From our front-page news:
Although Microsoft has many features they can tout about their upcoming Windows 7, InfoWorld is beginning to question whether the OS' touch capabilities should be one of them. I don't entirely disagree, as I have found little use for touch capabilities outside of handheld devices, or for "fun" activities on the computer, such as moving around photos, playing modest games, et cetera.
The question the InfoWorld writer poses, is more whether touch is even needed, rather than whether Windows 7 offers ample enough support. I've had many discussions with a few people in the past about this, and for me, it all comes down to lack of use. For most things on the computer, I'm simply not interested in ever using touch rather than a mouse. With a mouse, you have precise control... it's simple.
With touch, though, buttons generally need to be bigger (or the resolution lowered), and that in itself carries two problems. Either the OS is going to be uglier as a result, or if you keep a normal resolution, then certain buttons / pixels are difficult to push, simply because your fingertip is bigger than what you're trying to tap. You're bound to touch something around what you're trying to touch on a regular basis.
There's one more aspect that bugs me when I think about touch computing... the fact that you have to touch your PC. No duh, right? Well, imagine having to lift your hand all day to touch areas all over your monitor. It sounds a little counter-intuitive. I can't say I've done a marathon mouse session before and felt exhausted. So, touch obviously isn't for me, but what do YOU think? Post in the thread and speak your mind!
<table border="0" align="center"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
Credit: madstork91</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
In using a Dell Studio One desktop and an HP TouchSmart desktop -- whose touchscreens based on NextWindows' technology are quite responsive -- I found another limitation to the adoption of touch technology in its current guide: The Windows UI really isn't touch-friendly. A finger is a lot bigger than a mouse or pen, so it's not as adept at making fine movements.
Source: InfoWorld
The question the InfoWorld writer poses, is more whether touch is even needed, rather than whether Windows 7 offers ample enough support. I've had many discussions with a few people in the past about this, and for me, it all comes down to lack of use. For most things on the computer, I'm simply not interested in ever using touch rather than a mouse. With a mouse, you have precise control... it's simple.
With touch, though, buttons generally need to be bigger (or the resolution lowered), and that in itself carries two problems. Either the OS is going to be uglier as a result, or if you keep a normal resolution, then certain buttons / pixels are difficult to push, simply because your fingertip is bigger than what you're trying to tap. You're bound to touch something around what you're trying to touch on a regular basis.
There's one more aspect that bugs me when I think about touch computing... the fact that you have to touch your PC. No duh, right? Well, imagine having to lift your hand all day to touch areas all over your monitor. It sounds a little counter-intuitive. I can't say I've done a marathon mouse session before and felt exhausted. So, touch obviously isn't for me, but what do YOU think? Post in the thread and speak your mind!
<table border="0" align="center"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
Credit: madstork91</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
In using a Dell Studio One desktop and an HP TouchSmart desktop -- whose touchscreens based on NextWindows' technology are quite responsive -- I found another limitation to the adoption of touch technology in its current guide: The Windows UI really isn't touch-friendly. A finger is a lot bigger than a mouse or pen, so it's not as adept at making fine movements.
Source: InfoWorld
