[QUOTE=Van-man;39067101]Try running anything newer than vanilla WinXP on a PII, I fucking dare you.[/QUOTE]
I ain't know 'bout dat fancy stuph, I like my 3.11 as' is.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067072]There's a difference between "I need" and "It's pretty nice, I'd like one". I don't [I]need[/I] a mouse, but it's damn nice addition. I don't [I]need[/I] anything faster than a Pentium II, but it's a damn nice addition. I could go on.[/QUOTE]
Once again avoiding the root of question by selectively nit picking at words.
Having a mouse provides a demonstrable objective benefit over not having one. Not in ALL situations. After all, you don't type with a mouse, but it makes many situations better. Having a faster processor (up to a point) provides an objective benefit in terms of system response times.
You have not answered the question for several pages now.
How is a touch screen an objective benefit over a mouse and keyboard on a desktop/laptop environment where full keyboards and mouse controls already exist? And no, shitty interfaces like metro IE don't count. Those are horrendous to navigate compared to the standard desktop equivalent regardless of input device.
I still use XP. v:v:v
[QUOTE=Irockz;39067208]I still use XP. v:v:v[/QUOTE]
I think you should upgrade to 7 because by next year (April 2014) support for XP is done.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39067155]Once again avoiding the root of question by selectively nit picking at words.
Having a mouse provides a demonstrable objective benefit over not having one. Not in ALL situations. After all, you don't type with a mouse, but it makes many situations better. Having a faster processor (up to a point) provides an objective benefit in terms of system response times.
You have not answered the question for several pages now.
How is a touch screen an objective benefit over a mouse and keyboard on a desktop/laptop environment where full keyboards and mouse controls already exist? And no, shitty interfaces like metro IE don't count. Those are horrendous to navigate compared to the standard desktop equivalent regardless of input device.[/QUOTE]
If you hold the view point that touchscreens and touchscreen UIs are inherently bad, sorry, I can't convince you otherwise.
And I don't see how my argument is different from your argument about the mouse? I happen to find it enjoyable, and quite useful in some cases, but I can't provide you with a graph or a benchmark that proves it to you. It's my opinion on the subject matter, and it is in neither more or less correct than yours - how would you prove to me that a mouse is inherently better in every situation? 'Cause if there's one, just one, case where the touchscreen is actually more suitable, I have every right to say that I do nothing else than exactly that task all day long.
Of course the Pentium II is a joke, and I'm taking it to extremes (not that other posters in this thread have refrained from that), but it's actually applicable. Why would I need one? Maybe I just find it more enjoyable to do stuff in that tempo.
I'll be getting a new computer soon to replace my old XP, and it will certainly not use Win8.
You served me well XP, rest in peace.
[QUOTE=Gor Feri;39067313]I'll be getting a new computer soon to replace my old XP, and that will certainly not use Win8.
You served me well XP, rest in peace.[/QUOTE]
Hey, try it out at least once. Don't necessarily buy the computer, but check it out.
[QUOTE=Butthurter;39067353]the hell is with people defending and justifying the removal of the start button
just because you can still open it by clicking the lower left bottom screen to get there doesnt change the fact that there was absolutely no good reason to remove a visible visual guide to opening the menu[/QUOTE]
I don't see anyone defending that solution, I don't think it was a good decision. I mean, it makes no difference to me and I give it no thought when using my computer, but the average person may not be aware of the change at all, and that's definitely a problem.
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Van-man;39067101]Try running anything newer than vanilla WinXP on a PII, I fucking dare you.
[editline]You're starting to sound like a broken vinyl player[/editline]
You don't need clothes, but they're a nice addition.
You don't need prepared & cooked food, but it's nice to have.
You don't need more than a small cave or a hollow tree trunk instead of a house, but it would be nice.[/QUOTE]
And hey, some people actually prefer living life like that. They're far and few in-between, but who are we to say they're wrong?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067296]If you hold the view point that touchscreens and touchscreen UIs are inherently bad, sorry, I can't convince you otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Meaningless statement. Does not address the point.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067296]And I don't see how my argument is different from your argument about the mouse?[/QUOTE]
The mouse has been shown to be useful because it enhances selection beyond what a keyboard can do, both in terms of speed, and precision. You still are evading the question. How are touch interfaces an enhancement in their current state?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067296]I happen to find it enjoyable, and quite useful in some cases, but I can't provide you with a graph or a benchmark that proves it to you. It's my opinion on the subject matter, and it is in neither more or less correct than yours - how would you prove to me that a mouse is inherently better in every situation? 'Cause if there's one, just one, case where the touchscreen is actually more suitable, I have every right to say that I do nothing else than exactly that task all day long.
Of course the Pentium II is a joke, and I'm taking it to extremes (not that other posters in this thread have refrained from that), but it's actually applicable. Why would I need one? Maybe I just find it more enjoyable to do stuff in that tempo.[/QUOTE]
Opinions.
Backpedaling.
Weasel words.
Lame attempt to save face. At least admit that you have no fucking point and cannot address the question at all.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39067398]Meaningless statement. Does not address the point.
The mouse has been shown to be useful because it enhances selection beyond what a keyboard can do, both in terms of speed, and precision. You still are evading the question. How are touch interfaces an enhancement in their current state?
Opinions.
Backpedaling.
Weasel words.
Lame attempt to save face. At least admit that you have no fucking point.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'll prove to you that the touchscreen is better in some situations if you can prove to me that the mouse is indefinitely better. Isn't that a fair deal?
And yes, I stated that it's an opinion in my post, you don't have to tell me what I wrote.
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;39057407]People are afraid of change and this chart proves it.[/QUOTE]
And this post proves you're a faggot.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Why are you even arguing need vs want? This is 21st century, if you live in a first world country it's more about "can I afford it?" more than anything else. Since we are humans what we want is what we need. If you have financial freedom then there's no reason to not buy something you want.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067419]Well, I'll prove to you that the touchscreen is better in some situations if you can prove to me that the mouse is indefinitely better. Isn't that a fair deal?
And yes, I stated that it's an opinion in my post, you don't have to tell me what I wrote.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see why I should. Burden of proof and all. But whatever, I'll humor this.
A mouse provides the capacity to easily navigate complex interfaces and provide extremely complicated and rapid inputs to facilitate fast use of a computer in ways that other input methods currently available cannot achieve at present. There are situations where a mouse is not ideal. Some forms of analog input are not ideal with a mouse (racing games spring to mind), and you obviously don't type with one if you can avoid it, but nothing that exists right now beats a mouse at what a mouse does.
You can make enormous gestures on huge amounts of screen real estate, while still maintaining pixel level accuracy and precision. You can utilize the same gestures and positions in dozens of ways when the additional buttons on the mouse are utilized to provide additional context, and this effect is compounded when keyboard hotkeys are added to the mix. All of this is achieved while barely moving your arm, and with one hand (sans keyboard hotkeys).
Hell, you can even send commands to applications while not even having your pointer over them, providing additional multitasking capabilities. Example: You can go backwards or forwards in a web page while moving your mouse pointer to click on another application entirely. Much of what is done on a mouse does not strictly have to be where the pointer is.
By comparison a touch screen has far less precision (fingers are not pixel precise), requires far more movement (which increases strain on your arms for extended sessions of use) requires multi touch or gestures (to convey that you want to scroll/pan, right click, left click, middle click, etc), needs to be cleaned far more frequently, and still does not have tactile feedback (that clicking feel? the notches on a scroll wheel? Those are very important to providing low response times. You have to resort to visual or audio aids on a touchscreen, and that is slower)
Perhaps because 7 works just fine and to many it also looks better!
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39067555]-words-[/QUOTE]
But none of that tells me why touch screens are inherently useless as input methods. It just tells me your opinions on what is wrong with them. Touch screens as an alternative input method are pretty great right now, we are getting more and more precise, MS have demoed panels with near nothing input latency. The only objective issues that remain are that fingers are not pixel perfect, and they need cleaning. Big whoop?
Fingers not being pixel perfect can be worked around, we can adjust the UI based upon what input method you are using, we can increase the size of buttons, use prediction to work out what the user is likely to press next and adjust size of the zone you would need to touch (almost all touch friendly keyboards implement this, and it works most of the time barring a few edge cases). You can also provide the user with a stylus, something that can be developed to be much more precise, and this isn't a problem, they aren't large, they can be stored easily.
A lack of tactile feedback can also be addressed, assuming your device has a vibration motor inside, you can provide vibrating feedback to tell the user "yo, you just clicked sum shat". And obviously provided different vibrations based on the events. Audiovisual feedback is also an option, but you brought that up anyway.
Touch gestures can provide a lot of flexibility as well, were a mouse is limited to left, right, middle click and scrolling (average case, mice with extra buttons are outliers), this gives you 4 methods of input, plus keyboard modifiers. Okay, that's all well and good. A touch screen on the other hand, assuming multi-touch is there, can have a massive amount of gestures that perform the same operations of keyboard and mouse combos, in one action, or singular mouse actions. Scrolling to the top or bottom of pages can be done quickly enough, rotation, scaling, translation, these are all a lot easier with a touchscreen using gestures. Maybe not as accurate, but easier to perform.
Touch panels allow us to perform much more natural motions, great for drawing and the likes, not as great for things that require lots of typing or precision. There is also the fact you don't have to move the cursor to what you want to interact with, it just moves to where you touch. This is faster unless you have the motor skills of a three year old, in which case how are you managing to use a mouse faster in the first place?
I think this is where your problems in your opinions come from, touch screens are not made to be precise, software that uses them is designed to take this lack of precision and make it something usable. For the devices touch panels are intended to work with properly, they are a great input device, there is nothing wrong with the device itself, merely the implementations of uses. Mobile devices benefit greatly from them, desktops can, but not quite to the same level. The issue with desktop touch interfaces is that the touch panel is in the monitor, which isn't comfortable to use. If the touch panel is removed from the screen, you start having problems where the screen and panel are not the same scale, which kills precision even more and makes them a chore to use. Though if your monitor is so far back, or at such an angle that using it as an input device would cause pain, I think you have more problems than it being a touch panel, move it around, move yourself, get yourself a medical checkup, this shit shouldn't be hurting you.
So yes, right now, there are things on the market that beat a mouse for what a mouse does in certain situations. Largely mobile computing, but also desktop computing in a smaller number of situations.
(Also, anyone considering just rating me negative shit like dumb, actually grow a pair and refute this. I'd love to see your arguments.)
Feel free to click the "list" button below, and see just who I've managed to offend by asking them to actually provide an argument rather than hit and run ratings! And remember, Facepunch is the intellectual superior of 4Chan apparently!
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39067555]I fail to see why I should. Burden of proof and all. But whatever, I'll humor this.
A mouse provides the capacity to easily navigate complex interfaces and provide extremely complicated and rapid inputs to facilitate fast use of a computer in ways that other input methods currently available cannot achieve at present. There are situations where a mouse is not ideal. Some forms of analog input are not ideal with a mouse (racing games spring to mind), and you obviously don't type with one if you can avoid it, but nothing that exists right now beats a mouse at what a mouse does.
You can make enormous gestures on huge amounts of screen real estate, while still maintaining pixel level accuracy and precision. You can utilize the same gestures and positions in dozens of ways when the additional buttons on the mouse are utilized to provide additional context, and this effect is compounded when keyboard hotkeys are added to the mix. All of this is achieved while barely moving your arm, and with one hand (sans keyboard hotkeys).
Hell, you can even send commands to applications while not even having your pointer over them, providing additional multitasking capabilities. Example: You can go backwards or forwards in a web page while moving your mouse pointer to click on another application entirely. Much of what is done on a mouse does not strictly have to be where the pointer is.
By comparison a touch screen has far less precision (fingers are not pixel precise), requires far more movement (which increases strain on your arms for extended sessions of use) requires multi touch or gestures (to convey that you want to scroll/pan, right click, left click, middle click, etc), needs to be cleaned far more frequently, and still does not have tactile feedback (that clicking feel? the notches on a scroll wheel? Those are very important to providing low response times. You have to resort to visual or audio aids on a touchscreen, and that is slower)[/QUOTE]
Cool, you have now given a lot of reason why you think the mouse is a nice device, and hey ho: you're totally right, it is a pretty swell periphial.
Now let me tell you why the touchscreen is also a nice way of interacting with stuff:
1. It's a lot easier (and more fun) to use for kids. We all like playing games, and RPGs are probably one of my favorite genres. It'd be pretty hard to play without keyboard shortcuts, though, and even in combination with a keyboard it'd be a downer to use a touchscreen. But what is more fun than using your finger to fling birds at stuff? I built my little brother a reasonably powerful desktop computer, and while he uses it a lot, he likes using his Galaxy Ace II just as much, simply because it's "touch". You may call it a useless gimmick, but this useless gimmick is - you guessed it - fun as hell.
2. Gestures. You may dismiss them as bad or unneeded, but the fact that you can just swipe with your finger is both logical and functional. Zooming, much as you may like your Ctrl + Scroll wheel, is also far superior. Especially with the way zooming works in most browsers (it stays on when you go to a new site), it's simply not useful, and generally speaking it just makes the content bigger than actually zooming in (try your precious Ctrl + Scroll on the FP front page). This could probably be remedied, but right now it's simply not practical at all.
3. Drawing/writing. Sure, you're not gonna be pixel perfect at all, and obviously a mouse is better at doing pixel art or whatever. Still, try drawing something with a mouse and then on a touch screen. Try writing your name. Now, which one looks the best, provided that you put the same effort in it? Which one was easiest? More enjoyable? Unless you're lying, I think it'd be the touch screen (especially if you've have a stylus at hand).
Now, my main argument for touchscreens isn't that it's incredibly precise, or extremely useful for making spreadsheets. It's not. But it is fun, intuitive and in many cases useful for various tasks. But really, I think this guy hits the nail on the head:
[QUOTE=itisjuly;39067509]Why are you even arguing need vs want? This is 21st century, if you live in a first world country it's more about "can I afford it?" more than anything else. Since we are humans what we want is what we need. If you have financial freedom then there's no reason to not buy something you want.[/QUOTE]
You killjoys have been trying throughout this whole thread to somehow tell me that mouse is simply the only way to go and touchscreens are totally useless. Have I been imposing such views on you? No, I haven't, and I don't want to, because I love the mouse as much as the next guy. So why are you trying to dismiss the touchscreen as totally useless, when it clearly isn't (as evidenced by my little brother in particular)? I really don't know your reasons. I really don't. Just because you don't particularly enjoy something, doesn't mean other's can't. Remember that.
And strain? Really? Small movements like you do with a mouse and keyboard aren't all that natural, and "mouse arm" is very common.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39068540]And strain? Really? Small movements like you do with a mouse and keyboard aren't all that natural, and "mouse arm" is very common.[/QUOTE]
To reinforce this point, I've heard tons of cases of RSI from keyboard and mouse usage. But none from touch screen usage, because it's a much more open input method.
You're missing the difference in practicality and effort. Touchpads require different gestures which it can easily misinterpret and that requires you to move in certain patterns, while a mouse only requires clicking. Aside from that, dragging and dropping objects, scrolling, and the likes, can be done much more easily and with much smaller movements using a mouse than with a touchscreen. With one you're just using your hand and your wrist with your arm resting, the other one requires you to use your whole arm and your hand.
I don't ever remember having to flail my entire arm like I was having a seizure to scroll on any touch device I've ever used...just merely flicking my finger up and down on the screen.
What the fuck devices have you been using?
Why is this kb/mouse vs touch? It's like kb/m vs gamepad. This is really stupid. They're different input methods for different purposes. You can't compare them, there is no better or worse one.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;39068621]Why is this kb/mouse vs touch? It's like kb/m vs gamepad. This is really stupid. They're different input methods for different purposes. You can't compare them, there is no better or worse one.[/QUOTE]
There are moments where I could imagine touchscreen to be more useful, but these are rare circumstances and I merely believe that mouse and keyboard the best general option for casual usage of computers as well as for gaming. They seem like they could be useful for the same reason as tablets, but they also seem like they would be a really terrible at different tasks for the same reason.
[QUOTE=Francisco;39057366]you can still see school pcs with xp and ie6[/QUOTE]
my school uses windows 7
on pcs made for xp. they are so fucking slow now i could walk back to my house from school, turn on my computer and do my work there, finish and come back and it will still be trying to log me on.
Keeping with Windows 7. 8 might have some small advantages, but I don't want a tablet styled OS. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It's why people stuck with XP because it was so darn good, which is why I'm sticking with Windows 7.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;39065900]They do. (Almost) every new PC built right now has a Windows 8 OEM license applied to it. That's why this comparison uses web-usage. If it only used web-usage for 8, and OEM sales for Vista/7 there would be a problem. Hell, there's still unsold PCs that have Windows 7 licenses on them. You're putting words in my mouth.
Now also, I'm not implying you can't use touch screen along with KB/Mouse, I'm implying you SHOULDN'T. What's a single good reason for having a touch screen on a desktop PC? Can you think of one?[/QUOTE]
multi touch trackpads with decent drivers. I've started seeing them more and more even with desktops sold these days.
Apple has also started pushing them. Even MS mice are now getting multi touch gesture support now.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;39068779]Keeping with Windows 7. 8 might have some small advantages, but I don't want a tablet styled OS. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. It's why people stuck with XP because it was so darn good, which is why I'm sticking with Windows 7.[/QUOTE]
Remember how people hated the desktop in 95 when it came out, because it was different. Or how the mouse was reviled at first when it came out?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39068828]multi touch trackpads with decent drivers. I've started seeing them more and more even with desktops sold these days.
Apple has also started pushing them. Even MS mice are now getting multi touch gesture support now.
Remember how people hated the desktop in 95 when it came out, because it was different. Or how the mouse was reviled at first when it came out?[/QUOTE]
I know but they were NEW things. The metro OS is effectively a copy and paste from the windows tablet OS.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;39068871]I know but they were NEW things. The metro OS is effectively a copy and paste from the windows tablet OS.[/QUOTE]
What is this Metro OS and where can I purchase it?
The Metro parts of Windows 8 are massively improved for tablet and desktop use compared to Windows Phone 7 (where it comes from, I don't know what the fuck you "Windows Tablet OS" is, but it never existed until Windows 8 RT).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;39068609]I don't ever remember having to flail my entire arm like I was having a seizure to scroll on any touch device I've ever used...just merely flicking my finger up and down on the screen.
What the fuck devices have you been using?[/QUOTE]
We're talking PCs and Laptops, not smartphones.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39068540]1. It's a lot easier (and more fun) to use for kids. We all like playing games, and RPGs are probably one of my favorite genres. It'd be pretty hard to play without keyboard shortcuts, though, and even in combination with a keyboard it'd be a downer to use a touchscreen. But what is more fun than using your finger to fling birds at stuff? I built my little brother a reasonably powerful desktop computer, and while he uses it a lot, he likes using his Galaxy Ace II just as much, simply because it's "touch". You may call it a useless gimmick, but this useless gimmick is - you guessed it - fun as hell.[/QUOTE]
Fun doesn't make something objectively better. These are anecdotes, and others have shown counter anecdotes (someone prefers angry birds on a non touch interface). Nobody has said that you are wrong for having fun with a touch interface. That's idiotic.
You strongly implied, if not outright said, that touchscreens rival keyboards and mice in terms of their functionality.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39068540]2. Gestures. You may dismiss them as bad or unneeded, but the fact that you can just swipe with your finger is both logical and functional. Zooming, much as you may like your Ctrl + Scroll wheel, is also far superior. Especially with the way zooming works in most browsers (it stays on when you go to a new site), it's simply not useful, and generally speaking it just makes the content bigger than actually zooming in (try your precious Ctrl + Scroll on the FP front page). This could probably be remedied, but right now it's simply not practical at all.[/QUOTE]
I never dismissed gestures. You can do every single gesture that isn't multi touch with a mouse too if you want, and multi touch gestures are almost all simple extensions of using different keys or modifier keys to do the same thing. This isn't an argument in favor of touchscreens.
Zooming being superior? I can zoom in on my screen (not browser zoom) on a desktop too with just a keyboard and mouse. That isn't unique to touchpads. What the fuck are you on about?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39068540]And strain? Really? Small movements like you do with a mouse and keyboard aren't all that natural, and "mouse arm" is very common.[/QUOTE]
You cannot seriously be saying that holding your entire arm up for prolonged periods is somehow better than resting your arm on a desk and pushing an object around. That's just absurd. People having wrist problems because of keyboard and mice setups generally have existing carpel tunnel problems, or are holding things incorrectly. You shouldn't have physical pain with either input method, but a touch interface requires significantly more movement of your arms and hands. You can't rest your hand on a touch interface either because if you do, you touch it, messing up input accuracy.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39068540]3. Drawing/writing. Sure, you're not gonna be pixel perfect at all, and obviously a mouse is better at doing pixel art or whatever. Still, try drawing something with a mouse and then on a touch screen. Try writing your name. Now, which one looks the best, provided that you put the same effort in it? Which one was easiest? More enjoyable? Unless you're lying, I think it'd be the touch screen (especially if you've have a stylus at hand).[/QUOTE]
Wacom tablets have existed for quite some time, and are an industry standard for professionals in the digital editing field. The key difference is that those have hundreds of degrees of precision for detecting the pressure levels of your input, and are traditionally paired with a stylus (which allows precision).
Here's the thing though. Many professionals in this field spend tens of thousands of dollars on combinations of equipment and software to do their work on. If a touch screen provided the best means of input for them, you think they wouldn't be throwing money hand over fist at buying touchscreen monitors? Even the professionals aren't using them. It can't be because there aren't any that they can afford. These guys blow 3 grand or more on software alone.
This argument is utter rubbish. Real world usage cases say that this is so.
TL;DR, you've still failed to back up your claim that touch interfaces are objectively better in any way that isn't "well I have fun with x".
[editline]2nd January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;39068518]A lack of tactile feedback can also be addressed, assuming your device has a vibration motor inside, you can provide vibrating feedback to tell the user "yo, you just clicked sum shat". And obviously provided different vibrations based on the events. Audiovisual feedback is also an option, but you brought that up anyway.[/QUOTE]
This still has a delay in perception, and doesn't really solve the problem as a result unfortunately.
Look at mech keyboards. The boards have a tactile feel as you are actuating the key. Not once it's been pressed, as it's being pressed. They have a travel distance before the press triggers as well.
You can't represent that accurately without some form of force feedback, and you have to float your fingers off of a touch screen. There's been some research in using air pressure to provide this sort of feedback, but it's still not useful yet (consumes a lot of power, is heavy, decreases screen brightness, decreases accuracy even further, and isn't quite good enough).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;39068518]Touch panels allow us to perform much more natural motions, great for drawing and the likes, not as great for things that require lots of typing or precision. There is also the fact you don't have to move the cursor to what you want to interact with, it just moves to where you touch. This is faster unless you have the motor skills of a three year old, in which case how are you managing to use a mouse faster in the first place?[/QUOTE]
The natural bits are sort of valid in some specific areas, but I don't see scrolling as any more intuitive on a touch vs using a scroll wheel. Some of that comes from being familiar with the device though.
However the speed is patently wrong. I can move my mouse 3-4 inches and cover an entire screen of space. It's literally a wrist flick that takes tenths of a second. On a touch screen I have to move my entire arm. Even assuming the worst case scenario. You have your finger right where you need it, and the cursor is an entire screen away, it's so tiny as to be trivial. You will lose that tiny amount of time gained, if you actually gain anything there (remember, you have to be floating your hands), thousands of times over every time you need to move your cursor, or do multiple clicks.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39069094]This still has a delay in perception, and doesn't really solve the problem as a result unfortunately.
Look at mech keyboards. The boards have a tactile feel as you are actuating the key. Not once it's been pressed, as it's being pressed. They have a travel distance before the press triggers as well.
You can't represent that accurately without some form of force feedback, and you have to float your fingers off of a touch screen. There's been some research in using air pressure to provide this sort of feedback, but it's still not useful yet (consumes a lot of power, is heavy, decreases screen brightness, decreases accuracy even further, and isn't quite good enough).[/QUOTE]
Hmm, this is true that there would be a delay. From my experience with various touch devices, I've never really felt off-put by it, sure it's made typing a bit worse, but that was going to happen after years of keyboards. A lot of this feedback is coming from where we have been conditioned to expect a response such as clicking of the keys, we just expect it now. I'm sure we'll find some ways around it in future generations of the technology, but right now I think the vibration thing is as close as we can get. Especially if we can reduce the delay.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39069094]The natural bits are sort of valid in some specific areas, but I don't see scrolling as any more intuitive on a touch vs using a scroll wheel. Some of that comes from being familiar with the device though.
However the speed is patently wrong. I can move my mouse 3-4 inches and cover an entire screen of space. It's literally a wrist flick that takes tenths of a second. On a touch screen I have to move my entire arm. Even assuming the worst case scenario. You have your finger right where you need it, and the cursor is an entire screen away, it's so tiny as to be trivial. You will lose that tiny amount of time gained, if you actually gain anything there (remember, you have to be floating your hands), thousands of times over every time you need to move your cursor, or do multiple clicks.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're a robot, moving a mouse cursor across a screen and managing to stop exactly on a icon is not as simple as just tapping that icon. To be honest the speed thing is largely anecdotal, from my own use, and watching a good number of other using both mouse and touch input. But still, moving your whole arm takes no effort (unless you weigh an ungodly amount), it really shouldn't matter. The speed difference is probably pretty negligible.
Still, touch screens are not bad. Even on desktops, they are not bad. Our software today does account for the fact that some people will use touch, and some people won't. Until the day comes where you live in some strange technology dictatorship where your software is designed exclusively with touch screen in mind, you have nothing to worry about. It's meant to be an alternative input method, and it does attract people to the market.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39069094]Fun doesn't make something objectively better. These are anecdotes, and others have shown counter anecdotes (someone prefers angry birds on a non touch interface). Nobody has said that you are wrong for having fun with a touch interface. That's idiotic.
You strongly implied, if not outright said, that touchscreens are superior.
[/QUOTE]
You know why I only quoted this part? Because that's where I stopped reading. Your reading comprehension is worse than that of a monkey, and that's pretty bad. If you even read my original "challenge" you'd see that I very strongly implied that touch input is not superior. Actually, let me quote it:
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39067419]Well, I'll prove to you that the touchscreen is better in some situations if you can prove to me that the mouse is indefinitely better. Isn't that a fair deal?
And yes, I stated that it's an opinion in my post, you don't have to tell me what I wrote.[/QUOTE]
As you may be able to see here if you stopped reading with your ass, I said that I'd show it was superior in some situations.
Let me quote another post of mine:
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39066307]Well, you're saying Windows 8 is only for touchscreens, so what's your point? And yes, it was useless, try navigating this with a mouse:
[img_thumb]http://files-cdn.formspring.me/photos/20120829/n503eadf27d627.jpg[/img_thumb]
Try navigating this with a touchscreen:
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/7/71/Windows_XP-Desktop.png[/img_thumb]
Neither will really be a pleasure. No hardware is useful in itself, unless the software is there as well.
And don't tell me the mouse was a complete hit when it was invented, 'cause you have nothing to back it up with.
The mouse was patented in 1970, the first mouse-oriented computer was the Xerox Alto (pretty much): [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto[/url]
It sold 2000 units, which isn't impressive even for that time. Ten years later, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS]MS-DOS[/url] still looks like this in many cases: [url]http://www.files32.com/images/active_ntfs_reader_for_dos-62777-scr.gif[/url]
So was the mouse really so omnipresent a few years after its introduction? I may be wrong, but most stuff wouldn't point in that direction.[/QUOTE]
My point here is that whether your input works or not depend almost entirely on the software. If the software isn't there, it doesn't matter if the hardware is. Now, one of the complaints many people bring up is "Windows 8 is for touchscreens!!!", and if we assume that they're right (which they are partially), doesn't this prove that touchscreens are, in fact, superior once in a while? Which would you rather have when navigating the Metro environment - mouse/KB or a touchscreen? I'd choose the touchscreen (at least on my lappy), so yep, touchscreens are in fact sometimes appropriate. But are they always appropriate? Nope, which is also what I stated a few pages back:
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39066082]I'm arguing laptops, not desktops. I'm pretty sure that I specified that. I won't defend touchscreens on desktops, I haven't found them particularly helpful.[/QUOTE]
And now I think I know why you're still arguing with me, even though I'm sure anyone with a brain would say I'm right, it's simply because you can't read! If we were arguing about the same thing, then maybe, just maybe, would you realize that I'm not backpedalling, avoiding questions or other things that you've accused me of. I'm simply arguing that once in a while, I'd actually really like to use a touchscreen alongside my beloved mouse and keyboard. Not because it's a superior input device, but simply because it's like ketchup with your fries; I wouldn't eat ketchup on its own, but with fries, it's pretty good.
I don't know why you're so adamant to prove me "wrong", that I shouldn't eat ketchup with my fries or enjoy a touchscreen along with my keyboard and mouse. But since you, I'll actually just respond to what I actually read of your post:
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39069094]Fun doesn't make something objectively better. These are anecdotes, and others have shown counter anecdotes (someone prefers angry birds on a non touch interface). Nobody has said that you are wrong for having fun with a touch interface. That's idiotic.
[/QUOTE]
And to which I'll just reply "I agree". I actually said earlier on that "it's just my opinion, I can't prove it" ([url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=39067296#post39067296]here's[/url] the post for your convenience, and you even pointed out that it was just opinions gr8t job m8) and so it would seem that you agree. Still, if we could prove everything objectively, you'd find the new start menu better than the old one, simply because proved "objectively" that it's better. Really, they did, just look it up. Does that matter to you? No, it doesn't. And it shouldn't, because you're entitled to your own opinion. Just like I am. And may I remind you that you actually just called yourself idiotic by accident? Because you've pretty much said to me the whole thread that touchscreens shouldn't go on laptops (or desktop for that matter, but I don't care about that).
Now, have a nice day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
