who here works for Garmin Inc?

a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Kobra

In article ,
"Kobra" wrote:

a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

On 07/05/06 13:45, john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Kobra" wrote:

a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

Any length of time? Even 1 minute?

I don't think the issue was whether or not it will eventually break, but
how long between failures. If it's 10 hours, then there's a problem. If
it's 10,000 hours, there is not.

Do you have any data that shows what the MTBF is for touchscreens like
what would be used on a device like this?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Well there is one at the ATM at the bank I use that has been there for at
least a year.



"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/06 13:45, john smith wrote:
In article ,
"Kobra" wrote:

a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

Any length of time? Even 1 minute?

I don't think the issue was whether or not it will eventually break, but
how long between failures. If it's 10 hours, then there's a problem. If
it's 10,000 hours, there is not.

Do you have any data that shows what the MTBF is for touchscreens like
what would be used on a device like this?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

john smith wrote:
: Any touch screen that is used for any length of time will have the touch
: membrane worn through. The combination of dirt, pressure and contant
: touching of the most often used screen position will lead to failure.

My 20ish year old Tek 1240 logic analyzer has a touch screen that uses
crossed beams of IR light. It will never wear out. The resistive or
acoustic touch screens will eventually die.
--
Aaron C.

In article ,
"Kobra" wrote:

a.. TOUCH SCREEN...HELLO...TOUCH SCREEN!!!!

No way do I want a touch screen!
Who wants to wear holes in an LCD screen?
Replacement costs would be prohibitive.

Huh? They have been putting Touch Screens on auto GPS's for years. I
haven't heard of any data that says they break down or are a weak link.

Kobra

A touch screen on an aviation GPS seems like a really bad idea, in my
opinion. Forget about the wear, who wants finger prints all over their
screen? Do you really want to aim for a touch screen button while
bouncing around in flight? What if you hit the wrong one?

Sony puts touch screens on their consumer camcorders, and I avoided
purchasing one partly for this reason. The concept seems nice, but in
practice it turns out to be not too brilliant (no pun intended.)

Back to the point, all of the information that was posted on the 496
came from Tom Rogers at Avionics West; it is posted on his web site. It
is not official, it is simply a rumor. I will say, if true, the rumor
would make the 496 consistent with Garmin's other portable units, with
the biggest change being the pre-loaded CitySelect NT data.



JKG