Touch Laptops(codinghorror.com)
codinghorror.com
Touch Laptops
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/11/touch-laptops.html
102 comments
There is gorilla arms, screen bounces, and screen smudges.
These things keep being repeated as if they're showstoppers, and it seems usually by people without any experience in the matter. I have been using a laptop purely by touch screen for 1-8+ hours a day for two years, and here's my experience:
- Gorilla arm simply doesn't exist. I use the laptop in a variety of setups and haven't had any problems. Yes, if your desktop PC suddenly accepted touch you'd probably want the screen much closer, likewise some laptop users with good eyesight (which I don't have - relevant since it makes me close already).
- Screen bounces do exist, but I haven't noticed them since a week or two in. I usually use the laptop with the screen up and facing backward (I don't use the keyboard), so I definitely get them. The Surface form factor does seem better for touch in a laptop, but I haven't tried it yet.
- Smudges do exist, especially if you use an on-screen keyboard so they accumulate, but in most indoor lighting they are not a problem at all. Then again, they don't bother me on my desktop screen either - if I'm looking at the screen content I don't see them.
I'm excited to see what possibilities Leap Motion provides, but at this point I think it's unlikely I'll buy a non-touch screen again. In the meantime, I'd quite like something like your last idea, and have thought about making a program to do it.
These things keep being repeated as if they're showstoppers, and it seems usually by people without any experience in the matter. I have been using a laptop purely by touch screen for 1-8+ hours a day for two years, and here's my experience:
- Gorilla arm simply doesn't exist. I use the laptop in a variety of setups and haven't had any problems. Yes, if your desktop PC suddenly accepted touch you'd probably want the screen much closer, likewise some laptop users with good eyesight (which I don't have - relevant since it makes me close already).
- Screen bounces do exist, but I haven't noticed them since a week or two in. I usually use the laptop with the screen up and facing backward (I don't use the keyboard), so I definitely get them. The Surface form factor does seem better for touch in a laptop, but I haven't tried it yet.
- Smudges do exist, especially if you use an on-screen keyboard so they accumulate, but in most indoor lighting they are not a problem at all. Then again, they don't bother me on my desktop screen either - if I'm looking at the screen content I don't see them.
I'm excited to see what possibilities Leap Motion provides, but at this point I think it's unlikely I'll buy a non-touch screen again. In the meantime, I'd quite like something like your last idea, and have thought about making a program to do it.
>- Gorilla arm simply doesn't exist.
That's a pretty strong statement for an anecdote of precisely one person.
That's a pretty strong statement for an anecdote of precisely one person.
As I said, this is purely my direct experience. Based on it, I hypothesise that the idea of gorilla arm arose from people using touch screens as if they were regular screens, i.e. inappropriately. I have certainly never heard of gorilla arm from iPads/Android tablets.
Interesting take on it. One of the setups I use has a Mimo touch monitor [1] which is attached via USB. Putting the tool bar for my CAD program on that monitor sized up, gives me a screen with all of the tools available, and I can use the entire space on my 'main' screen for drawing. My version isn't multi-touch which would be useful for doing view projections.
I realized that sort of the 'ideal' setup here is a keyboard, and then behind the keyboard a really wide and not too tall multi-touch display, and then vertically in front of me 1, 2, or 3 IPS high density displays. That would move the richer expression of touch gestures to a place that was halfway between my keyboard and my screens.
Like Jeff that opened me up to the notion of a 'hybrid' interaction model. Prior to that experience with the 'all-in-one' style machines was just frustrating. The conflict between wanting the large monitor set back, and then having to reach out and touch it was a challenge.
Amazingly far from 25 x 80 characters on a green (or amber) screen :-)
[1] http://www.mimomonitors.com/
I realized that sort of the 'ideal' setup here is a keyboard, and then behind the keyboard a really wide and not too tall multi-touch display, and then vertically in front of me 1, 2, or 3 IPS high density displays. That would move the richer expression of touch gestures to a place that was halfway between my keyboard and my screens.
Like Jeff that opened me up to the notion of a 'hybrid' interaction model. Prior to that experience with the 'all-in-one' style machines was just frustrating. The conflict between wanting the large monitor set back, and then having to reach out and touch it was a challenge.
Amazingly far from 25 x 80 characters on a green (or amber) screen :-)
[1] http://www.mimomonitors.com/
Yes, if I understand what you are saying and what mimo is selling, that would seem to be what I want.
The mimo site is a bit too timecube for me to quickly parse -- it is a very expensive touchpad at $329.99 but perhaps there is something similar for less. :)
But yes, I really don't want people touching my expensive, clean screens, I don't want my finger to obscure the detail of what I am drawing, and I don't want to swing my arms through six feet of three 24" monitors.
The mimo site is a bit too timecube for me to quickly parse -- it is a very expensive touchpad at $329.99 but perhaps there is something similar for less. :)
But yes, I really don't want people touching my expensive, clean screens, I don't want my finger to obscure the detail of what I am drawing, and I don't want to swing my arms through six feet of three 24" monitors.
One option might be connecting the tablet to an external display and mirroring the screen on both, like a presentation mode. You could control the tablet directly while looking at the external monitor.
Ok I know this is nitpicking but...
I'm not sure I would want a 13.3" tablet on my lap or in my hands. There must be a reason the standard letter page size is 8½ × 11", right?
The diagonal on the standard letter is 13.9". The evidence Jeff cites completely undermines his point.
I'll just assume it must have been a really long time since he actually held a piece of paper.
I'm not sure I would want a 13.3" tablet on my lap or in my hands. There must be a reason the standard letter page size is 8½ × 11", right?
The diagonal on the standard letter is 13.9". The evidence Jeff cites completely undermines his point.
I'll just assume it must have been a really long time since he actually held a piece of paper.
Plus "letter-size" paper wasn't the standard until the 1980s, and most of the world uses an actual standard, A4.
> The American Forest and Paper Association argues that the dimension originates from the days of manual paper making, and that the 11-inch length of the page is about a quarter of "the average maximum stretch of an experienced vatman's arms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_(paper_size)
> The American Forest and Paper Association argues that the dimension originates from the days of manual paper making, and that the 11-inch length of the page is about a quarter of "the average maximum stretch of an experienced vatman's arms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_(paper_size)
Also paper has different standard sizes in the rest of the world.
I bought a new Asus laptop with Win8 specifically because it has a touchscreen. The touchscreen solves my long standing problem with using laptops - I find touchpads nearly unusable. It's soo much easier to scroll with the touchscreen, especially with the small laptop screens.
All non-touchscreen laptops are, to my mind, instantly and sadly obsolete.
Note that for a desktop, I see no advantage to a touchscreen, as the mouse is just fine.
All non-touchscreen laptops are, to my mind, instantly and sadly obsolete.
Note that for a desktop, I see no advantage to a touchscreen, as the mouse is just fine.
> The touchscreen solves my long standing problem with using laptops - I find touchpads nearly unusable.
Have you used a macbook running OS X before? I find the touchpad handling much better in OS X than I do in Windows so would be interesting to know what sort of touchpad you're comparing to.
Have you used a macbook running OS X before? I find the touchpad handling much better in OS X than I do in Windows so would be interesting to know what sort of touchpad you're comparing to.
Yes, the MacBook's touch pad is significantly, significantly better than most other PC laptop touchpads. I don't need a mouse when using a MacBook. I can't use a PC laptop without a mouse.
I suspect its a combination of better hardware and better software (I bet Microsoft doesn't write the touchpad interpretation code, its done by the individual hardware makers and so will be total crap).
I suspect its a combination of better hardware and better software (I bet Microsoft doesn't write the touchpad interpretation code, its done by the individual hardware makers and so will be total crap).
It's all in the drivers, interestingly. And Synaptics supplies both the Macbook trackpad and other touchpads. There's nothing to prevent them in putting the same features in their Windows drivers, but maybe Apple insists that they don't.
Apple just controls for the quality/experience they want to offer.
The various PC vendors have control over the hardware and software for the trackpads; they could make them good if they wanted to, or if they knew better. They just aren't "detail oriented" on a corporate scale.
The various PC vendors have control over the hardware and software for the trackpads; they could make them good if they wanted to, or if they knew better. They just aren't "detail oriented" on a corporate scale.
I think it's something like 7 years since Apple's touchpads were made by Synaptics. They don't supply the touchpads in all Windows machines, though the non-Synaptics ones I've used are (in my judgement) consistently inferior.
(I worked at Synaptics until late 2006. It's possible that my information may be outdated.)
(I worked at Synaptics until late 2006. It's possible that my information may be outdated.)
I don't think so. Over the last Х years I've tried using touchpads on Dell, Acer, Asus and other laptops (Apple's family included) with different hardware and software and came to a sad conclusion that there is no way I could use any laptop completely without a mouse, even though I try to avoid using it as much as I can even on a desktop. Touchpads feel like extremely slow and imprecise input method, a real distraction and obstacle in interaction with OS or app. So, I think that while something definitely may be in the drivers, there's another part in this problem where you have to decide which level of comfort do you agree to drop to when switching from a mouse to a touchpad/trackpad.
Well, my point was that Apple's trackpads are the same hardware as what's used in Windows laptops out there too, so any difference in usability and features (e.g. gestures) is driver-dependent and there is no technical reason why they would exist only on one platform.
For actual usage I definitely prefer a mouse or a trackpoint.
For actual usage I definitely prefer a mouse or a trackpoint.
I've played with a mac laptop in the Apple store.
The problem with the touchpad is suppose I want to scroll. I have to carefully position the mouse over the scroll bar. Then click, or click and drag, whatever, which is just freaking awkward with a touchpad. (It's no issue with a mouse.) Yeah, I know that the right side of some touch pads acts as a scroll bar. But that depends on the right window being the "top" and I often get that behavior mixed up with the other regions of the touchpad. I also have problems with accidentally brushing my palm over the touch pad and "what the hell just happened".
With a touch screen, this all becomes natural and trivial.
I know, I see people using touchpads all the time like it was an extension of their hand, and they have no issues with it.
But I do. I like that touchscreen for my laptop. It is transformative. No other word for it.
As for a desktop with a big display, I don't need a touchscreen except for one case - where you are working with someone and are both hovering over the screen. The touchscreen is real handy for that rather than passing the mouse back and forth.
The problem with the touchpad is suppose I want to scroll. I have to carefully position the mouse over the scroll bar. Then click, or click and drag, whatever, which is just freaking awkward with a touchpad. (It's no issue with a mouse.) Yeah, I know that the right side of some touch pads acts as a scroll bar. But that depends on the right window being the "top" and I often get that behavior mixed up with the other regions of the touchpad. I also have problems with accidentally brushing my palm over the touch pad and "what the hell just happened".
With a touch screen, this all becomes natural and trivial.
I know, I see people using touchpads all the time like it was an extension of their hand, and they have no issues with it.
But I do. I like that touchscreen for my laptop. It is transformative. No other word for it.
As for a desktop with a big display, I don't need a touchscreen except for one case - where you are working with someone and are both hovering over the screen. The touchscreen is real handy for that rather than passing the mouse back and forth.
>But that depends on the right window being the "top"
Not on OS X
>I also have problems with accidentally brushing my palm over the touch pad and "what the hell just happened".
Palm brushes don't register on OS X
That's why I wanted more clarification on what you're comparing it to. The only positive I can see of a touch screen compared to a __good__ touchpad is that you can see the content below your fingers as you interact with it - I wager it's the difference between the Intuos and the Cintiq.
I don't know if that's a big enough difference for most people to have to deal with all the negatives that using a touchscreen on a computer monitor comes with. For me it's not.
Not on OS X
>I also have problems with accidentally brushing my palm over the touch pad and "what the hell just happened".
Palm brushes don't register on OS X
That's why I wanted more clarification on what you're comparing it to. The only positive I can see of a touch screen compared to a __good__ touchpad is that you can see the content below your fingers as you interact with it - I wager it's the difference between the Intuos and the Cintiq.
I don't know if that's a big enough difference for most people to have to deal with all the negatives that using a touchscreen on a computer monitor comes with. For me it's not.
The problem with the touchpad is suppose I want to scroll. I have to carefully position the mouse over the scroll bar.
No, you drag two fingers up or down, with the cursor anywhere in the area you want to scroll. Recent versions of OS X don't even show scrollbars unless you put two fingers on the touchpad.
No, you drag two fingers up or down, with the cursor anywhere in the area you want to scroll. Recent versions of OS X don't even show scrollbars unless you put two fingers on the touchpad.
This got me thinking about the whole Windows ARM port and x86 compatibility. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but, why the hell didn't Microsoft make use of .NET for cross-platform compatibility?
Have developers write applications in C# or any other language supported by the CLR and let .NET work out the x86/ARM differences.
I'm sure there are valid technical and possibly political reasons this didn't happen, but I still find it very strange that Microsoft went to the trouble of developing this entire platform/framework/ecosystem just to ignore it when the opportunity arises to actually make good use of it.
Have developers write applications in C# or any other language supported by the CLR and let .NET work out the x86/ARM differences.
I'm sure there are valid technical and possibly political reasons this didn't happen, but I still find it very strange that Microsoft went to the trouble of developing this entire platform/framework/ecosystem just to ignore it when the opportunity arises to actually make good use of it.
> "but, why the hell didn't Microsoft make use of .NET for cross-platform compatibility?"
But they did. .NET is the platform of choice when it comes to Win8/ARM development. Any standards-compliant .NET code (more on this later) will with very little work build on ARM.
> "Have developers write applications in C# or any other language supported by the CLR and let .NET work out the x86/ARM differences."
This is exactly what's happening, though with a few caveats.
Note that all of this is from about a week of playing with the Win8/Windows Store SDK, so it may not be entirely accurate or complete.
The main problem with developing for the Windows Store (and, consequently, Windows RT) is that it badly fragments .NET. Very basic classes (like System.Collections.Hashtable) are not available for inexplicable reasons, even though they are in full-fledged .NET.
So sure, theoretically if you wrote your app in C# it will still build - unless you were calling parts of the API that are for some unknown reason unavailable in WinRT. Lots of the API has disappeared, and many, many parts of the System namespace have been replaced with equivalent-but-not-quite classes in the Windows namespace. All of this is very confusing and creates a huge fragmentation problem that will make even the most hardcore Android developer blush.
So yeah, conceptually MS is right there with you, but execution-wise that remains to be seen.
But they did. .NET is the platform of choice when it comes to Win8/ARM development. Any standards-compliant .NET code (more on this later) will with very little work build on ARM.
> "Have developers write applications in C# or any other language supported by the CLR and let .NET work out the x86/ARM differences."
This is exactly what's happening, though with a few caveats.
Note that all of this is from about a week of playing with the Win8/Windows Store SDK, so it may not be entirely accurate or complete.
The main problem with developing for the Windows Store (and, consequently, Windows RT) is that it badly fragments .NET. Very basic classes (like System.Collections.Hashtable) are not available for inexplicable reasons, even though they are in full-fledged .NET.
So sure, theoretically if you wrote your app in C# it will still build - unless you were calling parts of the API that are for some unknown reason unavailable in WinRT. Lots of the API has disappeared, and many, many parts of the System namespace have been replaced with equivalent-but-not-quite classes in the Windows namespace. All of this is very confusing and creates a huge fragmentation problem that will make even the most hardcore Android developer blush.
So yeah, conceptually MS is right there with you, but execution-wise that remains to be seen.
I just fired up VS2012, created a C# Store (Metro) app and looked in properties. One of the platforms available is ARM.
Judging by Microsoft's recent choices to kill .NET-based products like XNA and Silverlight it seems to be the case that management aren't fans of it anymore. Dropping support for XNA is particularly mysterious given Microsoft's struggles to get game developers to support Windows 8 - they literally had a dedicated community of game developers that could have put titles on the Windows 8 store on day 1 if Microsoft had provided any support. Instead, even game developers with titles being published by MS are stuck using MonoGame for Windows 8 support. It's insane.
Yes, plenty of C# developers were shafted over the changes to the infrastructure. I'm ignoring the "Metro" Apps for now, most of what I do is either server, web or a "real desktop" application. (Not to mention lots of CRUD corporate projects.)
I think Windows 8 Metro apps can be written in either a .NET subset or using HTML5/javascript, right?
Why does everyone still have to use imperial/US measurements. Metric please or I have to break out the calculator.
The real pain starts when you use derived units. How many pascals are there in a pound per square inch? And what is the ratio between DPI and pixel per mm^2
People from the US use US measurements, surprisingly.
Yes and look where that got you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
Yes and also 4 rovers on Mars, and 12 astronauts on the Moon.
The problem with the MCO disaster wasn't mixing up units, it was a sub-contractor failing to follow a specification properly, which can happen for any number of reasons. Also, it's not the only way that such missions can fail. Let us remember that since the mid-90s there have been 2 failed US Mars missions as well as a failed European mission (the Beagle 2 lander), a failed Japanese mission, and 2 failed Russian missions. As well as one and only one successful European mission and 8 successful US missions.
The problem with the MCO disaster wasn't mixing up units, it was a sub-contractor failing to follow a specification properly, which can happen for any number of reasons. Also, it's not the only way that such missions can fail. Let us remember that since the mid-90s there have been 2 failed US Mars missions as well as a failed European mission (the Beagle 2 lander), a failed Japanese mission, and 2 failed Russian missions. As well as one and only one successful European mission and 8 successful US missions.
Atwood's an American. Writers will write what they know… they're hardly obligated to use an unfamiliar measurement system for your convenience.
Well, it depends. If Atwood's aiming at an international audience, then he should use both measurement systems. If he's happy with an American audience then there's no reason for him to bother.
I note that the date of his blog post is the international-friendly “November 19, 2012” rather than the American numeric “11/19/2012”. But internationalising dates like this is easier than providing measurements in dual units.
I note that the date of his blog post is the international-friendly “November 19, 2012” rather than the American numeric “11/19/2012”. But internationalising dates like this is easier than providing measurements in dual units.
Us Americans do use "Month DD, YYYY" quite frequently, so I don't think that his usage of it is done purposefully.
Indeed. MM/DD/YY is used informally and for datapoints (e.g. the Date field when you sign a form), but any time you are writing formally (e.g. a letter) you use Month DD, YYYY.
It's almost like MM/DD/YY is the abbreviation of "Month DD, YYYY"
It's almost like MM/DD/YY is the abbreviation of "Month DD, YYYY"
> If Atwood's aiming at an international audience, then he should use both measurement systems.
That, and also Atwood's popularity among American readers gives him a great opportunity to encourage them to use metric.
In the meantime, use http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4751410 :).
That, and also Atwood's popularity among American readers gives him a great opportunity to encourage them to use metric.
In the meantime, use http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4751410 :).
Try being British, you basically have to understand both intuitively.
I am British! I haven't used imperial for at least 15 years apart from for speed limits, which I ignore anyway.
Except you subconsciously have. All display sizes are sold in inches. The trip computer on your car will tell you miles per gallon. Even if you ignore speed limits, your speedometer gives you your speed in MPH :). If you've ever flown on a plane, altitude has been given as feet and distance in miles. So you do use both.
> If you've ever flown on a plane, altitude has been given as feet and distance in miles.
I've been on plenty of flights where displays and cockpit announcements were in metres (altitude) and kilometres (distance + velocity) - as well as Celsius for outside temperature.
I've been on plenty of flights where displays and cockpit announcements were in metres (altitude) and kilometres (distance + velocity) - as well as Celsius for outside temperature.
> If you've ever flown on a plane, altitude has been given as feet and distance in miles.
If you fly a plane (not just on a plane), those are nautical miles, not land miles. And speed in knots. And rate of climb in ft/min.
If you fly a plane (not just on a plane), those are nautical miles, not land miles. And speed in knots. And rate of climb in ft/min.
True with display sizes although I'm interested more in resolution than size.
My trip computer does litres per 100km. I drive a Citroen C5 and it has kph on it as well as mph. My satnav usually reminds me if I'm driving too fast (in kmh which is handy) and that results only in me watching out for speed cameras and the fuzz :)
I don't fly - I drive if needs be. I frequently drive around Europe as it's easier than dealing with flights and a damn sight more comfortable, reliable and cheaper than flying. I can drive to Leipzig from London in about 10-12 hours.
My trip computer does litres per 100km. I drive a Citroen C5 and it has kph on it as well as mph. My satnav usually reminds me if I'm driving too fast (in kmh which is handy) and that results only in me watching out for speed cameras and the fuzz :)
I don't fly - I drive if needs be. I frequently drive around Europe as it's easier than dealing with flights and a damn sight more comfortable, reliable and cheaper than flying. I can drive to Leipzig from London in about 10-12 hours.
>Except you subconsciously have. All display sizes are sold in inches.
I'm in a country that uses the metric system, and have never cared about learning the exact equivalent of screen sizes. I just intuitively know, (from using and looking at them in the office or the store) what a 13", 15", 24", 40" etc screen is like -- and I never bothered to do the conversion at all.
It wouldn't even really help, because even if a knew the measurement in metric units, it would mean very little to the actual feeling of the screen, especially considering the variety of aspect ratios and that the display size measures the diagonal.
>The trip computer on your car will tell you miles per gallon.
All trip computers I've even seen can be set to show metric units.
>Even if you ignore speed limits, your speedometer gives you your speed in MPH :)
Still no need to do any conversion. I've travelled thousands of miles in the US (Route 66 and coast to coast several times), and I never wondered "Hmm, how many km/h are 70 mph?". I just needed to keep an eye on the speed limit signs to keep below that, and drive as fast as the car/road called for. Intuitively, not by translating to metric units.
I'm in a country that uses the metric system, and have never cared about learning the exact equivalent of screen sizes. I just intuitively know, (from using and looking at them in the office or the store) what a 13", 15", 24", 40" etc screen is like -- and I never bothered to do the conversion at all.
It wouldn't even really help, because even if a knew the measurement in metric units, it would mean very little to the actual feeling of the screen, especially considering the variety of aspect ratios and that the display size measures the diagonal.
>The trip computer on your car will tell you miles per gallon.
All trip computers I've even seen can be set to show metric units.
>Even if you ignore speed limits, your speedometer gives you your speed in MPH :)
Still no need to do any conversion. I've travelled thousands of miles in the US (Route 66 and coast to coast several times), and I never wondered "Hmm, how many km/h are 70 mph?". I just needed to keep an eye on the speed limit signs to keep below that, and drive as fast as the car/road called for. Intuitively, not by translating to metric units.
Having growing up in a metric country and lived in Britain I must admit its very nice having 60miles per equalling 60 minutes of driving for long trips.
Being able to say "I'm 45 miles away from X I'll be there in 45 minutes" without having to do recalculate each time you pass a road sign makes trips all the more pleasant.
Being able to say "I'm 45 miles away from X I'll be there in 45 minutes" without having to do recalculate each time you pass a road sign makes trips all the more pleasant.
The solution to that problem is simple -- drive at 60 KPH (37 MPH) instead of 60 MPH. :)
This would save gas too.
This would save gas too.
Actually it wouldn't in my Citroen C5. The fuel efficiency peaks precisely at 60mph/100kph. Something to do with the power transmission ratio.
I get 2.83l/100km or 83mpg in old money out of that if I don't drive like an asshat.
I get 2.83l/100km or 83mpg in old money out of that if I don't drive like an asshat.
Yes,okay, I've heard stories like this so I cannot discount them. I find it hard to believe that a car could deliver better gas mileage at 60 MPH than at 37 MPH, unless there was something very strange about the number of gears and how they related to road speeds.
But ... there it is. There really are such cars out there.
But ... there it is. There really are such cars out there.
It's more down to the sorts of roads. If you're doing 37mph it's usually in residential areas and extra-urban areas. These are notoriously full of traffic lights, other cars and humans which result in braking regularly and therefore costly energy sucking acceleration. Also engines are usually have peak energy transfer from fuel to distance at certain speeds due to gearing, revs, torque etc. This is by design.
If you're doing 60mph, you're probably on a relatively obstruction free A-road where the only energy required is to offset friction to maintain speed. I have driven from London to Leeds (195 miles) with not one single change in speed (apart from to take a piss and get a Burger King at Leicester Forest services!)
Also roads are a hell of a lot smoother and have less friction in Europe compared to the US. That makes one hell of a difference!
For ref, my car is a 1.9l diesel as well. These Citroen engines are super-efficient which is why I own it. I also have low rolling resistance tyres which make a 2-5% difference.
American cars are poorly designed guzzlers usually, even the ones they ship to Europe.
If you're doing 60mph, you're probably on a relatively obstruction free A-road where the only energy required is to offset friction to maintain speed. I have driven from London to Leeds (195 miles) with not one single change in speed (apart from to take a piss and get a Burger King at Leicester Forest services!)
Also roads are a hell of a lot smoother and have less friction in Europe compared to the US. That makes one hell of a difference!
For ref, my car is a 1.9l diesel as well. These Citroen engines are super-efficient which is why I own it. I also have low rolling resistance tyres which make a 2-5% difference.
American cars are poorly designed guzzlers usually, even the ones they ship to Europe.
Or do 120 KPH and just cut the numbers in half.
This principle is likely the reason imperial units stick: they're fantastic for fast fractional math. For the same reason, it's easier to work with 360 degrees in a circle than 2*pi radians.
>This principle is likely the reason imperial units stick: they're fantastic for fast fractional math.
As opposed to multiples of ten, in the metric system? Huh?
As opposed to multiples of ten, in the metric system? Huh?
Draw a line that's a third of a meter.
Do it with a fifth of a yard ;-)
Like, 100/3 = 33 cm? That's supposed to be difficult?
Or do you mean that it's difficult to know how to draw a third of a meter?
Why, is drawing a line that's one meter, or one yard, or one foot any easier?
Without a measure I can't draw accurately any of them.
Or do you mean that it's difficult to know how to draw a third of a meter?
Why, is drawing a line that's one meter, or one yard, or one foot any easier?
Without a measure I can't draw accurately any of them.
I guess they were referring to how a third of a yard would be a foot or 12 inches and that most people have an intuitive understanding of such common lengths. Also, because of the factors involved, “simple” fractions (e.g. ½, 1/3, ¼, ...) often end up at integral lengths.
But intuitive understanding of certain lengths is certainly not limited to the Imperial system. I frequently use A4 paper for measuring if I don't have a ruler at hand. I know the span between the tip of my thumb and pinky is pretty much 21 cm and so on. 8.2 inches probably wouldn't be much handier either.
But intuitive understanding of certain lengths is certainly not limited to the Imperial system. I frequently use A4 paper for measuring if I don't have a ruler at hand. I know the span between the tip of my thumb and pinky is pretty much 21 cm and so on. 8.2 inches probably wouldn't be much handier either.
This is quite convenient I'll agree but my satnav tells me how long it's going to take and bar traffic, it's quite accurate.
It's weird, because it is Imperial for some things,and Metric for others.
Temperature: Either
Building Materials: Metric
TV Sizes: Imperial
Beer: Imperial
Soft Drinks: Metric
Temperature: Either
Building Materials: Metric
TV Sizes: Imperial
Beer: Imperial
Soft Drinks: Metric
> And Intel's long neglected Atom line, thanks to years of institutional crippling to avoid cannibalizing Pentium sales, is poorly positioned to compete with ARM today.
Apple was ready to have new products that cannibalized the old ones. If Intel had the same courage, they'd be in a far better position today.
Apple was ready to have new products that cannibalized the old ones. If Intel had the same courage, they'd be in a far better position today.
Bless you, Captain Hindsight! I assume you shorted or put INTC to profit from your insight.
Seriously, this post-season quarterbacking helps nothing but your own karma. The people in charge of Intel are intelligent, incentivized, and they've given the problem a lot more thought than you have. I realize our economies are ludicrously inefficient, but a single comment on HN is not going to outsmart an Intel board member.
Seriously, this post-season quarterbacking helps nothing but your own karma. The people in charge of Intel are intelligent, incentivized, and they've given the problem a lot more thought than you have. I realize our economies are ludicrously inefficient, but a single comment on HN is not going to outsmart an Intel board member.
That's quite a brutal response to the pretty common sentiment. Also fairly nonsensical.
>I assume you shorted or put INTC to profit from your insight.
Just because you realize a company has made a big mistake doesn't mean you're in a position to short it. I realized MS had a vision problem after hearing Ballmer speak in person years ago, yet shorting MS at that point would have hurt me, not them. It's taken years for his lack of vision to begin to be a problem and even now no one sees it as critical as I do.
>The people in charge of Intel are intelligent, incentivized, and they've given the problem a lot more thought than you have.
You have no idea if any of that is true, you just assume it is. The people in charge of Intel could well be blinded by something they need to be true that isn't. If people at the head of companies are so infallible why does any company ever fail?
>I realize our economies are ludicrously inefficient, but a single comment on HN is not going to outsmart an Intel board member.
Now apply that logic to human nature and tell us what you intended with your hateful comment?
>I assume you shorted or put INTC to profit from your insight.
Just because you realize a company has made a big mistake doesn't mean you're in a position to short it. I realized MS had a vision problem after hearing Ballmer speak in person years ago, yet shorting MS at that point would have hurt me, not them. It's taken years for his lack of vision to begin to be a problem and even now no one sees it as critical as I do.
>The people in charge of Intel are intelligent, incentivized, and they've given the problem a lot more thought than you have.
You have no idea if any of that is true, you just assume it is. The people in charge of Intel could well be blinded by something they need to be true that isn't. If people at the head of companies are so infallible why does any company ever fail?
>I realize our economies are ludicrously inefficient, but a single comment on HN is not going to outsmart an Intel board member.
Now apply that logic to human nature and tell us what you intended with your hateful comment?
Apple cannibalized old products because the successor was mostly the same, but better. The argument around Intel is that success in the Atom line would hasten a repositioning of the microprocessor market that would inherently weaken Intel's position, so they are attempting to stall that repositioning as long as possible.
That is my point, except Apple's new products are also a repositioning in some important cases: iOS vs OS X being the most significant.
I'm surprised he likes photo passwords. What's the point of a password if you give it away to everyone around you every time you unlock? (Maybe Jeff has never had co-workers who like to play pranks...)
With that sort of password, screen smudges become a problem, more so than conventional ones. Shoulder surfing also seems a bigger problem.
I can only imagine borderline use cases where touch screen interfaces might be faster than a lenovo track point. those use cases might be more common for an average user, but when I'm spending most of my time inside office products, R studio and ssh terminals (and of course the browser) it seems unlikely that it would be more convenient - and I'm wondering, what is jeff atwood actually using this touch laptop for?
I find it annoying when I have to move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse. I imagine it would be infinitely more irritating and far less comfortable moving my hands from the keyboard to touch a vertical screen in front of me.
A large part of the reason why that's so annoying is that when you do that you have to also figure out where the mouse pointer is, and then start the mouse moving in the right direction. Once the mouse is moving the interaction is very natural and you can do it by auto-pilot. But until it is, you actually have to use a little piece of your brain which you'd rather focus on the problem at hand.
Touch should completely negate that. Just touch what you're looking at; you should be able to do that without requiring any higher brain activity.
Touch should completely negate that. Just touch what you're looking at; you should be able to do that without requiring any higher brain activity.
>you have to also figure out where the mouse pointer is, and then start the mouse moving in the right direction
Although it can be tricky to know what is actually going on during a "non-deliberative" task, I am fairly sure I start moving the mouse, then my brain's motion-detection circuitry very naturally tells me where the cursor is.
One of the reasons I believe that is that I remember a few times choosing (or noticing that I prefer) to make a vaguely semicircular arc rather than abruptly reversing direction. (If I did what you describe, I would probably not have reversed direction often enough to have such memories. In contrast, if I'm right, then I would've reversed direction half of the times that I had no idea initially where the cursor was relative to the target.)
Although it can be tricky to know what is actually going on during a "non-deliberative" task, I am fairly sure I start moving the mouse, then my brain's motion-detection circuitry very naturally tells me where the cursor is.
One of the reasons I believe that is that I remember a few times choosing (or noticing that I prefer) to make a vaguely semicircular arc rather than abruptly reversing direction. (If I did what you describe, I would probably not have reversed direction often enough to have such memories. In contrast, if I'm right, then I would've reversed direction half of the times that I had no idea initially where the cursor was relative to the target.)
I dont think its really the cognitive effort that I find annoying but rather the time it actually takes to move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse.
I am firmly in the know thy shortcuts camp and find anything that forces me to move hands away from the keyboard has a negative effect in terms of my productivity. With a mouse and keyboard at least your hands are moving in the same plane.
I am firmly in the know thy shortcuts camp and find anything that forces me to move hands away from the keyboard has a negative effect in terms of my productivity. With a mouse and keyboard at least your hands are moving in the same plane.
Kudos to this guy for trying out a lot of new gear, but these things are a lot more puzzling through the eyes of an average consumer. I was at Best Buy this weekend and the shiny new "Windows 8" section, complete with a handful of touch laptops, was a ghost town. Even spending a few minutes reading this article doesn't really sell me on why I should want to touch a laptop - if it's not immediately obvious to consumers, they're just going to walk by to the tablet tables.
Touch is great because it enables extremely mobile computing devices - anything built without that in mind might as well not have touch. The Yoga is within eyeshot of dozens of comparatively razor-thin tablets at Best Buy, so even attempting to pitch it as a "PC plus a tablet!" seems like a stretch when you've just palmed an iPad mini. This stuff is kind of cool, but I don't think it's going to make anyone I know upgrade their PC any quicker, which is the measure of MS's success.
Touch is great because it enables extremely mobile computing devices - anything built without that in mind might as well not have touch. The Yoga is within eyeshot of dozens of comparatively razor-thin tablets at Best Buy, so even attempting to pitch it as a "PC plus a tablet!" seems like a stretch when you've just palmed an iPad mini. This stuff is kind of cool, but I don't think it's going to make anyone I know upgrade their PC any quicker, which is the measure of MS's success.
I don't think that a touch laptop is puzzling in the eyes of the average consumer- in fact, they're a pretty simple concept. I was in Best Buy over the weekend and saw a good number of people playing around with the display Lenovo Yoga. The only downside was that the hinge on it was broken- not the best advertisement, but I don't judge it too much (display devices take a hell of a beating)- if anything it just shows that a good number of people were using it.
With win8 I thought for the first time about using a touchscreen for work or at home and my conclusion was:
Don't want to do it.
Maybe I'm to old or something but It just don't feel right fingering around on my monitor. Even if it would be flat and part of my desk (which would also be horrible because I eat, drink and smoke at my desk at home). I want to have my head up, look straight and don't have the screen right before my nose.
There are tabs and smartphones. I have those. Touching their screens feels right. It's the small thing you do on the road, in the plane, do small things or have fun. But I just don't feel like I could work with that at work or at home.
Don't want to do it.
Maybe I'm to old or something but It just don't feel right fingering around on my monitor. Even if it would be flat and part of my desk (which would also be horrible because I eat, drink and smoke at my desk at home). I want to have my head up, look straight and don't have the screen right before my nose.
There are tabs and smartphones. I have those. Touching their screens feels right. It's the small thing you do on the road, in the plane, do small things or have fun. But I just don't feel like I could work with that at work or at home.
It makes sense when you're working directly on a screen. I've had the opportunity to use the Wacom Cintiq in its various models over the years (and would love to actually afford one of my own), and for graphics and photo retouching, it's the most natural way to work. It's a lot like working at a drawing board or an easel (depending on the tilt angle you use). Not so much if what you're doing is keyboard-centric, though.
Can't see it working with a 15" laptop, which is my preferred size.
But if it gets to the point where all laptops have touch screens then I won't complain - it might work well with some UIs (like XBMC). I'm just not willing to pay extra for it.
But if it gets to the point where all laptops have touch screens then I won't complain - it might work well with some UIs (like XBMC). I'm just not willing to pay extra for it.
These trends are causing me to reconsider my computing setup. Right now I have a 13" Macbook Air with an external screen, which to my mind is the best of both worlds- portability when I need it, a large monitor when I'm sat down to do some serious work.
But I'm wondering if my minimal processing requirements (I'm doing web development) mean that I could buy an Asus Transformer tablet (complete with keyboard) and install Ubuntu on it. It would make the portable even more portable, but retain a good workstation setup when I'm sat at my desk.
But I'm wondering if my minimal processing requirements (I'm doing web development) mean that I could buy an Asus Transformer tablet (complete with keyboard) and install Ubuntu on it. It would make the portable even more portable, but retain a good workstation setup when I'm sat at my desk.
If he's right that touch is here to stay, we're going to see a major split between workstations and consumer devices. This is novel. Until recently, the workstation has been the anchor-point by how close they come to being as effective as the workstation. The workstation isn't going to go away, but neither is it going to support touch - multiple screens and comfortable posture are features for that setting.
Sorry, but that just reads like a sales pitch / marketing copy for windows 8.
Atwood is an admitted fan of Microsoft products, so yeah, this is written from that perspective. Blogs aren't encyclopedias - they don't have to be NPOV to be worth reading.
If you don't want to read opinion posts written by people who are partial towards one platform or another, you're going to cut yourself off from an awful lot of potentially interesting writing. (E.g. Jeff Atwood & Ed Bott, John Gruber & MG Siegler, Jon Corbet & Bruce Byfield, to pick two fans each respectively of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux).
(Of course, the worst thing is to only read blogs from people whose biases you share, under the delusion that they're the only objective ones...)
If you don't want to read opinion posts written by people who are partial towards one platform or another, you're going to cut yourself off from an awful lot of potentially interesting writing. (E.g. Jeff Atwood & Ed Bott, John Gruber & MG Siegler, Jon Corbet & Bruce Byfield, to pick two fans each respectively of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux).
(Of course, the worst thing is to only read blogs from people whose biases you share, under the delusion that they're the only objective ones...)
I understand its a blog, but his post had not a one bad thing to say about windows 8. It was also exclusively about windows laptops. He might have written better articles, and I'll give this a shot. As a sponsored post though, this one is less than subtle.
I do get the feeling that Atwood has become a MS marketing tool. I wonder how much free stuff he is getting for these posts.
And this is exactly why I wonder who decided 16:9 was better than 16:10 for laptops/tablets/etc... Even just that little bit of extra vertical space makes it so much more comfortable in portrait mode (when I rotate my computer monitor, which is an old TN LCD panel since low response 16:10 monitors are pretty much non-existent now).
I use Air Display (app that lets you use an iPad as an external monitor, and to control that monitor w/ touch or the mouse) on a regular basis, mostly just as a chat window next to my MacBook so Adium isn't taking up valuable screen real estate, and I often find myself touching the iPad to move windows around, close pop-up notifications, etc... and then I find myself trying to touch my MacBook screen without thinking to do the same thing, and disappointed when it doesn't work. So I can totally see usecases for a touch laptop - it feels like the natural next step, plus you could do things like draw directly (with a stylus) in Photoshop instead of using a graphics tablet.
It's extremely disappointing that the majority of (or is it all?) Android tablets do not have screens with a 4:3 aspect ratio. 16:10 is awkward and silly; 16:9 is something I won't even bother trying.
[deleted]
The Lenovo Yoga 13 is an unsung hero of the Windows 8 wave. I tried it at a Best Buy as was very impressed with the build quality, specs and price. The story that's not being told though is that it's sold out everywhere and the order time on Lenovo.com is 4 weeks!
http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/laptop/ideapad/yoga/yoga-1...
http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/laptop/ideapad/yoga/yoga-1...
I don't really get his point #2 "A giant touchpad makes the keyboard area too large"
Isn't the distance the screen is away pretty much dependent on the height of the screen? I know I don't see many laptops that the base is larger than the screen. Occasionally the back sticks out a bit for a larger battery but I've never seen a laptop where the keyboard/trackpad were not completely covered by the screen when closed.
Isn't the distance the screen is away pretty much dependent on the height of the screen? I know I don't see many laptops that the base is larger than the screen. Occasionally the back sticks out a bit for a larger battery but I've never seen a laptop where the keyboard/trackpad were not completely covered by the screen when closed.
His complaints about widescreen tablets not being very natural in portrait mode speaks volumes about his lack of experience with Android tablets, which all comes in this form.
It may feel a bit weird at first, but really, it's sorta like reading webpages of a normal A4 sheet of paper. And we should be pretty used to that. The iPad haven't been around for so long.
It may feel a bit weird at first, but really, it's sorta like reading webpages of a normal A4 sheet of paper. And we should be pretty used to that. The iPad haven't been around for so long.
I was baffled by his example of the wikipedia article in both orientations. For me, the portrait mode he spent so long criticizing seemed the clear winner in terms of readability.
A4 has an aspect ratio of 2:3, not 9:16. The iPad is 3:4 which is significantly closer to A4 than a weirdly tall portrait widescreen tablet (3:5.33333)
Actually, A4 has an aspect ratio of one to the square root of two. Your point still stands, as this is even closer to the iPad screen than 2:3.
Am I the only one that prefers my widescreen monitors flipped to portrait mode? I have it both in the office and at home, I only flip them when watching a movie.
No. Based on my experience on ~130 person dev teams it's the preferred mode for programmers.
[deleted]
But I am wondering if a reasonable or even better solution is an appropriate touchpad or even Android or iPad touchpad app.
Right now there are two (maybe three) touchpads quasi made for Windows 8 that I would like to try.
* The Logitech Wireless Rechargeable Touchpad T650 -- a huge touchpad with Windows 8 gesture support
* Splashtop Win8 Metro Testbed for Android and iPad
* Unified Remote for Android and Windows Phones
I haven't used Windows 8 more than three minutes, and I haven't used these alternatives to a touchscreen monitor, but I like the idea of having a 4" to 7" phone or tablet screen that mirrors the Windows 8 screen but lets me keep my finger flat on the table, pointing to a smaller screen now in remote touchscreen mode and able to get feedback to where my finger is either by seeing a "mouse pointer" move on the screen, or just by looking at the phone or tablet my finger is on and seeing the screen there.