> Different people like interacting with computers in different ways, unfortunately, this one size fits all philosophy that permeates the tech sector creates a lot of tension because those ways of interacting are not necessarily compatible with each other.

A touchscreen doesn't detract if you don't use it though. I use my laptop's touchscreen/stylus pretty much exclusively for Japanese writing practice, the rest of the time it's just a regular laptop, but I'd be very sad to not have that feature when I need it.

This would normally be the case but many touchscreen drivers love to glitch out (specially lenovo's) and disabling them is almost impossible with windows updates constantly re-enabling things.

If not for that I would 100% agree it is a nice to have.

I don't know if it has been improved but I had one xps with touch screen, the lid was thicker, the screen had more glare, it was using more battery and there was a visible gray mesh, like a veil covering it if you looked close enough. One other possible annoyance is accidental touches, no chance of that if the screen doesn't have touch capability.

For me, it just feels like a huge waste of money for something I would never use; I assume the touch screen tech bumps the price up a bit. Of course, if you have even an occasional use for touchscreen on a laptop, your mileage is already varying.

>A touchscreen doesn't detract if you don't use it though.

in a perfect world. in the real world it's an added cost-to-repair, another driver stack to worry about, and a loss of nits/lumens for no good reason.