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.
