Why are there non-touch Windows 8 machines?

[bsayegh]

I think everyone more or less agrees that Windows 8 is better used on a touch screen. At least when you are in Metro mode. People who don't have a touch screen generally hate the Metro UI and think the navigation is clunky.

So why do they still sell the touch screen devices at a premium? HP just announced a new Windows 8 device that has a touch screen option, and a cheaper non-touch screen option. That seems silly to me. You are trying to sell these products. I know the touch screen costs HP more, but I would think the cost of developing a touch screen has and will continue to go down over the years. You want users to speak highly of the product and the OS. Why not meet down the middle? Cut the price of the touch screen to where you still make a profit but it is more appealing to the consumer, and do away with the non-touch screens.

Has anyone recently purchased a Windows 8 laptop that didn't have a touch screen? Did you regret it immediately?

 

[henry.gray]

I use Windows 8.1 and I don't have a touch screen, I find nothing wrong with the Metro UI.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I have an ASUS Vivobook that has a touchscreen. However, I rarely use it unless I'm using the Twitter app. I have no issues or complaints about Windows 8.1 without the touchscreen.

I also have an HP that is 5 1/2 years old, and I have no issues or complaints about Windows 8.1 on that PC without a touchscreen.

 

[pci2k]

I know cost can be a factor. I've seen laptops with similar specs, one with touch and one without, go for $100 more in price. If you're a company, that adds up, and for budget consumers, this can be an issue as well.

 

[jmshub]

I don't think Windows 8 is touch-only. My 4ish year old Dell runs great with Windows 8. At this point, I prefer Win8 to Win7, all other things being equal. Even if you use it in only desktop mode, I like how Windows 8 works. If you buy a computer to do traditional computer things, like Office documents, heavy programs like Photoshop or sync to an i-device with itunes, you don't really need a touchscreen, but by the same token, may not want Windows 7, which at this point is a 4-5 year old OS. Little things, like the ribbon in Windows Explorer makes Windows 8 the best version of Windows on the desktop, even if you don't use the Metro stuff.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I don't think Windows 8 is touch-only. My 4ish year old Dell runs great with Windows 8. At this point, I prefer Win8 to Win7, all other things being equal. Even if you use it in only desktop mode, I like how Windows 8 works. If you buy a computer to do traditional computer things, like Office documents, heavy programs like Photoshop or sync to an i-device with itunes, you don't really need a touchscreen, but by the same token, may not want Windows 7, which at this point is a 4-5 year old OS. Little things, like the ribbon in Windows Explorer makes Windows 8 the best version of Windows on the desktop, even if you don't use the Metro stuff.

I agree with you.

I also like the fact that Windows 8 is less resource-intensive than Windows 7, which makes it ideal for older hardware.

 

[gsquared]

Reason is certainly cost related.

 

[Laura Knotek]

There also might be some users who just don't like touchscreens and wouldn't ever use one. It's like some people who never use a touchpad on a laptop but always use a mouse.

 

[jmshub]

I agree with you.

I also like the fact that Windows 8 is less resource-intensive than Windows 7, which makes it ideal for older hardware.

Exactly. Or, less resource-intensive == better battery life compared to the same machine rendering Aero stuff in Win7.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Exactly. Or, less resource-intensive == better battery life compared to the same machine rendering Aero stuff in Win7.

That too. I was also thinking of better memory management.

 

[bsayegh]

The average user doesn't think about memory usage as much as they should. I think a lot of people are turned off to Windows 8 at first because it is different and it automatically dumps you on to the Metro UI. They expect a Start button that works like the old one. They essentially expect Windows 7.5. I know most people don't use touch screens, but it would probably validate the changes to the UI if they had a touch screen. It just feels more natural with touch. Companies could consider it an investment. Many PC makers are dependent on the success of Windows 8 and anything they can do to help people adopt its new style is to their benefit.

I assume most people on this forum a A: Fans of MS in general who are willing to give Windows 8 a solid chance before making their decision, and B: at least moderately tech savvy. You are probably not the common user who buys a PC or installs Windows 8 for the first time and has no idea what to expect. Most of you probably knew almost everything about Windows 8 before it even came out. I imagine it is much easier for you to adopt the new UI and navigation without having to use a touch screen.

 

[hopmedic]

I've got two laptops that both have touch screens. One of them is a Yoga, so I use the touch screen on it a lot, especially when it's flipped over and using it like a tablet. But the other one is a standard laptop but with touch. It is on my desk, connected to two 24" monitors, so I have three screens. Rarely do I touch the screen on that one. If I did use it frequently, I'd need surgery to fix my shoulder. That kind of repetitive motion on a shoulder would be killer on an old guy like me. :wink:

On that laptop, I've been using Win8 since the developer preview came out, which now is more than two years ago, I'm thinking close to two and a half years. I have been very happy with my experience on that PC. It helps that I have for a long time been a keyboard person, reaching for the mouse only if I have to, so I know a lot of the hotkeys. It also helps that I understand up front that the start screen is just a start menu on its own page, for the most part. Yes, there are differences, but it's more like the start menu than it is different, under the hood.

Yes, people dislike change. I personally hate change in my life. But at the same time, I like to be cutting edge with my gadgets. So I know that as much as I dislike change, I must adapt.

 

[CopaCC]

I tried Win8 on my desktop and it just seemed silly having a touch screen interface on a 23-inch non-touch monitor, so I went back to 7. If a future version comes out with a normal start menu, etc, I would have no problem trying it again. It worked okay for everything I needed.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 520 using Tapatalk

 

[jmshub]

The new Start menu isn't touch only. Windows 8.1 has a boot to desktop option.

 

[HeyCori]

I don't own a touchscreen laptop but I've used one before. It was then that I realized I could never go back.

 

[xandros9]

Because contrary to popular belief, Windows 8 handles itself nicely on non-touch computers. The scroll-wheel and touchpad edge scrolling/swipes work quite reasonably.

I've used it on my non-touch equipped Vista-era laptop for quite a while now with no problems.

 

[tgp]

Rarely do I touch the screen on that one. If I did use it frequently, I'd need surgery to fix my shoulder. That kind of repetitive motion on a shoulder would be killer on an old guy like me. :wink:

I don't think it would take "an old guy like ... you" to have trouble with your shoulder. A perfectly healthy young person's arm would at least get tired. That's why I've always questioned the value of touch screen, at least on a desktop, unless specific programs are used that are designed for touch. I can see it more on a laptop.

Pretty much all the PCs I use on a regular basis have Windows 8.1, but none of them are touch screen. They would've shipped with Windows 7. It doesn't seem practical to me to sit at my desk all day with my arm extended to the far side of the desk, high in the air. But I suppose it can be one of those things like the large size of a phablet; it seems ridiculous until you've tried it, but then you cannot see yourself ever going back.

 

[sahib lopez]

I have 2 20 in 1080p monitors running windows 8.1 and I really don't see a problem using without touch screen. in fact im more productive with 8.1 than 7 because I have to use the start button and use that but with the start screen I can just pin it there and the moment I boot up I see it there

 

[sahib lopez]

The average user doesn't think about memory usage as much as they should. I think a lot of people are turned off to Windows 8 at first because it is different and it automatically dumps you on to the Metro UI. They expect a Start button that works like the old one. They essentially expect Windows 7.5. I know most people don't use touch screens, but it would probably validate the changes to the UI if they had a touch screen. It just feels more natural with touch. Companies could consider it an investment. Many PC makers are dependent on the success of Windows 8 and anything they can do to help people adopt its new style is to their benefit.

I assume most people on this forum a A: Fans of MS in general who are willing to give Windows 8 a solid chance before making their decision, and B: at least moderately tech savvy. You are probably not the common user who buys a PC or installs Windows 8 for the first time and has no idea what to expect. Most of you probably knew almost everything about Windows 8 before it even came out. I imagine it is much easier for you to adopt the new UI and navigation without having to use a touch screen.

not true.. its ONLY and I mean ONLY ( in my experience in forums and at school) the ones who know about computers in general are the ones who complain about the start screen. for example the people I saw at college had laptops and they were running windows 8 and they didn't have a touch screen. also my friends who have windows 8 never complained to me about windows 8 because they understood the concept. also my parents who have never cared for a computer were able to use windows vista, windows 7 and 8 and they told me that they like 8 because it seems easier for them. its not all touch screen its just a common misconception that tech people have against windows 8 and tell it to the world that its only for touch screen and nothing else

 

[hopmedic]

I don't think it would take "an old guy like ... you" to have trouble with your shoulder. A perfectly healthy young person's arm would at least get tired. That's why I've always questioned the value of touch screen, at least on a desktop, unless specific programs are used that are designed for touch. I can see it more on a laptop.

I was joking - about my age mostly... The first time I had a repetitive stress injury I was in my late 20s or early 30s. :wink: