Reviews, News, and How To!
IS APPLE AGAINST THE TOUCH SCREEN?
I only ask this question becase I have been waiting for Apple to make a touch screen iMac for some time now and with the new MAGIC TRACKPAD being unvailed recently, I know that is not going to happen. The Magic Trackpad is great and all that but still it seems rather awkward to me and Apple has done such a wonderful job with their other touch screen devices. So why not just put it on the iMac?
Any points of view on this?
Views: 30
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by iЛенин on -
in order to make a touchscreen iMac, Apple has to develop a touch friendly gui for snow leopard. If Apple makes something is going to be almost perfect. You can't use a mouse/trackpad designed Gui with a touch panel ( aka. windows 7).
Apple has developed the best touching experience (iphone, ipod touch)
Apple actually hates buttons, the magic trackpad is an example.
-
Permalink Reply by George Burgess on -
"in order to make a touchscreen iMac, Apple has to develop a touch friendly gui for snow leopard."
That is exactly what I would have said.
-
Permalink Reply by Tyler Brown on -
From A.V., Sure, Fanboy Talk
but it isn't far from the Truth Dan. The People at Apple are perfectionists, especially Steve Jobs, and especially in terms of aesthetics. Even if it doesn't seem "almost perfect" to the consumer or user. So in a way, A.V. is correct.
-
Permalink Reply by Beau Dierman on -
After reading your profile, you're obviously the other side of the spectrum. And it is completely naive to think that your precious Windows would even exist if it wasn't for Apple.
Fact is: Apple releases quality products, Microsoft doesn't. See: Windows ME, Windows Vista. What quality, besides Windows7, has Microsoft released in the past 10 years? Windows XP, which wasn't even great until mid 2002 when SP1 was released. What quality has Apple released? OS X Tiger, OS X Leopard, OS X Snow Leopard, iOS. That isn't even including the iTunes software, which knocks that diarrhea Windows Media Player mess into next century!
This post was made by a factually informed user from a Windows PC.
-
Permalink Reply by Tyler Brown on
-
iTunes.... mixed feelings on that
DRM = Yuck
iTunes Store = yuck
as a Media player = great on OS X, piece of junk on Windows.
Apple software runs amazing on OS X, but runs like utter crap on Windows. Always has, no changing that unless Apple decided to actually develop instead of just mindless port. For example, my main machine has an AMD AThlon x2 7750 2.7Ghz, and 5GB of RAM installed. iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari surprisingly run like junk on it, while the same versions of Quicktime, iTunes, and Safari will run AMAZINGLY fast on the 400MHz iMac G3 I have on the table next to me.
Only decent thing Apple develops that runs on Windows would have to be Webkit - which can be used on all platforms, through various browsers (Safari, Chrome, Epiphany, now Konqueror, Midori, Safari for iOS, Android's Default browser, etc.)
Windows XP didn't even get all that amazing until SP2 was released. Thats when it felt "right". Windows 2000 was also fairly Rock Solid.
Windows Vista wasn't all that bad. It had its kinks on release, but first 64-bit version of Windows that didn't totally fail. Not to mention Vista brought a lot of new things to Windows (maybe not new to Linux or OS X, but definitely new to Windows) that it definitely needed, especially in terms of security.
But Windows 7 definitely has the polish, thats for sure. UAC for example, definitely helped Windows with security a lot, ran like crap on Vista but definitely runs much faster on 7 (like trying to open a 600MB executable for example. UAC on Vista took forever).
(quick added note: I'd rather use Windows Media Player than iTunes any day on the Windows side. At least Windows Media Player is actually developed for Windows and isn't a crappy port. :D Thats if I were to actually reinstall Windows. I'm quite happy with Rhythmbox myself! =D)
-
Permalink Reply by JS on -
Well, iTunes hasn't had DRM for a couple of years now, and you hardly need to use the iTunes store.
But I agree, iTunes is a piece of sh*t on Windows, and so is Quicktime.
Safari, on the other hand, has worked brilliantly for me on both Windows and Mac OS X.
-
Permalink Reply by James Luong on -
First, it takes a lot to build a touchscreen onto the iMac, considering it's monster-sized screen. Second, they would have to reprogram an interface for Snow Leopard to use this touchscreen. iOS was built specifically for the touch interface, having no intentions of being used by a mouse.
Using only today's technology, it will take Apple some more time to refine the current touch screen monitor systems and technologies inside so that it is worthy of being known as an "Apple Product". Apple makes sure that everything they sell is high quality and reliable before they announce it.
-
Permalink Reply by jamesjimmy23 on -
I really think this is the first step in creating touch screen computers for Apple. I think that Apple want's to get people used to the idea of not having a mouse and just using some form of touch to input everything on their computer. Mac OS X in it's current state is not completely ready for touch. Maybe with the next revision of Mac OS X there will be more focus on touch, or maybe Mac OS XI.
-
Permalink Reply by Gavin Roskamp on -
Because touchscreens on desktop computers are pointless. Do you know how painful it is to try to poke at your screen for anything more than a few minutes? It's living hell!
Not to mention the fact that they'd have to completely redesign OS X to be touch-friendly, because they would NEVER do what Microsoft did with their Windows 7 tablet functionality. Any touch-screen computer that runs a mainstream OS is a failure before it is even made. End of story. Computer OSs were designed for keyboards and mice. Not fingers. That's what iOS, Android, and other MOBILE operating systems were designed for.
So no, I don't see touchscreen coming to the iMac anytime soon, or anytime at all for that matter.
-
Permalink Reply by Mad Max on -
As has been said, they'd need to do a drastic UI change at the very least, then you'd have to redesign the UI's for all the apps running on it too. Not to mention you'd have to change the very fundamentals of how you use a computer. The only way to make it anywhere near pleasant to use would be to have it at an angle similar to how you'd draw on a desktop, or to have the touch screen in the place the keyboard usually is when you rest a notebook on your lap.
I can't see Apple doing anything like this for the foreseeable future, but who knows, if anybody can crack it it's surely Apple. The only way they could realistically achieve this is if they implemented iOS onto the desktop, but I really can't see that happening as it'd lose so much power and just fragment their product lines, which Apple are generally religiously against. They like simplicity and consistency.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Pulsifer on
-
Permalink Reply by Beau Dierman on
-
Apple will probably never release a touchscreen iMac, they have the iPad for that. Power users don't want to mess with touching the screen, do you know how hard it would be to use that on any serious application?
© 2012 Created by Chris Pirillo.
