![]() ![]() It would just be nice to see Apple say this rather than multi, if indeed it is only dual. I totally understand regarding would a multi-touch screen on something so small be even usable, and of course it wouldn't, you only need dual touch. That's more a failing of us ourselves, for reading more into what was said than we should, not of Apple who made us believe something that isn't so. The only problem is that by the nature of implication, everyone gains what implication(s) occur to them as individuals, so what I may have inferred could be radically different from what you did. If you are saying that there were things implied by Apple then I think that's very true. I'm not sure I see why that would be a problem! What flavor of OSX is thusly not of much significance - it has an interface tailored to the things it needs to be able to run and the means by which it and the user communicate with each other. ![]() Not Mac OSX? Well, it lacks a Finder and desktop and dock - the user interface components, and being a hand-held device it lacks much of the software that wouldn't be of much use on it anyway, but those things were pretty clear on immediate sight of it in the keynote presentation. Of course in an academic sense it's an interesting question.Īs to the OSX claim - it is OSX. And even if there were a way, no way to use the answer you get to any benefit. Likewise, given that limitation, it's not really possible to actually test it in any practical way to find the answer. Except I don't really! It makes little difference in a real sense if the screen can cope with 20 touches if the only gestures that the software understands are limited to two.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |