Larry@sri-unix (07/24/82)
Actually, Jerry's main disappointment was with the feel of the IBM PC keyboard - he had expected it to have the same nice feel as IBM Selectrics. He also mentioned the key between shift and Z, but that was not his first complaint. -------
henry (07/28/82)
Sorry, Larry@sri-unix, I must contradict you; the way I read Jerry's article was that it was the key between shift and Z that really hit him hard, on the grounds that it makes the keyboard unworkable for a touch typist. (Not strictly true, one can adapt to it, but close.) It may not have been his first complaint but it was the most serious. (Could anyone who wishes to flame further on this dig out the article and check the actual wording first? My copy is not where I can get at it right now, or I would have checked.) Henry Spencer utzoo!henry
kline (08/06/82)
#R:sri-unix:-226500:uicsovax:3700026:000:2143 uicsovax!kline Jul 30 08:56:00 1982 Here it is: I've got the June, 1982 issue of BYTE in front of me; page 288. ``. . .Only IBM has RUINED the keyboard! What ought to be its strongest point, the thing IBM always excelled at, is its worst mistake. What IBM did was to put extra keys between the space bar and the Shift key. Why, I don't know. The result is that when you think you've typed, say, a capital T, you get instead /t, which isn't useful at all. There is also no line-feed key; instead IBM seems to have manipulated the Carriage Return key to give both carriage return and line feed when struck. . .I suppose there's a way to filter that madness; but there's no help for the Shift key being mislocated, nor for the egregious amount of space between the home keys and the Return key. I may one day buy an IBM--but not until I get over the shock of that ruined keyboard. I've never been so disappointed in my life.'' There was no mention of the feel of the IBM PC keyboard anywhere in the column. I'm not sure what he means by "extra characters between the space bar and the Shift key;" the shift keys and the space bar are not adjacent on any keyboard I've ever seen. I think what he really means is the \ key, between the Z and the left shift key. Thus the "/t" he mentions should really be "\t", which is what you'd get from not reaching far enough for the left shift. My own personal comment, if I may: Right now I'm typing on an IBM 3101 terminal, which has the "<" key placed between the Z and the left shift, and the return key is exactly the same distance from the ";" key (and thus the rest of the home row for touch-typists) as on the IBM PC keyboard. I find the 3101 a joy to use; the keyboard has an excellent feel and none of the above complaints ever get in MY way. This opinion is shared by many of the other users here at CSO--I'll take this over a VT100 any day. I've only had a few minutes at an IBM PC, but from what I experienced, I'd be quite happy with that, too. The keyboard remains the strong point of IBM's design, despite what Jerry Pournelle says. Charley Kline decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!kline
APPLE@Mit-Mc@sri-unix (08/08/82)
From: James A Cox <APPLE@Mit-Mc> I'm sorry, but I agree with Pournelle. He made a slight error in saying that there are extra keys between the \space bar/ and the shift key. In any case, however, the shift keys and the Return key ARE farther away than on the standard keyboard, and considering the frequency with which these keys are used, that is quite sufficient to ruin the whole keyboard, at least for touch typists who learned to type on a normal keyboard. Why IBM did this I don't know, since the keyboards on their typewriters are excellent. As for the PC keyboard's good "feel," that can hardly compensate for the bad feeling I get from typing the wrong characters because the keys are misplaced.
VaughanW.REFLECS@Hi-Multics@sri-unix (08/10/82)
I am presently typing on a Honeywell VIP7205 and it too has an
extra key between the Z and the SHIFT. I am quite used to that
and frankly it is the least of my problems with this keyboard.
The really annoying things about it are that the question mark/slash
key has been misplaced, and that the offset between the key rows
is a half key instead of the 1/3 key that it ought to be. Now
\that/ bothers touch typists!
I haven't tried to play with the PC keyboard yet; as a touch
typist I have been taking JEP's word for it -- but if it is only
a matter of one key between the Z and the SHIFT, then maybe I
will reconsider.
--Billhenry (08/14/82)
"In the time it takes to learn that you have to stretch your pinky a little bit, you might have lost a grand total of 5 whole minutes out of your life." In my experience it takes more than 5 minutes for an experienced touch-typist. And that is not the point: I shouldn't *have* to spend extra time and effort adapting to the stupidities of a non-standard keyboard. The machines are supposed to be my servants, not vice-versa! I will *not* stop complaining about it until manufacturers stop bringing out new products that perpetuate this stupid botch! If a manufacturer really feels compelled to "improve" on the standard keyboard that every touch-typist's fingers are trained for, he should *at least* offer a standard one as a no-cost option. And he should ***not*** lie in his teeth by claiming in his advertising that his default keyboard has a "standard typewriter layout"! What gall. How would you feel about a manufacturer who offered an "ASCII" terminal which actually used a non-standard variant of the character set, with the explanation "oh, you'll get used to it!"? The whole purpose of standards is to try to ensure that everybody does things the same way so that users do NOT have to spend time adapting to gratuitous new stupidities every time they buy new equipment. (The standard old stupidities are quite bad enough!) Mutter, mutter, snarl, rave, rant, flame... Henry Spencer U of Toronto