it minimizes arm movement - it's fast & easy. But PCs have taken root in mobile environments where the fixed desk is not a given and touching the screen is a lot easier (the couch, on a plane).
I really don't like the idea of a machine that runs both Mac OS and iOS. It seems like it would create too much confusion. Is that widget touchable? Why can't I pinch-zoom this? I just foresee a horrible mishmash of UI conventions (not that Apple's been particularly consistent in the UI realm lately). If I want a Mac, I don't want to pay for the touch screen that I'll rarely, if ever, use.
OTOH, if the marginal cost between a touch and non-touch display panel is minimal, why not build machines - laptops especially - with touch built in and put a virtual iPad/iPod in there? But Apple would need to seriously rework the Mac OS UI to be fully touch-integrated - something MS never did. And that reworking would probably create mismatches between good desktop (pointer & keyboard) UI and touchable UI. For example, on a desktop UI click targets can (and should) be smaller.
It's definitely an interesting idea, but one whose time has not yet come.
Maybe I am an old fogey, but note that I did state what I think is a more viable concept and did not discount these patents, in fact I asked for ideas to help me understand what Apple would have in mind for the SW.
I?m a terrible person to talk to because my window of usage between my iPhone and 13? MBP was too small to make an iPad a useful addition to my computing needs? That seems a little harsh, especially considering that I use a touch-based phone and have have been wanting more touch-based features on my Macs for years now.
Anyway, I have an iPad WiFi-3G en route with a delivery slated for tomorrow. I actually have need now for an eReader. Was going to get a Kindle for the low price of $139 whilst waiting for the G2 iPad but they aren?t readily available.
You're a terrible person to talk to about this, because the iPhone is way too small to give a realistic idea of what computing with a touch screen will be like. I really like my iPhone, but it's not nearly the same thing. I don't need an iPad, but I have one. funny the way this works. No one needed a computer in the late '70's either. We didn't get them because we needed them, though, now, we can make a case for why we do.
I NOW need my iPad, just as I need my iPhone. I wouldn't have thought that to be true before I got it.
But you just have to let yourself go. don't just buy the apps you think you NEED. Buy ones that look interesting. They're cheap enough. I'm happy you're going to finally get one. Think positively.
I think a 'touch' anything with OSX is unlikely and I can't see an iMac with IOS and I definitely cannot see dual OS machine. I think it is more likely that a new device (as in the pictures) featuring a larger screen (15"-17" perhaps) and IOS is a possibility. This, to me, would make more sense as an incremental step in ushering IOS in as a new consumer OS. Though I don't have the technical knowledge to figure out if this is plausible I can see an alteration to the OS in order to allow multiple windows to be open side by side (two or more apps at once). This would allow current ipad and iphone apps to run in native resolution without hogging the entire screen.
I don't agree. The only place new interface design can go is with touch. Voice is out, though it always seems cute. We will see this.
Apple will want to simplify their OS's. Combining them is the obvious way to go, and it's not as difficult as you may think. I can see a number of ways this can be done.
I remember the desk in TRON. Virtual keyboard, touch UI. We still haven't reached that vision.
IMHO, a drafting table-like display would be very interesting. For a long time we had big CRT monitors sitting on flat desks. Now that displays have gone flat, it's time to start seriously experimenting with different desk layouts/configurations. I'd like to try my monitors at 30°-60° but most stands don't bend over that far and/or won't let you lower the display to the desk surface.
As some have pointed out, some apps lend themselves to touch manipulation (Photo organizing), some don't (Word processing). The keyboard & pointing device (mouse, trackpad, trackball) works because it minimizes arm movement - it's fast & easy. But PCs have taken root in mobile environments where the fixed desk is not a given and touching the screen is a lot easier (the couch, on a plane).
I really don't like the idea of a machine that runs both Mac OS and iOS. It seems like it would create too much confusion. Is that widget touchable? Why can't I pinch-zoom this? I just foresee a horrible mishmash of UI conventions (not that Apple's been particularly consistent in the UI realm lately). If I want a Mac, I don't want to pay for the touch screen that I'll rarely, if ever, use.
OTOH, if the marginal cost between a touch and non-touch display panel is minimal, why not build machines - laptops especially - with touch built in and put a virtual iPad/iPod in there? But Apple would need to seriously rework the Mac OS UI to be fully touch-integrated - something MS never did. And that reworking would probably create mismatches between good desktop (pointer & keyboard) UI and touchable UI. For example, on a desktop UI click targets can (and should) be smaller.
It's definitely an interesting idea, but one whose time has not yet come.
You know, I question whether ... and this is a big IF ... iOS and OS X were both somehow available you'd have to remember which to use ... why would both touch and traditional controls not be possible on the updated apps? Older software would be one or the other I guess but over time they could be 'Dual' function apps and Apple would no doubt release an SDK to help with that. All good fun to speculate about. I just 'know' we are not that far away from some pretty Star Trek type stuff
I'm very much in agreement. Despite how loudly some Mac fans can whine, this year's iOS news and developments have been far more interesting and successful than a preview of 10.7 would have been.
Also, it goes without saying that the longer 10.7 takes to come out, the better it will be. 10.6 is really good, as is, and aside from dozens of house cleaning items I could list, there isn't anything major that I'm waiting for to be part of Mac OS.
iOS has become really exciting with 4.2, and the possibilities just keep getting more and more endless.
In fact, I firmly believe that developers still haven't fully taken advantage of iOS 3.0's feature/API list, let alone iOS 4.
What a few people here don't seem to understand is that the advantage to Apple of having ONE OS across the board is so enormous that it simply has to be done.
It CAN be done because it already IS one OS under the hood. That's already a major advantage that no one else has. Apple also has major advantages in virtualizing their OS's across other processors. With ARMs becoming much more powerful in the next year, they will be able to run major programs. Still, Intel's chips will be more powerful yet, allowing ARM based programs to run very well.
Apple already has so many advantages, that they would be foolish to not take advantage of them and bring them together. to have one team working on the OS rather than iOS teams and OS X teams would solve personnel problems they're having even now.
I don't understand why this isn't obvious to some people. It's like they're reliving 1984.
You may well have hit the nail on the head there. It maybe a large iPad indeed and nothing to do with iMac and OS X changes (sadly). However, with all that extra space why not use a more powerful processor and then if that is there why not have OS X too? Tantalizing thoughts ....
I'm not so sure that Apple can present all of this at once. Look at how long it's taking just to get resolution independence. So it's certainly possible that the first product(s) will not be a combined device.
How long will it take for Apple to get a usable, and friendly touch interface into OS X? That's the question. If it's just a better iOS emulator for everyone, that's one thing, but wider changes could take longer. Getting the basics right the first time will go a long way towards making it successful. Get it wrong in the beginning, and it may fail.
When your best input on an article is Great, Fingerprints on the Glossy Macs now Too,
Its hardly surprising that you'd be on one or many ignore lists.
The great thing about forums is that there are plenty of people to talk to, discuss, etc. When one person appears to detract from the forum experience, its best to ignore them.
And each individual person has their own level of knowledge and expertise. Some people's comments are good as hearing them from an Apple engineer, in terms of accuracy.
And some people are actually 12 or 13 years old. Their opinions, are, well, that of 12 or 13 year olds.
I see. Let me ask you something. When you're sitting in front of your nice pretty 27 inch iMac or external monitor and straining to see your content behind a 27 inch reflection of your face, do you really want to be staring at greasy smudges from your fingertips? That was the point of my original post.
Maybe this forum would be better if the members here tried responding to my posts instead of acting like a 12 or 13 year olds and attacking me.
I've got a news flash for everyone who put me on your ignore list: You don't know everything. You don't know anything except what you read from rumor sites and blogs. It's entirely possible for you to be wrong.
Comments
I thing DigiTimes has like a 99.9% fail rate in reporting.
So, you're typing into Word, but then you want to look at some photos. You select iPhoto and start moving them around with your hand on a BIG screen. It's natural and intuitive. Of course you want/need a keyboard for Word, and of course you (generally) do not for iPhoto. Of course you do not need to touch the screen in Word, but you do want to in iPhoto (resize, rotate, move images). Therefore this new iMac gives you exactly the functionality you need, when you need it.
The Finder would be adapted so that it behaved more like like IOS, to take advantage of the touchscreen. It would be running under Mac OS as usual, but you could move files around by hand and resize icons as you would using iOS. (Except you'd still be able to use the touchscreen and keyboard. And have a menu bar.) Vendors of traditional Mac applications would likewise have the option of adapting their apps so they could take advantage of touch, but it would not be mandatory. Developers could afford to wait and see if the platform catches on, but Apple would not be in a place where they were waiting/hoping that apps for their product would be developed (since they already exist).
1) How did Blackintosh get off my ignore list.
I don't know but now that I am, why don't you keep me off and try listening for a change instead of thinking you are so correct in your beliefs that you don't need to hear another opinion. Unless you work for Apple Inc, you don't know jack anymore than I do pal.
I had to laugh. Sop is always so positive but he does seem to need dragging along on this one.
I disagree (obviously). As previously stated, I have no doubt that Apple will release this sort of tech in a way that is viable and useful (positive statement). But I personally can?t see how this is more useful than making the trackpad have a UI output or how physically moving the display every time you want to switch transitions is a benefit to the user. Is it okay for me not to be able to see into the future for once?
There's a big difference between Apple and MS Here. MS is devoted to Windows, and has a lot of problems with backwards compatibility. They have no imagination. They've had since 2000 to come up with a workable touch tablet version of Windows, but they've blown it so far. Win Mobile was never successful as a stylus operated OS either.
But Apple has iOS, which unlike Win Mobile, or any other of MS's mobile OS's, is a UNIX, heavy duty OS. MS's mobile OS's are nowhere near as powerful, and they aren't the slightest bit compatible either, because they aren't based on Windows, despite their names.
An advantage Apple has here is that ARM chips, no matter what their incarnations will be in the future, will never be as powerful as Intel's desktop chips, now that Apple is using them for its iMacs. This means that iOS apps, running in emulation, will always run at, or ABOVE their iOS speeds when running on a desktop, and probably even on a laptop. These apps could evolve for a new platform.
This, in addition, means that Apple can integrate iOS with its mother OS, being that the main difference is the desktop, and not the underlying OS.
I can see apps running on the iMac very well, using touch. I can also see desktop apps beginning to use some of the iOS touch methodologies as well, combining them in a way that MS simply cannot do with Windows.
I can also see, in the future, the two OS's being combined in a way that will easily, and naturally allow all input methods to work in an equal way.
When that happens, software companies will follow.
I believe that's one reason we didn't see OS X at the developers conference last june. I feel sure that Apple is doing a lot of work on that, and likely decided to do so after unexpected large sales from the iPad popped up. Apple has said that those sales were much higher than they expected, and are speeding up, which is not the usual situation after the first adopters get theirs. This likely influenced them, and pushed 10.7 back. There are a lot of little birds flying around me, and sometimes their song is too pretty not to listen to.
This, along with all the patents lately, should give one pause.
I'm very much in agreement. Despite how loudly some Mac fans can whine, this year's iOS news and developments have been far more interesting and successful than a preview of 10.7 would have been.
Also, it goes without saying that the longer 10.7 takes to come out, the better it will be. 10.6 is really good, as is, and aside from dozens of house cleaning items I could list, there isn't anything major that I'm waiting for to be part of Mac OS.
iOS has become really exciting with 4.2, and the possibilities just keep getting more and more endless.
In fact, I firmly believe that developers still haven't fully taken advantage of iOS 3.0's feature/API list, let alone iOS 4.
I think as others have stated, the trackpad is a better option for touch applications on a desktop, but that's just my opinion. My thought is 1) why would you want to touch your screen? (desktop screens IMO are treated differently) 2) what's the added benefit of a touch screen vs a more conveniently place trackpad? which leads to 3) why would you want to put your monitor in that position every time you want to use a touch app? Wouldn't it be better that the touch app worked in a dashboard-esque environment that you would just use the trackpad for? I guess if the screen were touch sensitive Apple wouldn't have to sell a trackpad, but then again, Apple wouldn't have to sell you a trackpad.
I'd simply say try to imagine all the apps that don't yet exist that will require a large touch screen. The lack of imagination being exhibited here is the problem. I remember the same argument against a GUI, a mouse and lately an iPad.
New uses and associated apps will quickly appear to take advantage and those apps simply are not possible without this next step. Trying to imagine current apps used on a large touch screen may indeed lead one to see it as an unnecessary if not down right uncomfortable step.
Plus I don't think anyone believes Apple would abandon the OS X as is rather this is an optional path and of course may be of no use or interest to many. That's not to say it might not be for others.
I don't know but now that I am, why don't you keep me off and try listening for a change instead of thinking you are so correct in your beliefs that you don't need to hear another opinion. Unless you work for Apple Inc, you don't know jack anymore than I do pal.
When your best input on an article is Great, Fingerprints on the Glossy Macs now Too,
Its hardly surprising that you'd be on one or many ignore lists.
The great thing about forums is that there are plenty of people to talk to, discuss, etc. When one person appears to detract from the forum experience, its best to ignore them.
And each individual person has their own level of knowledge and expertise. Some people's comments are good as hearing them from an Apple engineer, in terms of accuracy.
And some people are actually 12 or 13 years old. Their opinions, are, well, that of 12 or 13 year olds.
Maybe I am an old fogey, but note that I did state what I think is a more viable concept and did not discount these patents, in fact I asked for ideas to help me understand what Apple would have in mind for the SW.
I?m a terrible person to talk to because my window of usage between my iPhone and 13? MBP was too small to make an iPad a useful addition to my computing needs? That seems a little harsh, especially considering that I use a touch-based phone and have have been wanting more touch-based features on my Macs for years now.
Anyway, I have an iPad WiFi-3G en route with a delivery slated for tomorrow. I actually have need now for an eReader. Was going to get a Kindle for the low price of $139 whilst waiting for the G2 iPad but they aren?t readily available.
You won't regret it. The iPad screen, while lame compared to the iPhone's retina display, is certainly easy to read.
I'm not sold on the idea as a solution for the iMac. To me it looks like the patent was designed for the iPad, not the iMac.
You may well have hit the nail on the head there. It maybe a large iPad indeed and nothing to do with iMac and OS X changes (sadly). However, with all that extra space why not use a more powerful processor and then if that is there why not have OS X too? Tantalizing thoughts ....
I disagree (obviously). As previously stated, I have no doubt that Apple will release this sort of tech in a way that is viable and useful (positive statement). But I personally can’t see how this is more useful than making the trackpad have a UI output or how physically moving the display every time you want to switch transitions is a benefit to the user. Is it okay for me not to be able to see into the future for once?
Absolutely as an old fogey, you are allowed a cloudy vision once in a while.
I am jealous you are getting another iPad, I had to return mine to a client grrrr. I still reach for the screen on my MBP, so many things are far easier with a finger directly than a track pad!
That hinge that allow bringing down the screen to the touchscreen position will just be a source of complaints from customers. I have never seen a non-counterbalanced hinge that with constant use doesn't loosen in time. And without a counterbalance, imagine what the weight of the base should be to prevent the monitor/CPU from tipping into the desk when in the touchscreen position. The second hinge at the back of the monitor will also loosen up in time.
Well a similar, if not identical concept worked flawlessly on the G4 iMac arm. Perhaps the balance issue could be addressed by putting the computer in the base, leaving just the lightweight screen to pivot up and down.
IMHO, a drafting table-like display would be very interesting. For a long time we had big CRT monitors sitting on flat desks. Now that displays have gone flat, it's time to start seriously experimenting with different desk layouts/configurations. I'd like to try my monitors at 30°-60° but most stands don't bend over that far and/or won't let you lower the display to the desk surface.
As some have pointed out, some apps lend themselves to touch manipulation (Photo organizing), some don't (Word processing). The keyboard & pointing device (mouse, trackpad, trackball) works because it minimizes arm movement - it's fast & easy. But PCs have taken root in mobile environments where the fixed desk is not a given and touching the screen is a lot easier (the couch, on a plane).
I really don't like the idea of a machine that runs both Mac OS and iOS. It seems like it would create too much confusion. Is that widget touchable? Why can't I pinch-zoom this? I just foresee a horrible mishmash of UI conventions (not that Apple's been particularly consistent in the UI realm lately). If I want a Mac, I don't want to pay for the touch screen that I'll rarely, if ever, use.
OTOH, if the marginal cost between a touch and non-touch display panel is minimal, why not build machines - laptops especially - with touch built in and put a virtual iPad/iPod in there? But Apple would need to seriously rework the Mac OS UI to be fully touch-integrated - something MS never did. And that reworking would probably create mismatches between good desktop (pointer & keyboard) UI and touchable UI. For example, on a desktop UI click targets can (and should) be smaller.
It's definitely an interesting idea, but one whose time has not yet come.
Maybe I am an old fogey, but note that I did state what I think is a more viable concept and did not discount these patents, in fact I asked for ideas to help me understand what Apple would have in mind for the SW.
I?m a terrible person to talk to because my window of usage between my iPhone and 13? MBP was too small to make an iPad a useful addition to my computing needs? That seems a little harsh, especially considering that I use a touch-based phone and have have been wanting more touch-based features on my Macs for years now.
Anyway, I have an iPad WiFi-3G en route with a delivery slated for tomorrow. I actually have need now for an eReader. Was going to get a Kindle for the low price of $139 whilst waiting for the G2 iPad but they aren?t readily available.
You're a terrible person to talk to about this, because the iPhone is way too small to give a realistic idea of what computing with a touch screen will be like. I really like my iPhone, but it's not nearly the same thing. I don't need an iPad, but I have one. funny the way this works. No one needed a computer in the late '70's either. We didn't get them because we needed them, though, now, we can make a case for why we do.
I NOW need my iPad, just as I need my iPhone. I wouldn't have thought that to be true before I got it.
But you just have to let yourself go. don't just buy the apps you think you NEED. Buy ones that look interesting. They're cheap enough. I'm happy you're going to finally get one. Think positively.
I think a 'touch' anything with OSX is unlikely and I can't see an iMac with IOS and I definitely cannot see dual OS machine. I think it is more likely that a new device (as in the pictures) featuring a larger screen (15"-17" perhaps) and IOS is a possibility. This, to me, would make more sense as an incremental step in ushering IOS in as a new consumer OS. Though I don't have the technical knowledge to figure out if this is plausible I can see an alteration to the OS in order to allow multiple windows to be open side by side (two or more apps at once). This would allow current ipad and iphone apps to run in native resolution without hogging the entire screen.
I don't agree. The only place new interface design can go is with touch. Voice is out, though it always seems cute. We will see this.
Apple will want to simplify their OS's. Combining them is the obvious way to go, and it's not as difficult as you may think. I can see a number of ways this can be done.
I remember the desk in TRON. Virtual keyboard, touch UI. We still haven't reached that vision.
IMHO, a drafting table-like display would be very interesting. For a long time we had big CRT monitors sitting on flat desks. Now that displays have gone flat, it's time to start seriously experimenting with different desk layouts/configurations. I'd like to try my monitors at 30°-60° but most stands don't bend over that far and/or won't let you lower the display to the desk surface.
As some have pointed out, some apps lend themselves to touch manipulation (Photo organizing), some don't (Word processing). The keyboard & pointing device (mouse, trackpad, trackball) works because it minimizes arm movement - it's fast & easy. But PCs have taken root in mobile environments where the fixed desk is not a given and touching the screen is a lot easier (the couch, on a plane).
I really don't like the idea of a machine that runs both Mac OS and iOS. It seems like it would create too much confusion. Is that widget touchable? Why can't I pinch-zoom this? I just foresee a horrible mishmash of UI conventions (not that Apple's been particularly consistent in the UI realm lately). If I want a Mac, I don't want to pay for the touch screen that I'll rarely, if ever, use.
OTOH, if the marginal cost between a touch and non-touch display panel is minimal, why not build machines - laptops especially - with touch built in and put a virtual iPad/iPod in there? But Apple would need to seriously rework the Mac OS UI to be fully touch-integrated - something MS never did. And that reworking would probably create mismatches between good desktop (pointer & keyboard) UI and touchable UI. For example, on a desktop UI click targets can (and should) be smaller.
It's definitely an interesting idea, but one whose time has not yet come.
You know, I question whether ... and this is a big IF ... iOS and OS X were both somehow available you'd have to remember which to use ... why would both touch and traditional controls not be possible on the updated apps? Older software would be one or the other I guess but over time they could be 'Dual' function apps and Apple would no doubt release an SDK to help with that. All good fun to speculate about. I just 'know' we are not that far away from some pretty Star Trek type stuff
I'm very much in agreement. Despite how loudly some Mac fans can whine, this year's iOS news and developments have been far more interesting and successful than a preview of 10.7 would have been.
Also, it goes without saying that the longer 10.7 takes to come out, the better it will be. 10.6 is really good, as is, and aside from dozens of house cleaning items I could list, there isn't anything major that I'm waiting for to be part of Mac OS.
iOS has become really exciting with 4.2, and the possibilities just keep getting more and more endless.
In fact, I firmly believe that developers still haven't fully taken advantage of iOS 3.0's feature/API list, let alone iOS 4.
What a few people here don't seem to understand is that the advantage to Apple of having ONE OS across the board is so enormous that it simply has to be done.
It CAN be done because it already IS one OS under the hood. That's already a major advantage that no one else has. Apple also has major advantages in virtualizing their OS's across other processors. With ARMs becoming much more powerful in the next year, they will be able to run major programs. Still, Intel's chips will be more powerful yet, allowing ARM based programs to run very well.
Apple already has so many advantages, that they would be foolish to not take advantage of them and bring them together. to have one team working on the OS rather than iOS teams and OS X teams would solve personnel problems they're having even now.
I don't understand why this isn't obvious to some people. It's like they're reliving 1984.
You may well have hit the nail on the head there. It maybe a large iPad indeed and nothing to do with iMac and OS X changes (sadly). However, with all that extra space why not use a more powerful processor and then if that is there why not have OS X too? Tantalizing thoughts ....
I'm not so sure that Apple can present all of this at once. Look at how long it's taking just to get resolution independence. So it's certainly possible that the first product(s) will not be a combined device.
How long will it take for Apple to get a usable, and friendly touch interface into OS X? That's the question. If it's just a better iOS emulator for everyone, that's one thing, but wider changes could take longer. Getting the basics right the first time will go a long way towards making it successful. Get it wrong in the beginning, and it may fail.
When your best input on an article is Great, Fingerprints on the Glossy Macs now Too,
Its hardly surprising that you'd be on one or many ignore lists.
The great thing about forums is that there are plenty of people to talk to, discuss, etc. When one person appears to detract from the forum experience, its best to ignore them.
And each individual person has their own level of knowledge and expertise. Some people's comments are good as hearing them from an Apple engineer, in terms of accuracy.
And some people are actually 12 or 13 years old. Their opinions, are, well, that of 12 or 13 year olds.
I see. Let me ask you something. When you're sitting in front of your nice pretty 27 inch iMac or external monitor and straining to see your content behind a 27 inch reflection of your face, do you really want to be staring at greasy smudges from your fingertips? That was the point of my original post.
Maybe this forum would be better if the members here tried responding to my posts instead of acting like a 12 or 13 year olds and attacking me.
I've got a news flash for everyone who put me on your ignore list: You don't know everything. You don't know anything except what you read from rumor sites and blogs. It's entirely possible for you to be wrong.