DIY Multi-touch

[#1 Mustang Fan]

A friend and I have been looking into building our own touch pad after seeing this video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQpr3W-YmcQ&feature"]YouTube - How to Make a Cheap Multitouch Pad - MTmini[/ame]

We have been looking into this further and are probably going to just do a simple cardboard & pexiglass construct to test the idea. It's very interesting how this works. Thing is you need a webcam either that supports a Infrared mode or you have to play around with it yourself to make it into an infrared camera, via inserting bits of developed film after you've taken out this weird filter thing. The software is a Microsoft touch pack, which I think comes with the W7 betas and Rc. Theres actually been a entire OS built around "touch", its called flick I think and it's quite amazing. Still under experimentation but an example is that if you place a device on the touch screen, it can detect it and wirelessly connect to it and then pops up menus and options around where the object is situated - on screen. Its mind blowing what some people are doing with this technology.

[Rockefella]

Pretty cool stuff but what are you planning on doing with it if you make it?

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Using it with W7, just interested at the moment I mean its fairly cheap to build and multi-touch is pretty damn cool - I'd buy a Macbook over any other laptop just for the multi-touch use.

[Rockefella]

I'd buy a Macbook over any other laptop just for the multi-touch use.

Don't be silly.

[my porsche]

Multi-touch as in the two finger zooming like on the iPhone? My Dell has that, and it was $795 for a bigger HD screen, more RAM and a larger hard drive, bluetooth and a lower douchebag factor. As fun as Macs are to play with, I just couldn't justify spending nearly twice as much for a lesser notebook.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

I agree, in no way that Mac's are better. They cost twice the amount for a normal PC and have 1/2 the specs, its just that I though that they were the only laptops to have mutli-touch compatibility.

What OS are you running on your Dell? Because no systems other than 7 and OS X support multi-touch, that why if your using xp or vista you need to download the Microsoft touch pack separately.

[switters78]

I agree, in no way that Mac's are better. They cost twice the amount for a normal PC and have 1/2 the specs, its just that I though that they were the only laptops to have mutli-touch compatibility.

What OS are you running on your Dell? Because no systems other than 7 and OS X support multi-touch, that why if your using xp or vista you need to download the Microsoft touch pack separately.

There's a reason why Macs cost more than Dells, just like there's a reason why BMWs cost more than Buicks...and it's not all just flash and hype...but the extra cost is associated with certain performance and interaction factors that aren't going to be apparent or even necessary to some people. If you're not using your computer for art, film or music production, then the extra cost may not be necessary, but I'll say this: as an artist, I've been using macs for over 15 years, and I've had over 15 years of reliable computer use without huge crashes or major problems.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Also, you get more free and better programs with Mac than with a Windows.I think I spent better 1.000 € on my father's iMac than 350 € on my laptop.
The only laptop/pc which really satisfied me was an Asus, payed 2.100 € 5 years ago.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

There's a reason why Macs cost more than Dells, just like there's a reason why BMWs cost more than Buicks...and it's not all just flash and hype...but the extra cost is associated with certain performance and interaction factors that aren't going to be apparent or even necessary to some people. If you're not using your computer for art, film or music production, then the extra cost may not be necessary, but I'll say this: as an artist, I've been using macs for over 15 years, and I've had over 15 years of reliable computer use without huge crashes or major problems.

So, what are these certain performance and interactive issues, out of interest?

And if they aren't apparent or even necessary to some people why should they be paying extra for something they don't actually need?

And again I can buy a Sony Vaio, even looks as good as a Macbook if not better, with twice the specs as the Macbook at the same price. Therefore I can run a twice as fast OS like 7, or xp.

[RacingManiac]

Or any CAD software....I can't see anyone with use for engineering software going for a Mac....you can't really use it as a workstation....

granted my work Dell isn't the best PC I've used, it can at least run most FEA with decent ease...

[switters78]

So, what are these certain performance and interactive issues, out of interest?

And if they aren't apparent or even necessary to some people why should they be paying extra for something they don't actually need?

And again I can buy a Sony Vaio, even looks as good as a Macbook if not better, with twice the specs as the Macbook at the same price. Therefore I can run a twice as fast OS like 7, or xp.

They shouldn't...the same way someone who only drives 5 miles a week doesn't need a Ferrari for said task.

With regard to the computers: when you ask your computer to perform a task, there are a sequence of steps the computer must carry out in order to process the command. The architecture of a mac allows it to perform the same function as a pc, but in fewer steps, making it faster. As a result, a 3gHz mac is faster than a 3gHz pc, which makes an exponential difference when handling large graphic, movie and music files. Also, until recently, mac's user interface (dragging and dropping, renaming drives and files, organizing your workspace to fit your needs, etc.) has been much more versatile, flexible and user friendly than the pc's.

I'm not knocking pc's. They do their job and are well suited for many people, but it's worth knowing that there's a difference between over-priced and expensive. Macs are engineered with certain professions in mind, to be sure, and they're not for everyone. But for those who use them for what they were intended, they're invaluable. I could never do what I do with a pc. I've used pc's plenty, and I haven't encountered one yet that's as powerful and versatile as any of the macs I've owned.

[Matra et Alpine]

The comment about fewer steps was partially true whtn the Mac had their own processor and tuned OS code and Microsoft were developing Windows98
Get with the up-to-date program. Some apps are faster, some are slower.

The "versatile" always makes me laugh, coz if you KNEW how to do it in a PC you could very easily.
In fact to try to cripple Microsoft during development, Apple presented a user-configured Windows and showed how it was a copy of MacOS. Thrown out as the judge sensibly pointed out how they had chosen to make it look like MacOS, Microsoft hadn't .. jsut given the user "flexibility".
Granted the PC was always a bit obtuse about how to do many things, but MS got their act in gear after the Win2K/XP debacle.Is it for better ? Yes for new/novice users, but I HATE the 2007 versions of Office with all it's "new easier consistent" interface. NONE of my "muscle-memory" works and it'll likely take me years to get as fast as I used to be Because Apple won't allow any other PC run MacOS then you can't compare the really fast machines and laptops from the specialised manufacturers.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The comment about fewer steps was partially true whtn the Mac had their own processor and tuned OS code and Microsoft were developing Windows98
Get with the up-to-date program. Some apps are faster, some are slower.

The "versatile" always makes me laugh, coz if you KNEW how to do it in a PC you could very easily.
In fact to try to cripple Microsoft during development, Apple presented a user-configured Windows and showed how it was a copy of MacOS. Thrown out as the judge sensibly pointed out how they had chosen to make it look like MacOS, Microsoft hadn't .. jsut given the user "flexibility".
Granted the PC was always a bit obtuse about how to do many things, but MS got their act in gear after the Win2K/XP debacle.Is it for better ? Yes for new/novice users, but I HATE the 2007 versions of Office with all it's "new easier consistent" interface. NONE of my "muscle-memory" works and it'll likely take me years to get as fast as I used to be Because Apple won't allow any other PC run MacOS then you can't compare the really fast machines and laptops from the specialised manufacturers.

actually, I saw Mac OS X on Asus' and Dells

[switters78]

The comment about fewer steps was partially true whtn the Mac had their own processor and tuned OS code and Microsoft were developing Windows98
Get with the up-to-date program. Some apps are faster, some are slower.

The "versatile" always makes me laugh, coz if you KNEW how to do it in a PC you could very easily.
In fact to try to cripple Microsoft during development, Apple presented a user-configured Windows and showed how it was a copy of MacOS. Thrown out as the judge sensibly pointed out how they had chosen to make it look like MacOS, Microsoft hadn't .. jsut given the user "flexibility".
Granted the PC was always a bit obtuse about how to do many things, but MS got their act in gear after the Win2K/XP debacle.Is it for better ? Yes for new/novice users, but I HATE the 2007 versions of Office with all it's "new easier consistent" interface. NONE of my "muscle-memory" works and it'll likely take me years to get as fast as I used to be Because Apple won't allow any other PC run MacOS then you can't compare the really fast machines and laptops from the specialised manufacturers.

One thing's for sure...I've had this debate enough times to know it always ends with "To each their own" ...but...certain things always irked me about the pc interface, like not being able to rename drives, and nothing really seemed to be laid out very intuitively until you spent hours learning it. I know a pc can be versatile if you know a thing or two, but that's just the thing. What initially drew me to Macs was that they were designed to make your tasks easier and you didn't need to be an expert to figure out how to use them. Build quality and reliability was always an issue for me too. Macs don't get viruses, and they hardly ever crash. Even if they freeze, a restart usually fixes it. I've had pretty much no serious computer problems for as far back as I could remember, which is great because I can just focus on being an artist and not have to worry about being a computer technician too.

Besides, at this point, I've been using macs for so long that a pc would have to be light years better for me to even consider switching, which I don't see happening any time soon. But, as I said before...to each his own...

[fisetdavid26]

The last time I got a BSoD using Windows was in 1999 with Windows 98. I'm by no means a Windows professional. Just a self-taught power user.

After Win98 I made the switch to Windows 2000, then XP Pro, then Vista Ultimate and I'm now beta testing Windows 7, all of them have been flawless.

Oh yes, I can see you coming "but you need a fast PC for Vista to work!" yes, but your 'fast enough PC to run Vista' still cost less than you Mac.

And Windows 7 can run on über slow PC and is still usable, and rather fast. I've installed it on a Northwood Celeron 2.5 with 256MB of DDR-333 memory and using basic apps the difference between the Celery and my OC'ed Core 2 Quad 3.6 setup + 8GB of DDR2-1000 is minimal, really. Of course there's a difference, but it's not that noticeable.

My mind was blown.

MS are doing a fantastic job with Win7, and each new build is faster than the previous one.

Also, I'm not against Macs or anything, I love Apple actually, but I'm a bit disappointed about their last keynote. They said MS was "using the same old technology" with Windows 7, referring to Vista's technology, and this keynote was about... Snow Leopard, which is basically just an update of Leopard. It's okay when Apple updates their OS using user feedback but not when MS does. What the?

But anyway. I agree with the old motto - to each his own.