I was talking to a friend of mine who bought an iphone 4s and clearly knew a new one was coming out that week. According to her, the iphone 5 is, "The most gayest thing I've ever seen." Harsh, but true. She was also telling me that her dad, who doesn't even want to carry a phone let alone a smartphone (but really likes my Lumia 900 oddly) even knows the iphone 5 is a bad choice. How he knew is beyond me. I know him and he's not even aware about technology.
I saw the new one today at att, wow. Don't get it.
hitting up the home user market won't be a problem, company market.....not a sniffing chance in hell sorry but as much as I like win 8 even I can see how terrible this is for workers.
will it have the same uptake as win7? nope never not even if they gave it away i'm being honest and incredibly blunt about this, why sugar coat the problems, the UI in a business environment is just not good enough and sure while it's ok for a home user is still not quite intuitive enough to be deemed a success.
company market, they are not going to spend frankly what will need to be close to £500 on a single touch screen of a reasonable quality that will last for a single employee, the current breed of touch screens are just nasty, poor quality abound isn't helping microsoft either as they push touch.
hygienic touch monitors cost more, durable touch monitors cost more, touch monitors with a decent stand cost a hell of a lot more.
where do you suppose they mount this monitor? at head height? arm strain much? so a risk assessment has to be done before they can be deployed..more money for each company, insurance coverage for increased strain and clauses put into there legal arrangements to cover their back sides...more money. lets say they go ahead what is the optimal position for a touch screen? yup thats right on the frigging desk in front of them at an angle so the arms can be relaxed and not elevated aka star trek consoles, so thats how much for new desks for an entire company?
and even a home user will get pissed off with touch after a few minutes in the wrong position, Look i really do see what windows 8 is trying to do but i think Microsoft failed to recognise the issue of cost involved in such an upgrade, home users can barely afford to keep up with the rapidly changing hardware market and ever changing tablet market, a monitor will have been residing on someones desk for years before replacement let alone the desk.
try something and decide, sit with your arms at your screen now for the next hour and see if you want to deal with that for the next few years, if you come back and say but they won't be there all the time, drop and raise your arms for the next 8 hours 30 min the avg working day lets see how keen you are for a touch screen without some drastic changes to your desk are required.
the problem with 8 is the focus on touch without the consideration for the normal home user, am i suppose to turn round and tell someone barely making ends meet while trying to keep 4 kids fed and clothed that they need to spend a few more hundred on a desk to get the best use out of windows 8 oh and then spend another 500+ on a touch screen the kids can't ruin in minutes.
i could care less about the issue of the metro ui, i rather like it. the problem with windows 8 is how do you convince the amount of people required to make it not the biggest disaster in history to spend the money to make it usable in a desktop environment.
business owners will avoid it like the plague
home users will avoid it due to the costs involved.
decent power pc without a monitor costs around £1000+ add a normal monitor 100-200 add a touch screen...3-500 or £1000 for a 27" add a desk suitable for long term prolonged touch usage...who the hell knows their are so few available. so were talking £2500 for a semi decent setup, thats for a new windows 8 owner that doesn't want to have there arms wrecked within a day and the screen ruined and smudged within 5 minutes.
subtract what you currently have and now work out how much it would cost you to upgrade to touch in a usable environment...still want to go touch?
desk, lets say £500 as a budget.
monitors...yes plural one is just not enough, so 2 your upgrading so lets go 24" touch and 27" touch is just funny money. well there was one at £300 but shocking contrast ratio's and on sale from £400 so £500+ is the minimum budget there i guess so thats 2 x £500
so thats us at £1500 before we get the operating system.....nice indeed.
and some others that agree with touch on desktops being an issue.
Why Desktop Touch Screens Don't Really Work Well For Humans | TechCrunch
ok i give touch a bad rep on desktops but frankly it's been around for 20 years in one form or another and is barely used in the home...that tells it's own story.
tablets and phones and laptops are a different story hence why i don't even approach those in the topic.
Well, I sort of like it, but not on my laptop with no touch feature. One thing I worrys is it will get a lot slower over time and I'll get frustrated...
Now let me say this, have you manually tried selecting an element on a photo on Photoshop with a mouse? Unless if you have the dexterity and precision of an animal that has loads of dexterity and precision, it's not a great thing to do. Heck, even game developers use touch screens to adjust or create imagery for the game. I bet the same could be said for AutoCAD, but I'd need to see that for myself. Then there are the annoying tedious times where using a mouse, for me, gets annoying when I could just simply touch a UI element.
Now, Windows 7 already had touch support better than before. I've personally spotted about more than a dozen touch AIO PCs out in the wild. Some are used for Photoshop, some as kiosks. Why? Touch is literally the most simplest thing a human being can do. I know someone who is in geriatric care that let the elderly use ipads over a mouse based PC. Why? They are able to grasp the concept of looking at something then touching it versus grasping a mouse, moving a small pointer around, and trying to navigate around with it. Touch is simple. The thing about touch screen monitors costing a bit is simply due to the fact that touch hasn't been pushed out there enough. Market saturation isn't high. Windows 8 PCs pretty much all have touch screens, which will reduce the prices down sooner than later. A 23 inch touch monitor averages about 200 dollars, about 100 more than a non-touch monitor. Considering it handles input, and a decent mouse costs 20-30 dollars, it isn't too terrible of cost trade off. This is true considering Windows 8 is built hugely for touch input, as will Windows 9, as will Windows 10. But adding touch just comes down to preference, usage, and your budget....
Helium PCT2785 27-inch Widescreen Multi-Touch Monitor | Planar Touchscreens
With Windows 8 coming out, there will be more touch monitors available and more as time progresses. I personally am looking at this touch screen as it literally fills all my needs for a touch screen, 27 inch, very adjustable, HDMI, web cam, and just looks seamless and clean. Yes, the price is high. That I don't get as a 23 inch monitor can cost roughly 200 dollars, but add four more inches, it's nearing a 1,000.
One must think outside the box. You can't take a totally different input method and try to plop it into a traditional input scenario and say it's not human ready. Of course it won't be if you'd be using two or three feet away from you for hours on end. You have to change the way things are done, change how getting to point A to B is accomplished, change the way you use technology like Windows 8. One last thing, I wouldn't disparage touch or touch screens UNLESS you've personally tried it out for yourself. Otherwise, you'd be poshing something that you don't personally know about, which kind of makes your thoughts and opinions on that subject a tad invalid, wouldn't you say?