undefined | Better HN

0 points__jal9y ago0 comments

Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck. Holding your arm out screen operations for any length of time is awful, and wiping the prints off your screen on your pant leg doesn't work very well on a laptop.

That's not to say Apple doesn't release terrible things at times (hockey puck mouse[1]?), but I have trouble imagining Apple releasing one of those. (Laplet? tabletop?)

[1] I actually think that may have been calculated - it is impossible that Jobs didn't know it was a shitty mouse, but alongside the iMac, it got a ton of attention at the time Apple really needed it.

0 comments

scholia9y ago

> Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck

They work perfectly well on desktops like the Surface Studio, where you can bring the screen down to a drawing board angle. They also work well with a "desktop OS" on convertible laptops and 2-in-1s with multiple use modes including "tent" and "tablet".

They're actually not too bad on real desktops with vertical screens, especially if you're standing up. (Try putting an all-in-one in your kitchen.)

It would be foolish to assume that just because you have a touch screen that you have to touch it all the time. You don't. You can still use a mouse, a pen, an air-mouse, a games controller, and several other things. Having a touch screen doesn't make you do anything you don't want to do, it just gives you an extra option.

It's a bit like claiming that if you use a mouse you can't use keyboard shortcuts. Really, that's not how it works....

ScottBurson9y ago

Except that a touch screen can't (reasonably) be optically coated to reduce reflected glare, because skin oils from fingerprints disable the effect, showing up as bright spots.

Those of us who are still bummed that we can't get a matte screen on a Mac laptop anymore will be triply upset if we can't even have an optical coating.

For the use cases of tablets/convertibles, it presumably doesn't matter so much, but for the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Okay -- Apple could have one touchscreen laptop model and leave the rest as they are, or make a touchscreen optional on the whole line. But I would never want to buy a touchscreen laptop.

scholia9y ago

How many have you bought? The last time I bought a non-touch laptop -- last year -- I quickly realised my mistake, took it back and paid more for one with a touch-screen.

Anything without a touch-screen just feels horribly broken and out of date now.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your complaint is. I see lots of people happily using touch screens for all sorts of purposes. That includes smartphones, tablets, convertibles, laptops and desktops.

I don't really see why something that works on screen sizes from 4-inches to 28 inches (Surface Studio) across multiple form factors should somehow not work on some particular device.

> the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Not sure what you mean, here. Laptops are less powerful than desktops and ergonomically inferior. They are not better for anything except moving around.

roryisok9y ago

I have a hp spectre with a touch screen and windows 10, and it certainly doesn't suck. Great for sticking in tablet mode and browsing, organising photos etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

scholia9y ago

> Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck

They're actually not too bad on real desktops with vertical screens, especially if you're standing up. (Try putting an all-in-one in your kitchen.)

It's a bit like claiming that if you use a mouse you can't use keyboard shortcuts. Really, that's not how it works....

ScottBurson9y ago

Except that a touch screen can't (reasonably) be optically coated to reduce reflected glare, because skin oils from fingerprints disable the effect, showing up as bright spots.

Those of us who are still bummed that we can't get a matte screen on a Mac laptop anymore will be triply upset if we can't even have an optical coating.

For the use cases of tablets/convertibles, it presumably doesn't matter so much, but for the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Okay -- Apple could have one touchscreen laptop model and leave the rest as they are, or make a touchscreen optional on the whole line. But I would never want to buy a touchscreen laptop.

scholia9y ago

How many have you bought? The last time I bought a non-touch laptop -- last year -- I quickly realised my mistake, took it back and paid more for one with a touch-screen.

Anything without a touch-screen just feels horribly broken and out of date now.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your complaint is. I see lots of people happily using touch screens for all sorts of purposes. That includes smartphones, tablets, convertibles, laptops and desktops.

I don't really see why something that works on screen sizes from 4-inches to 28 inches (Surface Studio) across multiple form factors should somehow not work on some particular device.

> the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Not sure what you mean, here. Laptops are less powerful than desktops and ergonomically inferior. They are not better for anything except moving around.

roryisok9y ago

I have a hp spectre with a touch screen and windows 10, and it certainly doesn't suck. Great for sticking in tablet mode and browsing, organising photos etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse