How long before OS X cathches up with Windows 7?

[whooleytoo]

This is certainly a nice feature in Windows 7.

But I've used touch screens under earlier Windows. While seated, there is no comfortable way to use them, they're either at arms length, or flat in front of you and difficult to see. They're especially difficult to see with an arm or hand (or two) in front of the screen.

Some may proclaim this as a "cool" feature, enough to make them switch back to Windows, but use it for a week. Hands in the way of the screen makes it painful to use. Done it, hated it.

Precisely. It's a cool technology, but which doesn't work for everyday use.

A vertical input device is awkward to use; while a horizontal screen is awkward to look at. A touchscreen at 45 degrees offers the worst of both. There is no way to make a desktop touchscreen that's useful for extended everyday use, until the human body evolves a few more joints or some new eyes.

I'm sure it has its uses; but not for your everyday OS use.

 

[MonkeyET]

Am I the only one who thinks the idea of putting my hands all over my screen is ridiculous? The convenience factor may be in play, but I like to have my screen spotless and clean. I am not about to put fingerprints on a glossy screen where they are more than obvious. I would rather run out and get the magic mouse and give it a whirl.

 

[iMacmatician]

I think Apple is keeping display multi-touch to mobile devices (iPod touch, iPhone, rumored upcoming tablet) for at least the next year or two. Desktops and notebooks use the multi-touch mouse/trackpad.

 

[roadbloc]

id have thought apple were way ahead of micorsoft wi touchscreen on the ipod touch and iphone.

I dispise touchscreen anyway. it just creates more problems than solutions in my case.

 

[ScoobyMcDoo]

I'm a developer and have written software for touch-screen displays since the mid 90s - not under windows or os X, but specialty real-time os's. These are very specific applications for instruments or cleanroom process tools. The fact is they can be useful when you just have to press a few buttons to do something, but used as a general purpose machine where one would do text typing - they are very cumbersome. On the process tools where more input is needed, most folks really do not like them at all - they are just used because they generate less particles than keyboards and mice.

In the mainstream, sure touch screens are nice for phones where you type only short messages - but typing anything substantial on a touch screen would make you want to shake a baby.

 

[nefan65]

Besides, it's always easier to install other operating systems directly on PC hardware than it is to install them on Apple hardware. PC hardware designs follow an industry standard, while Apple "customizes" this standard a bit too much, mostly to make a Mac a proprietary platform.

Talk about doing homework?! WOW! Maybe with PPC, but the newer Intel Macs are nothing more than PC hardware. I can install Windows, Linux, UNIX, OS X, etc. on any Intel based Mac natively, and it works. I run Windows XP, UBUNTU, Fedora, and OS X on Macbook via Bootcamp with no issues at all. And I know others who have just Linux or Windows installed and not OS X [not sure why, but whatever floats their boats...].

 

[Keleko]

I don't want to touch my screen. It makes me upset when other people try to touch it, too. Plus the monitor is too far away on my desktop to reach, and I don't want it closer.

I'm not going to stand next to a wall display all the time to use it, either. Tablet system is the only way it will work. Rumors all say that Apple is going to have some kind of tablet device sometime soon, so we'll see what that does.

 

[goMac]

Touchscreens are useful on small devices, not so much laptops and full size computers.

Try using your display as a pretend touchscreen for an hour and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[beg_ne]

Yeah, Windows7 touch is just gangbusters. See here for video proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbJGzyYV_X8&feature=player_embedded

Also "Gorilla Arm". Which Wikipedia explains as so:

Gorilla Arm
Gorilla arm was a side-effect that destroyed vertically-oriented touch-screens as a mainstream input technology despite a promising start in the early 1980s. Designers of touch-menu systems failed to notice that humans are not built to hold their arms at waist- or head-height, making small and precise motions. After a short period of time, cramping may begin to set in, and arm movement becomes painful and clumsy. This is now considered a classic cautionary tale to human-factors designers; "Remember the gorilla arm!" is an industry term for "How is this going to fly in real use?".[14] Gorilla arm is not a problem for specialist short-term-use devices such as ATMs, since they only involve brief interactions which are not long enough to cause gorilla arm. Gorilla arm also can be mitigated by the use of horizontally-mounted screens such as those used in Tablet PCs, but these need to account for the user's need to rest their hands on the device. This can increase the amount of dirt deposited on the device, and obstructs the user's view of the screen. In addition, using a screen on a surface can present cervical RSI issues (i.e., the user can develop neck pain after using it for a period of time).

 

[BertyBoy]

Although I've dissed it before, from using it before.

Something along the lines of a draughtmans board. That is lower desk (usually higher chair instead), adjustable angled screen, 30-60 degress. With software smart enough to realise that we're resting the palms of our hands or our elbows on the screen - on my draughtboard i had a slider covering the entire width, I could move it up and don and it'd stop me smudging the pencil marks. Don't need something like that, just make the sofware smart enough to realise it's a palm of a hand (no-one has 3 inch wide finger tips).

Then it might fly.

 

[ss957916]

Are all you Apple fans REALLY that blind? Can you not see that Apple does not necessarily equal fantasticness and Microsoft does not necessarily equal rubbishness. This closed and blinkered thinking stuns me.

I'm with the OP. A couple of years ago I put off buying a new MBP cos I was convinced that a touchscreen notebook was just around the corner - the idea of it really excites me as another way of interacting with my Mac (along with the keyboard and trackpad, naturally). I, too, am amazed that 2.5yrs on from the release of the massively successful touchscreen iPhone/iPod, there is still no touchsceen Mac.

I'm assuming this is just a weak attempt at trolling but I'll try and explain this simply for you:

OSX does not have support for those touch screen features because there is no touch screen computers that it runs on.

twombles62: This is the oddest comeback. I think the OP was getting at the point that Apple should make OSX support touchscreen and make a touchscreen Mac.

 

[mlankton]

why would anyone want to smear their greasy fingerprints all over their IPS monitor anyway?

 

[Richard1028]

Are all you Apple fans REALLY that blind? Can you not see that Apple does not necessarily equal fantasticness and Microsoft does not necessarily equal rubbishness.

It's quite hilarious. Just mention the possibility here that somebody other than Apple has a better idea and the troll accusations come-a-flying.

I, too, am amazed that 2.5yrs on from the release of the massively successful touchscreen iPhone/iPod, there is still no touchsceen Mac.

I'm not. People are lazy and they want an interface that doesn't require a lot of muscle movement - the keyboard still being the best device for this. Your arm would grow weary for lack of a palm rest.

It's why voice recognition will never take off. Ever talk for 8 hours non-stop? Your jaw starts to hurt.

Plus, I can type 200 wpm. I can't write that fast with my finger, pen or stylus.

I think the OP was getting at the point that Apple should make OSX support touchscreen and make a touchscreen Mac.

Maybe a tablet for those in the field but not a macbook.

 

[holden15]

Are you kidding? OS X is decades ahead of Windows, and it always will be.

I've used 7, although it's much better than Vista, it's still junk compared to Snow Leopard.

 

[macjonny1]

Are all you Apple fans REALLY that blind? Can you not see that Apple does not necessarily equal fantasticness and Microsoft does not necessarily equal rubbishness. This closed and blinkered thinking stuns me.

I'm with the OP. A couple of years ago I put off buying a new MBP cos I was convinced that a touchscreen notebook was just around the corner - the idea of it really excites me as another way of interacting with my Mac (along with the keyboard and trackpad, naturally). I, too, am amazed that 2.5yrs on from the release of the massively successful touchscreen iPhone/iPod, there is still no touchsceen Mac.



twombles62: This is the oddest comeback. I think the OP was getting at the point that Apple should make OSX support touchscreen and make a touchscreen Mac.

I agree. You can't ask a negative question around here without getting called a troll. I prefer OSX as does everyone else around here for the most part, but Windows 7 is really good and the gap is very narrow for a lot of people now.

 

[HLdan]

I agree. You can't ask a negative question around here without getting called a troll. I prefer OSX as does everyone else around here for the most part, but Windows 7 is really good and the gap is very narrow for a lot of people now.

Pose the same question in a Windows forum but give OS X the credit and see what kind of responses you get. For example:

New thread:
"Will Windows 7 ever become even half the OS that Mac OS X is"?

The Windows fanboys will first call the post flame bate, call the OP a troll, talk as much crap about Mac OS X as they can, most of it will be stuff they make up out of a defense tactic and the rest of the Windows fanboys will throw the gaming card at the OP to remind him that W7 is light years ahead of OS X. I think the Windows fanboys can't even say that with a straight face.

 

[ss957916]

People are lazy and they want an interface that doesn't require a lot of muscle movement - the keyboard still being the best device for this. Your arm would grow weary for lack of a palm rest.

You're absolutely right - as the only way of inputting, of course it would be a pain. But in addition to the keyboard and mouse, I think it'd be quite cool.

When compiling a spreadsheet, for example. If I could move to another box just by jabbing the screen, that'd be cool. And going through menus would be much quicker (I think) than using a mouse: find the pointer, move it to menu, click, move to option, click, move to pop-up box and click 'ok'... etc. With the finger it'd be a lot quicker.

Maybe I'm wrong but I do think that Apple are beginning to be left behind somewhat. They need to keep pushing the bar. At the moment they're just giving all their products minor updates and releasing software that appears to create more problems than it solves.

 

[Jason Beck]

I don't want to touch my screen. It makes me upset when other people try to touch it, too. Plus the monitor is too far away on my desktop to reach, and I don't want it closer.

I'm not going to stand next to a wall display all the time to use it, either. Tablet system is the only way it will work. Rumors all say that Apple is going to have some kind of tablet device sometime soon, so we'll see what that does.

ahahah i even gave my wife "the look" the other night.
I didn't pull up the cute kittens from kittenwar.com for you to touch my screen. I was thinking that. Thankfully I didn't say it.
ahahah

 

[seb-opp]

Seriously, why would ANY one want to control a desktop computer by touching the screen?
Suppose you worked in an office 9-5, it would get so tiring having to stretch your arms out and make big movements to do the smallest of operations, while you could be using a mouse which takes less energy. Also the trend in larger and larger screens means users might have to move things around on a 27" screen, or higher. Touch screens are ergonomic on small devices like iPods, but on bigger screens, it can't be that practical.
Also on-screen typing would be very slow, so anyone who wants to do some serious work would have to keep a real keyboard. Which means they would still be slowed down, having to move their hands back and forth from the screen and the keyboard.

I think its a gimmick really, these new windows 7 features might introduce something cool, but its not really innovative enough to make it worthwhile, and if anyone bought a PC with these features today, I guarantee they would not be used for any longer than a month after it had been bought.

 

[Richard1028]

Are you kidding? OS X is decades ahead of Windows, and it always will be.

Not sure about that. But it's pretty close. I'm actually quite disappointed that MS couldn't have blown people's socks off given the amount of time they had to work on it and given the amount of time Leopard/SL has been out for them to mimic even more. I like their Window "snap" feature that aligns windows and the dock is ok.

But the UI in Win7 just looks "dull" to me - kind of "toyish". It's not sharp and bright like OSX even without Aero. And even though OSX's fonts could use some smoothing improvement, Win7's general fonts still look like crap to me.

Nevertheless, it's getting rave reviews. Of course that's not hard to do following Vista. Maybe this was Ms's plan all along. Kind of like when Coke changed their formula and were forced to go back resulting in market share being better than ever.

 

[sanPietro98]

I absolutely HATE IT when anyone (myself included) touches my LCD screen. I can't stand finger smudges and streaks. Why on earth would I want an interface that encourages this?!?

 

[old-wiz]

And if Apple did go off and create a touchscreen mac, there would be many many people complaining about fingerprints on the screen making it hard to read text.

 

[seashellz]

from all IVE read-the Windows 7 update on VISTA is a growing disaster;
And those who manage to kick it into working say that its simply VISTA with a new font and color scheme at $200
I dont think the 21st Century will be very kind to Windows as we progress...
its 20th Century technology-(some would argue 19th century)

I cant even stand seeing "word-spray" on my screen

 

[Jason Beck]

It's amazing how brain-dead some of you Mac Users are. Just because somebody makes a valid point against Mac's doesn't make them a troll. For all of Mac's "Think Different" campaign, a lot of Mac users come off as slightly fascist with their religious zeal.

You are on a Mac based forum after all. What did you expect?

 

[elppa]

There are some areas Mac OS X is still ahead of Windows 7, there are some things Microsoft are ahead on. It is not a clear cut case of catching up

I wrote it and now I'll provide one example: setting custom DNS servers. I think it is clear Apple has put a lot of thought into this area and the simplicty of the solution shines through.

Changing DNS Servers (Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard)
Click Through:
[1] Open System Preferences (Dock, Apple Menu or Airport menu).
[2] Click Network Preferences (which may already be open, depending how you did step one)
[3] Click “Advanced”
[4] Click “DNS”

Search:
This gets you to the DNS Screen. You can also type “DNS” into System Preference search. Select “DNS Servers” and it drops you straight to step 4.

Changing DNS Server (Windows 7 Home Premium)
Click Through:
[1] Open the Network and Sharing Center (via the tray or using start menu search)
[2] Click “Change Adapter Settings”
[3] Right Click on your adapter (e.g. Wired/Wireless)
[4] Choose Properties
[5] Click “Internet Protocol Version 6 (TCP/IPv6)” or “Internet Protocol Version 4 (TCP/IPv4)” from the “This connection uses the following items” list. If at this stage you don't know whether you are using IPv4 or IPv6, then tough.
[6] Click the “Properties” button underneath the list.
{6.5} If you have UAC cranked up you'll need to confirm at this stage, so click “Yes”.
[7] To enter more than 2 addresses (as in the interests of balance the Apple UI provides this at step four) click “Advanced”.
[8] Then click the “DNS” tab.

Search:
Alternatively you can “DNS” into the start menu or control panel search. This brings back one result (the “Connections” tab from Internet Properties), which is the wrong place. So the search fails to find the right location.

So here are key the differences:
[1] The Snow Leopard search actually works and brings up the correct location to change the DNS Servers.
[2] On click through, the Snow Leopard UI is faster as it requires fewer steps.
[3] The Snow Leopard UI offers less confusing terminology. There is only an “Advanced” button and a “DNS” tab. There is no “Change Adapter Settings” step, no right clicking to find hidden options** and no “This connection uses the following items” list to navigate and (possibly) pick the wrong item from (Snow Leopard provides transparent support for IPv6).
[4] The Snow Leopard UI provides the opportunity to add more than two DNS servers without opening another dialog.
[5] The Snow Leopard UI handles IPv6 setup at the same time as IPv4.

**There is a “Change Setting of this connection” button in the toolbar, however the standard window size is too small to show it, so I missed it first time and right clicked on the adpater. Either way it doesn't make a difference to the number of clicks.