Ars has taken a look at Microsoft’s Surface. They conclude: “Although I already knew approximately what to expect when I was invited to the Microsoft campus to play with Surface, the experience of actually touching and using the unit exceeded my expectations. For a device still very much in development, it was remarkably smooth to use. Some people will look at Surface and claim that it does nothing that hasn’t been tried before: computers with touch screens have been around for years and have already found niches in ATMs, ticket ordering machines, and restaurant point-of-sale devices. This view largely misses the point of the product. Like most projects, Surface takes existing technology and presents it in a new way. It isn’t simply a touch screen, but more of a touch-grab-move-slide-resize-and-place-objects-on-top-of-screen, and this opens up new possibilities that weren’t there before.”
Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2 GB of RAM, Windows Vista, and a moderately-powerful graphics card from either AMD/ATI or NVIDIA…I’m curious how much of a hit on your electric bill you will get for having this “big ass table.” Is it always on so it can immediately interact with the user? Does it have any power saving features?
Also curious, when Vista crashes, do you just use the plug to reboot it?
Disclaimer: I didn’t read the entire article
IDisclaimer: I didn’t read the entire article
The classic “lets batch MS for inertia” troll.
I never said it wasn’t a good idea. I actually like a lot of Microsoft products such as .NET. I was just curious about its power usage, and I couldn’t help the use of “big a** table”
EDIT: fixed typo
Edited 2007-10-01 22:16
Probally as good as a compairable Vista PC (Mine wakes from sleep in 2-4 seconds) No clue on the power but if this would have a low power laptop chipset probally pretty low power.
Finally I can play pac man the way it should be.
I’ll see your PacMan, raise you Ms. PacMan and let’s not forget, Galaga/Galactica or Defenders.
…and Tehkan World Cup!!! (imagine playing subbuteo like that…)
…and billiards/pool!!!
Screw Pac-Man…..Missile Command would rule!!!
Ok, you are now officially my friends. Come over for BBQ someday, bring your girlfrinds. And a girl for me.
Why is simulating physical tasks the ideal interface? Because it is familiar? Isn’t familiarity just being what one is used to? Wouldn’t that imply that other interfaces would be just as familiar if one were used to it?
I don’t think physical task simulation is ideal. If this were true, then we’d all still be doing arithmetic using pebbles to represent quantities and moving them from pile to pile to do addition. Gee, I just thought of a good calculator program for surface computing.
Surface computing might have applications in situations where input is relatively simple such as scrolling around on a topographic map or exploring building plans (but you’d hardly want to create the building plans that way). It might even be useful as a newbie interface for people that have never had to deal with a computer; however, I think the days where you have people with absolutely zero experience with computers are passing.
The future of computing interfaces is in abstraction. I don’t want to deal with data the same way I would with pen and paper. That’s why I computerized it in the first place.
The pontential is big, I can imagine my self making UML diagrams with my two hands instead of the point and click rudimentary mouse, or a Music DJ using it instead of vinil records (ain’t that cool).
The possibilities are endles.
I don’t like to draw UML (or any diagram) with a mouse or otherwise. I’d much prefer the computer to do that for me.
Simulating record scratching (what I presume you’re referring to) would sort of be a self-defeating kludge. I mean, if you’re not using the vinyl to create the sound, and you’re just going to digitize the sound effect, why not just include it in the sound track in the first place? However, DJing would be one of those applications where input is relatively simple (consisting of pointing at things like a monkey).
I don’t like ….
Why I like it doesn’t have to like you.
In my opinion, there is plenty of marked for it.
If you are behind the mixing console in an audio studio or on the concert, one shitty mouse or even two hands are not enough; you are performing, not playing it back!
You can abstract and automate, but on a multitouch interface you can express yourself and communication in some cases (games, education…) is much easier.
I can’t see touch screen ever replacing midi controllers. Performers generally prefer tactile instruments rather than virtual controls.
Laurence: “I can’t see touch screen ever replacing midi controllers.”
If this is a confusion of terms or pointless generalization then yeah, multitouch controllers will never replace breath controllers and video games will never replace trousers. If you mean: multitouch controllers will never be used as MIDI controllers than you’re wrong and seriously behind the times. Check around, I will not do the homework for you.
This is not just two mouse pointers, and it is tactile in it’s own way. Now meditate on where are all the knobs on synthesizer control panels gone?
How did my statement confuse you?
My comment was a response to how you described multi-touch screen interfaces as ‘easier’ for the musician and/or DJ. You seemed to imply that multi-touch screen interfaces would some how replace the traditional method of music manipulation in a studio or live set up. I simply said that I find that hard to believe given how good midi controllers are – if only for their ‘real’ tactile interface but also due to their invaluable flexibility and compatibility.
I have two midi controllers at home myself.
1/ One midi keyboard I used to create the melodies with
2/ and the other is a mixer which I can assign any channel / fx / knobs / etc on my sequencing package (and live DJing software if and when I choose to perform a digital set) to any of the dozen or so knobs, sliders and toggle switches on the midi mixer (it’s only a small unit).
Both of these devices are built to a high standard and both cost me under £100 (considerably less than a new monitor without even a single touch capability).
Now tell me that producers and DJs would happily pay /EXTRA/ for a device which offers no tactile feedback and is limited to the UI designed by the software as opposed to being flexible enough to redefine the layout of the functions on the fly?
The only device I’ve seen which has come close to what you describe is Reactor and even that isn’t technically touch screen. It’s just the knobs and sliders for music hardware have moved onto the display unit itself rather than remaining a seperate unit.
Behind multi-function buttons which they have found to be really deficient in performances compared to older analog one use buttons. Also PRO-keyboards still have the knobs. There are levels of sensitivity that cannot be replicated digitally. Digital is perfect while analog is not, which makes it interesting. http://www.wwbw.com/Nord-Electro-2-73-Digital-Stage-Piano—Digital…
Laurence’s point is that digital interfaces really are the pits. They are overly complex and more of a hindrance then a help. Having to dig down twenty-three menus to get to one setting does not work while trying to shift on the fly.
Musicians are an odd bunch who venerate things like thirty year old guitars, and love all their little bobbles the wires that go along with them. It’d be like Linus saying his main coding station is a PDP-11 and only uses more modern hardware if he can’t help it.
Anyway, I expect someone to use this for music as use laptops for now, but it’s not going to replace analog equipment anytime soon.
It looks like you two guys are afraid somebody will make some kind of digital guitar or trumpet or something and take over the music industry. Look, multitouch interface is a kind of MIDI controller, it cannot replace all other controllers just as sausage, which is a kind of food, can’t somehow replace all the food. And laptop is not supposed to replace a flute anyway.
What it will do is enhance the communication between performers and digital devices, simplify the interface and make your cheap mixer twenty times cheaper.
I fail to see how you can maintain such an opinion when you’re clearly not researched enough into this subject to be qualified to comment.
1/ digital guitars do exist (in the form of VSTi et al) however digital sound replication can not entirely accurately replicate acoustics. Things like distortion fx can not effectively replicate amp stacks. Plus the current digital wave form is somewhat limited – which is why the harmonics of a live orchestra sound better than the same orchestra played back on a CD.
2/ Monitors are not programmable. Monitors don’t have internal midi clocks. Touch screen is not midi – end of. To imply an association is to imply a lack of understanding for the way midi is used to hook up various studio equipment.
3/ How can the interface between digital devices (VST/i for example) be any simpler than with a traditional studio mixer? A slider for volume, eq knobs, etc. Touch screen encorages people to navigate around cluttered windows on a top end sequencer, where as midi controllers can be as basic or as cluttered as the artist chooses while still having all of the controls at their finger tips.
Anyway – this is off topic and nobody is denying that touch screen has it’s potential as a tool. Just not as a replacement as you suggest.
Edited 2007-10-03 08:01
1. did I say digital guitars don’t exist? I made them, played them live, on the stage, in front of juicy chicks and between the raging stage divers and it was great.
2. man I made so many MIDI devices that I can only laugh at this. You’re just not serious.
3. In a simple setup you mention – no problem. But you can not have all the controls at the fingertips, that’s why I recommended meditation on ‘where are all the synthesizer knobs gone’.
Laurence: “Just not as a replacement as you suggest.”
Wow, where did I suggest that? You’re not reading what I say and you should be spanked for that.
I guess your time for homework is up, so here is something to cheer you up:
http://www.jazzmutant.com/
http://processing.org/
We’re not afraid of it. We’re saying it won’t sound as good and that single function analog controls are easier to use then multifunction buttons.
I’m sure given enough development sausage could replace all other food. ;P Sugar might have been a better example.
I really fail to see how this is going to make a $40 mixer cheaper. The mixer could just become a breakout box that attaches via firewire or what not. Then a mixer isn’t a mixer anymore, it’s a box with plugs, and that shifts the cost from the mixer to software and hardware to run it.
I know what you’re saying. This will allow digital developers to ape analog equipment in a more natural fashion. Reason is a good example of a software package that will benefit from Surface as it tries to behave like analog equipment, for the most part, anyway.
Surface is going to be a boon for digital musicians as it will create a much better interface for them, but it’s not going to replace analog stuff any time soon. It’s going to have it’s uses, but a computer cannot produce an analog waveform.
Ideally an algorithm would be written to simulate the sound of record scratching that way it would sound more natural then just a sound effects patch. The cheap way would be to use a patch, but it would sound cheap and jarring.
Why not just include it in the track from the beginning? Because then it would be part of the track and there would be no improvisation. For a CD yes it should be part of the track, but for a live show the scratch needs to be done live on the spot in order to give the crowd something besides just a prerecorded track.
Computers make DJing simple as they can analyze things better then we can. It doesn’t have to be that way though. Just turn off all the electronic assistance and let the human control the mix.
Agreed for novices this is the case, however a well trained human ear will always out perform current computer systems. You only have to look at how inaccurate BPM counters are for the more obscure rhythms compared to an experienced drummer or dance beatmatcher.
Yes, exactly.
The program can be simple, but it can also be really complex for those who are more skilled at it. I wouldn’t recommend Cubase to someone just wanting to make ringtones from their m
Yes, exactly.
The program can be simple, but it can also be really complex for those who are more skilled at it. I wouldn’t recommend Cubase to someone just wanting to make ringtones from their mp3s for example.
It doesn’t replace an actual instrument or skill, it’s just another toy to use.
But surely the two examples you give apply to any multi-touch surface, and are not unique to tabletop computing, A multitouch enabled tablet pc or laptop (in future), could just as well be used. Advantages of the Table form factor are fewer with this in mind.
If you want to computerise DJing then (again) virtualizing it isn’t the ideal route to take. Programs like live sequencing packages such as Ableton have far more potential in DJ set ups that virtual turntables.
I happen to agree with the earlier post that mimicing everyday tasks in the computer world isn’t particularly the best method to opperate computerised tasks. It may be the quickest to learn but ultimately (and like most things) you only get out of software what you spend the time learning what to putting in.
Are you aware, that all current interfaces simulate paper and dashboards? This type of communication is very unnatural to humans. Getting rid of the rodent is a worthy goal, with multitouch interface the pointer will probably soon follow and I hope other WIMP crap as well.
My thoughts exactly. Microsoft Surface is a damn cool tech demo, but I don’t see it having wide application.
Yes, for painting it would be cool, and perhaps some other niche applications like an info booth. But for general use, no way. There just aren’t that many tasks where having direct, two handed input is helpful. Once you get beyond image resizing and panning actions you’re pretty much out of ideas.
User fatigue and pointing accuracy are other issues. I would much rather roll a scroll wheel on a mouse than drag my hand across the display, or move both my hands apart. There’s a reason touch screens never took off, and it’s not just the price.
Sure looks cool though!
Yes, for painting it would be cool, and perhaps some other niche applications like an info booth. But for general use, no way.
You don’t usually use touch screens for general use either, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful for specific tasks.
That fact has already been conceded.
Well, yes but we’d have to learn those. Living in the physical world as we do, an interface which uses behaviours taken from that world will require less learning. That’s different from saying that having your photos in a messy pile instead of an organised folder is a good thing. Though this multi-touch thing does seem to make the basic windows metaphor work better. I can see how I might like having a messy pile, knowing how much easier it is to manage than with a mouse.
Plenty of grownup people still regularly count on their fingers. Arithmetic takes a long time to learn. By the time you’re a toddler, you’ve gained a useable grasp of physics.
Tell that to my puppy.
My niece beat the *hit out of the poor dog, because she doesn’t understand acceleration is proportional to increased force at impact.
While it was definitely funny to see her reaction, the poor dog was whining in the corner, and it was OBVIOUS that this toddler had NO GRASP, WHATSOEVER about basic physics.
As for arithmetic: she can count to 10, understands basic addition & subtraction, and has a vocabulary that grows nearly instantly. (“Can you say Marijuana?”) It doesn’t take long to learn that 2 + 2 = 4, or that 20 – 17 is 3. It’s basic memorization after you understand the basic number theory. The problem is that schools don’t start out with basic number theory. They just want kids to repeat facts they don’t understand.
Oh, and the word is usable, not useable.
I think Microsoft is targeting Surface for applications where the table is already there, and it would be nice if it were a computer, too. Hence the menu application for restaurants. I can’t imagine people doing work or consuming media on a horizontal plane. Even if they could miniaturize the optical tracking system so it can fit in a thin display (instead of in a deep pedestal), I’m not sure that people want a wall-mounted touchscreen.
I think that gyroscopic gestural controls (yes, sort of like Minority Report) are the next step in spatial input for large form factors. You want to be a certain distance away from the screen and you want to minimize motion (unlike Minority Report). The key is subtle gestures, and it will be an acquired dexterity. But then again, so is handwriting, driving a car, or using a mouse.
As for GUI metaphors, I think that overlapping windows may be on the way out, not because they’re too complicated (as Microsoft suggested many years ago) but because they’re not very useful. As ultra-mobile and living room form factors dominate over the desktop, most windows will be fullscreen or tiled. Dialogs and controls will be composited overlays.
Many aspects of the Surface either useless or not as impressive as they may seem. For example, Compiz Fusion has a rippling water effect, too, and it’s totally useless. But the optical tracking technology could become useful in a different product. For example, if it could be enhanced to track the motion of my hands from a 10-foot distance, I wouldn’t need to wear gloves or handle physical objects to have the aforementioned gestural control.
They probably won’t. I’m thinking that the mouse and keyboard would get replaced with a multi-touch sensitive pad kind of like a Wacom tablet that could display images.
I agree for the most part with you. I think the idea’s behind surface are not to replace the way we do existing physical tasks ( I could never see myself coding on a surface ). However, uses in Mall for directories, photo books, resteraunts POS devices, etc are quite in line with what you would expect.
This is similiar to the whole concept of tablet PCs in that its good in theory but the actual implementation will play a large role in the future of this idea. The tablet is, to me, still too immature to be serious business device. I own one and it is far too much work to keep the screen clean to make sure the pen can follow.
I started thinking, I started using computers because my handwriting is terrible, why am I trying to go back to what is no more then a more expensive piece of paper
Anyone else remember the late 80’s DataGlove from VPL Research and all the hand gesture software that was written for it usually aimed at the CAD, VR, and 3d game markets. Do those markets still exist?
The giant LCD and the hidden IR cameras seems to be an expensive way to get gesture input into a PC. Thats cool if you really want many surface gestures recognized at one time but really a glove would be a lot cheaper and gives you natural 3d input. I recall Mattel or another game company even made a very low cost glove for mere mortals?
With almost any modern PC, a cheap 3d gesture device could easily change the way we interface with computers.
You mean like some gaming device from the big N
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove
I can see these being used in bars or clubs before restaurants. Patrons sit and flick through crap, bartender enters in orders from one side, wait staff through the other, POS is anywhere, erm except for the cash. You’d still need a place for that. Empty glasses glow differently than full glasses…credits or tokens laid on the surface are credits toward the jukebox. You could flip through real-time video or pics of other people at different tables or locations. It all seems to go with the pounding bass/flashing lights thing pretty well… I imagine they’d work well in an internet cafe too. Depends on just how industrial the tables really are, I suppose.
I thought this was developed at NYU years ago? Did MS fund that research ?
So have Apple and a couple of others who I can’t recall. It’s not really that innovative of an idea imo as it’s just taking an existing idea (touch screen) and adding another finger.
Neither MS or Apple invented multi-touch either, however much noise they’ve both made implying they did.
“Neither MS or Apple invented multi-touch either, however much noise they’ve both made implying they did.”
Microsoft has never claimed they invented “multi-touch”. See Microsoft’s Bill Buxton provides a detailed history on multi-touch.
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
Maybe Apple is claiming some “invention” but Microsoft isn’t.
That’s not to say that Microsoft isn’t implementing it in a new way or isn’t using it in ways that haven’t been done before, and the same goes for Apple.
One last point. Why do topics like this always devolve into who invented what first and when? WHO CARES???
Speaking of Bill Buxton, channel 9 interviewed him just a few days ago:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=344657
How to play Starcraft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugjRzI8uHWI
Also check NUIGroup for nice DIY-projects:
http://nuigroup.com/
jeremy makes it sound as if this multi-touch-tabel from ms would be something realy new and revolutionary. but this technology has been developed since at least 20 years, and there are several system which are already on the market. ms is late as always. maybe their system does some things better than the competition, but the article doesn’t really tell me what that might be.
the developers of ms give much more credit to works done by others:
http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
for me it seems like not the gui of the ms-product is revolutionary, but the price. 5-10k $ is probably much less than you pay for the big systems in use by museums etc..
p.s., the first commercial product was probably the lemur from jazzmutant:
http://www.jazzmutant.com/
Edited 2007-10-02 12:27
To get a few interesting apps out there and get it released at a price conducive to purchase by the masses.
I think we can all agree that the mouse and keyboard, while tried and true, are way overdue for an upgrade. “Point and click” is so tired.
Touch screens have never taken off because the “wow” applications were usually handwriting recognition. YAWN!
Maybe multitouch and multivoice could really take off. We just need a technology that is interesting to the common man, or at least the very boring man who writes the checks.
I’ve never seen Microsoft Surface, but I played with MPX (http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/mpx/?q=mpx) and it’s pretty cool. We set up 3 keyboards and mice in bluetooth sharing a single display.
This guy made his own multitouch pad for $2 (he already had a Mac and a webcam though.)
http://blog.medallia.com/2007/06/dyesight.html
Not exactly the same, it is still seperate from the display but a pretty cool low tech solution nonetheless.
$10,000 makes an expensive i-phone.
But at 1024×768? That stinks! I’m running 1600×1200 here, and wish it was higher sometimes.
The funny thing is, even with that low of resolution it still is slow. Take a look at some of the demo videos on YouTube, there’s up to a second lag when resizing/moving images. Hmmm…it must be running Vista.
Thanks MS, I’ll pass.
The old way of doing things is fine? Some of you are just killing me. Are you serious in saying that this product is of no value because there is no reason to use it right now in your living room or that other tablet PCs exist?! Just because I can’t use it in my house for anything practical at this moment doesn’t mean than the product sucks. Sheesh, a hybrid engine in 750il is useless to me too but I don’t complain?
In fact, if you read the article, MS has stated that it will be used in service establishments before anything else. It’s applications are superior for service-based business. You non-progressive people should go back to your caves. I can’t believe I’m in a forum full of so-called computer geeks. Just because MS did it doesn’t mean it sucks, ok guys?
They did ME and Vista too.
In 2001 i would have been impressed. Now i find it hard to believe this is all they are capable of to be honest.
It’s a huge i-phone. And an expensive one.
I would agree with you there but their dishonesty is not in question. We know they cheat, lie, extend and extinguish, strongarm, and steal ideas. That aside, the system is pretty darn cool. The iPhone can’t do everything Surface does. I’m no MS proponent but I can’t deny the business applications of this system. If it was an open source app it would be a marvel, but it has been relegated to being a MS ploy to dupe the public into buying more MS products. The latter may be true, but boy is it a nice toy. It would at least stop waiters from getting my order wrong.
First, your assertion assumes that this indeed represents progress. I think there is plenty of room to challenge that premise.
I wouldn’t say that I’m against the product per say (I’m not even sure what that means really). I just don’t think simulating physical tasks or other forms of direct manipulation interfaces are the way forward. Being able to drag stuff around a screen with two fingers doesn’t help me get information in or out any more than I could with one. Natural language processing, I think, has far more potential in that regard.
Natural language processing, I think, has far more potential in that regard.
Yes!
AI has many implementations. Not that natural language selection in itself is new, hence have a look at the SHRDLU project, and that was 1968-1970
<quote>
Person: Pick up a big red block.
Computer: OK.
Person: Grasp the pyramid.
Computer: I don’t understand which pyramid you mean.
Person (changing their mind): Find a block which is taller than the one you are holding and put it into the box.
Computer: By “it”, I assume you mean the block which is taller than the one I am holding.
Computer: OK.
Person: What does the box contain?
Computer: The blue pyramid and the blue block.
Person: What is the pyramid supported by?
Computer: The box.
Person: How many blocks are not in the box?
Computer: Four of them.
Person: Is at least one of them narrower than the one which I told you to pick up?
Computer: Yes, the red cube.
etc.
</quote>
Pretty impressive.
NLA is a fascinating sub-field of AI nonetheless 🙂
This isn’t progress though. This is mearly further dumbing down for the stupid by adding and extra finger to a system that’s already decades old.
Progress would be doing away with traditional point-and-click ideas or building such a system from the ground up as opposed to slapping a few effects on top of NT.
Maybe, eventually, MS will do something note worthy with this technology – but as it stands at the moment, it’s about as groundbreaking as wireless mice.
The wireless mouse can be considered, in a sense, groundbreaking: unlike corded mice, they fall straight to the ground.
I guess not all see application in this design like I do. Natural language computing certainly is a greater step but I thought this was a pretty good intermediate step to the next generation. I foresee a mix of the two.
I can’t stand it when someone touches my screen. I have to stop in the middle of whatever I’m doing and get out the window cleaner to remove the offending finger prints. How do you think I’m going to deal with this “new” platform. And since I still use that thing windoze peeple rarely get(CLI), this won’t do at all. I’ve used the WII and although it is interesting, it is twitchy and does some unexpected stuff. I have no doubt, this will also.
The evil boss had a desk which worked as computer display operated by touching, too