geekhack
geekhack Community => Keyboards => Topic started by: noisyturtle on Wed, 11 September 2013, 17:31:01
-
Investing in a couple Alps boards, what are some of the must try switch types? Rare or not. Never owned an Alps, really the only 'common' switch type I've never gotten around to trying out/buying.
Also: can Alps be modded with different switch parts à la ergo-clears?
-
White Alps are pretty good, better than Cherry Blues IMHO.
Also: can Alps be modded with different switch parts à la ergo-clears?
Yes, they even easier to access than the Cherry switches because you can open up plate mounted Alps without desoldering.
-
I love green ALPS so much. I may even dare say it's the best switch.
Get a DK 1087 with green ALPS clones. It's my favorite keyboard by a long shot. There are a few (read: many) quality issues though.
-
Matias Tactile, Matias Quiet, Cream Alps, Clicky White Alps, Grey Alps, Salmon Alps, Tactile Black Alps, Monterey Blues are all very nice. I never tried Blue Alps
-
Blue is the must have — it's softer and smoother than white. If you want to go tactile, then definitely orange — avoid black, and personally I'm not to hot on salmon (pink) either as it's fairly stiff. I've not used orange, but the force curve for it looks pretty favourable.
-
Blues/Whites for clicky.
Orange/salmon or blacks for tactile.
yellow/green for linear.
Not a big fan of linear alps personally.
-
Investing in a couple Alps boards, what are some of the must try switch types? Rare or not. Never owned an Alps, really the only 'common' switch type I've never gotten around to trying out/buying.
Also: can Alps be modded with different switch parts à la ergo-clears?
i don't know if i have ever seen anyone here do that (modded), however i would not be surprised
daniel beardsmore over on deskthority would be a good source to find out as he has contributed a lot of his time to their wiki
*********************************************
i have tried for a long time to find "blue alps" but am not willing to pay what they are going for these days............., however from what i understand they are the bomb
monterey blues are very nice (tactile with slight click), i have whites that are "very" clicky and then some that are more tactile
orange alps are "very" nice (tactile) and creams are kind of light, black is stiffer
i found out buying apple boards with alps switches are a better buy or less expensive- either way one of the down sides for alps is you are pretty much stuck with the caps that are on it as there are very few options to switch like mx
it seems like most people who try alps focus on the "FOCUS" boards because you can usually find them for a reasonable price
if i am not mistaken a FOCUS board that is winkyless has "complicated" alps and FOCUS boards that have windows keys are "simplified" alps- but somebody would need to check me on that
i like old boards and am a alps fan............ :thumb:
-
Blues/Whites for clicky.
Orange/salmon or blacks for tactile.
yellow/green for linear.
Not a big fan of linear alps personally.
That's pretty much all of them :P About all you left out was the really vintage brown tactile switches with the original tactile assembly (basically a dummy switchplate that held only a second (dummy) actuator leaf), before Alps moved to the new mechanism that they retained thereafter, and the one that one imagines everyone else copied.
-
I've tried Orange Alps, Cream Alps, Complicated White (clicky) Alps, Black Alps, and Monterey Blues. Out of those, my favorite are Monterey Blues ... by far. The action feels more crisp, smooth, and lighter, while requiring a bit more force than Cherry Blues.
-
Also: can Alps be modded with different switch parts à la ergo-clears?
i don't know if i have ever seen anyone here do that (modded), however i would not be surprised
http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=40501.0#post_GGG
-
Matias Tactile, Matias Quiet, Cream Alps, Clicky White Alps, Grey Alps, Salmon Alps, Tactile Black Alps, Monterey Blues are all very nice. I never tried Blue Alps
clicker keyboard f21-7d for blue alps
Blues/Whites for clicky.
Orange/salmon or blacks for tactile.
yellow/green for linear.
Not a big fan of linear alps personally.
thanks for info man,that is Real Alps not clone :thumb:
-
focus 2001 with what should be white complicated alsp for 45 shipped
of course you have probably already seen this
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Focus-2001-Keyboard-with-Mechanical-Clicky-Keys-FK-2001-5-PIN-DIN-PS2-/130978126908?pt=PCA_Mice_Trackballs&hash=item1e7ee79c3c
-
Switches in the winkeyless FK-2001:
- Blue Alps CM
- White Alps CM (complicated)
- "Simplified Alps Type IV" switch (presumably Hua-Jie AK-CN2 or earlier equivalent)
- Omron Alps-style switches (http://deskthority.net/wiki/Omron_Alps-style_switch) (not the typical B3G-S series one)
FK-2002 (ISO) is only known to have complicated white Alps. It's not known to have ever had a Windows key version.
Other keyboards might land you Futaba.
See http://deskthority.net/wiki/Category:Focus_keyboards for more details
-
I probably should one-up the Blue Alps, I have an SGI AT101 modded with Blue Alps, and it's probably my favourite non-IBM keyboard.
You could also consider the Alps Plate Spring switches that are in certain IBM Japan keyboards, but you're really heading into obscure territory at that stage.
-
that is Real Alps not clone :thumb:
Some clones are better than the originals, in my opinion.
-
Apple ][ GS SMK.
/thread
-
Some clones are better than the originals, in my opinion.
Which ones? Montereys aren't clones — they're not interchangeable with any real Alps switch. Alps clones are switches that can be substituted for real Alps switches, i.e. they must have the same keycap mount, the same PCB-to-plate distance, the same mounting hole dimensions, and the same leg arrangement.
Despite the bad rap that Xiang Min have had (to a significant extent, for switches they didn't make!) the custom reduced-force KSB-C switches that Ducky are/were buying get a pretty favourable review — they're probably the only redeeming factor of those keyboards.
-
A clone is, by definition, a thing produced in imitation of, or closely resembling, another. You seem to be referring to a replica, which is an exact reproduction.
-
A replica would be an exact likeness. There are no Alps replicas: the clone makers never attempted to duplicate the switchplate assembly, although some non-clones (e.g. Omron B3G-S) had something similar. There are switches that in many ways outwardly resemble an Alps switch, but none of them are the same inside.
However, they are all drop-in replacements: they take the same keycaps, they fit the same PCB and plate holes, and they match the distance from PCB to plate.
Alps clones don't even use the same internal mechanisms (not even the same as Alps simplified, but some of them come very close), but they can be used as substitutes without any modification. What they don't guarantee, is the same sound or feel.
-
To imitate just means to assume the aspect or semblance of. Obviously there are really good and really poor imitations. In my opinion, Monterey Blues were an attempt to imitate Alps. Maybe not necessarily in design, but in look, sound, and feel. By derivation, I consider them clones. Perhaps not the greatest of clones, but clones nonetheless. On the other hand, I prefer the feel of Monterey Blues to Alps, but that's me.
-
"Monterey" switches are part of the SMK second generation. Like their earlier linears, they have a completely different contact mechanism — like all Cherry switches, the contacts are held apart by the slider, and released into position under their own power when the slider is depressed. This avoids directing the keystroke force into the contact leaf. Ignoring the baling wire design, the overall principle completely predates Alps CM and was a rival implementation to vintage Alps linears, which used the switchplate design even before the SKCL switch was introduced.
The tactile SMK switch is also a completely custom design: it's a specially modified click leaf in combination with a chamfered slider that affords a softer, smoother yet more precise force curve than the Alps design. The slider's chamfer is far more critical than the leaf shape, as the tactile leaf still clicks if presented with a "clicky" (orthogonal) slider. Taiwan Tai-Hao tried just altering the leaf, which works nowhere near as well. I don't know why the leaf was ever changed in SMK switches, but there must be a reason.
The SMK patent unfortunately omits a depiction of the keycap mount, and it may never be determined why SMK chose, or were directed, to produce an Alps mount version with no fixing pins, LED or diode holes, or branding; possibly for keycap compatibility, just as how Futaba and Mitsumi made Cherry MX variants of their own switches. The SMK second generation platform always used the inverse cross mount, and the "Monterey" switches are not compatible with Alps keyboards: you can't swap them around.
I see the SMK switch as a combined evolutionary step that blended the best ideas of both Alps and SMK. The US patent was filed in 1987, but the switches appear to go back to 1986 and maybe earlier.
Regardless, the definition of "Alps clone" is a drop-in replacement. The same term applies to Cherry MX switches: Cherry MX clones are drop-in replacements. Think IBM PC clone: a non-IBM computer that can be swapped in place of an IBM machine without software noticing or caring.
Switches like KPT/TEC and Omron B3G-S for example are not Alps clones, as you can't swap them into an Alps keyboard. They did copy various ideas from Alps, naturally. Too bad Alps never copied any ideas from SMK … (KPT/TEC did: KPT/TEC switches are based on SMK, not Alps.)
-
I probably should one-up the Blue Alps, I have an SGI AT101 modded with Blue Alps, and it's probably my favourite non-IBM keyboard.
You could also consider the Alps Plate Spring switches that are in certain IBM Japan keyboards, but you're really heading into obscure territory at that stage.
wow..................we're not worthy!
-
Has anyone compared blue alps to the APC blue switches or KPT blue switches?
-
I'm not sure who decided that in order for a switch to be considered a clone, it must be capable of being swapped into an Alps keyboard. Technically, it's a bit like suggesting Unicomp's Classic 104 shouldn't be considered a Model M clone because the innards of the Classic 104 won't fit into the case of a Model M.
I'm not particularly concerned that the switch design is different. How many Model M clones did you see back in the day whose internals and switch design was different to that of the Model M?
-
The tactile SMK switch is also a completely custom design: it's a specially modified click leaf in combination with a chamfered slider that affords a softer, smoother yet more precise force curve than the Alps design. The slider's chamfer is far more critical than the leaf shape, as the tactile leaf still clicks if presented with a "clicky" (orthogonal) slider. Taiwan Tai-Hao tried just altering the leaf, which works nowhere near as well. I don't know why the leaf was ever changed in SMK switches, but there must be a reason.
Other than the Apple GS what are some other well known keyboards that use Tactile SMK's?
-
Switches in the winkeyless FK-2001:
- Blue Alps CM
- White Alps CM (complicated)
- "Simplified Alps Type IV" switch (presumably Hua-Jie AK-CN2 or earlier equivalent)
- Omron Alps-style switches (http://deskthority.net/wiki/Omron_Alps-style_switch) (not the typical B3G-S series one)
FK-2002 (ISO) is only known to have complicated white Alps. It's not known to have ever had a Windows key version.
Other keyboards might land you Futaba.
See http://deskthority.net/wiki/Category:Focus_keyboards for more details
I like the B3G-S series omrons :D
-
I really want one of these but I must stay with cherry. I am too invested in it.
http://matias.ca/minitactilepro/mac/
-
Orange/salmon or blacks for tactile.
Orange and salmon are pretty much the same. The Black Alps feel different.
Personally, I love the orange/salmon and dislike the blacks. (no racist pun intended whatsoever...)
Do also try Cream Alps, or Matias Quiet. You will find them in keyboards from Silicon Graphics and in (the most common variation of) the Apple Extended Keyboard II.
The unique thing with these is that they are the only common mechanical switches that are dampened on the bottom and on the upstroke.
The SMK "Montereys" and Omron B3G-S switches are really nice. They take the same keycaps as Alps but are otherwise different on the inside, not interchangeable with Alps and they feel really different.
The clicky blue SMKs, (the ones called "Monterey" because they were found on a Monterey-branded keyboard but no branding on the keyswitch itself) feel a lot like a more tactile Cherry MX Blue. The orange Omrons are clicky with actuation point low in the stroke.
-
I'm not sure who decided that in order for a switch to be considered a clone, it must be capable of being swapped into an Alps keyboard. Technically, it's a bit like suggesting Unicomp's Classic 104 shouldn't be considered a Model M clone because the innards of the Classic 104 won't fit into the case of a Model M.
It will, assuming that the Model M is a 42H1292 or derivative.
-
I'm not sure who decided that in order for a switch to be considered a clone, it must be capable of being swapped into an Alps keyboard.
That's just what clones are. In terms of Cherry, they're all interchangeable. It's more complicated with Alps, as there is so much crossover between incompatible designs, i.e. switches that borrow from designs other than Alps. Even from your perspective, it's silly to call Monterey an Alps clone, since it's based mostly on the SMK vintage linear that appears to go back to the 70s. KPT (tail end of the 80s) seems to be a hybrid of Omron, SMK and Alps — we know that Omron B3G-S series was preceded by the B3G series (based on documentation still on the Omron website), but I've not knowingly seen one. I did find a patent for an Omron latching switch, but I don't remember what year that was, and if that had the three-leg self-jumpering arrangement that KPT subsequently used.
(I wouldn't be surprised if SMK based their design on Cherry's switches — we know Cherry "M6" (identical to M7) goes back to 1973 — does anyone have any proof that SMK switches are that old?)
Clone products are ones that function as substitutes for an original part.
Technically, it's a bit like suggesting Unicomp's Classic 104 shouldn't be considered a Model M clone because the innards of the Classic 104 won't fit into the case of a Model M.
Unicomp keyboards aren't clones. They're made using the same tooling by a company who legally purchased it, and probably the same people (management buyout, wasn't it?). Considering that Unicomp made the "real" keyboards at one stage, it's legitimate to call them genuine, but they themselves do not use the term "Model M" — maybe they never obtained that trademark, or wanted to distance themselves in terms of marketing (which would be odd). The whole issue with Unicomp keyboards is that they've not retooled!
They would only be clones, if another company had created their own tooling to make a product that looked and felt and sounded like a Model M (like those Chinese buckling spring keyboards, though IIRC they didn't copy the appearance) but had nothing to do with IBM/Lexmark/Unicomp.
I'm not particularly concerned that the switch design is different. How many Model M clones did you see back in the day whose internals and switch design was different to that of the Model M?
A "clone" keyboard, I guess, would be one that tries to replicate one you're familiar with. The only true "Model M clone" I can think of is those Chinese buckling spring keyboards, as they attempted to reproduce the exact IBM sound and feel, just very badly.
Does any keyboard that outwardly resembles a Model M (of which there many) class as a "clone"? I don't know — I guess in terms of people who cannot see beyond outward appearance, yes it does, as they think they're getting the real deal or something very similar.
Now, this also true of KPT etc — most people can't tell KPT from Monterey from Alps from any other switch with that mount, but it's also true that people never bought keyboards based on the keystem/slider — it's only people like us who actually remove the keycaps and, out of ignorance, get the switches mixed up.
-
I really want one of these but I must stay with cherry. I am too invested in it.
http://matias.ca/minitactilepro/mac/
you can still have Cherry and Alps. It's not exclusive... Go ahead, you know you want one...
-
I'm not sure who decided that in order for a switch to be considered a clone, it must be capable of being swapped into an Alps keyboard.
Clone products are ones that function as substitutes for an original part.
While I would indeed consider products that function as substitutes for original parts as clones, the word (clone) is often applied much more loosely. For example, when Disney introduced "Physical Face Cloning" last year, were they creating "drop-in" or 'replacement' faces for human face transplants? Not quite. The term denotes a process by which the company "analyzes the face of a target using 3D motion capture cameras. Then calculates the precise shape, density and composition of a synthetic skin that accurately mimics that specific human's expression."
However, the fact is, companies copy competitors all the time. That's what clones are. When people refer to "clones" or "imitations" of a product in general, are they referring to products whose parts are interchangeable with those of a competing product? A lot of products simply attempt to capitalize on the success of another product's look, feel, and/or function. They don't always create interchangeable internal hardware. When Apple accused Samsung of cloning some of their products, did they mean Samsung created internal hardware that was interchangeable with theirs?
Would anyone deny that Mega Bloks is a copy of Legos?
Who would deny that the following products are virtual clones of Apple offerings?
CinemaView's CV24 vs. Apple's Cinema Display:
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/CinemaView%20CV24%20vs.%20Cinema%20Display.jpg)
The ePAD vs. the iPad:
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/ePAD%20vs.%20iPad%20Box.jpg)
Element NPhone vs. iPhone:
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/NPhone%20vs.%20iPhone.jpg)
The TRiPod vs. iPod Nano:
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/TRiPod%20vs%20iPod%20Nano.jpg)
Is the internal hardware of those copycats interchangeable with the Apple originals they're based on?
Technically, it's a bit like suggesting Unicomp's Classic 104 shouldn't be considered a Model M clone because the innards of the Classic 104 won't fit into the case of a Model M.
Unicomp keyboards aren't clones. They're made using the same tooling by a company who legally purchased it, and probably the same people (management buyout, wasn't it?). Considering that Unicomp made the "real" keyboards at one stage, it's legitimate to call them genuine, but they themselves do not use the term "Model M" — maybe they never obtained that trademark, or wanted to distance themselves in terms of marketing (which would be odd). The whole issue with Unicomp keyboards is that they've not retooled!
There are marked differences in the look and sound of Unicomp keyboards vs IBM Model M's due to quality control and plastics composition differences. I've detailed the differences in numerous other threads. For instance, Unicomp cases are prone to creaking and have a lot more case flex than IBM Model M cases. It's also not uncommon to find flashing around some of the key caps. There are cosmetic imperfections on the surface of Unicomp cases that are non-existent in IBM equivalents. So, while Unicomp does use the same tooling and turns out a decent copy, it's not an exact duplicate. If it were, it would be a replica.
-
I'D SAY THE WHITE ALPS ARE WORTH TRYING.
-
Unicomp keyboards are not clones. They're the same keyboards. Reduction in quality began under IBM's ownership, step by step. There's no single Model M specification — the keyboards changed with time. There's not a lot of signficant difference — the main one for me is that the Spacesaver doesn't have the twang sound that you get from the IBM keyboards, and I think you still got the twang in the IBM Japan product that the Spacesaver is based on. I used to think that was a good thing, but now I think I prefer the twang after all.
"Clone" has different meanings in different contexts, for example Dolly the sheep isn't a third party copy — no Alps clones of any kind would pass that definition of clone. Cloning in an image editor means something else again, as does cloning and deep cloning in object-oriented programming languages.
For a switch, it means a compatible product. It's not a clone if you can't actually use it in place of the product it's based on. Personally I wouldn't class a product as a clone unless it's the same inside and out (true of Cherry MX clones, which are largely the same inside as real Cherry MX switches, but not true of Alps clones) but that's inconsistent with what people mean by clone.
-
Unicomp keyboards are not clones. They're the same keyboards. Reduction in quality began under IBM's ownership, step by step. There's no single Model M specification — the keyboards changed with time.
Do you own a Unicomp?
Model M quality didn't decline until Lexmark began producing them, and although there were minor differences theretofore, you didn't get the feeling you were typing on a shoddy imitation. That's the difference.
There's not a lot of signficant difference
Well, I mean, other than the creaking plastic, cosmetic imperfections on the surface of the case, flashing around key caps, case flex, extruded / protruded plastic on the back of the case:
Exhibit A: Extrusion points in the plastic on the back of the case
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/M/Cosmetic%20Imperfections%202.jpg)
Exhibit B: Key cap flashing
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/M/Key%20Flashing%202.jpg)
Exhibit C: More key cap flashing
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/M/Key%20Flashing%201.jpg)
Exhibit D: Cosmetic imperfections appear as smudge marks on the surface of the case
(http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/M/Cosmetic%20Imperfections%201.jpg)
Exhibit E: Audio of creaking (http://pages.suddenlink.net/coven/pics/clones/M/Creaking.mp3) - the result of pressing both halves of the case together
the main one for me is that the Spacesaver doesn't have the twang sound that you get from the IBM keyboards, and I [i
As far as I know, no Unicomp keyboard pings or twangs.
Dolly the sheep isn't a third party copy
There's also a dictionary entry specifically related (and limited) to biological usage. No such entry exists for keyboards or any other product as far as I know.
Cloning in an image editor means something else again, as does cloning and deep cloning in object-oriented programming languages.
It very much depends on how the word is used so as to avoid confusion with the tool set. For example, it's obviously possible to apply the word in more than one sense in either setting, depending on how it's worded. In an image editor, it's easy to convey the sense that a person has recreated a famous painting through their own efforts rather than a tool by the same name via use of the word clone.
For a switch, it means a compatible product. It's not a clone if you can't actually use it in place of the product it's based on.
Who says? Was there a council meeting I missed? Did they update Websters dictionary with a keyboard entry for the word "clone"? Such usage can and does apply if the object in question is indeed compatible, however, by definition, the term isn't strictly limited to such usage.
-
I bought a Unicomp Spacesaver in 2010, yes. Admittedly, my only M is a 1996 Greenock, but they feel the same, and plenty of people prefer the feel of Unicomp keyboards (whether that's just due to the wear on old Model Ms, is another matter). It's obvious that the quality of the Unicomp keyboard range is diminished, but considering its price point, and that it's assembled in the US (and not some undisclosed factory in China), I don't feel any real desire to complain — it's a solid keyboard. The glitter in the keycap plastic was the only serious mistake, and that became unnoticeable almost immediately.
I've seen plenty of dreadful products. Brand new Sony VAIO with a green colour cast on the backlight so severe that the whole room would turn pink when I looked up — how did that trash ever make it out the factory door? Product quality diminishes with time and companies screw up. Quality doesn't define a product range — consider how many products would be considered "clones" just because they're no longer made as well as they used to be. Besides, if Unicomp retooled and made immaculate products from fresh production line equipment, would those not be classed as clones, simply because the quality went up? Or would they be clones for some other reason?
If you insist on calling switches "Alps clones" in a manner that's thoroughly confusing (breaking any useful boundaries of categorisation, i.e. anything that suits your arbitrary idea of what ideas you think they pulled from Alps, regardless of whether that was ever the case or not), I cannot stop you.
-
I'm enjoying reading this discussion but I didn't realize there are Cherry MX clone switches, Daniel.
-
Quite a few, actually. Here's alps.tw's collection, which includes the Yali/Aristotle ones that Chicony bought (no. 6):
http://kbtalking.cool3c.com/article/18452
This is the standard one now:
http://www.kailh.com/en/products.asp?Categoryid=113&rel=15
There are more besides these.
-
That's scary.. How do we know that future keyboards from China is not secretly using these clones? For example Choc Mini might one day be using these to cut cost.
-
I love green ALPS so much. I may even dare say it's the best switch.
Get a DK 1087 with green ALPS clones. It's my favorite keyboard by a long shot. There are a few (read: many) quality issues though.
I think you need to be much more specific when you say that you like Green ALPS, or that Green ALPS are the best switch.
The original Green ALPS manufactured when ALPS Electric was still in the keyboard game was a linear switch with a very low actuation force, while the "Green ALPS" manufactured by Xiang Min are clicky with a higher actuation force and different feel entirely. It's a completely different switch that is not similar in any way apart from the color and shape of the keycap mount.
So the best switch, in this case, would be a Xiang Min ALPS clone, the clicky version of which was colored green for Ducky's order :-).
-
well this definitely isn't cherry, so would this switch fall in line with this discussion?
anyone know if it is tactile, clicky, linear, etc......?
-
It's obvious that the quality of the Unicomp keyboard range is diminished, but considering its price point, and that it's assembled in the US (and not some undisclosed factory in China), I don't feel any real desire to complain — it's a solid keyboard. The glitter in the keycap plastic was the only serious mistake, and that became unnoticeable almost immediately.
I'm not saying Unicomp doesn't make a good keyboard. It is a good keyboard in its own right for the money, but there are definite differences that distinguish it from Model M's manufactured under IBM's name that disqualify it from being a replica, in my opinion.
Let's say there was a company, let's call them Uniburger, that bought the rights and equipment to make Big Macs from McDonalds, because McDonalds planned to stop selling them. And let's say that Uniburger made a decent burger, and even cooked them on the same equipment that original Big Macs were cooked on. However, let's also say that the quality of Uniburger's version of the Big Mac was clearly inferior to the original. Do you believe most consumers would consider Uniburger's version to be an original Big Mac or an imitation?
Besides, if Unicomp retooled and made immaculate products from fresh production line equipment, would those not be classed as clones, simply because the quality went up? Or would they be clones for some other reason?
If Unicomp could manufacture a keyboard that was indistinguishable from Model M's manufactured by IBM, would anyone really care? If they could create a replica of early Model M's, I wouldn't.
If you insist on calling switches "Alps clones" in a manner that's thoroughly confusing
Do you really find the definition of the word clone (ie "a thing produced in imitation of") when applied to switches to be thoroughly confusing?
-
That's scary.. How do we know that future keyboards from China is not secretly using these clones? For example Choc Mini might one day be using these to cut cost.
Cost or even production shortages from Cherry, which is a constant problem. One keyboard vendor noted that the Alps clone manufacturers were ramping up production to counteract the Cherry switch shortages, and that Datacomp had exhibited their own new Alps clone at a trade fair, but I don't know what became of that, as they've never responded to further e-mails, not did Datacomp respond to my enquiry about these alleged new switches (according to their website they still sell ADB keyboards!)
Surely it would be the Cherry clone manufacturers who would be responding? Can't be sure, as we know how readily Chinese factories retool for a switch change.
well this definitely isn't cherry, so would this switch fall in line with this discussion?
anyone know if it is tactile, clicky, linear, etc......?
Clicky. Those are the Aristotle (Yali) clones that Chicony bought.
-
I'm not saying Unicomp doesn't make a good keyboard. It is a good keyboard in its own right for the money, but there are definite differences that distinguish it from Model M's manufactured under IBM's name that disqualify it from being a replica, in my opinion.
As has been pointed out before, cost cutting with the Model M started back in the 80s. You can tell the difference between a Model M made in the mid 80s and one made in the late 80s/early 90s by weight, force required to actuate, and some of the internal details. You can definitely tell the difference between an early 80s M and a mid-to-late 90s 42H1292 in terms of weight, internals and case details (such as where the cable exits the keyboard and the absence of a speaker grille), actuation force, printing (there were only monochrome legends on the later ones). There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the build and printing quality of later Lexmark and IBM Ms were inferior to earlier ones. So it would seem from starters that differences in quality or even in internal construction can be found between generations of 'the real deal'.
Now, I'll admit that the issues you cite with the Unicomp are quite severe, but they are largely caused by two things - A) the fact that Unicomp has let their QA slip, probably because of cost reasons and B) their moulds and tooling becoming worn with age.
With respect to A) I don't think this really counts. If a keyboard manufacturer, whether it be IBM, Unicomp, or whoever, makes a bad batch of keyboards, and they get in customer's hands, are these keyboards now a 'clone' of the keyboards made to higher standards? Of course, with Unicomp it's not just a bad batch - there has been a decline in quality for quite some time, but again, it started with IBM, so now we're getting into a subjective game of what qualifies as a large enough of a drop in quality to make something into a 'clone'. Some will say that a Unicomp is an inferior product to the old school Model Ms, some will say that they are more than happy with them and they are just as good as the old IBMs in their opinion. Who is right? As far as I am concerned, it's a matter of taste.
At any rate, I think whether something is a clone or not is dependent on the relationship between that design, and the design of its alleged 'parent', and also legal issues (which are moot in this case because Unicomp legally own the designs and tooling). If Unicomp cleaned up their manufacturing process and were able to afford increased production costs, their Classic 101s would be identical to 42H1292 Model Ms, and indeed, early Customizer/Classics had comparable build quality to the Lexmark and Greenock IBM ones. I also think that the issue of whether something is a clone or not is largely independent of quality. Look at the Cherry keyboards with the same layout as the DEC LK201 as an example of a clone that was superior to the original.
With respect to B) this has also always been an issue, as it will be with anything that is mass produced over a long period of time. One example of this is keycap printing, even back to the Model F days, you can see some keyboards with poor or badly aligned printing. One of the guys at Unicomp mentioned that every once in a while, the machinery used in the dye sub process would need to be retuned, and that some keyboards would go out with fuzzy or unaligned legends before they'd fix the process up (this dated back to the IBM days) Again, I don't see how or why failure to retool your manufacturing machinery suddenly turns your products from the real deal into a clone.
I don't agree with the use of 'replica' either, it doesn't really seem applicable in the context of a mass produced item. If I go out and buy a Filco tomorrow, it is not a 'replica' of the Filco that someone bought last week, it's just another Filco. Given that the Customizer/Classic 101 is built on the same machinery as Lexmark built 42H1292-type Model Ms for IBM by former Lexmark employees according to IBM/Lexmark designs and specs, a Unicomp is just another Model M. Pretty much all the differences are in line with something that has been built for nearly 30 years, and a company that has probably nearly gone bankrupt a few times in the past few years. There are definitely some big QA failings, but I don't think it is useful to categorize the keyboards as a 'clone' as consequence, it really doesn't add anything to the discussion, and suggests that there are far more differences than there really are.
Edited to fix some grammar and wording issues.
-
I really want one of these but I must stay with cherry. I am too invested in it.
http://matias.ca/minitactilepro/mac/
you can still have Cherry and Alps. It's not exclusive... Go ahead, you know you want one...
Plus there's this: http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=44851.0 (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=44851.0)
-
I'm not saying Unicomp doesn't make a good keyboard. It is a good keyboard in its own right for the money, but there are definite differences that distinguish it from Model M's manufactured under IBM's name that disqualify it from being a replica, in my opinion.
As has been pointed out before, cost cutting with the Model M started back in the 80s. You can tell the difference between a Model M made in the mid 80s and one made in the late 80s/early 90s by weight, force required to actuate, and some of the internal details.
I own a Model M made in 1987 and one made in 1993. Both were manufactured by IBM. I'd bet money you couldn't tell them apart without looking at the label.
You can definitely tell the difference between an early 80s M and a mid-to-late 90s 42H1292 in terms of weight, internals and case details (such as where the cable exits the keyboard and the absence of a speaker grille), actuation force, printing (there were only monochrome legends on the later ones).
Those are design differences, in my opinion. I mean, Unicomp keyboards weigh less and don't exhibit the metallic ping that IBM Model M's do. However, I can't see that being an unintentional decision. In fact, some people don't appreciate the twangy metallic ping, nor want a heavy keyboard. But who would intentionally decide to design a keyboard with key cap flashing, case creaking, cosmetic imperfections on the surface of the plastic, extrusions in the plastic, or case flex? And what consumer would want that? I mean, I can deal with certain design choices, and I can deal with a minor defect. But what we're talking about are major qualitative issues that, collectively, give the impression of a shoddy imitation, in my opinion, but that's me.
Some will say that a Unicomp is an inferior product to the old school Model Ms, some will say that they are more than happy with them and they are just as good as the old IBMs in their opinion. Who is right? As far as I am concerned, it's a matter of taste.
By definition, inferior means "a step down". Thus, unless one simply ignores all of the qualitative issues that I cited, I can't see how anyone could possibly consider a Unicomp anything but inferior to its predecessors.
Some people are perfectly content with their Unicomp, defects and all, and I say more power to them. If you're okay with it, then so be it. I'm not knocking anyone for liking them. I mean, they're not bad keyboards for what they are. Personally, they strike me as imitations or clones more than IBM Model M equivalents, but again, that's just my opinion.
At any rate, I think whether something is a clone or not is dependent on the relationship between that design, and the design of its alleged 'parent', and also legal issues (which are moot in this case because Unicomp legally own the designs and tooling).
To me, it's not that complicated. This isn't a court of law. Words have meaning, and as long as they're used in accordance with the dictionary definition, it's a simple affair. Does their usage conform to the dictionary definition?
I also think that the issue of whether something is a clone or not is largely independent of quality.
By definition, a clone is an imitation, and a replica is a facsimile. Are you really suggesting that the difference between a crappy, hand-drawn imitation of the Mona Lisa and a bona fide replica has nothing to do with quality? Really? So, a version of the Mona Lisa scribbled out by a 5 year old wielding crayons wouldn't be considered an imitation(ie. clone)?
With respect to B) this has also always been an issue, as it will be with anything that is mass produced over a long period of time. One example of this is keycap printing, even back to the Model F days, you can see some keyboards with poor or badly aligned printing. One of the guys at Unicomp mentioned that every once in a while, the machinery used in the dye sub process would need to be retuned, and that some keyboards would go out with fuzzy or unaligned legends before they'd fix the process up (this dated back to the IBM days) Again, I don't see how or why failure to retool your manufacturing machinery suddenly turns your products from the real deal into a clone.
If we're talking about a single qualitative error that's handled from time to time, well, that's one thing. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about multiple major qualitative issues that are consistent and ongoing.
If I go out and buy a Filco tomorrow, it is not a 'replica' of the Filco that someone bought last week, it's just another Filco.
If you purchased the same model, assuming there were no manufacturing errors, it could most certainly be considered a replica. What do you think a replica is? It's a duplicate, facsimile, or reproduction.
Given that the Customizer/Classic 101 is built on the same machinery as Lexmark built 42H1292-type Model Ms for IBM by former Lexmark employees according to IBM/Lexmark designs and specs, a Unicomp is just another Model M.
I defer to my McDonalds Big Mac analogy:
Let's say a company, we'll call them Uniburger, bought the rights and equipment to make Big Macs from McDonalds(because McDonalds planned to stop selling them). And let's say Uniburger made a decent burger, and even cooked their burgers on the same equipment that the original Big Macs were cooked. However, let's also say the quality of Uniburger's version of the Big Mac was clearly inferior to the original. Do you think most consumers would consider Uniburger's version to be an original Big Mac or an imitation?
Pretty much all the differences are in line with something that has been built for nearly 30 years
The quality control issues are not at all consistent with what was produced by IBM or Lexmark.
-
I own a Model M made in 1987 and one made in 1993. Both were manufactured by IBM. I'd bet money you couldn't tell them apart without looking at the label.
The changes I'm referring to started to show up around 1987, so that's believable. But you're working off a relatively limited sample size.
By definition, a clone is an imitation, and a replica is a facsimile. Are you really suggesting that the difference between a crappy, hand-drawn imitation of the Mona Lisa and a bona fide replica has nothing to do with quality? Really? So, a version of the Mona Lisa scribbled out by a 5 year old wielding crayons wouldn't be considered an imitation(ie. clone)?
I think I meant the opposite of what you interpreted me saying. A clone can be better than the original as well as being worse. Some times, the improvement can be objective (again, compare the DEC LK201 with the Cherry equivalent) or subjective (I saw the Mona Lisa once, and was unimpressed. I would have preferred if it was larger and done as a piece of abstract art, but that's just me.)
If you purchased the same model, assuming there were no manufacturing errors, it could most certainly be considered a replica. What do you think a replica is? It's a duplicate, facsimile, or reproduction.
I see replica, clone and whatnot as terms that describe a particular design's relationship with another design. If you mass produce something, then you have multiple instances of the one design. You could say that every instance of the design is a replica of an original, but I think this is a rather tenuous way of looking at things, even if it's technically correct in some ways. The issue in my mind is that 'replica' has connotations of some external party attempting to recreate a given item. Unicomp isn't really an external party, and they haven't recreated something, they've merely continued production of it, albeit with lower quality in recent years.
I defer to my McDonalds Big Mac analogy:
Let's say a company, we'll call them Uniburger, bought the rights and equipment to make Big Macs from McDonalds(because McDonalds planned to stop selling them). And let's say Uniburger made a decent burger, and even cooked their burgers on the same equipment that the original Big Macs were cooked. However, let's also say the quality of Uniburger's version of the Big Mac was clearly inferior to the original. Do you think most consumers would consider Uniburger's version to be an original Big Mac or an imitation?
Of course, the relationship in quality between a Lexmark and a Unicomp is a bit more complicated. Older Unicomp keyboards were closer to quality to the Lexmark predecessors than current ones (and some were even sold as IBM-branded Model Ms.) At no point has the design changed, it just got built to sloppier standards.
I suppose this boils down once more to how one chooses to define a 'clone'. In my opinion, a clone implies that somebody has created a design that approximates some or all of the features of another design (as contrast to a replica where somebody has attempted to create a design that is identical to another as far as is possible). Again, I don't think the Unicomps fit into either category because they haven't created anything new, they have just continued production of the same design (at least with the Classic 101)
I also think the term 'clone' carries certain baggage in the keyboard community that is not applicable to Unicomp keyboards. Clone switches, for example, are not always interchangeable with real ones, but just about everything in a late production Model M is interchangeable with a Classic 101 because they are the same design just built to different standards.
-
By definition, a clone is an imitation, and a replica is a facsimile. Are you really suggesting that the difference between a crappy, hand-drawn imitation of the Mona Lisa and a bona fide replica has nothing to do with quality? Really? So, a version of the Mona Lisa scribbled out by a 5 year old wielding crayons wouldn't be considered an imitation(ie. clone)?
I think I meant the opposite of what you interpreted me saying. A clone can be better than the original as well as being worse. Some times, the improvement can be objective (again, compare the DEC LK201 with the Cherry equivalent) or subjective (I saw the Mona Lisa once, and was unimpressed. I would have preferred if it was larger and done as a piece of abstract art, but that's just me.)
I agree. In fact, that was the exact sentiment I expressed (http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=48424.msg1039002#msg1039002) which started the discussion about clones(ie. that some clones are better than their originals).
If you purchased the same model, assuming there were no manufacturing errors, it could most certainly be considered a replica. What do you think a replica is? It's a duplicate, facsimile, or reproduction.
I see replica, clone and whatnot as terms that describe a particular design's relationship with another design. If you mass produce something, then you have multiple instances of the one design. You could say that every instance of the design is a replica of an original, but I think this is a rather tenuous way of looking at things, even if it's technically correct in some ways. The issue in my mind is that 'replica' has connotations of some external party attempting to recreate a given item. Unicomp isn't really an external party, and they haven't recreated something, they've merely continued production of it, albeit with lower quality in recent years.
Technically speaking, the definition of replica and clone doesn't limit the idea of multiple instances back to a single, original work, such as a famous painting. It can simply apply to a product that is a copy of another product, such as a keyboard(although in the case of a replica, it would be an exact copy). Replica would especially apply to items on an assembly line, because each item is often an exact copy of the other.
I defer to my McDonalds Big Mac analogy:
Let's say a company, we'll call them Uniburger, bought the rights and equipment to make Big Macs from McDonalds(because McDonalds planned to stop selling them). And let's say Uniburger made a decent burger, and even cooked their burgers on the same equipment that the original Big Macs were cooked. However, let's also say the quality of Uniburger's version of the Big Mac was clearly inferior to the original. Do you think most consumers would consider Uniburger's version to be an original Big Mac or an imitation?
Of course, the relationship in quality between a Lexmark and a Unicomp is a bit more complicated. Older Unicomp keyboards were closer in quality to the Lexmark predecessors than current ones (and some were even sold as IBM-branded Model Ms.) At no point has the design changed, it just got built to sloppier standards.
The analogy never implied that the design changed, but that quality declined.
I suppose this boils down once more to how one chooses to define a 'clone'. In my opinion, a clone implies that somebody has created a design that approximates some or all of the features of another design (as contrast to a replica where somebody has attempted to create a design that is identical to another as far as is possible). Again, I don't think the Unicomps fit into either category because they haven't created anything new, they have just continued production of the same design (at least with the Classic 101)
It's not about whether they've "created" something "new". It's about how accurately they've copied the original Model M in all its glory. The quality control issues I've mentioned change the accuracy of said copy, hence it's not exactly the same, thus it's not a replica. One could argue that Lexmark versions weren't exact copies, either. However, for the sake of flogging a dead horse, Unicomp's current production copies are so inaccurate that, due to the degree of qualitative decline, they present themselves as cheap imitations or shoddy clones, in my opinion.
I can't help but look back at early Model M's produced by IBM as the standard of excellence. When I place those models juxtaposed to Unicomp's, there's just no comparison, in my opinion. Unicomp's current versions look, sound, and feel like shoddy clones to me. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think they're good keyboards in their own right, but they're hardly up to early Model M standards, in my opinion.
I also think the term 'clone' carries certain baggage in the keyboard community that is not applicable to Unicomp keyboards. Clone switches, for example, are not always interchangeable with real ones, but just about everything in a late production Model M is interchangeable with a Classic 101 because they are the same design just built to different standards.
Again, it's not strictly about the accuracy of the design but the overall accuracy of the copy compared to earlier versions.
-
Im thinking about selling off my unicomp to get a model m. Is it worth it?
-
Im thinking about selling off my unicomp to get a model m. Is it worth it?
I'm partial to Model M's, so if you ask me which one I'd rather have, it's a no brainer. Some people don't like the metallic pinging sound that early Model M's emit when typing. Others appreciate it. Early Model M's are also a couple of pounds heavier. I think they feel sturdier, myself. It just depends on who you ask, though. I definitely think it's worth it, but you might buy one and disagree.
-
How is the early Model M ping different from the late Model M ping?
-
There's two factors - rivets, and backplate thickness and material. The really old ones are made from that same heavy-duty brass-coloured tempered steel as the Model F backplates are, newer ones are not that rigid (I was able to bend a Unicomp one with my hands, and my upper body strength is... lacking).
Not entirely related, but my 1985 Model M is almost painfully stiff to type on, and I've heard others say the same of their early Ms, although it's probably a case of YMMV.
-
How is the early Model M ping different from the late Model M ping?
I don't know that the ping itself really differs from late Model M's(Lexmark?), but it's relatively non-existent with current Unicomp's.
-
I know Unicomps barely ping — I used to think that was a good thing, but now I'm not so sure. I should take my Model M to the office and put some hours on it. I just need to forget that the Windows keys exist :( (really annoying with Server 2012, too)
-
I know Unicomps barely ping — I used to think that was a good thing, but now I'm not so sure.
Any particular reason you're on the fence?
-
Just not sure whether I prefer a flat sound or a twangy sound. Or dry, or warm/resonant. Or a loud keyboard or a quiet one. It's probably something like: loud == fun, quiet == far less distracting (to me, not to others).