Windows 7 multi-touch SDK being readied for PDC in October

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 28, 2008, 4:38 PM

As details continue to emerge about Microsoft's evidently well-made plans for its next operating system, we learn that full documentation for how multi-touch capabilities will work in Windows, will be ready for demonstration by this fall.

For Microsoft's next Professional Developers' Conference currently scheduled for late October in Los Angeles, the company plans to demonstrate the use of a system developers' kit for producing multi-touch applications for Windows 7. Such applications would follow the model unveiled yesterday by executives Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer at a Wall Street Journal technology conference in Carlsbad, California yesterday.

For the session tentatively entitled "Windows 7: Touch Computing," the PDC Web site -- which went live just this morning -- describes, "In Windows 7, innovative touch and gesture support will enable more direct and natural interaction in your applications. This session will highlight the new multi-touch gesture APIs and explain how you can leverage them in your applications."

We were surprised to find the PDC site reads better when viewed in Internet Explorer.

The early suggestions from Microsoft's developers -- some of whom have been openly hinting that multi-touch was coming to Windows 7 since last December -- is that the next version of Windows will be endowed with technology that emerged from the company's Surface project, its first to implement such controls. Surface is actually an extension of the Windows Vista platform -- specifically, it's the Windows Presentation Foundation extended so that it sees a surface display device as essentially just another container control, with an expanded list of supported graphic devices.

What is not known at this stage is how much today's Windows Vista will have to be extended to enable multi-touch in Windows 7, especially for the sake of downward compatibility with existing and earlier applications.

Prior to the advent of Windows XP, when applications were largely compiled using Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC), application windows were very generic containers with standardized window gadgets and menu bars. When a developer used the standard MFC library, he could be assured that scroll bars could respond to mouse events and that contents that spilled off the edge of the visible area would not, as a result, descend into some invisible twilight zone.

Holding that MFC fabric together was the concept that graphic elements responded to individual events, often called "mouse events." And the basic premise of a mouse event was that it had to do with a single element positioned at one spot, or one set of coordinates, on the screen. A keyboard event could alternately trigger a mouse event (pressing Enter while the highlight was over "OK," for example), but the developer would only have to write one event handler for managing what happened after clicking on OK.

The first touch sensitivity in Windows came by way of Tablet PC, which was a platform extension to Windows, coupled with a series of drivers. Adding a stylus as a new device for input could indeed change the way applications worked unto themselves; they could add all kinds of new gadgets that would have been pointless under mouse control only.

In addition, Microsoft opened up a wide array of so-called semantic gestures, which was a library of simple things one could do with a stylus that could potentially mean something within an application. For example, scratching on top of a word could be taken to mean, "Delete this word." Drawing a long arrow beside a graphic object could mean, "Please move this object over here." It all depended on how the application developer wanted the user to see things; and there were certainly some good suggestions, but not the kind or level of standardization as prescribed by IBM's Common User Access model (PDF available here) of the early 1990s.

However, outside of the application's native context, whatever a stylus can do in the Windows workspace is relegated to substituting for a mouse event. In other words, the Windows desktop was not supposed to know or care whether the user was operating a mouse, a keyboard, or a stylus, just as long as the same events were triggered.

For instance, a tap of the stylus on the surface will send an event whose constant code in Visual Studio is WM_LBUTTONDOWN, followed immediately by WM_LBUTTONUP, as though the user had pressed and released the left mouse button (the "L" in these constant codes). By comparison, holding down the pen on the surface will trigger the WM_RBUTTONDOWN event just after the time the pen touches the surface, followed by WM_RBUTTONUP when the user lifts it from the surface. However Windows would normally respond to a left or right button click, respectively, is how the Tablet PC developer would expect Windows to respond to a stylus tap or a press-and-hold.

Here, because standard Windows functions must be capable of working reasonably within a Tablet PC environment, the interface between the general functions and the outside world is standardized.

Since that time, we've seen the advent of Windows Presentation Foundation, a little piece of which is distributed with every copy of Silverlight. An application built to support WPF operates under a new set of rules.

Next: What Windows 7 will learn from Surface

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (22 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Frances89

edited May 30, 2008 - 9:15 AM

I don't agree multi-touch couldn't be added to the Win32 classic mouse event structure and to frameworks like MFC and VCL. For any mouse event there is already a set of parameters ((X, Y) and [button states]). This is easily expanded to ((X1, Y1), (X2, Y2), [button states]) for two finger gestures, or ([(X, Y)1..n] for an arbitrary number of contact points.

Now how an application should use this information is another thing, it has always been up to the individual application to interpret an event, or to decide to ignore them and let the OS perform the default action.

We can compare this to the introduction of the mouse wheel, first supported in Office 97. Windows 95 did not recognize the wheel natively, but the mouse driver sent wheel events anyway, with a custom message number. Office 97 applications recognized these events and other software could be changed to do so as well.

So how should an application uses multi-touch events? Well, the 'zoom' gesture can be handled the same as the mouse wheel. If an application has no zoomable images, there's nothing sensible to do really. Same applies for 'rotation', 'piano playing' or whatever.

Personally, I always prefer using the mouse buttons and wheel over raising my arm anytime, but when walking around with a tablet pc or electronic white board this could be useful.

Score: 0

By Darwin

edited May 29, 2008 - 8:33 PM

Except for certain applications (like a DAW mixer), multi-touch seems largely a step backwards in ease of use. It doesn't make much sense to now require the use of practically the entire upper body to interface with the computer, when we can already do the same thing with one finger and tiny wrist movements with a mouse.

I wish Microsoft would put their development resources towards making an operating system that wasn't a slow, heinously bloated, incompatibility fraught, unstable monstrosity...they have the brains and the technology is already available.

Score: 0

By Alpha258

posted May 29, 2008 - 5:22 AM

I think that muilti touch is going to be no more than a toy, I can't see it being useful.

Windows needs to work on real features that have real benefits.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 29, 2008 - 10:57 AM

I can't see it being useful.

Thea same was said about the car, the computer, the friggin light bulb...

Just because you are not creative enough to find a use for it does not meant hat others suffer the same.

:)

no, I am *not* comparing Windows 7 to lightbulbs, cars, or the computer.

Score: 0

By Briantist

posted May 29, 2008 - 4:03 AM

ooh, a few new events!

Score: 0

By pforbes

edited May 29, 2008 - 4:53 AM

There are thousands of such screens working today all over the world, as applications. IMO the OS is one thing and apps a very different one. It would be better if they developed and sold apps as such, instead of offering them dressed as a new OS every year, being it essentially the same. Software sales would increase, given the world prestige of Microsoft, if users don't need essential hardware/OS changes which mean the waste of a lot of time and money for any individual or corporation.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 29, 2008 - 3:50 AM

"It would be better if they developed and sold apps as such, instead of offering them dressed as a new OS every year"

Do you know the point of having an OS?

Score: 0

By pforbes

posted May 29, 2008 - 4:50 AM

The operating system is to applications such as canvas to the table.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted May 29, 2008 - 9:01 AM

Ok... Besides administering the pc's commodities it provides a common API that defines a contract for applications to interact with resources in a uniform way. If they'd release applications instead of an OS nobody else would code to it.
I do find it lame though to require a new OS for touch and not add it onto Vista (which they supposedly already do with Surface) to make the whole value prospect a little tastier.

Score: 0

By pforbes

posted May 29, 2008 - 10:26 AM

I agree.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 29, 2008 - 12:02 AM

Oh crap, the hype begins. Didn't we already go down this road with the failed Vista version?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 29, 2008 - 10:56 AM

Oh crap, the trollign begins. Didn't we already go down this road with EVERY MSFT PRODUCT EVER RELEASED?!!?!?

Yeah, Zaine. I can cut and paste too. :)

Score: 0

By deminicus

edited May 29, 2008 - 2:22 AM

Vista is not bad. Most of the crap you hear about it is actually ...crap. If you want the cold truth you have to dive deep and not skim the crap of the internet's surface. Word of advice to anyone still reading. Don't trust the internet for easy to find facts about controversial stuff. You'll get garbage. It took me a solid month to get down to useful unbiased info about vista before I switched.

I know it's almost natural to go by hearsay and info that's self serving to ones preconceptions. It takes real effort to get to something more real.. and in the end you benefit from it.

The net is sweet but it makes you weak with the temptation of easy info. Too bad its a pain to sort out the mess and it's getting worse.

sorry for the long winded post.

ps if you want some at least interesting info on the vista issue try digging a few months into the posts in this blog. I found it useful for at least another pov. gl

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/

Score: 0

By fatty

posted May 29, 2008 - 7:58 AM

What does Vista give me over XP? I can surf the web on both. I can listen to music on both.

A lot of older hardware does not work on Vista. Vista has DRM built into its core. Vista runs slower than XP on the same hardware. Vista crashes more than XP.

There are like five "different" versions of Vista which are really the same but Microsoft is nickel and diming people. Why does Apple only sell a single version of OSX for $129 which you can legally install on three machines?

From an end users standpoint, upgrading to Vista makes little sense. The only way Vista is selling is on new computers where it is preinstalled...consumers have no choice.

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted May 30, 2008 - 7:59 AM

"What does Vista give me over XP? I can surf the web on both. I can listen to music on both."

if thats all you care about then sure.

"A lot of older hardware does not work on Vista."

its not up to ms to write drivers for everyones hardware. blame the other companies but at the same time why should they spend money writing drivers for old outdated stuff?

"Vista has DRM built into its core."

it has to.. otherwise it cannot natively support blue ray and friends cuz it won't get the license allowing to do so. it sux but it's not their fault. The drm issues is one of the most hyped and misunderstood issue in vista... like i said in my previous post...you gotta dig deeper and not assume.

"Vista crashes more than XP"

how do you know??? maybe RTM did. Once again drivers...that's pretty much fixed. Vista is much more strict with crap code and drivers which in the long run is a good thing.

"here are like five "different" versions of Vista"
You are correct and I agree with you. MS dropped the ball there.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 29, 2008 - 4:53 PM

I can surf the web on both. I can listen to music on both.

Ah@! Genius! Why hasn't anyone else come up with that???

Oh, right...they have.

You could do those things in DOS, brainiac, so why are you not still sitting at the old C:\>, eh?

DRM? Support, not restriction. Slower? Depends on the hardware. Try it on a decent system (like you'd actually ever tried it). Crashes? Really? When?

Only selling pre-installed? Funny... I bought the OEM version of ultimate. Amazingly, I didn't get a PC with it. Odd, huh?

Nice try at old trolls. Find something new, man...but thanks for the memories.

Score: 0

By fatty

posted May 29, 2008 - 5:19 PM

I notice your posts are always personal attack/troll posts. You never post first, always attacking other posters views. Nothing but a troll.

Does IE, Firefox, Opera, or Safari run under DOS. nope.

Ok, they sold one copy to you...no one else in their right mind would spend that much money for a single-user license for an OS which runs so poorly.

Score: 0

By tankist

posted May 29, 2008 - 2:56 PM

"What does Vista give me over XP? I can surf the web on both. I can listen to music on both. "
in my case i can only put audio and video through the same HDMI cable from PC to the DLP with vista as the corresponding drivers are for vista only (or at least were at that time)

if you don't need it don't use it, simple.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

edited May 29, 2008 - 9:05 AM

"Why does Apple only sell a single version of OSX"

Because you overpaid for a proprietary closed hardware system already. What stops Apple from offering it on standard PC platforms these days instead of artificially locking it down?

Score: 0

By fatty

posted May 29, 2008 - 11:26 AM

So a single hardware purchase from Apple makes them so much money they can subsidize multiple OS upgrades and let you install the upgrades on three machines legally?

129 / 3 = $43 a copy for an OS that Vista Ultimate tries to compete with. How much does that single-user licence for Vista Ultimate cost?

Score: 0

By cescam66

posted May 28, 2008 - 8:22 PM

jmaclachlan... so what?

Score: 0

By jmaclachlan

edited May 28, 2008 - 6:41 PM

The X foundation is working on it Open Source multi touch interface as well.
Here:
http://www.x.org/wiki/De...pment/Documentation/MPX

Score: 1