I think some people would disagree. It certainly seems unnecessary now, but I know Microsoft believes that in a few years we will be so hooked on touchscreens that any screen that isn't a touchscreen will seem useless. My kids' first instinct is to touch the screen to affect the device, no matter what device.
Until recently, I was of the opinion that a touch screen on any kind of a real PC was a stupid idea. But that was before I'd gotten used to using a touch screen smart phone. Actually, at that point, I still thought it was stupid.
But not long ago, I was really tired from travel and tradeshow and without thinking, found myself trying to use my laptop screen as a touch screen. What I am still skeptical of is the complete replacement of the mouse. A touch screen is an easy interface for some applications, but not for a lot of others.
When typing, for example, it's pretty inefficient to move from keyboard to screen. The mouse is in the same area as the keyboard and thus not so disruptive.
I agree with Doug about touchscreens on laptops or desktops. In fact, I hate when anyone uses their fat greasy fingers to point at stuff on my screens.
However, if some smart company finally does market a hybrid notebook/tablet device, like the Surface perhaps, then it would make sense to allow use of touchscreen or mouse and keyboard, depending how the toy is being used at the time.
I often wish that my notebook had a touch screen. I am so used to using touch/swipe when reading documents or apps like flipboard on my iPad that I find myself trying to do the same reading a website or doc on my notebook. I have my hands on either side of the screen, and use my thumbs to scroll up or down. I really look forward to trying this on a new Win 8 hybrid!
Actually the netbook format had a lot going for it. The idea of bringing PC's down in price and increasing portability, at the expense of unnecessary features, is a good one. I don't see ultrabooks going that route, though. Tablets are NOT a slimmed down PC, though.
Intel cannot afford to implement commercially beyond 20nm.
U.S. Government & Intel are concealing Corp. is looted & Bankrupt in future terms.
Sources are 5; 1) infiltration by cartel organized network crime; 2) banked cost constructing surplus barrier limiting competitors beyond 32 nm; 3rd, theft from stockholder’s to administer cost of channel price fix tie; 4th, theft from end customers charged price fix in invoice plus monopoly overcharges. Likely PC end buyers will see some recovery. 5th industrial theft from processors dumped at price less than cost. 5 categories record $180,858,122,551 misrepresented and unreported cost burden on Intel.
Where are present cost burdens? 1st, inventories of Xeon Gainstown EP and Westmere EX, Aarondale, Sandy Bridge Desktop and Mobile. Issues are 3; first, surplus processors banked in channels on deferred revenue recognition; 2nd, completed systems stalled in channels showing now what is occurring inside Intel; 3rd, surplus banked goods; processors & mpu in systems reclaimed and purposed for apps that will compete against Intel future product while placing burden on industry in total.
Finally, one must ask why Intel is sustaining price on prior runs instead of flushing at cost to recover investment burden?
For Intel to dump inventories means twin tower effect on supply chain. As processor margins eliminated AMD becomes system house to capture remaining downstream producer values. Same for other processor design producers impacted by surplus raining down.
Collapse flattens Intel’s long time channel & contract manufacturers finally take over for certain.
Final question was price hold a hidden condition in Docket 9341 consent agreement? It’s time for regulatory mechanisms in this country that are supposed to police monopolization, cartel and investment fraud, including at Intel, to do that job of be replaced with administrations that will do that job.
I've heard of experiments that have been carried out where people use a touch screen for half a day and then a keyboard/mouse for the other half of the day and asked which they prefer. The majority apparently stated they would rather have a touch screen. I'm with most of you that I don't see me getting much done on a touch screen, but we can't let the power users' notion of what's good and what's not get in the way of apparently what consumers want if we wish to sell them products.