Steve Jobs Was Wrong About Touchscreen Laptops
theodp writes "Don't believe everything Steve Jobs and Tim Cook tell you, advises The Verge's Sean Hollister. Gunshy of touchscreen laptops after hearing the two Apple CEOs dismiss the technology (Jobs: 'Touch surfaces don't want to be vertical.' Cook: 'You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those things are probably not gonna be pleasing to the user.'), Hollister was surprised to discover that Windows 8 touchscreen laptops actually don't suck and that the dreaded 'Gorilla Arm Syndrome' did not materialize. 'The more I've used Windows 8, despite its faults, the more I've become convinced that touchscreens are the future — even vertical ones,' writes Hollister. 'We've been looking at this all wrong. A touchscreen isn't a replacement for a keyboard or mouse, it's a complement.' Echoing a prediction from Coding Horror's Jeff Atwood that 'it is only a matter of time before all laptops must be touch laptops,' Hollister wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple eventually embraces-and-extends the tech: 'Microsoft might have validated the idea, but now Apple has another chance to swoop in, perfecting and popularizing the very interface that it strategically ridiculed just two years ago. It wouldn't be the first time. After all, how many iPad minis come with sandpaper for filing fingers down?'"
It's very possible that the reason we think touchscreen laptops are a bad idea has nothing to do with Steve Jobs or Apple.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
" I'm not going to touch-type 70 words per minute on a touchscreen keyboard. But when I'm in the cramped quarters of a train, plane, or standing in a line — say, when the only thing standing between a critical email and its recipient is a few dozen words and a tap of the button marked "Send" — I can grab that Windows 8 laptop by its hinged section, one hand on either side of the screen, and tap out that message with my thumbs."
You have to be kidding me. That is the most ridiculous way to type anything on a laptop. Ever.
Touchscreens have been around for decades. If pointing your arm at a vertical surface was such a hot idea for 8 hours a day, why have we not seen touchscreens being used everywhere for the last 30 years? NEC had an excellent touchscreen in the mid 80s. This isn't new technology and writing articles presenting it as new tech doesn't make it new.
Gorilla arm exists. Fatigue exists. Keyboards and other stuff are better input devices than touchscreens and probably always will be, except for the times you *can't* have a keyboard or mouse/tablet/trackball/etc., like a factory floor, restaurant, bar, hospital cart in sugery, etc, where dirt, grime, bodily fluids are a threat to operation, or where ease of portability trumps having a better input device, like tablets or phones (styluses are passe).
If touch was so superior for every day use, we'd already be using it.
--
BMO
Microsoft never ceases to amaze me at their skill in manipulating the press, reviewers of tech, and a certain group of power users into pushing all of this crap down our throats. I take the word of the Independent Software Vendors that have chastised Windows 8 time and time again better than a bunch of pundits working for a bunch of sell-out bloggers and news agencies. Microsoft is a dying empire, with Windows 2000/Office 2000 being it's peak. Ever since then it's been down hill with the occasional plateau. I'm just waiting for someone else to come in and do better. Right now if you're looking to build a whitebox machine and load it up with the latest and greatest, you're going to be full of disappointment.
Sig: I stole this sig.
It's funny how the criticisms of touch get brushed aside and people like you and SINternet insult the people criticizing.
"You haven't used it long enough!"
"You're a luddite!"
"You're lazy!"
"It's really great, you're just old!"
"Look, this 3 year old can open a program! If you don't like it, you're stupider than a 3 year old!"
And on and on it goes.
Good job selling us on this. Really. Good. Job.
> New things can take some getting used to
Hey, this isn't marmite in this sandwich. It smells like shit! Hey, wait...
"Just take smaller bites!"
--
BMO
So you're suggesting that we should never have transitioned from horses and buggies to motor cars, because driving a car takes some getting used to? The fact of the matter is that if you haven't used something, you can't make an informed opinion of it. You can have an opinion, and you're welcome to have that opinion, but it won't be an informed opinion.
More like, should we transition from horses and buggies to llamas and rowboats?
Because that's what Microsoft is now expecting us to do with Windows 8.
I can easily use a mouse and keyboard at the same time. Having to reach up to do an operation would seriously piss me off and cut my productivity in half.
Then how about only using touch where it makes sense and saves you time, and stick to keyboard and mouse where it makes sense and saves time. My favorite example of this is in photoshop. When you select a layer, you get a bounding box with anchors at each corner. With mouse you can then rotate, scale, or translate the layer... but only one at a time, and in the scaling case only along one axis at a time. This makes the process of properly placing a layer iterative. That is, move it, scale it, rotate it, scale it again, rotate it, until you've got it just right.
With multitouch, this could be done in a single fluid gesture: move your fingers to translate, pinch your fingers to scale, spin your fingers to rotate, and it's a completely natural intuitive gesture. I yearn for a day when this is possible in Photoshop, and I will gladly move my hands from keyboard and mouse to the screen in this scenario because it is much more efficient with touch than with the mouse.
^THIS^
Back in the CRT days, "pokers" were annoying. There's no need to physically touch the screen to point at something on it. Just get close. It was worse with early LCDs because they were very fragile. Pokey-McGee could destroy a $500 14" monitor with a single jab. "Do you see the colors bloom when you do that? That's not a good thing!"
At least we have Gorilla Glass and similar compounds to protect the panels these days but I still wouldn't want to work on a schmootzy screen or have people smear my laptop screen with their "french fry" fingers flicking thru a document instead of using the PigUp/Down keys. And I certainly wouldn't want to have to clean my 27" monitors every day because of the practice.
I like my tablet but I have to keep a microfiber cloth handy to wipe the prints off it. Same with the phone. It's tolerable because these are "sometimes" devices that I don't stare at for hours a day.
I for one cannot imagine using a touch-the-screen solution on the desktop or laptop.
But TFA is correct. I've spent a day messing around with a tablet running Windows 8, touching away, and then when I go back to a regular PC with a monitor -- also running Windows 8, FWIW -- I automatically start reaching for the monitor for the first couple of moments. And this is for the Desktop UI, too. Once you get used to certain habits on one device, you want to do the same thing on other devices, especially when they are running the exact same OS and everything looks virtually identical to you. You know the touch points are supposed to be there, so you reach for them.
Whether this is a "good" thing or not is open to debate.
Breakfast served all day!
We transitioned to cars because there was a great many advantages to do so - speed, load carrying capacity, etc, etc.
What are the advantages of using a touchscreen over a keyboard/mouse in everyday situations?
Mobile? Well sure, if you're wandering around and you want to quickly tap something out or go through a few apps, there's a good advantage to a touch screen.
But at the office? I don't know. The time taken to take your hands off the keys, reach out and tap something... is that quicker than getting the mouse and clicking? I don't really know. I'd suspect that that with my setup (2 x 24" monitors) it's going to be slower. And I'd bet that if I was forced to use a touchscreen in an office situation where I still had a keyboard, I'd be learning a lot more keyboard shortcuts quick-smart.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Fact: Microsoft is selling exponentially more licenses with Windows 8 than it did with Windows 7.
Huh? Microsoft themselves has already admitted that Windows 8 sales are at nearly the EXACT same pace as Windows 7 sales.
Okay... How about actual web usage: http://www.zdnet.com/statcounter-windows-8-license-sales-not-yet-translating-into-usage-7000008148/
Even though Microsoft sold as many licenses of Windows 8 as they did of Windows 7, Windows 7 saw much higher actual usage after one month on the market compared to Windows 8 after one month on the market. Windows 7 made up 4.93% of internet users 1 month after launch compared to Windows 8's 1.31% 1 month after launch. That paints a pretty bleak picture of actual Windows 8 usage. Even Windows Vista managed to get nearly 2% of web browser share after the first month.
So lets assume that both statistics are correct. Microsoft sold 40 million licenses of Windows 8, the same as Windows 7 for the same time period AND Windows 8's web usage 1 month after launch is only 27% of Windows 7's web usage 1 month after launch. Let's add in a few more facts, like NewEgg saying that windows 8 sales are slow and that sales of Windows devices are down 21% from last year since the launch of Windows 8. Based on these facts, we can extrapolate a story.
The story I extrapolated is this: Microsoft sold 40 million licenses of Windows 8 in several ways: 1) end users taking advantage of the cheap $40 upgrade option that has never been offered before, 2) the volume license sales of Windows that are now Windows 8 licenses that are almost ALL being downgraded to Windows 7 because Microsoft no longer sells Windows 7 licenses, and 3) a whole TON of licenses to OEMs so they could get the initial supply of Windows 8 devices in to sales channels for launch.
So lets go over these sales paths:
1) The end user upgrades are legitimate sales of Windows 8. However, I would expect these numbers to be much higher than the initial Windows 7 upgrade sales simply because of the huge discount that didn't exist for the Windows 7 launch. The $40 upgrade price is either a 60% or 80% discount depending on whether you would buy the home or professional edition. I would expect to see a small rush of people buying to take advantage of the lower price...even over the normal PC enthusiast sales of people who must have the latest-and-greatest. The $40 upgrade option would also explain why direct to consumer upgrades of Windows 8 are selling at a faster pace than Windows 7 did. When you give a very hefty discount to pretty much everyone, people are going to jump on the deal.
2) volume license sales: Business need Windows licenses and you can only buy Windows 8 now. So even though the business is installing Windows 7 with those Windows 8 licenses, they are still being counted as a "Windows 8 sale". These are licenses Microsoft would've sold whether Windows 8 was released or not. Also, i'd be curious to know whether Microsoft is including any previous Windows 7 licenses with Software Assurance as a "Windows 8 sale" as well.
3) OEM sales: This is where I bet Microsoft sold the bulk of their Windows 8 licenses. OEMs had to buy their initial set of licenses to cover their initial stock of Windows 8 devices being shipped to sales channels. World wide PC sales for 2012 are expected to be around 350 million units...or about 30 million PCs per month. I would also expect the sales numbers t
or you could stop buying cheap laptops with missing parts like Dell.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.