Windows 7 Multitouch: What Is It Good for?
|
During the Windows 7 launch event in New York, it struck me that Microsoft was pushing its manufacturing partners' touch-screen devices particularly hard. Of course, the multitouch functionality of Windows 7 has been a detail long in the making--but this was the first time I've ever seen so many different manufacturers' touch-screen products under one roof. As I talked about on Fox News on Oct. 23, touch screens have long had a place in various niche industries, but this recent focus by Microsoft and various manufacturers on porting the devices to the consumer set is somewhat confusing. Is it a reaction to the popularity of the iPhone and its multitouch screen? Did Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wake up one sunny morning and decide that touch screens represented the wave of the future for the general public? (Microsoft's previous attempts at touch never really gained widespread traction. There was Microsoft Surface, a tabletop touch screen marketed toward hotels and other venues, and some manufacturing partners such as Hewlett-Packard launched touch-screen Vista PCs--but neither of these solutions seemed to catch fire with either businesses or consumers.) Immediately after the Windows 7 launch, I asked Michael Ybarra, general manager of Windows Product Management, what lay behind Redmond's decision to push touch screens in the consumer segment. "Touch screens have been present for a while with verticals such as medical," Ybarra told me. "Twelve years ago, we started wondering: 'How do we get this to the consumer area?'" Microsoft has been "innovating on touch" during that period, "and eventually the hardware caught up." These touch-screen devices with native Windows 7 support represent a synergy of hardware and software, he added, at the right moment in each area's development. And as a result, you see devices such as Lenovo's T400s laptop and X200 tablet PC start hitting the general market. Despite those years of developing an operating system optimized for multitouch, however, it seems that the actual uses of Windows 7-powered touch (at least as it stands right now) are fairly limited. You can navigate your desktop by tapping through various menus and buttons--and the responsiveness, true to advertising, really is top-notch (you can see my eWEEK video of it here). Microsoft and its partners also have a few dozen applications in various stages of development, but those programs don't seem very robust: You have a few map apps, a few lightweight games and some multimedia functionality, and that's about it. Microsoft's spokespeople at the launch told me that some multitouch functionality will be integrated into the upcoming Office 2010, but they declined to share details. Unless that catalog of applications and uses expands in a radical way, I fear touch-screen technology will remain something of a novelty item for the broader public. Sure, it's cool, but not essential for day-to-day work or play. What I'm most interested in, though, is how you feel about it--is a touch-screen PC something you're dying to have? What would you actually use it for? |
Comments (10)
I checked out HP's All-In-One Desktop at Office Depot over the weekend, a 24" 1080P Multi-Touch. It was very nice and I can attest to it being very responsive.
I see Multi-Touch as being accepted in Notebooks/Netbooks/Laptops but much less in Desktop's as far as usability is concerned.
I don't own a Laptop but have several PC's I maintain since Windows 3. I've worked/tweaked on my family's Laptop's and what I've really dislike about them is the touch pad. I guess I'm too use to a mouse. And a mini mouse is a hassle to use and keep up with because of the "portability" of laptops.
Now, I find myself seriously considering a laptop for the first time because of the multi-touch function. I see the multi-touch function replacing the touchpad and probably for the best.
Posted by Rocky | October 26, 2009 4:07 PM
My interest in multi-touch slates is the ability to carry around a replacement for a notebook (the kind you write in from Staples). I would find great value in keeping a slate on my desk and at meetings where I could take notes, and perhaps recordings. The MS-rumored Courier or similar function in the Apple would be extremely useful. Of course thin and light are paramount here. No hard drives or keyboards (or mice) needed.
Posted by Tomo | October 26, 2009 8:03 PM
if touch wasn't supported
1. people would gripe.
2. there would never be any hardware built to take advantage of it to possible grow the market.
so quit criticizing that it’s in there. if someone wants to develop for it and can find usefulness, it's there. if it wasn't, this market would definitely go nowhere.
it's not hurting anything by being supported.
Posted by gary | October 26, 2009 10:04 PM
For most people, touch screens are not going to be the only way - or even the main way - they interact with their PC. Of course, for some niche applications they'll be indispensible.
But that doesn't mean there's no point for the average user. Touch screens will make the choice of ways to interact with your machine richer. Imagine you're at your machine demoing something to your boss; how much easier will it be in that circumstance to point with your finger than grab for a mouse? You'd probably still use mouse and keyboard most of the time, but in that moment the touch screen makes life easier.
Is it a killer feature? Probably not; but in some ways it will make Windows a nicer, easier place to be.
Posted by Gavin Greig | October 27, 2009 6:27 AM
Multitouch would work well for a tablet.
Or, think "Surface Lite". A 17" - 24" touchscreen embedded into a piece of furniture or a cabinet in the kitchen or den.
Remember that we are likely to use Windows 7 for the next three to five years.
I would love to have a small tablet that replaces my phone, kindle and laptop. I would use bluetooth to talk to the tablet while the tablet is closed up with an always on wireless connection of some sort. IBM made an announcement that they are working on technology to make the web more voice friendly, both "reading" and site navigation.
Battery life in normal laptops is starting to approach 8 - 12 hours, and most of that is the screen, then the hard drive. Hybrid flash drives draw less power, and more improvements are on the horizon.
So, it is sort of a chicken and egg problem, and Microsoft is big enough to decide for us. They built touch, now go make some use of it.
Posted by eric | October 27, 2009 8:10 AM
A basic problem at present is that the Windows user interface is highly evolved to take advantage of the mouse interface... there is significant architecture around the idea that there is only a single cursor. With multi-touch this concept becomes obsolete. It is possible to have several cursors, each moving independently. It will take some time for the UI infrastructure to adapt to this, but a lot of nice possibilities present themselves. As an example, you could have several sliders moving at the same time when tuning photos. (It frustrates me that I can only adjust one parameter at a time in Google's Picasa image tuning interface.)
Basically the current situation represents a significant opportunity for application interfaces to evolve now that multiple cursors are available from the OS. The revolution is just beginning.
Posted by Jim | October 27, 2009 11:28 AM
I envision a very thin netbook sized computer that opens and is hinged like a mirror so the bottom pulls towards you and lays flat. It still has a nice keyboard but feels like a slate. Multi-touch allows you to interact with your system with the screen laying flat in the same manner as a smart phone, except now you have a decent sized screen. Everything is better- browsing, games, and simple apps. When you need to do some heavier lifting with regular apps, you flip the screen back up for apps like Office and so forth. Because it's now the right size to accomplish everything, they will become even more popular!
Posted by Rex | October 27, 2009 4:40 PM
I think touch/multi-touch is still a niche thing, but I think the niches are growing. My interest (on a consumer level) - as I am heavy into multi-media - is for kitchen (and other odd-placed home) PC's and control devices. There are expensive proprietary items, but if touchscreens were cheap and the OS and standard software supported it, it would open alot of avenues; especially for DIY'ers. I envision my house having a conveniently sized touchscreen on my kitchen counter, bathroom wall, coffee table, garage, etc; at which point I could browse the internet, play some music, view TV, communicate, etc. It would be convenient to be installing a stereo in your car and need to research a connector, baking a cake and need a recipe, hear a song on TV you want to find the artist of, etc, and have it all available wherever you are. All of this is possible with a cheap PC, but would be much more convenient and possible with touch.
In a professional environment, there are even more options.
As for why it hasn't taken off in the past, it was just too expensive. A comparable touch monitor was twice as much as a regular (which were expensive anyway). As screens have become very affordable and even touchscreens are dropping quickly, I think more people will find the convenience. (Wireless internet has made this much more feasible as well.)
Posted by AW | November 20, 2009 9:45 AM
It will be nice to see Windows 7 on a tablet PC. So far Windows 7 has been great and hopefully Vista is soon forgot about.
Posted by Courier Tablet | November 21, 2009 11:40 PM
I would love to have a tablet PC that behaved like a Droid or similar device. Especially on crampped airplanes when I need to check email and do some simple tasks. I could simply fold the screen back, and it would be much more comfortable.
Posted by Jeff | December 30, 2009 10:29 PM