Disappointed that iMac is not touch screen?

OS X would have to be touch screen capable before any hardware would be able to support it.

I like the approach that Apple have taken with gesture control happening on the touchpad, it seems to me that reaching up and over to a desktop display would become fatiguing in a very short amount of time.

No I prefer the old mouse and keyboard and I really dont want to touch the screen also I dont want to have to reach all the way across my desk and try to set levels if I wanted to be able to do it by hand I would buy the MCU pro. I can honestly say on a daily basis no complaints without the touch screen

Personally, I can't imagine using 27" or even 21.5" close enough to myself to warrant a touch display, my eyes would get tired really fast. If I put them far away, then my arm would get tired within minutes. I can see some instances where touch may come in handy but it isn't worth the trouble constantly moving it back and forth

Craig Federighi clearly said in a WWDC 2011 presentation (not the keynote) that touch-screen Macs will never become a reality - he said something like "I'm not gonna keep my arm suspended all day smudging up my screen" and "it's just not the right way to work with a Mac".

I dread the day that a majority of computers will have touch screens. After following the reports out of CES, it may come as soon as next year.

Perhaps it's all the people that work on a touch screen at McDonald's', Burger King, Taco Bell and the like, that are demanding that familiar picture interface so they don't have to read.

OSX would need a major change to work as a touch screen OS... kinda like the failure of Windows 8. I don't want a 27 inch iPhone either. I can see apple setting up a sensor that picks up our hand gestures (minority report), so we can minimize, scroll, or change screens for example with a swipe of the hand!

Platskies said:

Craig Federighi clearly said in a WWDC 2011 presentation (not the keynote) that touch-screen Macs will never become a reality - he said something like "I'm not gonna keep my arm suspended all day smudging up my screen" and "it's just not the right way to work with a Mac".

Click to expand...

Thats how I feel about it too..
however a 27" iPad.... just kidding.

New to Mac here.

I think Microsoft is leading in the race to the bottom. When the 2012 WWDC concluded, I thought quietly to myself, Windows is last weeks fish wrap.

My distain for touchscreen computers in general and Windows 8 specifically is surpassed only by the contempt Microsoft displays for desktop users.

Why would you want to get your greasy grubby hands on that gorgeous display?

jmpage2 said:

OS X would have to be touch screen capable before any hardware would be able to support it.

I like the approach that Apple have taken with gesture control happening on the touchpad, it seems to me that reaching up and over to a desktop display would become fatiguing in a very short amount of time.

Click to expand...

Why do people keep making this argument? No touch screen computer would be designed like that. It would be asinine. Take a look at a Cintiq. You'd need a stand that allows it to be angled to a comfortable position. No one will design a computer where you have to reach out in a weird way to touch a display that sits perpendicular to your desk.

I can imagine touch screen becoming increasingly popular in time for portable devices like the iPod, iPhone, MBP... not so much for actual desktop computers.

MacAlien said:

I can imagine touch screen becoming increasingly popular in time for portable devices like the iPod, iPhone, MBP... not so much for actual desktop computers.

Click to expand...

iPad.... and I dont see it on MBP either, that would drive the cost up a bit.

jstnlzr said:

iPad.... and I dont see it on MBP either, that would drive the cost up a bit.

Click to expand...

I always block iPads for some reason. ;P

Dunno about costs. I mean, LCD wasn't cheap when it first began hitting the market over CRT screens. Time will tell!

wrinkster22 said:

Why would you want to get your greasy grubby hands on that gorgeous display?

Click to expand...

If iMac is the microwave door - Fair Game.
Otherwise Insane.

I think touch screens on desktop class computers is a gimmick at best. When it comes to work, it's all about productivity and while such an interface works on a small-ish form factor touch devices, it makes no sense on a screen situated in front of you on a desk.

There is nothing you can do with a touchscreen on such a device that you can't do just as well or better with a keyboard and mouse. It's not ergonomic, is tiring, and as is, just isn't very useful.

Remember, as fun as the idea to have a touchscreen on a desktop is, if you're never going to actually use it, it's pretty pointless. So just ask yourself: how does a touchscreen iMac improve your computing experience? My guess is not at all.

MacAlien said:

I always block iPads for some reason. ;P

Dunno about costs. I mean, LCD wasn't cheap when it first began hitting the market over CRT screens. Time will tell!

Click to expand...

No doubt when we get some new tech this sounds fair, but right now, im not sure.

wrinkster22 said:

Why would you want to get your greasy grubby hands on that gorgeous display?

Click to expand...

If you don't keep your hands clean, your keyboard will look like crap, and it's much more difficult to clean than a touch screen display. People already use touch screen displays with phones and tablets. There is nothing that makes the sanitary issue better or worse here.

thekev said:

Why do people keep making this argument? No touch screen computer would be designed like that. It would be asinine.

Click to expand...

Right. Because that's how pretty much every touch PC on the market already is I agree that at some point we will have a better interaction with a full PC but its not going to be touching the screen of today's machines and getting satisfactory results.

thekev said:

Why do people keep making this argument? No touch screen computer would be designed like that. It would be asinine. Take a look at a Cintiq. You'd need a stand that allows it to be angled to a comfortable position. No one will design a computer where you have to reach out in a weird way to touch a display that sits perpendicular to your desk.

Click to expand...

I think for general purpose use, using a giant touch screen like that would only be suitable for those kinds of creative tasks.

For general purpose use like web browsing and checking mail with their existing interfaces, the size of the tappable targets would be too small to get at quickly, and I'd likely make mistakes. The actual interface would have to be magnified to some extent - and having a larger interface just to accommodate a fancier form of input sacrifices that valuable screen space, in my opinion.

Also on a great big 27-inch display with multiple windows showing (and even with the diagonal adjustment), I potentially wouldn't be wanting to move my fingers uncomfortably long distances to do things in each of those windows - I don't think it's ideal if you want to work quickly.

So I think the traditional keyboard and mouse/trackpad will continue succeed for this kind of more-precise and "definite control" interface.

ybz90 said:

I think touch screens on desktop class computers is a gimmick at best. When it comes to work, it's all about productivity and while such an interface works on a small-ish form factor touch devices, it makes no sense on a screen situated in front of you on a desk.

There is nothing you can do with a touchscreen on such a device that you can't do just as well or better with a keyboard and mouse. It's not ergonomic, is tiring, and as is, just isn't very useful.

Remember, as fun as the idea to have a touchscreen on a desktop is, if you're never going to actually use it, it's pretty pointless. So just ask yourself: how does a touchscreen iMac improve your computing experience? My guess is not at all.

Click to expand...

Well said! I agree entirely.

jmpage2 said:

OS X would have to be touch screen capable before any hardware would be able to support it.

I like the approach that Apple have taken with gesture control happening on the touchpad, it seems to me that reaching up and over to a desktop display would become fatiguing in a very short amount of time.

Click to expand...

Trust me he would never use it. I had touch screen on a windows machine before I switched over to Mac. Gestures are ten times better.

Since I'm switching from PC (oh why did it take so long to see the light) the trackpad will replace any desire to touch the screen. Personally I didn't want it to be a touch screen. I don't want to be that close to 27" of screen. I'm old enough to remember being told that sitting 6 feet from a 20" B&W TV will make me blind, I can't imagine what hours would do for me in front of a huge 27" colour one would do. Finally touch screen for me isn't as accurate as a mouse and I'd prefer a mouse to touch screen for fine work. I ordered both a mouse and trackpad.

Platskies said:

Craig Federighi clearly said in a WWDC 2011 presentation (not the keynote) that touch-screen Macs will never become a reality - he said something like "I'm not gonna keep my arm suspended all day smudging up my screen" and "it's just not the right way to work with a Mac".

Click to expand...

I've always associated touch devices (smartphone/tablets) as consumption.
Creation, otoh, requires a great deal more precision and productivity. This is only afforded on traditional desktops/laptops.

That said, for large touch-screens (i.e. TablePCs) to work, they would need to be laid flat, a la drafting table style. This is not a major market, so I doubt it's even a consideration for Apple to look at.

Platskies said:

I think for general purpose use, using a giant touch screen like that would only be suitable for those kinds of creative tasks.

For general purpose use like web browsing and checking mail with their existing interfaces, the size of the tappable targets would be too small to get at quickly, and I'd likely make mistakes. The actual interface would have to be magnified to some extent - and having a larger interface just to accommodate a fancier form of input sacrifices that valuable screen space, in my opinion.

Also on a great big 27-inch display with multiple windows showing (and even with the diagonal adjustment), I potentially wouldn't be wanting to move my fingers uncomfortably long distances to do things in each of those windows - I don't think it's ideal if you want to work quickly.

So I think the traditional keyboard and mouse/trackpad will continue succeed for this kind of more-precise and "definite control" interface.

Click to expand...

I do too. I primarily objected to the idea that any designer would be stupid enough to just add a touch screen as a primary method of input to the pre-existing design style where a display faces you directly.

jmpage2 said:

Right. Because that's how pretty much every touch PC on the market already is I agree that at some point we will have a better interaction with a full PC but its not going to be touching the screen of today's machines and getting satisfactory results.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any touch screen computer with the standard perpendicular display. It's just a dumb way to design something unless the touch screen aspect is intended as a secondary means of interaction. If it's just supposed to be there for occasional use, it wouldn't be a big deal. If they're going to move things like typing and primary interaction on screen, you wouldn't want it to be positioned that way. Such a product wouldn't make it past the concepting stage. Even at the prototype level, someone would notice such faults during testing.

A touch screen 27 inch iMac would be useful for a store who want to display some products in an interactive format. The fact it would be an iMac would impress customers but not really required.