Ugh, no thanks.
Love or scoff at the idea, Windows 7’s touchscreen features need to be experienced first-hand, and jabbing away at a demo machine at PC World doesn’t really count. The problem is that buying in to touchscreen technology for the home is an expensive experiment: you would normally need to invest in a brand new touchscreen notebook …
Touch screen for PCs would fly for me in one of two ways, first is as a driver for a proper screen (a bit like a wacom tablet) second is as a control system for a game (think selecting points for your artillery to land whilst dodging bullets from those cyborg monsters coming at you.) A lot of us don't have super long arms and sit a reasonable distance from our screens so an actual multi touch monitor is a bit useless in the real world. They're far more interesting as a multitouch interface of some sort (map tables, damage repair, commanding squad mates, etc whilst still having to play.)
I've played a few games in Japanese arcades that have touch monitors as the main screen but the whole machine was designed that way so you're sitting in a position where touching the monitor isn't a pain in the arse.
What is this new trend among monitor manu's to make their screens 16:9 ? I hate the loss of screen height. Are the manu's unaware that a few of us actually use our computers for work and require screen height.
Why is this thing so low spec ? No DVi, no HDMI, only 60hz refresh. It's almost like buying one of the earliest low spec LCDs screen from years ago and slapping touchscreen sensors on it. Even the Acer T230Hbmidh has better spec for the same price and thats made by Acer !!
Wake me up when there's a reasonably priced 16:10 LCD touchscreen of 24" or 26"
when for £280 you can buy just the monitor, and for another £70 the Windows 7 upgrade to use with it. If you don't like it then you've spent £350.
I'm just saying.
Also, re funny display adjustment buttons: IT'S A TOUCHSCREEN.
But I'm writing this on a touchscreen (with FITALY on-screen keyboard) and no, you can't adjust this one's settings by touch either.
I think mine is a plain monitor with touch added in afterwards.
And I suppose if it goes all black, then adjustment by touch becomes a bit difficult. Well... there was an early-ish HP MS-DOS computer with touchscreen that mainly worked (other than normal) by a strip of 8(?) touch areas along the foot of the screen - like BBC TV teletext (but not colour, well, all green).
"Any concerns about the non-digital video connection were forgotten in use."
Because there was no way to plug in a DVI cable, and see how much sharper the picture would have looked.
"For the same price, you could buy a 22in device with DVI, multiple HDMI inputs and a built-in TV tuner"
For half the price, you could buy a 24in monitor with DVI.
I hope the huge price of touch screens is due only to the fact we're still at the "early adopter" stage. If adding touch-screen capabilities to a monitor doubles its price, I can't see it taking off any time soon.
Who is it that wants greasy fingerprints all over their screen? (Apart from my work colleagues)
Do these same people have fingerprints over their TV and feel disappointed that their local cinema doesn't have a screen similarly besmirched? Might be Ok on a mobile, or for some made-for-idiots public information point, but for most computers is just unneccesary and diminishes ones viewing pleasure.
People in work/home situations have been literally punched for walking over and saying "OOOOOooooooh what's THAT?" and stabbing a greasy digit into my screen.
Actually INVITING people to do this would probably send me over the edge unless these screens have a) a really good oleophobic coating or b) wipers.
Uhh... no theres no loss of screen height, there's just a gain in extra width.
You want more screen height simple, just get a bigger monitor.
I for one welcome 16:9 and can't wait until you cant even buy 4:3 anything any more so that we can finally standardise. I hate the fact that some cable channels even now still only broadcast in 4:3, even when they air originally widescreen content.
4:3 does and always did suck, especially for computer desktops. I could never go back.
First off - Which multitouch technology is this monitor? Resistive? Capacitive? Or that silly two-finger-only optical system that the Dell and co. use?
I found myself quite interested in getting multitouch kit, and to be fair provided you haven't just consumed a full english and man-handled the toast or chips, I can't see the greasiness being a problem - we do wash our hands every time they become horribly greasy, or simply from going to the toilet, don't we Tathan Jones!? My iPhone doesn't seem to need continual cleaning, its screen protector seems to mitigate any visual quality degradation from grease.
I stopped thinking this when I saw that it might all be a little pointless if there are no specific apps out there that take advantage of it - MS wrote those highly publicised Win7 multitouch applications, it includes that virtual earth demo which you can spin around and zoom with your fingers. Would be cool to use.
Only trouble is, those apps aren't available for general download. They are only packaged alongside multitouch capable new PCs as an OEM thing. I still haven't seen any MT monitor, incl the Dell or Asus (is it?) that come with that software either.
So at the mo its an expensive proposition for little reward save for the built in Windows MT support - kind of like how some of us used to pay £300+ for a decent gfx card every year or so only to play one or two games, any of which didn't take advantage of all the new features of the card.
I've had my 19" CRT touchscreen for years. Sadly it's not multitouch. Someday I suppose I'll move into the 21st century and get an LCD. But not this one.. Why bother if it doesn't even have a digital input? My ancient CRT at least has a DVI connector. And I definitely agree with the poster that mentioned the aspect ratio? When did rectangular screens become so fashionable? Maybe great for spreadsheets and widescreen movies, but not day-to-day computer use.
"Its for shutting down the server. Thanks"
Many a time I've been glad a SCADA screen is not touch sensitive.
I've never understood PC monitors becoming widescreen. I remember in one company I worked in, the secretarys had multiple toolbars on screen for Word. It was like editing through a letterbox if you used one of them. If they had widescreen monitors they would end up with one line of text at a time on their screens.
if you don't like, nor see the point of touchscreen monitors... then, quelle surprise, you're not going to like this touchscreen monitor.
As for the vga issue; it's not going to suit those who need a long cable run, but if the degregation isn't noticable without having seen a DVI equipped model... then what's the issue?
"contrast effect" and the "distinction bias" (wiki them) are the salesmen's best friends when persuading buyers (especially ones who consider themselves to be discerning connesuiers) to choose the more expensive model, when the product is likely going to be used in isolation without any percievable difference.
Is it a top line product? No. Is it adequate for some? Sure.
I see that tablets and touchscreens are new and amazing to you. However, tablets and pen input screens are really old hat. Light pens have existed since the days of green and black screens. You neglect key points to those of us who have lived with interactive screen inputs for many years, mostly via Wacom, handheld PDAs and various graphics tablet products: Pressure sensitivity, levels of pressure, and pixel or sub pixel accuracy.
This is not a brave new world, this has been around for decades. Please inform your reviews with those decades of popular features and concerns.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019