Hey...I'm very OPEN minded. I totally embrace change when it makes sense. For instance, I personally can't wait for apple to do away with the CD/DVD drives in laptops and eventually iMacs while others aren't as willing to let them go.
But a touch screen iMac is a novelty at best to me, and certainly won't replace using a keyboard or trackpad which makes sense. Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.
Sure, I could see where it might be fun to be able to swipe your finger across the screen or Tap on a certain item to select it....lol...but why? Again, that's my opinion. Not ignorance. And saying I wouldn't use it is true. I wouldn't. Not when I could keep my hands on the desk and do it much quicker with the mouse or trackpad. I work out at the gym, I don't need to work out my arms while using my iMac. Lol.
In the words of the immortal MC Hammer.....CANT TOUCH THIS! DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO....CANT TOUCH THIS! :-)
Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.
When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.
When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.
Dude. With all due respect, I AM LOOKING AT THE PICTURE of your retro iMac design.....and I stand by my opinion that a persons arm would get tired trying to use it as a touch screen.
It doesn't matter if the screen is vertical or horizontal....it's still raised at an awkward angle that would make using it like a giant iPad UNCOMFORTABLE.
Do you think just because you turn the screen up and flat like a table that it would make it comfortable? You'd still have to raise your arms at an uncomfortable angle to use itl in fact, I'd say it'd be even more awkward than if the screen was in it's normal position!
Again...this is just my opinion. It's not a "campaign" against yours. Lol. Stop being so sensitive. I just think it's a silly design. I am sure many agree with me. Some may like your design. I dont. Nothing personal. Just don't think it makes sense.
I seriously doubt Apple will abandon the current iMac design evolution and go back to a lampshade design. If I was a gambling man, I'd bet ya good money on it. But I'm not...so I guess were gonna have to just wait and see. :-)
It doesn't matter if the screen is vertical or horizontal....it's still raised at an awkward angle that would make using it like a giant iPad UNCOMFORTABLE.
OF COURSE it's at an 'awkward' angle. That would be because it's a mockup based on old parts.
For frick's sake, any desktop touchscreen solution will be at an angle between 3 and 7 degrees, maximum.
OF COURSE it's at an 'awkward' angle. That would be because it's a mockup based on old parts.
For frick's sake, any desktop touchscreen solution will be at an angle between 3 and 7 degrees, maximum.
Again...it doesn't matter. Using an iMac screen for any length of time at ANY angle would be annoying. It's not an iPad that you can hold in your lap or an iPod or iPhone you can hold in your hand. Even if you could detach the screen... LOL....and lay it on the table.....WHY would you? Lol.
Seriously. I stand by my belief that tis a silly idea.
And I'd bet good money that IF.....IF apple does incorporate some touch ability to iMac screens in the future....they will be meant for very limited use compared to more traditional and comfortable methods.
I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.
But hey...this is just a future forum where we all throw out ideas and give opinions on what we think.
No biggie. I think it's cool that people make mock ups and concept designs. It's fun.
So you don't use a keyboard or trackpad at all, then. I don't get it. It's exactly the same as using the two things sitting on your desktop right now.
I'm completely agreed. The mockup does the stand incorrectly. Wish I could say more about how to fix it.
LOL. Boy you don't give up do you? You're like a pit bull holding onto your opinion. I respect that. Lol. Seriously. I do.
But to answer your first quote....using a keyboard or a trackpad is NOT the same thing. Both those items are FLAT on the desk, meaning your arms and or wrists are comfortably supported.
Unless you'll be able to DETACH the iMac touch screen and lay it flat on the table(which is ridiculous)....you'll HAVE to raise your arms off the table to touch the screen. Typing like this would be ridiculous let alone doing any tasks for long periods of time. So it's COMPLETELY different than using a keyboard and trackpad.
Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.
I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.
There are a couple of problems with it that lead to the design though. With everything inside the screen, you make the screen very heavy and inflexible to adjustment. You also have IO and power ports at the back, which mean you could never lay it flat.
These two things mean you either abandon the idea of using touch or you change the design. With the above design, the display and computer are not together so you can put the IO and power ports in the base, which stays fixed. The display is much lighter than even a Cinema display as the power supply is in the base, which helps counter-balance the weight.
Concerning the angle, Apple's own iPad stand angles the display up, it's not flat:
but I suspect you'd want to use a hardware keyboard anyway while typing with the iMac. The big feature is that it lets you use iOS-type apps.
In terms of it being a step back for performance, in some way it could be but the current 65W CPUs match the old high-end i7 quads. Obviously the new ones will be faster still but it's not any slower and components will continue to get more powerful with lower power consumption.
In many ways I can see why people consider the current design the best and touch capabilities being added via a supplemental device e.g iPad or trackpad but I think the bigger the screen you can interact with directly the better. When you see some of the demos from Jeff Han (note the angled surface ), you can see how it would be a good way to use certain apps:
I can feel the discomfort caused from that just by reading this.
You're getting into troll territory now. Try using a carpenter's level on your keyboard and tell me it's "FLAT" on the desk. See that angle? The one it creates? THAT'S THE ANGLE OF THE TOUCHSCREEN. Why has it taken you so long to understand this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by now
Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesterday
This is so retarded I don't even know where to begin. Some techno geek with too much time on their hands and Photoshop created this image in their moms basement.
What baffled me back in 2002/2003 was that my TiPb screen was so slender and the iMac G4 20" floating screen was nearer the volume of two whole Powerbooks. I know there were a couple of aerials in the display and an LED but still it was relatively chunky.
But I don't see Apple going back now.
I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.
Feeling the weight of the MBA/MBP screen the arm and base would not need to be nearly so robust. So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are. Without the battery the MBA base could be slimmed down still further and would be barely any bigger than the Apple keyboard and Magic Trackpad are anyhow. The Thunderbolt and other ports would go on the back rather than sides. With slim SSDs replacing some of the battery space the speed would be kept up even with a fairly cheap processor.
P.S. Both my iMac G4 20" and TiPb 1GHz still doing useful service today.
I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.
To some extent but the lower power Sandy Bridge chips perform on the same level as the current high-end iMac so they can still make high performance machines with more flexible designs. I actually think quad-core desktops (especially hyper-threaded) are the big step for desktops to hit before people stop caring about CPU performance and Apple can focus more on storage performance, GPU performance and the user experience.
There always seems to be a switching point where they change the emphasis in their products and it feels like a backward step because compromises have to be made but technology catches up. Sometimes I feel that the changes are made way too early and the compromises too great but technology catches up nonetheless.
The first iMac G3 had so many compromises vs the beige towers. Limited RAM expansion, no easy access to hard drives, slow 233MHz CPU, no GPU upgrades, no PCI, no IO beyond ethernet and USB, no DVD drive. The emphasis was on it being an appliance.
The spec was: 233MHz, 66MHz system bus, 32-384MB RAM, 2MB ATI Rage GPU, 4GB HDD, 24x CD-ROM, 2x USB 1.1, 10/100 ethernet. $1299.
The performance and capability in that machine is outclassed and outpriced by a phone made within a decade of it, which has a motherboard barely bigger than your thumb.
Right now, the iPhone and iPad have opened up a whole new world of touch capability and it's very clear to me that this is how we should be interacting with computers for certain tasks. The trackpad and touch mouse give some movement towards this kind of capability but it's not enough because it can't match the functionality of those devices.
The obvious question is whether or not it needs to but when you see the level of ingenuity in the way information can be presented on the touch devices, there's no reason to hold that back from a more powerful platform. Why should you have to buy a $500 tablet to get interactive magazines on a 10" screen when you just spent $1000+ on a computer with a 20"+ screen that is perfectly capable of doing the same thing?
Ultimately, you resign yourself to one of two options: either you forget direct touch interaction on the iMac or you have to redesign it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes
So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are.
I did like that idea at one point but I don't think it would be popular. If you want to use a different keyboard, you have two keyboard foot-prints on your desk and if your keys break or you spill coffee on it, it could cause big problems. The form factor is also not too good compared to the Mini for server or media centre use. Having a single Mini-DP/TB cable can get round the peripheral issue but it would restrict movement of the keyboard. Plus, you then have two power cables and a connection cable again vs a single power cable.
I like the keyboard idea from the point of view of allowing you to have your own display but again the Mini does this and there would be little incentive to take on a touch display if the display was purely standalone. In much the same way people just wouldn't buy a 27" display unless there was a fast computer in there. Some technology has to be forced on people until they realise why it's better - one of the most important technologies that Apple has done this for is IPS display technology.
Until we had capacitive touch along with intuitive gestures, people were generally content with mobile phone keypads because when you fit yourself into a workflow and accept the constraints, you don't really see why there needs to be a change.
Comments
I just don't see how a touch screen iMac makes sense. And I'll never change my mind about that.
Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy close-mindedness.
But a touch screen iMac is a novelty at best to me, and certainly won't replace using a keyboard or trackpad which makes sense. Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.
Sure, I could see where it might be fun to be able to swipe your finger across the screen or Tap on a certain item to select it....lol...but why? Again, that's my opinion. Not ignorance. And saying I wouldn't use it is true. I wouldn't. Not when I could keep my hands on the desk and do it much quicker with the mouse or trackpad. I work out at the gym, I don't need to work out my arms while using my iMac. Lol.
In the words of the immortal MC Hammer.....CANT TOUCH THIS! DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO....CANT TOUCH THIS! :-)
Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.
When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.
When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.
Dude. With all due respect, I AM LOOKING AT THE PICTURE of your retro iMac design.....and I stand by my opinion that a persons arm would get tired trying to use it as a touch screen.
It doesn't matter if the screen is vertical or horizontal....it's still raised at an awkward angle that would make using it like a giant iPad UNCOMFORTABLE.
Do you think just because you turn the screen up and flat like a table that it would make it comfortable? You'd still have to raise your arms at an uncomfortable angle to use itl in fact, I'd say it'd be even more awkward than if the screen was in it's normal position!
Again...this is just my opinion. It's not a "campaign" against yours. Lol. Stop being so sensitive. I just think it's a silly design. I am sure many agree with me. Some may like your design. I dont. Nothing personal. Just don't think it makes sense.
I seriously doubt Apple will abandon the current iMac design evolution and go back to a lampshade design. If I was a gambling man, I'd bet ya good money on it. But I'm not...so I guess were gonna have to just wait and see. :-)
It doesn't matter if the screen is vertical or horizontal....it's still raised at an awkward angle that would make using it like a giant iPad UNCOMFORTABLE.
OF COURSE it's at an 'awkward' angle. That would be because it's a mockup based on old parts.
For frick's sake, any desktop touchscreen solution will be at an angle between 3 and 7 degrees, maximum.
OF COURSE it's at an 'awkward' angle. That would be because it's a mockup based on old parts.
For frick's sake, any desktop touchscreen solution will be at an angle between 3 and 7 degrees, maximum.
Again...it doesn't matter. Using an iMac screen for any length of time at ANY angle would be annoying. It's not an iPad that you can hold in your lap or an iPod or iPhone you can hold in your hand. Even if you could detach the screen... LOL....and lay it on the table.....WHY would you? Lol.
Seriously. I stand by my belief that tis a silly idea.
And I'd bet good money that IF.....IF apple does incorporate some touch ability to iMac screens in the future....they will be meant for very limited use compared to more traditional and comfortable methods.
I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.
But hey...this is just a future forum where we all throw out ideas and give opinions on what we think.
No biggie. I think it's cool that people make mock ups and concept designs. It's fun.
Again...it doesn't matter. Using an iMac screen for any length of time at ANY angle would be annoying.
So you don't use a keyboard or trackpad at all, then. I don't get it. It's exactly the same as using the two things sitting on your desktop right now.
Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.
I'm completely agreed. The mockup does the stand incorrectly. Wish I could say more about how to fix it.
So you don't use a keyboard or trackpad at all, then. I don't get it. It's exactly the same as using the two things sitting on your desktop right now.
I'm completely agreed. The mockup does the stand incorrectly. Wish I could say more about how to fix it.
LOL. Boy you don't give up do you? You're like a pit bull holding onto your opinion. I respect that. Lol. Seriously. I do.
But to answer your first quote....using a keyboard or a trackpad is NOT the same thing. Both those items are FLAT on the desk, meaning your arms and or wrists are comfortably supported.
Unless you'll be able to DETACH the iMac touch screen and lay it flat on the table(which is ridiculous)....you'll HAVE to raise your arms off the table to touch the screen. Typing like this would be ridiculous let alone doing any tasks for long periods of time. So it's COMPLETELY different than using a keyboard and trackpad.
Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.
I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.
There are a couple of problems with it that lead to the design though. With everything inside the screen, you make the screen very heavy and inflexible to adjustment. You also have IO and power ports at the back, which mean you could never lay it flat.
These two things mean you either abandon the idea of using touch or you change the design. With the above design, the display and computer are not together so you can put the IO and power ports in the base, which stays fixed. The display is much lighter than even a Cinema display as the power supply is in the base, which helps counter-balance the weight.
Concerning the angle, Apple's own iPad stand angles the display up, it's not flat:
but I suspect you'd want to use a hardware keyboard anyway while typing with the iMac. The big feature is that it lets you use iOS-type apps.
In terms of it being a step back for performance, in some way it could be but the current 65W CPUs match the old high-end i7 quads. Obviously the new ones will be faster still but it's not any slower and components will continue to get more powerful with lower power consumption.
In many ways I can see why people consider the current design the best and touch capabilities being added via a supplemental device e.g iPad or trackpad but I think the bigger the screen you can interact with directly the better. When you see some of the demos from Jeff Han (note the angled surface
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKh1Rv0PlOQ
Even like a digital drafting table although the screen would need to be more secured:
http://www.larsi.org/projects/VisionMaperPS/
A better design could well be simply having the 27" iMac collapse down and just move the IO ports e.g combine with the power cable or something.
keyboard... ...FLAT on the desk...
I can feel the discomfort caused from that just by reading this.
You're getting into troll territory now. Try using a carpenter's level on your keyboard and tell me it's "FLAT" on the desk. See that angle? The one it creates? THAT'S THE ANGLE OF THE TOUCHSCREEN. Why has it taken you so long to understand this?
Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.
This is so retarded I don't even know where to begin. Some techno geek with too much time on their hands and Photoshop created this image in their moms basement.
Don't be a child.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1343807
What baffled me back in 2002/2003 was that my TiPb screen was so slender and the iMac G4 20" floating screen was nearer the volume of two whole Powerbooks. I know there were a couple of aerials in the display and an LED but still it was relatively chunky.
But I don't see Apple going back now.
I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.
Feeling the weight of the MBA/MBP screen the arm and base would not need to be nearly so robust. So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are. Without the battery the MBA base could be slimmed down still further and would be barely any bigger than the Apple keyboard and Magic Trackpad are anyhow. The Thunderbolt and other ports would go on the back rather than sides. With slim SSDs replacing some of the battery space the speed would be kept up even with a fairly cheap processor.
P.S. Both my iMac G4 20" and TiPb 1GHz still doing useful service today.
I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.
To some extent but the lower power Sandy Bridge chips perform on the same level as the current high-end iMac so they can still make high performance machines with more flexible designs. I actually think quad-core desktops (especially hyper-threaded) are the big step for desktops to hit before people stop caring about CPU performance and Apple can focus more on storage performance, GPU performance and the user experience.
There always seems to be a switching point where they change the emphasis in their products and it feels like a backward step because compromises have to be made but technology catches up. Sometimes I feel that the changes are made way too early and the compromises too great but technology catches up nonetheless.
The first iMac G3 had so many compromises vs the beige towers. Limited RAM expansion, no easy access to hard drives, slow 233MHz CPU, no GPU upgrades, no PCI, no IO beyond ethernet and USB, no DVD drive. The emphasis was on it being an appliance.
The spec was: 233MHz, 66MHz system bus, 32-384MB RAM, 2MB ATI Rage GPU, 4GB HDD, 24x CD-ROM, 2x USB 1.1, 10/100 ethernet. $1299.
The performance and capability in that machine is outclassed and outpriced by a phone made within a decade of it, which has a motherboard barely bigger than your thumb.
Right now, the iPhone and iPad have opened up a whole new world of touch capability and it's very clear to me that this is how we should be interacting with computers for certain tasks. The trackpad and touch mouse give some movement towards this kind of capability but it's not enough because it can't match the functionality of those devices.
The obvious question is whether or not it needs to but when you see the level of ingenuity in the way information can be presented on the touch devices, there's no reason to hold that back from a more powerful platform. Why should you have to buy a $500 tablet to get interactive magazines on a 10" screen when you just spent $1000+ on a computer with a 20"+ screen that is perfectly capable of doing the same thing?
Ultimately, you resign yourself to one of two options: either you forget direct touch interaction on the iMac or you have to redesign it.
So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are.
I did like that idea at one point but I don't think it would be popular. If you want to use a different keyboard, you have two keyboard foot-prints on your desk and if your keys break or you spill coffee on it, it could cause big problems. The form factor is also not too good compared to the Mini for server or media centre use. Having a single Mini-DP/TB cable can get round the peripheral issue but it would restrict movement of the keyboard. Plus, you then have two power cables and a connection cable again vs a single power cable.
I like the keyboard idea from the point of view of allowing you to have your own display but again the Mini does this and there would be little incentive to take on a touch display if the display was purely standalone. In much the same way people just wouldn't buy a 27" display unless there was a fast computer in there. Some technology has to be forced on people until they realise why it's better - one of the most important technologies that Apple has done this for is IPS display technology.
Until we had capacitive touch along with intuitive gestures, people were generally content with mobile phone keypads because when you fit yourself into a workflow and accept the constraints, you don't really see why there needs to be a change.