Author Topic: Thanks to bhtooefr & Wellington (Read 8884 times)

lam47 · « **on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 06:08:14 »

Just wanted to say thanks for getting me the ctr key for my Model M

It looks like it should now

And to wellington for this.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 06:18:55 »

No problem.

Glad to see you got it.

iMav · « **Reply #2 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 06:56:25 »

Well, I hope you can use an extra one. (I just mailed your ctrl key, along with the other items we talked about, monday morning.)

lam47 · « **Reply #3 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 07:29:51 »

Quote from: iMav;13064

Well, I hope you can use an extra one. (I just mailed your ctrl key, along with the other items we talked about, monday morning.)

I can indeed my man.
Thanks for all the help

LMK what I owe you.

wellington1869 · « **Reply #4 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 09:04:20 »

Thats a good looking board

Glad it got there in one piece (despite the USPS's best attempts to keep it from you)

bhtooefr · « **Reply #5 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 11:54:41 »

Hah, the USPS rep probably thought I was putting $1 as the declared value for reducing import duty or something on the customs declaration.

(I mean, $1 of computer parts?

)

No, it really was worth $1.

Chloe · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 11:59:16 »

Could you post a picture of the label on the back of the Qtronix?

lam47 · « **Reply #7 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 15:13:03 »

will do.
May I ask what you are looking for?
Manufacture date is 1985.
Pic later.

lam47 · « **Reply #8 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 15:22:50 »

Well now actually.

Chloe · « **Reply #9 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 15:32:45 »

Thanks Laurie. I was hoping it would have a Cherry part number.

lam47 · « **Reply #10 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 15:35:45 »

No mention of cherry inside or out, despite having cherry white switches.

skriefal · « **Reply #11 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 16:29:42 »

That can't have been made in 1985. It has Windows keys. The serial number suggests it might date from 1997.

wellington1869 · « **Reply #12 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 16:54:37 »

Quote from: skriefal;13134

That can't have been made in 1985. It has Windows keys. The serial number suggests it might date from 1997.

Thats actually a good point, would it have windows keys if it was from '85? On the other hand, it DOES have an ATX plug, which would date it to mid-80s probably.

Does it say that date anywhere on the board itself? Or maybe thats when the white clicky cherries were discontinued? There was some reason why the date '85 got attached to this board...

Chloe · « **Reply #13 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 17:28:24 »

Microsoft in 1985:
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/software/microsoft/windows10/page_01.htm

The label also has the CE logo:
http://www.conformance.co.uk/directives/ce_introduction.php

wellington1869 · « **Reply #14 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 17:40:28 »

The board seems to be from '92 at the earliest with the CE logo and windows keys - but the ATX plug seems out of place. Also -- Lam - can you open up the board and look at the pcb? I think I may have seen the '85 date on the pcb, come to think of it.

Possible extra deets on this switch here. (original page here)

bhtooefr · « **Reply #15 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 17:55:47 »

You mean AT?

ATX calls for the PS/2 plug.

But, all AT motherboards had AT keyboard ports, so AT keyboard ports didn't die until the 2000's. Therefore, there was a very wide selection of AT keyboards with Windows keys.

wellington1869 · « **Reply #16 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 18:15:01 »

Quote from: bhtooefr;13142

You mean AT?

ATX calls for the PS/2 plug.

But, all AT motherboards had AT keyboard ports, so AT keyboard ports didn't die until the 2000's. Therefore, there was a very wide selection of AT keyboards with Windows keys.

the original ad refers to it as an ATX plug.

"You are bidding on one used, in good condition, Qtronix 104 Keyboard. Scorpius Model KT-305. s/n K971200742. FCC ID F2Q4NEKT-38. Has ATX plug"

It was a "wide" plug that I had to buy an AT(x?) to ps2 adapter for before I could plug it in. (on top of the ps2 adapter I then stuck a usb adapter).

Chloe · « **Reply #17 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 18:17:42 »

According to Wikipedia the Windows key began with Windows 95. I don't know how reliable this is as there is no citation.

wellington1869 · « **Reply #18 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 18:24:30 »

so what does it mean if the pcb says '85 and it has an "atx" plug but it has windows keys and a CE logo (implying maybe '94 at the earliest)?
And having "clicky" white cherries that possibly havent been made for about 2 decades?

Is it possible the pcb (and switches, which are soldered on) are much older than the outer casing and keys? (That wouldnt explain how they got windows keys onto the pcb though).

Its some kind of frankensteinian board then.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #19 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 18:26:39 »

You're also assuming that they didn't just take an existing design from ~1985, and add in the Windows keys, without bothering to update the silkscreening.

And, that was an AT plug.

And, the Windows keys are utterly useless in 3.1 or NT 3.51, they were definitely a Windows 95 thing.

Chloe · « **Reply #20 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 19:01:17 »

Quote from: bhtooefr

And, the Windows keys are utterly useless in 3.1 or NT 3.51, they were definitely a Windows 95 thing.

Thanks bhtooefr. The Wikipedia page on the AT form factor is similarly lacking.

Quote from: wellington1869

Is it possible the pcb (and switches, which are soldered on) are much older than the outer casing and keys? (That wouldnt explain how they got windows keys onto the pcb though).

The date on the casing would be the date the case was manufactured:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cn&u=http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/chihdar7/article%3Fmid%3D148

It's possible to have an older PCB and switches because the casing and keys can be changed without affecting the function of the keyboard. The reverse is also true. The Datalux desk model looks like it has the same case but probably has a new PCB to accommodate the differences between Cherry ML and MEI switches. It may still use the same IC, which can be even older than the PCB design, like in the Chicony you linked to.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #21 on:** Mon, 01 December 2008, 19:17:49 »

Except the PCB would have to be changed to add keys to the layout that weren't there before. Unless, of course, they used a Mac PCB or something.

lam47 · « **Reply #22 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 00:08:21 »

I thought that about the windows key too and the board has certainly not been used much if it is that old. The logo on the windows key I'm sure is not that old.

Number at the top is 27-050-171

Extra switches were not an after thought.

the plastic case has no abs marking or anything its just blank.

itlnstln · « **Reply #23 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 01:34:28 »

Quote from: Chloe;13145

According to Wikipedia the Windows key began with Windows 95. I don't know how reliable this is as there is no citation.

Chloe, you are correct; Windows keys started with Win95. The '85 date probably stems from an earlier revision for some of the component parts.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #24 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 02:42:20 »

Is it just me, or is that a second PCB on top of the main PCB?

lowpoly · « **Reply #25 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 02:45:23 »

I'd say backplate.

skriefal · « **Reply #26 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 03:46:05 »

Quote from: wellington1869;13147

so what does it mean if the pcb says '85 and it has an "atx" plug but it has windows keys and a CE logo (implying maybe '94 at the earliest)?
And having "clicky" white cherries that possibly havent been made for about 2 decades?
Is it possible the pcb (and switches, which are soldered on) are much older than the outer casing and keys? (That wouldnt explain how they got windows keys onto the pcb though).

Its some kind of frankensteinian board then.

The PCB design probably originated with an earlier model introduced in 1985, and was updated slightly around 1995-ish to add the Windows keys. Apparently they didn't update the printing on the PCB when this was done.

Oh... and the AT plug lived on long after the 80s. I've seen plenty of mid-90s keyboards with AT plugs, and even have a (Unicomp-built) Model M from 2003 with AT plug.

lowpoly · « **Reply #27 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 03:52:06 »

Quote from: skriefal;13199

Oh... and the AT plug lived on long after the 80s. I've seen plenty of mid-90s keyboards with AT plugs, and even have a (Unicomp-built) Model M from 2003 with AT plug.

It could also be rev. #85 from August '02. Or not a date at all. I think space savers like this just weren't made in '85. Windows keys or not.

lowpoly · « **Reply #28 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 04:00:06 »

http://www.ione.com.tw/2008/ahistory.asp

Qtronix keyboard manufacturing started in '89.

lam47 · « **Reply #29 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 06:50:49 »

You know no matter how many keyboards I try I keep going back to the Model M!
The white cherries nearly had me as the sound I like and the resistance is about right too.
But there is just something so satisfying about every key depress on the IBM board.
This little Qtronics may well be passed on

But I am still pleased I got to try one of the rarer Switches.

wellington1869 · « **Reply #30 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 08:12:26 »

Quote from: lam47;13221

You know no matter how many keyboards I try I keep going back to the Model M!.

I may be afflicted by this too.

My M should be arriving today, I'll find out in a few hours...

lam47 · « **Reply #31 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 08:21:23 »

I think I'm just a ****. Had a go on the qtronics and like it a lot

LMK what you make of the M.

itlnstln · « **Reply #32 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 20:11:02 »

lam, you might want to try some Alps (white-clicky) as well. I was BS user for a long time until I got my Evolution. The Alps keys have a very similar feel to BSs, but they feel lighter.

lam47 · « **Reply #33 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 21:12:48 »

I have a white ALPS board

I like it a lot except that the keys seem to have more wobble than the cherries or BS.

itlnstln · « **Reply #34 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 21:21:54 »

Yeah, I could have read your signature...

I believe key wobble has more to do with the mfr. than the switches as my Evolution only has a little more wobble than my ML-4100, but from what I hear, it is generally the case that 'boards wth Alps switches tend to have more wobble to them. I think the Cherry crosspoint is a better interface.

iMav · « **Reply #35 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 21:28:54 »

Quote from: itlnstln;13315

I believe key wobble has more to do with the mfr. than the switches as my Evolution only has a little more wobble than my ML-4100, but from what I hear, it is generally the case that 'boards wth Alps switches tend to have more wobble to them. I think the Cherry crosspoint is a better interface.

Exactly. Just looking at the keycap<>switch interface between Alps and Cherry is telling. The crosspoint interface does a much better job of keeping the keycap secure.

Chloe · « **Reply #36 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 21:36:20 »

There is also the wobble of the stem in the switch itself. I don't know about ALPS, but the Cherry MX have more stem wobble than MEI. They both use the same crosspoint interface.

itlnstln · « **Reply #37 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 22:14:52 »

I'm sorry about coming waaaay late with this post, but I thought it was relevent to earlier posts about when Windows keys first started arriving on key boards, and somehow there was a pic or a link to old MS logos, or something. Since I have not been able to access GeekHack from work, and the picture I wanted to share is on my PC at work, well, you get the rest. Anyway, here is a pictorial timeline of windows logos. I'm not sure how relevent this post is anymore, or what the He*l I was supposed to be showing in this post, but here you go...

lowpoly · « **Reply #38 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 22:32:21 »

So what did they do between '87 and '94?

itlnstln · « **Reply #39 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 22:42:51 »

I think that '94 is incorrect, but it might be right. I know that, for a while, MS just had the name written in whatever font (usually Times New Roman) the rest of the application or software packaging had, so that might be what they did between '87 and '94. Examples:

http://www.ianrsmith.co.uk/?p=184

http://polishlinux.org/apps/from-dos-to-dosbox/

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-MS-DOS-Upgrade-5-25-disks/dp/B000FPF1PO

bhtooefr · « **Reply #40 on:** Tue, 02 December 2008, 23:29:17 »

It is incorrect. For that matter, that 1987 end date for the second logo may be wrong.

Here's Windows 2.03, from 1987:

News:

Author Topic: Thanks to bhtooefr & Wellington (Read 8884 times)