I remember that in their photos the keycap printing was absolutely terrible.
so could you give a few words on your keycap printing quality?
So this means that IBM did a meh job and then Unicomp came along and did a better job until their product line update?All the IBM legends are much crisper and nicer than Unicomp ones. Especially the earlier ones. There was a bit of variation in legend positioning over the years, but for the most part the IBM legends are pretty nice.
(Oh, and where's that tenkeyless they've been promising for months?)
(Oh, and where's that tenkeyless they've been promising for months?)
Date: 2014-12-10 16:03:01
Name: Jeanne Deters
Printer friendly version
Message:
We are working on a tenkeyless keyboard, however, it is taking longer than anticipated. Look for more news on it in the next several months. Thanks for your interest.
You can follow us on FaceBook: FaceBook.com/pckeyboard
Regards,
Customer Service
Edit: One thing I can say is Unicomp customer service is the very best experience I have ever had. And Jeanne has helped me on several occasions and I have no complaints whatsoever. Good people!
Okay I personally can't tell but see for yourselves. I'm not an expert on keycaps.
The top two are the IBM WHITE Label 101.
The bottom two are the Unicomp 103.
They are both nice.
I had to edit because that drop of coffee on the spacebar of the 103 looked pretty bad magnified haha.
Okay I personally can't tell but see for yourselves. I'm not an expert on keycaps. The top two are the IBM WHITE Label 101. The bottom two are the Unicomp 103. They are both nice.Yeah, the Unicomp legends are very fuzzy, especially on the keycaps with words on them ("Shift", etc.), and on the symbols in the number row, while the IBM legends are nice and crisp.
Okay I personally can't tell but see for yourselves. I'm not an expert on keycaps. The top two are the IBM WHITE Label 101. The bottom two are the Unicomp 103. They are both nice.Yeah, the Unicomp legends are very fuzzy, especially on the keycaps with words on them ("Shift", etc.), and on the symbols in the number row, while the IBM legends are nice and crisp.
I like 1.5x size keys, but having a dedicated Windows key is a deal maker/breaker for some people.
I think it's just that they are using a different bolder font. I guess if you always look at your keycaps with a microscope, there might be a big difference. To me, they are both fine.All the letters are bleeding into each-other. It’s plenty possible to have bold fonts that are still crisp with clear boundaries between positive and negative space; these are not only bold but also just fuzzy. Also, the specific glyphs that Unicomp uses for various symbols (especially # @ % and $, but to some extent all of them) are not very good ones to use on a keyboard: I think they just pulled them directly from a computer font file, without consulting an expert. I think Unicomp basically doesn’t have anyone on staff who is super concerned with typography or aesthetics, and doesn’t still have the capability to do dye sublimation as high quality as what IBM was able to do.
I think it's just that they are using a different bolder font. I guess if you always look at your keycaps with a microscope, there might be a big difference. To me, they are both fine.All the letters are bleeding into each-other. It’s plenty possible to have bold fonts that are still crisp with clear boundaries between positive and negative space; these are not only bold but also just fuzzy. Also, the specific glyphs that Unicomp uses for various symbols (especially # @ % and $, but to some extent all of them) are not very good ones to use on a keyboard: I think they just pulled them directly from a computer font file, without consulting an expert. I think Unicomp basically doesn’t have anyone on staff who is super concerned with typography or aesthetics, and doesn’t still have the capability to do dye sublimation as high quality as what IBM was able to do.
Anyway, if the Unicomp ones seem fine, that’s totally fine, don’t worry about it! I personally don’t care too strongly about legends, and am perfectly happy using blank keycaps.
Uh, okay. It seems you are the one that isn't very happy about it. You go out of your way to nitpick everything, then you go on to say you use blanks? Thank you for your opinion.Huh? Are you trying to pick a fight or something?
Uh, okay. It seems you are the one that isn't very happy about it. You go out of your way to nitpick everything, then you go on to say you use blanks? Thank you for your opinion.Huh? Are you trying to pick a fight or something?
Paranoid Android asked: “I wasn't aware that the original IBM caps were also off center and inconsistent. So this means that IBM did a meh job and then Unicomp came along and did a better job until their product line update?”
I answered him, pointing out that IBM has substantially crisper legends, with glyphs that are more carefully designed to look good on keycaps, and generally better quality control, etc. The Unicomp ones are fine for many/most people. However someone who is picky and cares about aesthetics / typography might find them unacceptable.
I’m not “going out of my way to nitpick everything”, I’m just honestly answering someone’s question. If you don’t care for the answer, that’s really not my problem.
Speaking only for myself, I have more than enough IBM keycaps for all the projects I plan to do, so I don’t need to get any keycaps from Unicomp, so it really doesn’t affect me personally, but I would be slightly disappointed to be forced to use Unicomp legends: they’re passable, but mediocre in my opinion. However I think blanks look better than printed legends anyway, in many cases (partly because keyboard legends have in general really ****ty typography; blanks are much harder to screw up).
I honestly don’t give a damn what keycaps you use on your keyboard. Use whatever makes you happy, it doesn’t affect me in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, if the Unicomp ones seem fine, that’s totally fine, don’t worry about it! I personally don’t care too strongly about legends, and am perfectly happy using blank keycaps.
You really got bent out of shape over this.I think I’m badly communicating / you’re misinterpreting my tone here. (This is something which easily happens in a pure text medium.)
Here's where I can agree with you. I wish Unicomp, (or anyone) would make Model M keycaos with the Selectric Engraved Fonts.
I believe those were perfect to me. (I think it's a font called RAND?) It would be nice to see an M with that font and the small print on the legends done in an Art-Deco kind of way.
I like 1.5x size keys, but having a dedicated Windows key is a deal maker/breaker for some people.
You still have a dedicated Windows key. The key between the left Ctrl and Alt is Windows. The key between the right Alt and Ctrl is Menu. No deal is broken. I like the look a lot better than the 104. But if you insist, you can have the best of both worlds. A larger spacebar like the traditional 101, or a smaller spacebar with a right Windows key after the shorter spacebar. It's all good.
I like 1.5x size keys, but having a dedicated Windows key is a deal maker/breaker for some people.
You still have a dedicated Windows key. The key between the left Ctrl and Alt is Windows. The key between the right Alt and Ctrl is Menu. No deal is broken. I like the look a lot better than the 104. But if you insist, you can have the best of both worlds. A larger spacebar like the traditional 101, or a smaller spacebar with a right Windows key after the shorter spacebar. It's all good.
Maybe not everyone has seen the layout image from Unicomp?Show Image(http://s16.postimg.org/fyxcu8k5x/ucbr.png)
I like 1.5x size keys, but having a dedicated Windows key is a deal maker/breaker for some people.
You still have a dedicated Windows key. The key between the left Ctrl and Alt is Windows. The key between the right Alt and Ctrl is Menu. No deal is broken. I like the look a lot better than the 104. But if you insist, you can have the best of both worlds. A larger spacebar like the traditional 101, or a smaller spacebar with a right Windows key after the shorter spacebar. It's all good.
Maybe not everyone has seen the layout image from Unicomp?Show Image(http://s16.postimg.org/fyxcu8k5x/ucbr.png)
You didn't read my signature....
What new size of key? They have 1.25x, 1.5x and 1x for the mods, and either a 7x or 6.25x spacebar. Only thing that changed is the barrel positions on the right side.
You didn't read my signature....
What new size of key? They have 1.25x, 1.5x and 1x for the mods, and either a 7x or 6.25x spacebar. Only thing that changed is the barrel positions on the right side.
It is a different layout entirely. The discontinued layout is the old-style MS Windows layout with the ALT key by the spacebar and the 1.5x keys all across the bottom row. The spacing is different between the keys. They did this to make it easier to make the Classic 101 and the newer 104's on the same barrels. (Technically, allowing them to manufacture many different layouts on the same chassis)
It's a cool idea too. You can have the existing 101 layout with the new 103 layout. Since the change, I like it. Any person used to using a Classic 101 layout won't be distracted by the different layout on the bottom row. It was something that should have been done a long time ago.
Yes! I had to edit my post a little. (They changed this). But yes, that is the point. It's a fantastic idea.
The first picture is under the spacebar of my 103.Just to be clear, you found the chimney AND the spring for the Windows key under the long spacebar of your 103?
Okay, if you don't have a spare Model M spacebar, just order the 104 and add a large spacebar for $3 more.)
http://pckeyboard.com/page/Buttons/SB
(That's better than paying them $10 to TAKE OFF the small spacebar and right windows key and put a long spacebar in place.
I received a Unicomp Ultra Classic yesterday. It feels quite solid, and I love typing on it—and the clackiness, of course. But I must agree, the printing quality is quite poor. Many of my caps look even less distinct than those here.
The alphanumerics in the main area are fine, as are the F-keys. But the word keys are in font that's obviously narrower and bolder than the original IBM font, and the characters aren't sharp at all.
Apparently, Unicomps used to look much better (http://www.ecods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014_05_23_18-08-31_Mechanical-Keyboard_Black_Unicomp_Spacesaver_Full-size_Buckling-Spring.png). Wonder what happened?
Original Model M caps are available (e.g. here at clickykeyboards.com (http://www.clickykeyboards.com/index.cfm/fa/categories.main/parentcat/10191)), but by my estimate it'd cost more than half as much as the KB to go that route.
Maybe it shouldn't bug me so much, but I may end up returning this KB because of how it looks. It's too bad, as I'd really like to support them in the tradition they're trying to continue.
Speaking only for myself, I find all the IBM keycap legends (as well as Lexmark and Unicomp ones) after about 1982 to be relatively ugly and unpleasant... However, IBM’s legends, for all that, are still better than at least 90% of the keycap legends produced in the last 30 years. Most computer makers are really shockingly bad at anything requiring the slightest bit of taste or aesthetic sensitivity... The tall sculpted spherical double-shot keycaps of the 1960s and 70s, with the letters drawn by an engraver, were in my opinion the high water mark for pretty keycaps, even though the glyphs themselves were often inconsistent and idiosyncratic. Or in other words, nearly every typewriter from before 1970 looks better than nearly every computer keyboard from after 1980...
Why do people get custom keycaps like that for games? When it comes to games, my thoughts are "If you have to look at the keys, you're doing it wrong". Imagine playing quake or something and having to look down to find where the WASD keys are.
I wish Unicomp would still do black keys with white pad-printed lettering like they used to. Asked them yesterday and they only do dye-sublimated, meaning the closest I can get is gray.