Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Microsoft Research Shows High Performance Touch Screen

Last response: in News comments
Share
March 22, 2012 8:27:26 AM

This whole touch screen thing is like 3D...a gimmick. it's not going to last, at least not for a Desktop PC. The market will be limited for it, again, on a Desktop PC.

Now, on a tablet or phone...different story.

I hear more and more about how some are saying that Desktop PCs will go away. Well, I'm starting to believe that, but I still think we're a bit too far away for that to happen. At least, not until a Smart Phone can run something like Crysis or be powerful enough to run video editing programs on a docking station. Until that happens, Desktop PCs are here to stay. Give it a couple more years, though.
Score
-7
March 22, 2012 8:30:08 AM

how about pressure sensitive, and penable touch screens? i can deal with lag if the experiences is improved significantly.
Score
4
Related resources
March 22, 2012 8:30:59 AM

Does anyone else feel a sharp sting on the tip of their finger when using their iPod touch/iPhone/iPad for a while? This is most noticeable when I'm using it for reading comics/manga and I have to constantly pan left and right, up and down, pinch to zoom, etc. Seriously, my finger gets numb all the way to the knuckle after about an hour or so.

Electrical impulses beneath the glass currently have a 100 ms latency? If they bring it down to "1 ms" (100x faster) then I'm guessing that this will be felt a lot more and a lot faster.
Score
-7
March 22, 2012 8:33:49 AM

JOSHSKORNThis whole touch screen thing is like 3D...a gimmick. it's not going to last, at least not for a Desktop PC. The market will be limited for it, again, on a Desktop PC.Now, on a tablet or phone...different story.I hear more and more about how some are saying that Desktop PCs will go away. Well, I'm starting to believe that, but I still think we're a bit too far away for that to happen. At least, not until a Smart Phone can run something like Crysis or be powerful enough to run video editing programs on a docking station. Until that happens, Desktop PCs are here to stay. Give it a couple more years, though.


you posted this while i was writeing my post so i didnt see it.

3d isnt a gimmick, watch a well done movie (not a 3d conversion) or a game that properly implements it (uncharted 3) and you will understand

just like touch on a desktop... yea it sucks, but like i said, make the experience better.

try using a wacom monitor, you can see touch working if it was like that.
Score
3
March 22, 2012 8:41:27 AM

Nice to see a demo how touch screen SHOULD behave. Even nicer to know that it is possible and in progress to be made.
Score
8
March 22, 2012 8:41:37 AM

This will probably be fine for vertical information screens. Your arm will get tired before you experience any of the effects I mentioned above.

But then again, a Kinect-like interface is much better. You wouldn't have to touch something that 10.000 other complete strangers have touched. I look at demo tablets in stores (especially the iPad) and I cringe on how much oil and dust and lint they have attached. You can literary roll a few small balls off the screen.
Score
4
March 22, 2012 8:41:48 AM

Next decade? Wow. I'll probably forget about this by next week!
Score
-2
March 22, 2012 9:01:34 AM

1ms, wow, milestone achievement.. can't imagine what happened for next 10 years ahead
Score
4
March 22, 2012 9:26:32 AM

Maybe one day, every surface would be a touchscreen. Would be pretty awesome.
Score
3
March 22, 2012 10:39:06 AM

alidanyou posted this while i was writeing my post so i didnt see it. 3d isnt a gimmick, watch a well done movie (not a 3d conversion) or a game that properly implements it (uncharted 3) and you will understandjust like touch on a desktop... yea it sucks, but like i said, make the experience better.try using a wacom monitor, you can see touch working if it was like that.

I've had the privilege to use a Wacom monitor before, it's an absolutely amazing experience and I can only hope that one day they get within my budget. So I can absolutely see this working in a desktop environment, but I believe we're still going to need a mouse and keyboard to go along with it. I don't think the form of a desktop will change, but what can be done with it will with this (and other) technology.
Score
4
Anonymous
March 22, 2012 10:46:18 AM

Microsoft research and they don't know the difference between 8x the speed and 1/8 the speed,
The world is really collapsing.
Score
-3
March 22, 2012 11:19:04 AM

It takes too long for MS hardware to reach the market and in the mean time they sit on the patents.
Score
-1
Anonymous
March 22, 2012 12:02:28 PM

That looked like it was projected from above. Was that touch screen or motion tracking?
Score
1
March 22, 2012 12:03:30 PM

for those wondering why we will not be seeing this technology any time soon it is because that demo was a proof of concept using a touch pad (entirely different tech than a touch screen) with a projector shining down on it. The only thing is was showing was that touch latency needs to go down in order to make good believable products, something we have known for a very long time.

Nothing new here.
Score
-1
March 22, 2012 12:05:48 PM

This is why I love Microsoft. They actually have a capable R&D team.
Score
5
March 22, 2012 12:25:26 PM

@dspider
You are touching glass, there is no electrical current running through your finger when using a touch screen. The fault of your finger going numb is entirely your fault for applying too much pressure, or locking up your joints in your finger which restricts blood flow.

@alidan
I get what you are saying about 3D, but what makes it a gimmick is not that it cannot be done right, but that it is added where it is unneeded, or overused just because they can, but with no practical benefit to the end user. Yes, 3D gaming is AMAZING when done right (which is expensive, and they are still working some of the bugs out). 3D movies bring a new level of immersion and detail when done right (which I have only really seen in CG content so far... and Avatar... which is mostly CG), but most movies try to make things pop out of the screen which takes the viewer out of the action, or there are errors in the rendering which causes flat spots which are distracting (especially with volumetric content like mists and fogs), so I think we are still a long way off from really seeing good consistent 3D content from being a reality and sticking around for daily use.
The other gimmicky thing about 3D is the hardware. People who do not wear glasses tend to not want to wear glasses. People who do wear glasses tend to want to move towards contacts. And nobody wants to wear glasses over glasses. Add to that the shallow viewing angles, lowered brightness, and contrast being sacrificed on the alter of 'progress', and you begin to see why the masses don't want it because of the prohibitive cost, and the elites don't want it because of the compromises made. The only people really driving the tech are the upper middle class with a disposable income who think the tech is 'cool' and gamers who do not suffer many of the same issues because they sit 2' from their screen, dead center (opposed to a group of people on couches) and have money to burn.
In short, I agree, 3D is the direction to move, and has great potential; But to say it is going to catch on this time compared to attempts in the 1920s when they were first playing with it as a proof of concept, or every decade after the 1970s is silly. They need to go back to the drawing board and find a convincing, cheap way to do 3D with a minimum of user requirement or hardware (glasses). They are closer... but still not there yet.
Score
2
March 22, 2012 1:37:59 PM

Overall, this has uses on all platforms and factors.
Score
1
March 22, 2012 4:46:56 PM

"Personally, I would hope that such a technology could pave the way to touchscreen keyboards that are serious replacements for today's physical keyboards."

HELL NO!

What's people's obsession with touch keyboards on desktop/laptops? You can't touch type on one of those! Do you really want to have to look down at your fingers to make sure you're hitting the right key? Do you really want autocorrect to figure it out when it doesn't? We've all seen those autocorrect comedies, they're funny because it happens to all of us. It's not funny when you're actually trying to type and it continually screws up.

Terrible idea.
Score
1
March 22, 2012 4:51:26 PM

spleenbegoneI've had the privilege to use a Wacom monitor before, it's an absolutely amazing experience and I can only hope that one day they get within my budget. So I can absolutely see this working in a desktop environment, but I believe we're still going to need a mouse and keyboard to go along with it. I don't think the form of a desktop will change, but what can be done with it will with this (and other) technology.


have you ever seen those expensive... dont know what they are called, mounts maybe, for monitors, that let you attach them to the desk, and than freely move them around, changing angle how close they are to you and such.

mix one of those with proper touch gestures on it.

i could honestly see me not haveing a mouse and keyboard any more, at least for anything outside of games. i need to type, well dragon can help me there, i need a mouse, well i have a pen or my finter, depending on how accurate i need/want to be.

lastly, if i considered a monitor a 5 year investment, i could see myself dropping 2500 on one of wacoms monitors. they have a nice 1920x1200 on the high end thats 24 inch.

CaedenV@dspiderYou are touching glass, there is no electrical current running through your finger when using a touch screen. The fault of your finger going numb is entirely your fault for applying too much pressure, or locking up your joints in your finger which restricts blood flow.@alidanI get what you are saying about 3D, but what makes it a gimmick is not that it cannot be done right, but that it is added where it is unneeded, or overused just because they can, but with no practical benefit to the end user. Yes, 3D gaming is AMAZING when done right (which is expensive, and they are still working some of the bugs out). 3D movies bring a new level of immersion and detail when done right (which I have only really seen in CG content so far... and Avatar... which is mostly CG), but most movies try to make things pop out of the screen which takes the viewer out of the action, or there are errors in the rendering which causes flat spots which are distracting (especially with volumetric content like mists and fogs), so I think we are still a long way off from really seeing good consistent 3D content from being a reality and sticking around for daily use.The other gimmicky thing about 3D is the hardware. People who do not wear glasses tend to not want to wear glasses. People who do wear glasses tend to want to move towards contacts. And nobody wants to wear glasses over glasses. Add to that the shallow viewing angles, lowered brightness, and contrast being sacrificed on the alter of 'progress', and you begin to see why the masses don't want it because of the prohibitive cost, and the elites don't want it because of the compromises made. The only people really driving the tech are the upper middle class with a disposable income who think the tech is 'cool' and gamers who do not suffer many of the same issues because they sit 2' from their screen, dead center (opposed to a group of people on couches) and have money to burn.In short, I agree, 3D is the direction to move, and has great potential; But to say it is going to catch on this time compared to attempts in the 1920s when they were first playing with it as a proof of concept, or every decade after the 1970s is silly. They need to go back to the drawing board and find a convincing, cheap way to do 3D with a minimum of user requirement or hardware (glasses). They are closer... but still not there yet.


with content opoing out of the screen at you, there are some movies where that is called for, such as a kids movie like megamind, a horror movie like my bloody valentine, or a movie that is just there for fun, i believe drive angry is in that category, all those movies have things pop out at the screen to get you... and all the have a purpose. the kids movies, well its a kids movie, anything to entertain them, the horror when doen right will make you jump or flinch a bit, and the for fun movie its there because why not, and i beleive drive angry was done well too, from what i have heard.

back in the 20's the tech would be cost prohibitive, for the consumer, and pretty much up till digital photography could cost a crap ton.

in the 70's the tech was blue and red, and even i cant find that enjoyable to sit through anything and watch it.

but now, we have cameras that are 5mp, shoot hd, and are under 20$ (smartphone) and putting 2 of them in tandem to get a stenographic picture shouldn't be to costly, or even shoot a 3d movie...

the cost to make it has come way down, the 3d that we have is far better than it use to be, and the over all cost of having this 3d is also way down.

and its not just that people have disposable income, its that and tv that is well made also has a 3d component today. my dads friend has one eye, and spend i believe 8000$ on a tv, and it has 3d in it... he couldn't use it it, but its everywhere.

i can agree that people who ware glasses don't want 2 pairs, but you could probably get some high quality polarized clip on sunglasses that can work at 3d glasses, to everyone else, i ware glasses, and dont seek contacts and such, if they cant ware sunglasses for 2 hours than i think something is wrong with them.

i believe that in time, brightness will be changed in 3d versions of movies, because as it stands now, the biggest flaw in a 3d movies is whenever its dark.

i think i got off on a bit of a tangent.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 4:56:03 PM

Improved touch screen are welcome but touch screen KBs? Most prefer tactile keys so this is still a stretch since most like to feel the key they are pressing.
Score
1
March 22, 2012 6:17:00 PM

@pocketdrummer

While I tend to agree they wouldn't completely replace keyboards I think there could be a big place for touch screen input devices. From a graphics developer standpoint, not every input is meant to be text. Many keyboard inputs are just shortcuts that take a lot of time to learn. In situations like that I think it would be pretty valuable to have a touch display "keyboard" that would replace the keys with icons based on what programs you were running. Much like what the Optimus keyboard was intended to be.

Sure, not everyone would want one but there's a market for it.
Score
1
March 22, 2012 6:46:52 PM

CaedenV@dspider
You are touching glass, there is no electrical current running through your finger when using a touch screen. The fault of your finger going numb is entirely your fault for applying too much pressure, or locking up your joints in your finger which restricts blood flow.


Didn't you ever wonder why it doesn't work with a pen or a piece of plastic? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONDUCT ELECTRICITY! Humans are mostly water, and water is very good at directing electric fields.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone1.htm

"Capacitive touch screens use a layer of capacitive material to hold an electrical charge; touching the screen changes the amount of charge at a specific point of contact."

"...the capacitive circuitry requires two distinct layers of material. One houses driving lines, which carry current, and the other houses sensing lines, which detect the current at nodes." --> The current goes from the driving line, through your skin and into the sensing line.

I'm telling you, rub the screen for an hour or so and you'll definitely start to feel it. It's like the finger becomes galvanized.
Score
3
March 23, 2012 3:13:22 AM

alidanhow about pressure sensitive, and penable touch screens? i can deal with lag if the experiences is improved significantly.
They had those already, for years. They're called resistive touch screens, and they're known for their pen- and glove-friendly nature (since they rely on pressure they don't require a conductive material, just about anything works). My phone has one, and they have some drawbacks compared to modern capacitive touch screens. The main two disadvantages are that they're even worse in daylight than an equivalent brightness capacitive screen, and that they do not support multi-touch.

Capacitive screens are also easier to do certain things on, like constantly scrolling while reading an email or browsing a website, since they require no pressure while you drag your finger across the screen. Also you can get conductive-tip pens that work well enough with capacitive screens, maybe not quite as good as a good stylus on a competent resistive screen, but well enough.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 26, 2012 1:19:12 AM

I dont know who says desktop pcs are going away but they are caught up in the latest hype and buzzwords. My desktop is not going anywhere because they will never make smartphone sized components that are as reliable, powerful, and cheap as the larger parts in my desktop. Smart phones have tiny screens with batteries that last shorter and shorter amounts of time even with the extremes they try to get longer life out of them. Smart phones will never overcome these obstacles by their very nature. Desktop PCs will always be many times more powerful and that power will always have its place.
Score
0
!