Black Mage Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I know we've all seen concept videos of this kind of technology before, but it looks like Microsoft is pushing it to the next level by actually putting it into production this Winter. Microsoft Surface Probably going to cost a bundle, but it would still be the perfect system for use with Starcraft 2, Photoshop, or Illustrator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schwaltzvald Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 It won't really be available to regular consumers until after three to five years, as the the "Surface" will be geared towards businesses. Each supposedly costing $5000 to $10000 a pop... http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/30/technology/microsoft.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linkspast Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Dosent seem as practical as there making it out to be. I dont see this replacing computers ever. But the technology is cool. Its just that I dont think there is a market for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eten Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 5k-10k pricetag + designed for general use(zomg computer coffeetable), not specific = failure. Won't become widespread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Probably going to cost a bundle, but it would still be the perfect system for use with Starcraft 2, Photoshop, or Illustrator. Yeah, because a mouse isn't faster and more intuitive for games. The same goes even more so for a stylus and any image processing program. Have you ever seen a demo where people use these sort of things? In the Warcraft 3 demo video, the guy took so long to group and command that anyone with a mouse would have already sent their troops in and started attacking. And using obscure finger and hand gestures to alter a picture? No thanks. Oh, and that cost thing... Yeah, that could be a big factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drack Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Microsoft SurfaceSite requires flash and is therefore made of fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Mage Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 Site requires flash and is therefore made of fail. The words of one without high-speed internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drack Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 The words of one without high-speed internet? Obviously you don't know me very well. I'm not lacking in bandwidth in the least. Color me old-fashioned, but a site requiring flash, and quite honestly flash itself, is "made of fail" for several reasons. -The fact that flash is by definition animated. It's a distraction from any textual content. On websites, animation should be used sparingly if at all. -Nonstandard navigation interface. I yearn for the good old underlined hyperlink to navigate through a website. -Obstruction of content. Ever try to get an mp3 out of a flash interface? Not even "view HTML source" will let you get at it. Ability to watch/listen but not save is an abomination. -Not work friendly. Textual web page surfing at work is a guilty pleasure many netizens indulge in. Flash destroys any illusion of productivity to overlooking bosses. -System resources. I'd like a webpage to minimize the strain put on my hardware, not maximize it, my computer's VERY fast speed is no excuse for inefficient software design. On topic, I've read about Microsoft's "Surface" in the newspaper. I don't think it will be able to do all it claims to. The touch screen technology it depends on isn't advanced enough to differentiate what's being placed on the surface to a fine enough degree. The touch screen interface proves to be cumbersome for a lot of tasks. While it's well suited to some functions, it's highly impractical for others. Having played many, MANY DS games, and having used a tablet PC with a light pen, I feel I'm qualified to make such a claim. There are just some things that are annoying to do with a touch screen, and I don't see Microsoft's surface having a keyboard and mouse hooked up to it as it would totally defeat the purpose. It's interesting to see that Microsoft is branching out and thinking up new and interesting ideas, but I don't think this "surface" will be practical for anything, given its cost. It will be a cool gadget, though, but I don't think that's what Microsoft was aiming for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Author Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I remember another "too expensive" and "not enough use" tye of technology from years ago. People said there was a market for about 7 computers in the world. Heck, the same thing happened to airplanes: "A nice toy, but nothing more." You have to realise that new technology always seems pointless at first. But as soon as a need is fulfilled, the technology picks up and people start using it a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I remember another "too expensive" and "not enough use" type of technology from years ago. People said there was a market for about 7 computers in the world. Heck, the same thing happened to airplanes: "A nice toy, but nothing more." You have to realize that new technology always seems pointless at first. But as soon as a need is fulfilled, the technology picks up and people start using it a lot. Except that this isn't a completely new technology, like your examples, but rather, another iteration of existing technology. They took a computer, and hooked it up to a touch screen. Oversimplified? A bit. But this isn't like someone came up with a wole new everything. They used existing systems, tweaked it to do something slightly different, and slapped it together. They expect it to replace the far cheaper and well-installed personal computer. I don't see that happening. It's like saying "Hey, here's new this car! It's uses a control scheme that is completely different from a steering wheel and pedals, and it only costs ten times as much as a regular car! It's going to sell like fuck!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Actually, there's a lot more involved on the hardware side than "tak(ing) a computer and hooking up a touch screen to it." Multi-touch systems are a lot more complicated to implement than a plain old single-touch touchscreen; this is cutting edge technology. Don't downplay the technical accomplishment here by saying they "slapped it together;" this is a big deal, and if it takes off, it will change the way people use computers. Watch the demo videos they have on the website; those are very good, real world examples of how intuitive the interface can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Mage Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 Actually, there's a lot more involved on the hardware side than "tak(ing) a computer and hooking up a touch screen to it." Multi-touch systems are a lot more complicated to implement than a plain old single-touch touchscreen; this is cutting edge technology. Don't downplay the technical accomplishment here by saying they "slapped it together;" this is a big deal, and if it takes off, it will change the way people use computers.Watch the demo videos they have on the website; those are very good, real world examples of how intuitive the interface can be. Agreed. I mean, sure it's still early for this technology, at least in term of widespread marketing, but with time I'm certain that it'll improve and become more accepted and widely used. It just takes time for new (or "iterations of existing technology") to settle in and come into use. Like home PCs, even in the 80's when the PC was first really going into production and use, it was still a novelty for most people, and few could think to afford one. Take the IBM PC 8088, for example, in 1981. A new toy for the ages at the low cost of $3000 (over $7000 in todays money), but how many people did you know who had one sitting in their living rooms? Twenty six years later, we have three computers at home and I'm sure plenty of people here have more than that. And I'm sure that in less than a decade this technology could very well be as widespread as the LCD monitor or broadband is today (both of which also seemed out-of-reach just a few years ago). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Author Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Speaking of which, anyone still on dial-up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atmuh Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 i think it seems nifty very nifty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanthos Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I think the idea of touch-based computing will be a big success in the future, but definitely not with this product, and not only because this product is the first. Touch-based computing will need several things in order to really work. 1) Alternative input methods that are as fast or faster as a standard keyboard or mouse. This could involve displaying a keyboard on the device itself for someone to type on (albeit at a cost of reduced screen space), but unless such a device was as fast or faster for *all tasks* that I'd want to use it for, I wouldn't regard it as more than a novelty. As an alternative, I guess hooking up a standard keyboard and mouse for when touch-based methods weren't appropriate would be good too. 2) Appropriate precision. If the screen is relatively small, say the size of my 17" monitor, precision becomes a huge issue (each pixel would be quite large, or else touching my finger down would cover a significant number of pixels). Reduced resolution for the sake of dragging is stupid. 3) Ergonomics. Again relating to screen size, I suspect that the current design (as a table top) wouldn't be sustainable for a long period of usage, since the user would be leaning forward too much, especially for doing actions on the farther end of the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I think you guys need to realize that this isn't meant to be a replacement for the way people use computers now. It's a computerized implementation of things people commonly do on a tabletop to begin with. Organize photos, look at maps, etc. Applications that make sense on a table. I really doubt people will be playing FPSs or complicated RTSs; that's not what it's designed for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 The typical new technology arguments. Wait 10 years and the prices will be cheap and everybody will be using it one way or the another. I don't see why they can't do it in the typical monitor format too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Reminds me of the "Desk" idea from Ender's Game. if they can project is as a 3D image above the screen, it'd be even better. But I can see this sort of thing replacing remote controls in TV rooms and such. You can run your entire viewing experience from the coffee table in front of your couch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pezman Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Definitely. I am not one to poo-poo new technology, mostly because pretty much any technological innovation ends up reliable and affordable enough to enter our lives. It's always a step forward, and thinking in the "If it ain't broke" mindset is anathema to tech developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drack Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Ergonomics, that's an interesting argument. I find it much more comfortable to type on a flat surface and look at a vertical one. Bending over to see the screen is not very effective. Perhaps some sort of dual screen setup where the bottom screen is the touch screen and the top screen would be a more traditional, vertical screen that's just used for output. A giant Nintendo DS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanthos Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I think you guys need to realize that this isn't meant to be a replacement for the way people use computers now. It's a computerized implementation of things people commonly do on a tabletop to begin with. Organize photos, look at maps, etc. Applications that make sense on a table. I really doubt people will be playing FPSs or complicated RTSs; that's not what it's designed for. I'm not sure I agree. Even if they get this technology for the same price as a normal PC or even a bit lower, it's still not worth paying for what will really be more of a novelty (at least until they come up with more uses than photos and maps, both of which can be done on a normal PC already). The only thing I've heard that might be a better use than a PC (as opposed to different; I can get to photos and maps I want pretty quickly with a keyboard and mouse; I don't think I'd gain anything by doing all that touch-based) is the possibility of piano-roll sequencing being a lot faster than keyboard and mouse. Even then, it'll still be a long time before that kind of thing was affordable for people like us, not to mention that no one would be upgrading from their current setup unless the thing performed well. I suppose it could always be used as an interface to a PC; that might work. Anyway, with the current set of things this can be used for, it's clearly not much more than a novelty. Unless they come up with a lot of good applications for it that can't be done as effectively on a PC, it will remain a novelty and I doubt it'll sell well, which is why I was suggesting how it would compare to a normal PC, because I don't think it has enough potential at the moment to make it as a PC replacement or as a novelty device. Of course some people will buy it just because it's cool, but most will want it because of what they can do with it, and as long as it remains a "toy", they'll stick to their PC. It could also have a lot of potential with 3D modelling too, I think. It'll probably end up being most suited for artists/musicians, the kind of people who would be likely to work on a Mac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I've always wanted some sort of touch-screen technology for music sequencing. If each of my fingers acted like the mouse cursor in FL Studio, I could write music significantly faster. I'd be able to write down an entire riff or melody in seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklink42 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Speaking of which, anyone still on dial-up? Sadly yes, but not for long... In regards to the "surface" though, I'm inclined to agree with the idea of it being a novelty kind of thing. It seems highly doubtful that it even could replace the PC's of today, given the many issues presented in which a PC will continue to prove superior. Unless it was like a permenant tablet Laptop, but even then it would probably end up too clunky to use. The possibilities in terms of alternate technology though, seem more viable. I remember when the first touch-screen computers made it out (there was one in the museum I used to go to), everyone thought it a great idea, but with little practicality outside of places like that. These days, everyone wants a tablet laptop, because for things like drawing and 3D modeling, they prove to have certain advantages. What if, like Star Trek, the Surface was mounted on a wall in a medical office? Or maybe in the home, and used as a digital tracker/calendar? So no, I don't see it as a replacement, or even as an upgrade to PC's, but the potential uses are not diminished because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vurez Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I don't know about RTS games, but digital board games, and multiplayer turn-based strategy games would be kind of cool on it. Of course it's way too expensive at the moment for these uses. I would think precision would be an issue for a lot of it's possible uses. Maybe they could make a special glove you could wear for it that has pointy fingertips? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emura Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 When I worked at Ontario Lottery and Gaming as a web developer, some of the gaming development teams stole one of our developers to build a web app for playing Texas Hold'em. Their goal was to put large touch-screen computers such as this Microsoft thing in the various casinos as an alternative to actually sitting down at a table and interacting with people. No idea what ever happened to the project, but IIRC they had trouble finding a big enough touch-screen. I could also see something like this being purchased by companies to give their boardroom a little extra flash. To me though, right now it seems the technical equivalent of a marketing buzzword. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.