> I'm sure they can do more. I'm just not sure "more" has anything to do with dragging windows around.
You get one Mac "window", with all your other windows jammed into it, as is necessary for physical screens, but entirely unnecessary for real 3D space.
Those "windows" could be frames containing three dimensional graphs, design structures, the list goes on and on.
The combo of eye selection, gestures + keyboard and trackpad are already wonderful. They need a little smoothing out, but work great already.
The contrast in power between Mac-in-Vision vs. the iPad-like-apps in Vision is dismal. The former is power but artificially flat and constrained, the latter is toy but with huge interface potential. The obvious software imposed (not hardware) gap in the middle, when using both, is enormous.
The device is made for so much more. As in, real computing in the "spacial computing". Otherwise, it is just a toy or an expensive Mac screen replacement. A waste of what should be a huge new category win for Apple.
You get one Mac "window", with all your other windows jammed into it, as is necessary for physical screens, but entirely unnecessary for real 3D space.
Those "windows" could be frames containing three dimensional graphs, design structures, the list goes on and on.
The combo of eye selection, gestures + keyboard and trackpad are already wonderful. They need a little smoothing out, but work great already.
The contrast in power between Mac-in-Vision vs. the iPad-like-apps in Vision is dismal. The former is power but artificially flat and constrained, the latter is toy but with huge interface potential. The obvious software imposed (not hardware) gap in the middle, when using both, is enormous.
The device is made for so much more. As in, real computing in the "spacial computing". Otherwise, it is just a toy or an expensive Mac screen replacement. A waste of what should be a huge new category win for Apple.