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.
It doesn't have to be either OS X or iOS. It could be a way if having both, letting you use keyboard functions and touch functions. Use whatever you want for the task at hand.
After all, we still have keyboard shortcuts, even though we've had a mouse for decades now.
We could even have a choice depending on the program we're running. Run a touch based program, and the choices are mostly touch based. Run a keyboard based one, and that applies. It could be modal. Touch the screen and a touch based UI takes over, until you click on the keyboard.
I'm just coming up with some very off the cuff ideas. I'm sure with more thought, this can be worked out satisfactorily.
Remember that a counterpoint to your argument was that the mouse and drop down menu system was terribly inefficient. It required you to remove your hand from the keyboard, and was supposed to be very bad. A lot of people who had invested time in character based programs said that it was much better memorizing the 500 to 600 two and three letter key combo's than it was to use a mouse, and GUI's were so much slower anyway.
Some people will always have to be dragged into new worlds.
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 think I may have given the wrong impression. I absolutely believe IOS and OSX will move towards one another, if not merge, over time. What I don't believe is that the present iMac with OSX will gain touch interface in any other way than through a trackpad. Apple, or someone else, may create a touch screen for imacs for use in certain places, such as retail (doesn't it already exist?) but a larger IOS device would be the far superior solution. I am surprised that there isn't already a stand for the iPad with a POS application.
I believe Apple will bring out a larger touch based device (on a stand) but it will run a version of IOS and not OSX.
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.
It's ok for you to disagree, just do it in a useful manner, and try to see both sides. That means the good as well as the bad. What tires people out is when a few people come on the boards and almost never have anything good to say. Even the very worst companies have something good, and Apple isn't one of those.
I love my iPad and iPhone but when I need to get working or really fly around the web even, I hit the iMac. Everything takes longer with a touchscreen, cut, paste and rearrange text in an email. Open up a bunch of browser tabs and do some quick research...then cut/paste to respond to a comment or email. Etc... I won't even get into using a program like inDesign (I get paid for that so time is money!) or Filemaker (development, not just populating fields with a few clicks and keystrokes). What about examining and working with web page source code? A keyboard and magic mouse rule for these tasks. I can't imagine doing them all day on a touch screen. Maybe I lack imagination but I would never even want to be saddled with only ios for these things unless ios turns into a radically different animal than it is now. And maybe it will, but that is certainly not a forgone conclusion.
All that said, I'd buy my iPad again all day every day. And the iPhone? Foggettaboutit! It's awesome. And that ATV...if my iMac was not also my main tv, I'd be all over that. So apple can sell me all kinds of stuff it seems, because it all has it's place. May OS X live long and prosper!
I think I may have given the wrong impression. I absolutely believe IOS and OSX will move towards one another, if not merge, over time. What I don't believe is that the present iMac with OSX will gain touch interface in any other way than through a trackpad. Apple, or someone else, may create a touch screen for imacs for use in certain places, such as retail (doesn't it already exist?) but a larger IOS device would be the far superior solution. I am surprised that there isn't already a stand for the iPad with a POS application.
I believe Apple will bring out a larger touch based device (on a stand) but it will run a version of IOS and not OSX.
I don't think that will happen in the long run is because of the reasons I've stated. There are just too many advantages in combining the two, and no good reason why they can't be.
It's not likely that everything would be done at once, and possibly, it wouldn't be a good idea. Start with the most obvious, and work outwards. But Apple would have to get all the basic moves in place at once, so developers could see what the standards are.
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
And let me say that a lot of what we're reading about a touch based OS using "old fashioned" mouse based GUI's aren't correct.
It's very true that OS X would work terribly on a 10" screen because the elements would be far too small. but with a little modification of their sizes, it would work just fine on a 21.5 or larger screen.
I find that even with the much higher rez on the 27", screen elements are almost as large as they are on my iPad now, and with some resizing on Apple's part, could be just as large. That alone would solve a lot of problems.
I love my iPad and iPhone but when I need to get working or really fly around the web even, I hit the iMac. Everything takes longer with a touchscreen, cut, paste and rearrange text in an email. Open up a bunch of browser tabs and do some quick research...then cut/paste to respond to a comment or email. Etc... I won't even get into using a program like inDesign (I get paid for that so time is money!) or Filemaker (development, not just populating fields with a few clicks and keystrokes). What about examining and working with web page source code? A keyboard and magic mouse rule for these tasks. I can't imagine doing them all day on a touch screen. Maybe I lack imagination but I would never even want to be saddled with only ios for these things unless ios turns into a radically different animal than it is now. And maybe it will, but that is certainly not a forgone conclusion.
All that said, I'd buy my iPad again all day every day. And the iPhone? Foggettaboutit! It's awesome. And that ATV...if my iMac was not also my main tv, I'd be all over that. So apple can sell me all kinds of stuff it seems, because it all has it's place. May OS X live long and prosper!
I've found that the web on the iPad is much more fun than on my MacPro. not that using the desktop isn't better at times. But's that's much more a function of the large screen so I can have Safari open on the left, and Mail open on the right.It's not really a function of touch based vs keyboard based.
And of course, the iPad is in the first generation. We have to give it some time. There are already cases with keyboards for it, if you really need to use one heavily. Logitech has one coming out that even remaps touch functions to the keyboard, so things are getting interesting quickly.
But we really have to give this at least another two years to see where it's going. It's never fair to judge a new technology the first time it's out.
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app? I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment. I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
What good are patents? PC makers will copy this with an Android - Chrome lash up immediately.
Recent episode of Mad Men showed them faking a spec commercial for a new product just to induce a competing ad agency to expend a lot of money they couldn't afford to produce an actual spec commercial in order to stay in the race.
Would be cool if Apple could lead competitors down a rat hole by faking the development and impending release future product just to screw with them and waste their resources knowing their propensity for copying whatever Apple does.
The huge separation between the glass front and the display panel won't make for a very accurate touch screen and the sheer weight of the iMac screen + parts makes it impossible to swivel into portrait mode.
The ideal setup would be the lamp iMac:
The screen part is very lightweight and you'd pull it towards you, swivel it any way you want and everything would auto-orient. This could be a specialised iMac with the internals of the Mac Mini in the base + some extra weight and a 22" 16:10 IPS display. It can't be 16:9 as it's too thin to use in portrait.
Think of the above iMac but with a weighted aluminium dome base and a bigger display. It can have a smaller footprint than the Mini as some items can be stacked.
The price of that should match the current entry iMac. It would be slower but more energy efficient and still enough performance for most people.
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.
There is a huge difference between considered opinions and knee-jerk negativism. Your record in supplying plenty of the latter and your snarky tone precedes you, pal.
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.
I've got a news flash for you. It's not worthy counter opinions people are rejecting, it's only yours. Ponder the possibilities of why.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app? I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment. I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
You're looking at all the worst things to think about. I'm not saying that this would be good all the time. In my line of work, i used the CS suite, CAD and bunches of other programs.
I used Wacom tablets for much of this, and gee, that IS a tablet! I have the 12" Cintiq, and guess what, that's used instead of a screen for a lot of work. Since I'm retired, I didn't want to buy, and pay for the full sized model, but, guess what? If Apple realizes this with their touch OS, then Wacom is going to be selling a LOT less tablets.
laying the screen down would be bad? Where do you get that idea? It's nonsense. do you have an iPad? If so, do you type on it? Would you want to do so on a vertical screen, or one that's at a slight angle to the horizontal?
Your statement is shortsighted. It's a lack of foresight. You probably, assuming you're old enough, hated the idea of a mouse as well.
It's not likely that everything would be done at once, and possibly, it wouldn't be a good idea. Start with the most obvious, and work outwards. But Apple would have to get all the basic moves in place at once, so developers could see what the standards are.
This is an area where Apple has shown they have patience. When the iPod came out, people whined that it was way under-featured. Yet now it dominates the digital music scene and has grown into iOS and has changed the cell phone industry.
Quote:
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
Exactly. "Average" or "common" desktop screen-sizes have gone from 15" CRTs to 19" LCDs to 27" LCDs, and even multiple 20+" displays. With that increase in size comes a change in the effective ways to manipulate the UI. And laptops are already in your lap so the effort to touch the screen is small.
Quote:
I find that even with the much higher rez on the 27", screen elements are almost as large as they are on my iPad now, and with some resizing on Apple's part, could be just as large. That alone would solve a lot of problems.
Oh, resolution independence, when will you arrive? When can we stop defining UI elements in terms of pixels and start using inches, or millimeters, or angstroms?
You're looking at all the worst things to think about. I'm not saying that this would be good all the time. In my line of work, i used the CS suite, CAD and bunches of other programs.
I used Wacom tablets for much of this, and gee, that IS a tablet! I have the 12" Cintiq, and guess what, that's used instead of a screen for a lot of work. Since I'm retired, I didn't want to buy, and pay for the full sized model, but, guess what? If Apple realizes this with their touch OS, then Wacom is going to be selling a LOT less tablets.
laying the screen down would be bad? Where do you get that idea? It's nonsense. do you have an iPad? If so, do you type on it? Would you want to do so on a vertical screen, or one that's at a slight angle to the horizontal?
The iPad is different because one tends to use it as a mobile device (move around al ot while using it). Few people sit 8 hours at a stretch in front of an iPad. And yes, I have one. From an ergonomical standpoint a laptop is not a great tool for spending all day looking at, hence all the various devices and solutions for raising the screen to eye level. I imagine the same thing would happen to a horizontally angled iMac. The other issue with laying a screen flat is the reflections from ceiling lights. Neither of these points would necessarily be a deal breaker if the imac could also be used with another input device - which I think you are implying will / would happen.
Quote:
Your statement is shortsighted. It's a lack of foresight.
Really? Both? As a matter of fact from the moment I saw the iPad I have been a firm believer in the future of IOS and the widespread adoption of the iPad and have argued the case here since day one. I'm not sure why you are so grumpy.
Quote:
You probably, assuming you're old enough, hated the idea of a mouse as well.
I see virtual slide guitars and synth keyboards ... mmmmm
We should not forget Ballmer already has one, ok it is a converted pool table, weighs two tons and requires several cameras and costs a zillion dollars but ... they were first! Ballmer has one in his back room for parties i hear. You can make water ripple and move virtual pieces of paper and a few pictures around.
Large format touch screens have become well established on TV in the last couple of years. They have become common for weather maps, election coverage, etc. Although it makes me smile at how much trouble they can be. Their on-camera users often have to touch more than once to activate, and sometimes they behave unpredictably, and the user abandons his/her intention and moves on.
Despite (or perhaps because of) this we may be seeing the advent of a new class of computer/display. Touch input may be the best solution for the very extremes of devices: the very large and the small. Touch input is superior for small portable devices where the keyboard, mouse, touchpad paradigm just adds size and weight. This has been amply demonstrated in the success of the iPhone and iPod Touch, all the way up to tablet size as in the iPad. It has also been a success in whiteboard-scale devices such as the demo screen used on camera or in a conference.
Where the keyboard/mouse/touchpad continue to be superior is on desktop scale devices. Where the hand at the end of a relaxed arm can enter tons of input easily and effortlessly--and device size and weight are not an issue. Laptops are a hybrid between desktop and portability.
Bottom line: I cannot see how a touchscreen desktop will ever replace the fully matured standard we have now. For draftsmen and designers, a tabletop screen, yes. For general use standard screen size, no.
The battleground will be in the laptop/tablet arena where portability versus ease of use leaves no clear winner at present. Either touch screen pads and laptop/netbooks will continue to coexist and overlap with pads in usage, or some development in input technology will make button pushing or screen swiping/tapping either better or irrelevant.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app?
For many, many years drafters, engineers, scribes and other sorts of people worked with raised, slanted work surfaces. Imagine that whole desktop being the display, with a mouse & keyboard tray or even a keyboard & trackpad combination that could roam around the surface.
Quote:
I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment.
Is it? You have multiple control elements spread across an area. Think of the "inspector" windows that have become popular. What if you could touch a palette to make a tool active while leaving the cursor in the workspace? With my multiple monitor setup, I often find it annoying to move the pointer ALL THE WAY OVER THERE to click a UI element and then move ALLLL the way back to where I was working. Learning keyboard shortcuts eliminates this, but being able to reach out and tap the screen would help, too.
Quote:
I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
See drafting table comment above. IMHO, we moved to the current desk configuration because of typewriters and later CRT monitors. I'm not saying a tilted work area is appropriate everywhere, but it could be far more widely used than it currently is.
Bottom line: I cannot see how a touchscreen desktop will ever replace the fully matured standard we have now. For draftsmen and designers, a tabletop screen, yes. For general use standard screen size, no.
I think manufacturing costs will dictate this. If the marginal cost of putting a touch sensitive layer, coating, whatever is low enough, manufacturers will only make touch sensitive displays. I think we're seeing this with the 3D nonsense. Refresh rates have gotten so high that modern displays can show pictures faster than the human eye can sense. Solution? Render a separate image for each eye!
All the touch screen phones (and coming tablets) are lowering the cost of adding touch to displays. Soon it will be practical to put touch on "full size" displays. When that happens, it won't matter whether you want or need it, it'll be a feature check item that everyone will have.
For many, many years drafters, engineers, scribes and other sorts of people worked with raised, slanted work surfaces. Imagine that whole desktop being the display, with a mouse & keyboard tray or even a keyboard & trackpad combination that could roam around the surface.
Yes, that is very much the kind of thing I was talking about re the studio set-up. Why it is such a different environment, like the ones you describe above, is that they are very 'physical' by nature, for lack of a better word. Certainly in a movie sound studio there is a lot of 'moving about'. As far as the drafting tables go - yes sure but that's pretty niche in the grand scheme of things.
For these kind of professional environments I certainly can see the use for large touch screens as well as large screens with large (larger than the touch pad) touch input devices that are dedicate through software. Imagine a double length iPad lying on the table in front of you. But again - very niche.
Quote:
IMHO, we moved to the current desk configuration because of typewriters and later CRT monitors. I'm not saying a tilted work area is appropriate everywhere, but it could be far more widely used than it currently is.
Certainly don't dispute that. The great thing about touch screen input, whether through the monitor itself or as a peripheral, is that it is software driven. Anybody who works with Avid (or similar) editing, know that the keyboard is not the greatest controller. I can see all sorts of uses in industry, stores, warehousing as well. But for the vast majority of people I think that reaching out and touching your 27" screen across the table, or spread out across the desk would be a major pain (eventually becoming physical reaching the neck and shoulders)
Comments
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.
It doesn't have to be either OS X or iOS. It could be a way if having both, letting you use keyboard functions and touch functions. Use whatever you want for the task at hand.
After all, we still have keyboard shortcuts, even though we've had a mouse for decades now.
We could even have a choice depending on the program we're running. Run a touch based program, and the choices are mostly touch based. Run a keyboard based one, and that applies. It could be modal. Touch the screen and a touch based UI takes over, until you click on the keyboard.
I'm just coming up with some very off the cuff ideas. I'm sure with more thought, this can be worked out satisfactorily.
Remember that a counterpoint to your argument was that the mouse and drop down menu system was terribly inefficient. It required you to remove your hand from the keyboard, and was supposed to be very bad. A lot of people who had invested time in character based programs said that it was much better memorizing the 500 to 600 two and three letter key combo's than it was to use a mouse, and GUI's were so much slower anyway.
Some people will always have to be dragged into new worlds.
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 think I may have given the wrong impression. I absolutely believe IOS and OSX will move towards one another, if not merge, over time. What I don't believe is that the present iMac with OSX will gain touch interface in any other way than through a trackpad. Apple, or someone else, may create a touch screen for imacs for use in certain places, such as retail (doesn't it already exist?) but a larger IOS device would be the far superior solution. I am surprised that there isn't already a stand for the iPad with a POS application.
I believe Apple will bring out a larger touch based device (on a stand) but it will run a version of IOS and not OSX.
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.
It's ok for you to disagree, just do it in a useful manner, and try to see both sides. That means the good as well as the bad. What tires people out is when a few people come on the boards and almost never have anything good to say. Even the very worst companies have something good, and Apple isn't one of those.
All that said, I'd buy my iPad again all day every day. And the iPhone? Foggettaboutit! It's awesome. And that ATV...if my iMac was not also my main tv, I'd be all over that. So apple can sell me all kinds of stuff it seems, because it all has it's place. May OS X live long and prosper!
I think I may have given the wrong impression. I absolutely believe IOS and OSX will move towards one another, if not merge, over time. What I don't believe is that the present iMac with OSX will gain touch interface in any other way than through a trackpad. Apple, or someone else, may create a touch screen for imacs for use in certain places, such as retail (doesn't it already exist?) but a larger IOS device would be the far superior solution. I am surprised that there isn't already a stand for the iPad with a POS application.
I believe Apple will bring out a larger touch based device (on a stand) but it will run a version of IOS and not OSX.
I don't think that will happen in the long run is because of the reasons I've stated. There are just too many advantages in combining the two, and no good reason why they can't be.
It's not likely that everything would be done at once, and possibly, it wouldn't be a good idea. Start with the most obvious, and work outwards. But Apple would have to get all the basic moves in place at once, so developers could see what the standards are.
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
And let me say that a lot of what we're reading about a touch based OS using "old fashioned" mouse based GUI's aren't correct.
It's very true that OS X would work terribly on a 10" screen because the elements would be far too small. but with a little modification of their sizes, it would work just fine on a 21.5 or larger screen.
I find that even with the much higher rez on the 27", screen elements are almost as large as they are on my iPad now, and with some resizing on Apple's part, could be just as large. That alone would solve a lot of problems.
I love my iPad and iPhone but when I need to get working or really fly around the web even, I hit the iMac. Everything takes longer with a touchscreen, cut, paste and rearrange text in an email. Open up a bunch of browser tabs and do some quick research...then cut/paste to respond to a comment or email. Etc... I won't even get into using a program like inDesign (I get paid for that so time is money!) or Filemaker (development, not just populating fields with a few clicks and keystrokes). What about examining and working with web page source code? A keyboard and magic mouse rule for these tasks. I can't imagine doing them all day on a touch screen. Maybe I lack imagination but I would never even want to be saddled with only ios for these things unless ios turns into a radically different animal than it is now. And maybe it will, but that is certainly not a forgone conclusion.
All that said, I'd buy my iPad again all day every day. And the iPhone? Foggettaboutit! It's awesome. And that ATV...if my iMac was not also my main tv, I'd be all over that. So apple can sell me all kinds of stuff it seems, because it all has it's place. May OS X live long and prosper!
I've found that the web on the iPad is much more fun than on my MacPro. not that using the desktop isn't better at times. But's that's much more a function of the large screen so I can have Safari open on the left, and Mail open on the right.It's not really a function of touch based vs keyboard based.
And of course, the iPad is in the first generation. We have to give it some time. There are already cases with keyboards for it, if you really need to use one heavily. Logitech has one coming out that even remaps touch functions to the keyboard, so things are getting interesting quickly.
But we really have to give this at least another two years to see where it's going. It's never fair to judge a new technology the first time it's out.
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app? I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment. I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
What good are patents? PC makers will copy this with an Android - Chrome lash up immediately.
Recent episode of Mad Men showed them faking a spec commercial for a new product just to induce a competing ad agency to expend a lot of money they couldn't afford to produce an actual spec commercial in order to stay in the race.
Would be cool if Apple could lead competitors down a rat hole by faking the development and impending release future product just to screw with them and waste their resources knowing their propensity for copying whatever Apple does.
The ideal setup would be the lamp iMac:
The screen part is very lightweight and you'd pull it towards you, swivel it any way you want and everything would auto-orient. This could be a specialised iMac with the internals of the Mac Mini in the base + some extra weight and a 22" 16:10 IPS display. It can't be 16:9 as it's too thin to use in portrait.
Think of the above iMac but with a weighted aluminium dome base and a bigger display. It can have a smaller footprint than the Mini as some items can be stacked.
The price of that should match the current entry iMac. It would be slower but more energy efficient and still enough performance for most people.
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.
There is a huge difference between considered opinions and knee-jerk negativism. Your record in supplying plenty of the latter and your snarky tone precedes you, pal.
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.
I've got a news flash for you. It's not worthy counter opinions people are rejecting, it's only yours. Ponder the possibilities of why.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app? I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment. I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
You're looking at all the worst things to think about. I'm not saying that this would be good all the time. In my line of work, i used the CS suite, CAD and bunches of other programs.
I used Wacom tablets for much of this, and gee, that IS a tablet! I have the 12" Cintiq, and guess what, that's used instead of a screen for a lot of work. Since I'm retired, I didn't want to buy, and pay for the full sized model, but, guess what? If Apple realizes this with their touch OS, then Wacom is going to be selling a LOT less tablets.
laying the screen down would be bad? Where do you get that idea? It's nonsense. do you have an iPad? If so, do you type on it? Would you want to do so on a vertical screen, or one that's at a slight angle to the horizontal?
Your statement is shortsighted. It's a lack of foresight. You probably, assuming you're old enough, hated the idea of a mouse as well.
It's not likely that everything would be done at once, and possibly, it wouldn't be a good idea. Start with the most obvious, and work outwards. But Apple would have to get all the basic moves in place at once, so developers could see what the standards are.
This is an area where Apple has shown they have patience. When the iPod came out, people whined that it was way under-featured. Yet now it dominates the digital music scene and has grown into iOS and has changed the cell phone industry.
Even on my 27" screen, it would be easier to reach up and drag a window around than to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the spot where it's enabled, and then move it. There are more than a few functions that I would already prefer to do on the screen than on the keyboard or mouse. It's actually faster. If I could move the monitor down, almost flat, there are a lot of functions I would prefer to do with my finger.
Exactly. "Average" or "common" desktop screen-sizes have gone from 15" CRTs to 19" LCDs to 27" LCDs, and even multiple 20+" displays. With that increase in size comes a change in the effective ways to manipulate the UI. And laptops are already in your lap so the effort to touch the screen is small.
I find that even with the much higher rez on the 27", screen elements are almost as large as they are on my iPad now, and with some resizing on Apple's part, could be just as large. That alone would solve a lot of problems.
Oh, resolution independence, when will you arrive? When can we stop defining UI elements in terms of pixels and start using inches, or millimeters, or angstroms?
- Jasen.
You're looking at all the worst things to think about. I'm not saying that this would be good all the time. In my line of work, i used the CS suite, CAD and bunches of other programs.
I used Wacom tablets for much of this, and gee, that IS a tablet! I have the 12" Cintiq, and guess what, that's used instead of a screen for a lot of work. Since I'm retired, I didn't want to buy, and pay for the full sized model, but, guess what? If Apple realizes this with their touch OS, then Wacom is going to be selling a LOT less tablets.
laying the screen down would be bad? Where do you get that idea? It's nonsense. do you have an iPad? If so, do you type on it? Would you want to do so on a vertical screen, or one that's at a slight angle to the horizontal?
The iPad is different because one tends to use it as a mobile device (move around al ot while using it). Few people sit 8 hours at a stretch in front of an iPad. And yes, I have one. From an ergonomical standpoint a laptop is not a great tool for spending all day looking at, hence all the various devices and solutions for raising the screen to eye level. I imagine the same thing would happen to a horizontally angled iMac. The other issue with laying a screen flat is the reflections from ceiling lights. Neither of these points would necessarily be a deal breaker if the imac could also be used with another input device - which I think you are implying will / would happen.
Your statement is shortsighted. It's a lack of foresight.
Really? Both? As a matter of fact from the moment I saw the iPad I have been a firm believer in the future of IOS and the widespread adoption of the iPad and have argued the case here since day one. I'm not sure why you are so grumpy.
You probably, assuming you're old enough, hated the idea of a mouse as well.
You're funny. But no, I always had a mouse.
I see virtual slide guitars and synth keyboards ... mmmmm
We should not forget Ballmer already has one, ok it is a converted pool table, weighs two tons and requires several cameras and costs a zillion dollars but ... they were first! Ballmer has one in his back room for parties i hear. You can make water ripple and move virtual pieces of paper and a few pictures around.
Good for you. That's one in a million who would.
Despite (or perhaps because of) this we may be seeing the advent of a new class of computer/display. Touch input may be the best solution for the very extremes of devices: the very large and the small. Touch input is superior for small portable devices where the keyboard, mouse, touchpad paradigm just adds size and weight. This has been amply demonstrated in the success of the iPhone and iPod Touch, all the way up to tablet size as in the iPad. It has also been a success in whiteboard-scale devices such as the demo screen used on camera or in a conference.
Where the keyboard/mouse/touchpad continue to be superior is on desktop scale devices. Where the hand at the end of a relaxed arm can enter tons of input easily and effortlessly--and device size and weight are not an issue. Laptops are a hybrid between desktop and portability.
Bottom line: I cannot see how a touchscreen desktop will ever replace the fully matured standard we have now. For draftsmen and designers, a tabletop screen, yes. For general use standard screen size, no.
The battleground will be in the laptop/tablet arena where portability versus ease of use leaves no clear winner at present. Either touch screen pads and laptop/netbooks will continue to coexist and overlap with pads in usage, or some development in input technology will make button pushing or screen swiping/tapping either better or irrelevant.
Just my inexpert opinion.
I don't know what you do for a living but I can't think of anything worse. The track pad is pretty good at allowing some kind of touch interface but to reach out across the desk and touch the screen all day... never. Can you imagine anybody working on a spreadsheet doing that? Or a desktop publishing app?
For many, many years drafters, engineers, scribes and other sorts of people worked with raised, slanted work surfaces. Imagine that whole desktop being the display, with a mouse & keyboard tray or even a keyboard & trackpad combination that could roam around the surface.
I have worked in studios with touch interface audio mixing desks and it works great. But that's a very different environment.
Is it? You have multiple control elements spread across an area. Think of the "inspector" windows that have become popular. What if you could touch a palette to make a tool active while leaving the cursor in the workspace? With my multiple monitor setup, I often find it annoying to move the pointer ALL THE WAY OVER THERE to click a UI element and then move ALLLL the way back to where I was working. Learning keyboard shortcuts eliminates this, but being able to reach out and tap the screen would help, too.
I can imagine fully touch keyboards and track pads, I can imagine small touch devices such as iPads and even larger. I can envision them mounted with keyboards and I can even see a 27" imac with a future iteration of IOS. But a touch screen 27" imac is ridiculous - unless it has some other kind of input device as well, of course. As far as laying the screen down - that would be an ergonomical killer, wouldn't it?
See drafting table comment above. IMHO, we moved to the current desk configuration because of typewriters and later CRT monitors. I'm not saying a tilted work area is appropriate everywhere, but it could be far more widely used than it currently is.
- Jasen.
Bottom line: I cannot see how a touchscreen desktop will ever replace the fully matured standard we have now. For draftsmen and designers, a tabletop screen, yes. For general use standard screen size, no.
I think manufacturing costs will dictate this. If the marginal cost of putting a touch sensitive layer, coating, whatever is low enough, manufacturers will only make touch sensitive displays. I think we're seeing this with the 3D nonsense. Refresh rates have gotten so high that modern displays can show pictures faster than the human eye can sense. Solution? Render a separate image for each eye!
All the touch screen phones (and coming tablets) are lowering the cost of adding touch to displays. Soon it will be practical to put touch on "full size" displays. When that happens, it won't matter whether you want or need it, it'll be a feature check item that everyone will have.
- Jasen.
For many, many years drafters, engineers, scribes and other sorts of people worked with raised, slanted work surfaces. Imagine that whole desktop being the display, with a mouse & keyboard tray or even a keyboard & trackpad combination that could roam around the surface.
Yes, that is very much the kind of thing I was talking about re the studio set-up. Why it is such a different environment, like the ones you describe above, is that they are very 'physical' by nature, for lack of a better word. Certainly in a movie sound studio there is a lot of 'moving about'. As far as the drafting tables go - yes sure but that's pretty niche in the grand scheme of things.
For these kind of professional environments I certainly can see the use for large touch screens as well as large screens with large (larger than the touch pad) touch input devices that are dedicate through software. Imagine a double length iPad lying on the table in front of you. But again - very niche.
IMHO, we moved to the current desk configuration because of typewriters and later CRT monitors. I'm not saying a tilted work area is appropriate everywhere, but it could be far more widely used than it currently is.
Certainly don't dispute that. The great thing about touch screen input, whether through the monitor itself or as a peripheral, is that it is software driven. Anybody who works with Avid (or similar) editing, know that the keyboard is not the greatest controller. I can see all sorts of uses in industry, stores, warehousing as well. But for the vast majority of people I think that reaching out and touching your 27" screen across the table, or spread out across the desk would be a major pain (eventually becoming physical reaching the neck and shoulders)