A few decent Model M deals

[iLLucionist]

I much prefer the key feel of Model F's by far. Compared to M's, the keys feel lighter, snappier, and a bit crisper, in my opinion.

Cool, thanks again! Now if only I could GET one

They're seriously not that hard to find. There's always a bunch on eBay at the least.

They even found an F AT at the recycling centre for me once, but a new guy accidentally tossed it in the recycler before I could come and collect it D; .

ebay doesn't ship to the netherlands or do they?

[1391406]

I much prefer the key feel of Model F's by far. Compared to M's, the keys feel lighter, snappier, and a bit crisper, in my opinion.

Cool, thanks again! Now if only I could GET one

They're seriously not that hard to find. There's always a bunch on eBay at the least.

They even found an F AT at the recycling centre for me once, but a new guy accidentally tossed it in the recycler before I could come and collect it D; .

ebay doesn't ship to the netherlands or do they?

A lot of sellers ship internationally, but shipping to the Netherlands can be expensive depending on the location of the seller.

[chyros]

I much prefer the key feel of Model F's by far. Compared to M's, the keys feel lighter, snappier, and a bit crisper, in my opinion.

Cool, thanks again! Now if only I could GET one

They're seriously not that hard to find. There's always a bunch on eBay at the least.

They even found an F AT at the recycling centre for me once, but a new guy accidentally tossed it in the recycler before I could come and collect it D; .

ebay doesn't ship to the netherlands or do they?

Lots of sellers ship to the Netherlands! Might not be cheap, but many do .

[fohat.digs]

What's the largest difference between model M and F anyway?

Absolutely everything is different about a Model F except the key caps.

Take them apart and you will be amazed.

[iLLucionist]

I much prefer the key feel of Model F's by far. Compared to M's, the keys feel lighter, snappier, and a bit crisper, in my opinion.

Cool, thanks again! Now if only I could GET one

They're seriously not that hard to find. There's always a bunch on eBay at the least.

They even found an F AT at the recycling centre for me once, but a new guy accidentally tossed it in the recycler before I could come and collect it D; .

ebay doesn't ship to the netherlands or do they?

Lots of sellers ship to the Netherlands! Might not be cheap, but many do .

Thanks! So frustrating to live in the Netherlands as a collector / enthusiast. Really expensive to get stuff into my country.

Fun thing is, I'm always aftertaxed here. Reasoning of my country is "You could've gotten it here, so we are missing tax income". Fun fact: that **** is not in my country for sale anywhere. Oh well.. /rant

[aptivaboy]

IBM versus Unicomp?

They're pretty much the same, as far as I'm concerned with one difference. The 1987 Model M I use at work has nice clicks, while the Unicomp I'm typing on right now has more of a thunk sound. The original needs slightly less key pressure, as has been noted elsewhere many times, than the Unicomp, which is what probably causes the different sounds. Other than that, they're pretty much the same board. I love all three of mine (black Unicomp EnduraPro with oversized lettering, 1987 IBM Model M, and a 1993 or so IBM Ambra Model M with the greased "quiet" buckling springs). All behave more or less the same, with the Ambra being the lightest on the fingers, then the Model M, then the Unicomp. 

I'm really only talking about the actual key action and operability. Some will say the plastic is different (they're right), but times and materials change. My Unicomp's frame does creak more than the others, but in terms of how is actually functions its still great.

By the way, if you're a Model M enthusiast grab Ambra board if you ever come across one - a smooth typing experience, and very quiet for a Model M!

Bob

[1391406]

Some will say the plastic is different (they're right), but times and materials change.

In this case for the worse:

[E TwentyNine]

By the way, if you're a Model M enthusiast grab Ambra board if you ever come across one - a smooth typing experience, and very quiet for a Model M!

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

[fohat.digs]

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

I just took a spin through the Model M wikipedia list and I don't see any mention of the "grease mod" under "features" so I am wondering whether the greased ones were a different model, or whether standard production Ms just sometimes received the grease, say, as an option that somebody special-ordered?

[E TwentyNine]

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

I just took a spin through the Model M wikipedia list and I don't see any mention of the "grease mod" under "features" so I am wondering whether the greased ones were a different model, or whether standard production Ms just sometimes received the grease, say, as an option that somebody special-ordered?

They were referred to as "soft touch".    For example: http://www.clickeykeyboards.com/model-m-gallery/1994-ibm-model-m-soft-touch-8184692/

[chyros]

By the way, if you're a Model M enthusiast grab Ambra board if you ever come across one - a smooth typing experience, and very quiet for a Model M!

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

Wait, there are no greased Ambras at all? Oo

[aptivaboy]

What's interesting is that my Ambra does actually have a greasy residue inside the key mounts and spring areas. I have come across the term, "greased," before in reference to these Ambras which is why I used it. I have no idea if it really is petroleum based grease, but there is a barely perceptible sheen there that isn't on my other Model Ms. This site claims the grease reduced volume:

https://deskthority.net/wiki/IBM_Enhanced_Keyboard

[ThoughtArtist]

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

I just took a spin through the Model M wikipedia list and I don't see any mention of the "grease mod" under "features" so I am wondering whether the greased ones were a different model, or whether standard production Ms just sometimes received the grease, say, as an option that somebody special-ordered?

They were referred to as "soft touch".    For example: http://www.clickeykeyboards.com/model-m-gallery/1994-ibm-model-m-soft-touch-8184692/

That's just so wrong. Reminds me of the guy on youtube who poured lube in his Cherry MX Blues to silence them.

[ThoughtArtist]

All Ambras aren't greased and all greased M's aren't Ambras.  Some of them do have that font on the keys that's a bit different from standard.

I just took a spin through the Model M wikipedia list and I don't see any mention of the "grease mod" under "features" so I am wondering whether the greased ones were a different model, or whether standard production Ms just sometimes received the grease, say, as an option that somebody special-ordered?

They were referred to as "soft touch".    For example: http://www.clickeykeyboards.com/model-m-gallery/1994-ibm-model-m-soft-touch-8184692/

That's just so wrong. Reminds me of the guy on youtube who poured lube in his Cherry MX Blues to silence them.

Oh I just noticed it has a speaker! Someone's gotta post of video of that one!

[ander]

Wow, this has gotten a lot of play.

I've realized that 1391406's handle is the p/n of a UK 102-key Model M. Harking back to my sportscar analogy, British sportscars generally have the poorest service records; thus they could be considered the Unicomps of the sportscar world. They're still worth having—they're just going to be a bit more clanky.

[1391406]

Wow, this has gotten a lot of play.

I've realized that 1391406's handle is the p/n of a UK 102-key Model M. Harking back to my sportscar analogy, British sportscars generally have the poorest service records; thus they could be considered the Unicomps of the sportscar world. They're still worth having—they're just going to be a bit more clanky.

My original choice of moniker, 1391401, was taken.

I think Unicomp's are worth having. I just feel IBM manufactured Model M's are more desirable. The Unicomp typing experience is, for all intents and purposes, practically indistinguishable from IBM predecessors. The issues I have with them are primarily qualitative, and quality is important to me.

[y11971alex]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

[1391406]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

[y11971alex]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

Namely that the AT case is thinner than the XT.

[1391406]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

Namely that the AT case is thinner than the XT.

I haven't seen any such complaints. The difference between the two is that the bottom of the XT case is metal.

[y11971alex]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

Namely that the AT case is thinner than the XT.

I haven't seen any such complaints. The difference between the two is that the bottom of the XT case is metal.

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

[1391406]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

Namely that the AT case is thinner than the XT.

I haven't seen any such complaints. The difference between the two is that the bottom of the XT case is metal.

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

[fohat.digs]

The complaint that I have heard (and made!) repeatedly is that the AT case, rather than having a plastic top shell and a metal bottom pan, is all-plastic (the old brittle F plastic rather than the newer, softer, tougher M plastic) and the tabs must be "cracked" apart at the front to open it up. I have never broken one yet, but it is scary and unnerving every time I do it.

[1391406]

The complaint that I have heard (and made!) repeatedly is that the AT case, rather than having a plastic top shell and a metal bottom pan, is all-plastic (the old brittle F plastic rather than the newer, softer, tougher M plastic) and the tabs must be "cracked" apart at the front to open it up. I have never broken one yet, but it is scary and unnerving every time I do it.

This is the complaint I'm familiar with, as well.

[y11971alex]

And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT.   Perhaps the case isn't as important as many of us make it out to be. 

What's the complaint? I've owned both and both cases are perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. The 122-key Model F is known to be a bit more fragile, however.

Namely that the AT case is thinner than the XT.

I haven't seen any such complaints. The difference between the two is that the bottom of the XT case is metal.

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

I intended "do so often".  Strange omission there

[E TwentyNine]

The complaint that I have heard (and made!) repeatedly is that the AT case, rather than having a plastic top shell and a metal bottom pan, is all-plastic (the old brittle F plastic rather than the newer, softer, tougher M plastic) and the tabs must be "cracked" apart at the front to open it up. I have never broken one yet, but it is scary and unnerving every time I do it.

This is the complaint I'm familiar with, as well.

Ditto.  That first time cracking open an AT I was certain I broke something.

[1391406]

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

I intended "do so often".  Strange omission there

On the one hand you're saying, "There have not been such complaints".

On the other hand you're saying, "... we do so often hear of complaining ...".

Which is it?

[y11971alex]

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

I intended "do so often".  Strange omission there

On the one hand you're saying, "There have not been such complaints".

On the other hand you're saying, "... we do so often hear of complaining ...".

Which is it?

It's a sarcastic statement.  Or it may have been something else I was trying to type at 100 wpm on an iPhone.

[fohat.digs]

I was trying to type at 100 wpm on an iPhone.

Huh? Get a keyboard you moron!

[y11971alex]

I was trying to type at 100 wpm on an iPhone.

Huh? Get a keyboard you moron!

As much as I love my F XT, I can't make it run on an iPhone

[1391406]

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

I intended "do so often".  Strange omission there

On the one hand you're saying, "There have not been such complaints".

On the other hand you're saying, "... we do so often hear of complaining ...".

Which is it?

It's a sarcastic statement.  Or it may have been something else I was trying to type at 100 wpm on an iPhone.

The bottom line is, no one's complaining about the thickness of AT vs XT cases, so what was your point?

[Snowdog993]

This is just too much!  It's like deja-vu all over again.  I'm happy with my IBM 1392595.  So there!

[y11971alex]

But that's the point.  There have not been such complaints, even though the plastic part of the XT case is thicker than the AT case.

If there haven't been any complaints then why did you say, "And yet we so hear of complaining about the thin case of the Model F AT compared to the XT"? Did you mean, "yet we no hear of complaining"?

I intended "do so often".  Strange omission there

On the one hand you're saying, "There have not been such complaints".

On the other hand you're saying, "... we do so often hear of complaining ...".

Which is it?

It's a sarcastic statement.  Or it may have been something else I was trying to type at 100 wpm on an iPhone.

The bottom line is, no one's complaining about the thickness of AT vs XT cases, so what was your point?

The point was that, while we seem to make a great deal off the mounding perfections of the Unicomp Ms, we don't seem to care about the massively thinned-down case of the AT, even though a thin case is usually a bad thing, like it is on a Unicomp M.

[fohat.digs]

As much as I love my F XT, I can't make it run on an iPhone

You know, actually, way back when I first got started in the hobby, maybe 6 years ago, I bought an F XT (because they were dirt cheap back then and everybody seemed to agree that they had the very best feel) and a Hagstrom (which was a little-known specialty item).

After using it for a while and finding the layout impossible, I put it up on ebay and sold it for a little over $100 within a few days (tidy profit - the keyboard shipped was $30 or less and the Hagstrom shipped was about $50) to an Apple employee in California who actually was using it on an iPhone at work and wrote me later to tell me how much he liked it. I have no idea about the details or what kind of plugs or adapters might have been involved.

Funny story: Back then, Hagstroms were sold "naked" so I had built it into a small plastic Tupperware-like box with the original DIN cable going in and USB coming out. Ripster saw the ebay listing and posted it here with a "Ha Ha - Look at this ghetto rig!" type of message. I took no offense and thought it was funny.

[E TwentyNine]

The point was that, while we seem to make a great deal off the mounding perfections of the Unicomp Ms, we don't seem to care about the massively thinned-down case of the AT, even though a thin case is usually a bad thing, like it is on a Unicomp M.

This is a very odd viewpoint.   There's no creak or flex in an AT case, and you'd be hard off to tell the different between it and an XT case without looking at the bottom (minus the front seam).

[fohat.digs]

There's no creak or flex in an AT case

Endoskeleton  vs  exoskeleton

[1391406]

The point was that, while we seem to make a great deal off the mounding perfections of the Unicomp Ms, we don't seem to care about the massively thinned-down case of the AT, even though a thin case is usually a bad thing, like it is on a Unicomp M.

Because no one was talking about the Model F. The discussion was regarding two variants of the Model M. You're referring to a completely different model.

[ander]

1391406: It's all semantics.

If language is going to have meaning then the words we use should conform to their definitions.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that can't appreciate such subtle distinctions. They're too busy listening to music where every other word is "f*&k" or "n@!&#r".

I meant what I meant, and you meant what you meant. I just didn't want you telling me what I meant.

Again, I know what you meant. My reply was an expression of disagreement.

By the same token, you should feel free to disagree with what you don't agree with, and I likewise. Maybe you already do.

IMHO, IBMs and Unicomps are both great, in different ways.

Which different ways are you referring to? The difference in feel is negligible, and soundwise, Unicomp Model M's lack the hollow metallic pinging that IBM manufactured Model M's are known for. The primary differences between the two are qualitative.

On the touch issue, I must disagree. I'm typing on a 1986 "barcode" Model M 1390131, and it feels majorly different not only from my Unicomp Ultra Classic, but from my '90s IBM and Lexmark M's. Perhaps one must go back far enough in the IBM pantheon (all the gods of one's religion) to experience this. It exists, however, and you deny it at your own peril.

On the sound issue, I must agree. Unicomps lack the ping. Then on the other hand, maybe we just need to get out more.

I'm quite pleased to have one of Anyway, pick over details like this as long as you wish... I'm just going to enjoy what I've got.

What you like is undoubtedly your business. My sole contention is that Unicomp Model M's are qualitatively inferior to IBM manufactured Model M's. To what degree the qualitative differences have relevance for you or anyone else is of no consequence to me.

Tell me, dude, do you usually expend this much energy on things you don't care about? This seems very familiar... Ah! It's what happens when you get married.

Having said all this, I have no intention of challenging anyone's position on the autism spectrum—I'm just to the right of indigo myself—which I suspect is a requirement of agonizing to this degree over things composed of small, precisely-aligned objects.

[1391406]

On the touch issue, I must disagree. I'm typing on a 1986 "barcode" Model M 1390131, and it feels majorly different not only from my Unicomp Ultra Classic

In what regard?

[aptivaboy]

Speaking only for myself, my born-on September 3rd, 1987, Model M feels more "solid" on the keystroke. By that, I know precisely whether I hit the right key or not, and whether or not I've committed a mistyping. It has more a light click to the sound, while the Unicomp has a "thunk" sound, more hollow and loud. The IBM's sound is more of clicky ping, in contrast.

In terms of key pressure, my hands do get tired from the Unicomp after an hour or so of continual typing. Not so, for the IBM, as the key pressure is less.

Basically, I type most accurately on either IBM board, the stock Model M or the Ambra which sounds and feels more different still, than on the Unicomp. Part of that is caused by the Unicomp's trackpoint sticking up too high an interfering with my fingers, admittedly. I'm toying with the idea of filing it down.

Now, having said all of this, the Unicomp is still miles better than any crappy rubber dome board, and I prefer typing on it over pretty much anything else except my two IBM boards. I'm still planning a 122 key special order board from them this summer as soon as I can get the fundage.

[1391406]

Speaking only for myself, my born-on September 3rd, 1987, Model M feels more "solid" on the keystroke. By that, I know precisely whether I hit the right key or not, and whether or not I've committed a mistyping. It has more a light click to the sound, while the Unicomp has a "thunk" sound, more hollow and loud. The IBM's sound is more of clicky ping, in contrast.

In terms of key pressure, my hands do get tired from the Unicomp after an hour or so of continual typing. Not so, for the IBM, as the key pressure is less.

Basically, I type most accurately on either IBM board, the stock Model M or the Ambra which sounds and feels more different still, than on the Unicomp. Part of that is caused by the Unicomp's trackpoint sticking up too high an interfering with my fingers, admittedly. I'm toying with the idea of filing it down.

Now, having said all of this, the Unicomp is still miles better than any crappy rubber dome board, and I prefer typing on it over pretty much anything else except my two IBM boards. I'm still planning a 122 key special order board from them this summer as soon as I can get the fundage.

Unicomp's no doubt do sound different, and it's a given that there are differences in key weighting between IBM's made within the same year even. That's not news. For example, Model M's with very little use typically feel firmer. However, weighting variances aside, key feel isn't drastically different unless you've got a board ailing with a lot of broken rivets(mushy, weak click).

[ander]

On the touch issue, I must disagree. I'm typing on a 1986 "barcode" Model M 1390131, and it feels majorly different not only from my Unicomp Ultra Classic...

In what regard?

In both feel and sound.

The 131's heavy build makes it feels completely stable—it's easy to type on, but the KB itself is like a rock—and it's much quieter.

Because Unicomps are built so much lighter and thinner and have a looser action, they make a racket by comparison. If necessary, I can slow down and type pretty quietly on a '131; there's no way I can do that on a Unicomp.

Clickiness/clackiness isn't a bad thing, of course. Most of us vintage KB-heads feel the same way about it that people into high-performance cars feel about loud, gutsy-sounding engines: A KB's sound is part of the experience of using it, and can be quite fun—as long as you're not driving anyone crazy who doesn't want to hear it (another thing they have in common with hot cars).

Ultimately we're talking about two great typing machines. It's like having two girlfriends: one who's solid and reliable, and one who's wacky and spontaneous. When you get tired of being with one of them, you can call up the other. Hmm, does this sound a bit 20th-century? Sorry.  :?)

Speaking only for myself, my born-on September 3rd, 1987, Model M feels more "solid" on the keystroke. By that, I know precisely whether I hit the right key or not, and whether or not I've committed a mistyping. It has more a light click to the sound, while the Unicomp has a "thunk" sound, more hollow and loud. The IBM's sound is more of clicky ping, in contrast.

That's how I'd describe them too.

In terms of key pressure, my hands do get tired from the Unicomp after an hour or so of continual typing. Not so, for the IBM, as the key pressure is less.

I think their pressures are about the same, but the Unicomp's keys seem to travel farther and have a bit more lateral movement, which would require somewhat more effort. And yet, there's a charm to this less-precise feel... If you feel like using a clacky KB, you can really use one!

Now, having said all of this, the Unicomp is still miles better than any crappy rubber dome board, and I prefer typing on it over pretty much anything else except my two IBM boards. I'm still planning a 122 key special order board from them this summer as soon as I can get the fundage.

I doubt anyone could build a board to IBM's first-generation specs and sell it for less than $400 or so, which clearly wouldn't be very profitable—especially when you can get an original, clean it up, and have one that looks and works like it just came off the line.

Despite my geeky comparisons, I have nothing but praise for Unicomp. When you realize they're producing excellent BS boards comparable to 3rd/4th-gen Lexmarks, selling them for under $90, and even offering customization options, we really must admire them and be grateful they're around.

[fohat.digs]

I just bought a 2001 Unicomp from a Geekhacker and I and amazed at how good it feels and sounds.

I have not used any of my other Ms in months, but this one is solid, well-build, and with excellent keycap quality.

[1391406]

On the touch issue, I must disagree. I'm typing on a 1986 "barcode" Model M 1390131, and it feels majorly different not only from my Unicomp Ultra Classic...

In what regard?

In both feel and sound.

The 131's heavy build makes it feels completely stable—it's easy to type on, but the KB itself is like a rock—and it's much quieter.

Because Unicomps are built so much lighter and thinner and have a looser action, they make a racket by comparison. If necessary, I can slow down and type pretty quietly on a '131; there's no way I can do that on a Unicomp.

Clickiness/clackiness isn't a bad thing, of course. Most of us vintage KB-heads feel the same way about it that people into high-performance cars feel about loud, gutsy-sounding engines: A KB's sound is part of the experience of using it, and can be quite fun—as long as you're not driving anyone crazy who doesn't want to hear it (another thing they have in common with hot cars).

Well, but the issue was regarding "touch" (key feel), and specifically the typing experience. Unicomp's undoubtedly do sound different than IBM manufactured Model M's. I've mentioned this on numerous occasions, and Unicomp's are lighter, too. There are undoubtedly other attributes that are different, but that's another story. That said, one difference in feel between my Unicomp and other Model M's is the action. My Unicomp is undoubtedly more firm and feels a bit tighter. Not a drastic difference, but it's there. I can see how someone would become more fatigued using it over an older Model M whose springs have had time to wear in. But that's unsurprising given the varying condition of rivets and springs in older Model M's. I'm just saying, in my opinion, the differences in key feel aren't generally so drastic that the average user would give it much, if any, thought. I've rarely seen a review (and I've read and watched many) in which the reviewer noted a difference in feel. Look up reviews and you'll find that most people generally don't make any substantial distinction in key feel at all.

[1391406]

I just bought a 2001 Unicomp from a Geekhacker and I and amazed at how good it feels and sounds.

Just out of curiosity, how many Unicomp's do you own?

[fohat.digs]

Just out of curiosity, how many Unicomp's do you own?

All these competing parallel threads.

I had maybe 3 Unicomps total during a period 3-5 years ago which I sold each within a month or less of buying them, and never used any for more than a couple of days at most.

I bought this one because it was an "early" 103-key style for a good price and I wanted that particular one.
I would have preferred a native USB cable but the fixed PS/2 was fine to get the earlier vintage.

[Snowdog993]

Just out of curiosity, how many Unicomp's do you own?

All these competing parallel threads.

I had maybe 3 Unicomps total during a period 3-5 years ago which I sold each within a month or less of buying them, and never used any for more than a couple of days at most.

I bought this one because it was an "early" 103-key style for a good price and I wanted that particular one.
I would have preferred a native USB cable but the fixed PS/2 was fine to get the earlier vintage.

How can a company compete with itself?  Just ask the experts!

[ander]

I just bought a 2001 Unicomp from a Geekhacker and I and amazed at how good it feels and sounds...I have not used any of my other Ms in months, but this one is solid, well-build, and with excellent keycap quality.

What do you mean by keycap "quality"? Are you one of these peeps who measure their thickness—the caps's, that is, not your own—to formulate theories of why they feel different? I still don't see how anyone could "feel" the thickness of a cap on a button, so I can only assume that these measurements exploit the power of suggestion. Maybe you mean something else, though.

The only difference I've noticed between Unicomp's caps and IBM/Lexmark's is that Unicomp, for some unfathomable reason, replaced IBM's beautifully implemented Helvetica with a smaller, narrower font—and, ever more mysteriously, they did it on only some keys:








It looks that way to me anyway. Maybe they've just changed some of them more than others. It's strikingly inconsistent, anyway, compared to IBM. And cheaper-looking. Why change such a good thing at all?

Well, but the issue was regarding "touch" (key feel), and specifically the typing experience. Unicomp's undoubtedly do sound different than IBM manufactured Model M's. I've mentioned this on numerous occasions, and Unicomp's are lighter, too. There are undoubtedly other attributes that are different, but that's another story. That said, one difference in feel between my Unicomp and other Model M's is the action. My Unicomp is undoubtedly more firm and feels a bit tighter...

The semantics get tricky—but to me, 1st-gen M's (1390120, 1390131), in good original or restored shape, feel "tighter" in the precision of their action. I don't feel like I'm wasting any time or effort on them. Click, click, click. On a Unicomp, I feel a certain amount of my energy's spent dealing with the action's extraneous movement. I wouldn't call it "tighter" or "firmer", just more labor-absorbing for its relative lack of precision.

I can see how someone would become more fatigued using it over an older Model M whose springs have had time to wear in. But that's unsurprising given the varying condition of rivets and springs in older Model M's...

Well, that's the wild card. Most Unicomps, even those made 10–15 years ago, have been used only casually, by clicky-keyboard fans. Whereas most IBMs have been used full-time, in business environments, often by professional typists, and for as much as 30 years longer. So generally they're not going to be in the same kind of shape, even if they started out better.

But that's what's particularly remarkable about 1st-gen M's. Even though they're the oldest ones, and have presumably been used the most (on average), I have yet to encounter a well-maintained 1st-gen M that didn't feel like a considerably more efficient typing machine than a Unicomp. They must've been made that much better—than Unicomps, and than subsequent M's. I've observed this time and time again, or I wouldn't be gabbing about it like this here.

I'm just saying, in my opinion, the differences in key feel aren't generally so drastic that the average user would give it much, if any, thought. I've rarely seen a review (and I've read and watched many) in which the reviewer noted a difference in feel. Look up reviews and you'll find that most people generally don't make any substantial distinction in key feel at all.

Does that mean there isn't any? Or does it mean that we, the people to whom MKs (and BS MKs in particular) are so important, have used so many more of them, and paid so much more attention to them, that we can appreciate what others can't—even someone who writes hardware reviews?

That's how it is in any field with a wide spectrum of experience and knowledge. Subtleties are lost on those without the focused, personal interest necessary to learn to perceive and appreciate them.

And I'm not just saying this because I live in the suburbs and don't have much else to do. I've also been drinking beer, which is quite time-consuming, not to mention beer-consuming.

[1391406]

Well, but the issue was regarding "touch" (key feel), and specifically the typing experience. Unicomp's undoubtedly do sound different than IBM manufactured Model M's. I've mentioned this on numerous occasions, and Unicomp's are lighter, too. There are undoubtedly other attributes that are different, but that's another story. That said, one difference in feel between my Unicomp and other Model M's is the action. My Unicomp is undoubtedly more firm and feels a bit tighter...

The semantics get tricky—but to me, 1st-gen M's (1390120, 1390131), in good original or restored shape, feel "tighter" in the precision of their action. I don't feel like I'm wasting any time or effort on them. Click, click, click. On a Unicomp, I feel a certain amount of my energy's spent dealing with the action's extraneous movement. I wouldn't call it "tighter" or "firmer", just more labor-absorbing for its relative lack of precision.

It's a matter of degrees. While I don't question your perception here, I think for most users such subtle distinctions would be considered negligible to the point of irrelevance.

I can see how someone would become more fatigued using it over an older Model M whose springs have had time to wear in. But that's unsurprising given the varying condition of rivets and springs in older Model M's...

Well, that's the wild card. Most Unicomps, even those made 10–15 years ago, have been used only casually, by clicky-keyboard fans. Whereas most IBMs have been used full-time, in business environments, often by professional typists, and for as much as 30 years longer. So generally they're not going to be in the same kind of shape, even if they started out better.

But that's what's particularly remarkable about 1st-gen M's. Even though they're the oldest ones, and have presumably been used the most (on average), I have yet to encounter a well-maintained 1st-gen M that didn't feel like a considerably more efficient typing machine than a Unicomp. They must've been made that much better—than Unicomps, and than subsequent M's. I've observed this time and time again, or I wouldn't be gabbing about it like this here.

That's possible, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that's true, though it could also just be coincidence. I have a couple of 1391401's from '87 that have a decidedly more refined and crisp click than some of my boards from '90 - '91. My presumption is that the '87s were simply used less. While the differences are apparent to me, they'd likely be lost on the average user, in my opinion.

I'm just saying, in my opinion, the differences in key feel aren't generally so drastic that the average user would give it much, if any, thought. I've rarely seen a review (and I've read and watched many) in which the reviewer noted a difference in feel. Look up reviews and you'll find that most people generally don't make any substantial distinction in key feel at all.

Does that mean there isn't any? Or does it mean that we, the people to whom MKs (and BS MKs in particular) are so important, have used so many more of them, and paid so much more attention to them, that we can appreciate what others can't—even someone who writes hardware reviews?

Undoubtedly the distinctions are there, though as with many things, sometimes only an aficionado would notice.

[ander]

That's us!  ;?)