IBM does not mention the Model M in "greatest achievements video"

[bugfix]

Still interesting to watch though.

http://wimp.com/ibmachievements/

http://www.ibm.com/ibm100/us/en/

[EverythingIBM]

I haven't watched it yet, but they probably forgot to include the 300PL 6562 as well.

[bugfix]

Was posted earlier.

Sorry I thought it wasn't posted yet.

[quadibloc]

Well, they do mention the IBM PC. They even mention the TrackPoint, even if the speaker forgot its name.

Sorry I thought it wasn't posted yet.

It was "IBM Centennial Film", but instead of being in the "Off Topic" forum, that thread is in "Other Geeky Stuff".

[msiegel]

Sorry I thought it wasn't posted yet.

thanks for posting anyway. i wouldn't have wanted to miss it

[kps]

Well, the Model M is just a slightly inferior imitation of the Model F, which is just a slightly inferior imitation of the beam spring, which is just a slightly inferior imitation of the Selectric, which they did mention.

*               *                *

1934 – I recognized the picture – it is actually, according to the Library of Congress entry, of an Atwater Kent radio factory.

[EverythingIBM]

Well, the Model M is just a slightly inferior imitation of the Model F, which is just a slightly inferior imitation of the beam spring, which is just a slightly inferior imitation of the Selectric, which they did mention.

*               *                *

1934 – I recognized the picture – it is actually, according to the Library of Congress entry, of an Atwater Kent radio factory.

Show Image

Actually, the Model M generally has a better chassis design than the Model Fs (especially the terminal boards: the Model F terminal is so weak in spots that it easily cracks: MorningSong had hers crack sadly). But the Model M terminal boards are sturdy.

Selectrics and Beamsprings (let alone buckling springs) are two COMPLETELY different things. Keep on dreaming.

The idea that IBM kept degrading the technology (or trying to imitate the selectrics) is a little bit of a common misconception. Computers were a lot more expensive, so, manufacturers just made better key switches... that's why you also had ALPs... was apple trying to imitate typewriters with the ALPs switches? No.

With that said, I prefer the Model M over the Model F; it's in no sense "degraded" in any way, sure it uses membranes instead of capacitive, but IBM mass produced so many... I think it was rather necessary.

[msiegel]

what about the feel do you like better?

[ch_123]

Actually, the Model M generally has a better chassis design than the Model Fs (especially the terminal boards: the Model F terminal is so weak in spots that it easily cracks: MorningSong had hers crack sadly). But the Model M terminal boards are sturdy.

That's only for a single keyboard. For others, they're equal, or in favor of the Model F.

The idea that IBM kept degrading the technology (or trying to imitate the selectrics) is a little bit of a common misconception. Computers were a lot more expensive, so, manufacturers just made better key switches... that's why you also had ALPs... was apple trying to imitate typewriters with the ALPs switches? No.

Except that the patent for the Beam Spring says outright that they were emulating a typewriter.

[EverythingIBM]

That's only for a single keyboard. For others, they're equal, or in favor of the Model F.

Except that the patent for the Beam Spring says outright that they were emulating a typewriter.

The cord design on the F XT is quite terrible (it's under a lot of force)... it's not detachable, and far worse than the Model Ms that have integrated cords.
The Model M is superior with the detachable cable by a long shot: you could also turn it either into AT or PS/2 without the need of an adapter that way: which is what IBM's plan was.

I'd like to see that where they say they're trying to emulate a typewriter with the beamspring.

[microsoft windows]

I  don't think they  were making their keyboards to  feel  exactly like the  Selectrics,  but they  just  wanted a  tactile  feel  that  was  at least vaguely like them.

Take a  careful  look at these  photos of a  Model  M  box from the  1990's and  you'll see they  in fact  related  the feel  to the  Selectric typewriters.




Pictures by Clickykeyboards.com

[EverythingIBM]

What a horrible video, I just watched it. Here's my critique:

*Wait what, RISC is still the basis for most processors today? Not really.
*The thinkpad picture they used was... FROM A LENOVO ONE! It's interesting because China's Lenovo now boasts to be the "original creators" of the thinkpad. Well, they've certainly degraded it and are going against IBM design protocol.
*DeepBlue actually had a human player assisting it; Kasparov attests to this.
*The synthesizer they used was from OSX... lol. Not a great way to demonstrate IBM's first synthesizer.

Finally, Gerstner kept IBM together by... NOT SELLING THE DIVISIONS! But that jerk Sammy Palmisano who never took post secondary is selling them all. Palmisano looks a bit like Rick Moranis too...

And the last big dumb statement: "I'm working on a system that can think like you" <-- IBM failed miserably by trying to emulate a cat's brain... computers can't decide with genuine "random" thoughts (or volition), they can only generate a string of numbers and pick in that string.

[end of rant]

[Daniel Beaver]

Computer keyboards, even influential designs such as the Model M, are just not very important in the grand scheme of things.

Except to us. But we're weird.

[kps]

I'd like to see that where they say they're trying to emulate a typewriter with the beamspring.

From IBM's patent, US 4,274,752,

Recently, electronic keyboard advancements have made these units more reliable and less costly than prior mechanical keyboards. However, it is desirous for the electronic keyboards to have the same tactile response to an operator and function in the same manner as the prior mechanical keyboards since most operators are trained on and are familiar with the prior mechanical keyboards.

[msiegel]

...they forgot to mention that we *prefer* the feel of mechanical keyboards

[ch_123]

*Wait what, RISC is still the basis for most processors today? Not really.

The most popular general purpose CPU architecture in production today is a RISC design (ARM). So is just about everything except for x86, and even x86 has been a bizarre CISC-RISC hybrid since the mid 90s.

From IBM's patent, US 4,274,752,

There's also the fact that it has a similar force progression, and talks about emulating pre-travel seen in typewriter keys etc etc. Either way, it's somewhat futile arguing with someone who thinks that Beam Springs do not feel like Selectrics despite having never used the former and probably not the latter.

[Findecanor]

*Wait what, RISC is still the basis for most processors today? Not really.

There are many more embedded systems and handheld devices (such as iPhone, Android phones, etc) than personal computers, and the the leader there is the ARM, which is a pure RISC. The PowerPC is in most games consoles (PS2, PS3, GameCube, XBox360 and Wii). The original PlayStation and the Dreamcast also had RISC cpu:s.
Even the Intel x86 processors are RISC-like within each core .. but with a big instruction unit.

*DeepBlue actually had a human player assisting it; Kasparov attests to this.

So? Deep Blue did the "thinking". The man moved the pieces and entered Kasparov's moves into the computer.

[kps]

There are many more embedded systems and handheld devices (such as iPhone, Android phones, etc) than personal computers, and the the leader there is the ARM, which is a pure RISC.

That's why IBM's statement is not obviously wrong. It's not obviously right, though; the great mass of 8-bit processors are mostly not RISC.

[woody]

The PowerPC is in most games consoles (PS2, PS3, GameCube, XBox360 and Wii).

PS2 is not PPC, it's MIPS.

[ch_123]

The N64 was MIPS based too. Supposedly it is possible to play N64 games on SGI machines, or something like that.

It's not obviously right, though; the great mass of 8-bit processors are mostly not RISC.

I wouldn't really consider those things to be general purpose processors in the context of current computing, but I guess this is somewhat open to interpretation.

[Findecanor]

PS2 is not PPC, it's MIPS.

I stand corrected. But ... at least it is a RISC processor.

[ch_123]

The Model M wasn't much of an invention was it? Everything it did was done on other keyboards beforehand.

[msiegel]

what about the use of plastic rivets in manufacturing?

[ch_123]

DEC LK-201 had plastic rivets in 1982 unfortunately. It also had the Model M's layout, but that's a story for another night.

[quadibloc]

DEC LK-201 had plastic rivets in 1982 unfortunately. It also had the Model M's layout, but that's a story for another night.

It had a layout similar to the ISO version of the Model M... but with only one key where "Scroll Lock" and "Pause" would be, Esc to the left of Caps Lock (which is the Ctrl key instead), two extra function keys, the cursor keys one key position higher, and four extra keys over the numeric keypad like on the Sun keyboard...

and no Ctrl or Alt keys on the bottom, but Compose Character about where the left Alt would be.

Have I missed anything?

[EverythingIBM]

It had a layout similar to the ISO version of the Model M... but with only one key where "Scroll Lock" and "Pause" would be, Esc to the left of Caps Lock (which is the Ctrl key instead), two extra function keys, the cursor keys one key position higher, and four extra keys over the numeric keypad like on the Sun keyboard...

and no Ctrl or Alt keys on the bottom, but Compose Character about where the left Alt would be.

Have I missed anything?

ch_123 has been told! oooooh.
That's the second time he's been... somewhat wrong so far.
#1 saying the Model F AT wasn't the same connector as MIDI.
#2 saying the DEC was the same layout as the M.

:popcorn:
What's next?

[ch_123]

It had a layout similar to the ISO version of the Model M... but with only one key where "Scroll Lock" and "Pause" would be, Esc to the left of Caps Lock (which is the Ctrl key instead), two extra function keys, the cursor keys one key position higher, and four extra keys over the numeric keypad like on the Sun keyboard...

and no Ctrl or Alt keys on the bottom, but Compose Character about where the left Alt would be.

Have I missed anything?

Function keys on top, inverted T arrow keys and editor keys in between the alpha block and the numpad. Sure the alpha block may be different, but the Model M was really just an IBM-ized version of the LK-201

ch_123 has been told! oooooh.
That's the second time he's been... somewhat wrong so far.
#1 saying the Model F AT wasn't the same connector as MIDI.
#2 saying the DEC was the same layout as the M.

All I have to do is be wrong 2,642 more times and I will have caught up with you.

[quadibloc]

Function keys on top, inverted T arrow keys and editor keys in between the alpha block and the numpad. Sure the alpha block may be different, but the Model M was really just an IBM-ized version of the LK-201

I can see your point.

To me, the big exciting thing about the Model M was that the ANSI version finally had a nearly Selectric-style keyboard. So the LK-201 doesn't make me think of the Model M at all, though.

But this inspired me to find this useful site

http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/5271.html

which contains info that may let me use my 122-key Model F with my computer!

The LK-201 came out in 1982, and the 122-key keyboard - which also had cursor keys between the typing area and the numeric keypad - came out in 1983. So that doesn't compromise the LK-201's priority.

And the Keytronics KB5151 is referred to as "A New Keyboard for the IBM PC" in the October 1984 issue of Creative Computing, so I guess that lets it out as a challenger to the LK-201's priority as well.

And, of course, they both had the + cursor arrangement, not the inverted-T, if that's counted as important.

This image of the keyboard of a Four-Phase Systems IV/70 from 1972 shows function keys on the right. However, their brochure shows a terminal with a similar keyboard, but a numeric keypad there.

So function keys at the top, and cursor keys between the typing area and a numeric keypad... were not exactly a new idea at the time of the LK-201.

For another example predating the IBM PC, this brochure is for the Beehive Super Bee, a microprocessor-based computer terminal from 1978. This image is of a similar keyboard for a Beehive-1 terminal.

[ch_123]

Individual keyboards may have had some of these elements, but if I remember correctly, the LK201 was designed by a group in DEC that were assigned the job of figuring out what the optimal key arrangement/layout for a terminal keyboard would be.

The 122 key seems to me to be an LK201 with some 3270-isms applied (24 PF keys, the keys on the left hand side of the alpha block), the cross shaped arrow cluster was possibly a reference to the PC/XT arrow arrangement in the numpad, given that the first 122 key was for the PC 3270.

Nonetheless, given how nasty the 3278 key arrangement is (especially the return key), it seems quite unlikely that IBM would have suddenly come up with the same ideas that DEC did a year before completely coincidentally...

[quadibloc]

One of the things about the IBM keyboard could indeed have come from DEC; in 1978, another DEC terminal might have been the first typewriter-pairing terminal (as opposed to bit-pairing) that had { over [ and } over ] instead of separate {} and [] keys.

And having six special keys in a rectangle directly over an inverted-T cursor keypad is a distinctive feature of the VT220 keyboard that the Model M shares - and the dimensions of the numeric keypad are the same as well.

But there were so many keyboards out there, and so many of the design elements were widely shared, that it didn't strike me to think of the Model M as particularly a copy of any other keyboard. It happened that there were six functions in the numeric keypad in addition to the cursor keys to cluster in one spot.

[quadibloc]

Are you seriously telling me that you didn't already know you could use the 122 on your PC?

I have a 3270/PC 122 model F, and a terminal 122 model M. But I had no convenient source for a microcontroller to use to build a new keyboard controller or anything on the order of a Blue Cube.

I hadn't realized that the 3270/PC 122-key keyboard was indeed electrically compatible with a PC, and just needs the right wiring adapter.

[quadibloc]

It's a real terminal keyboard - the only difference is the part number.

So it won't be generating break codes, then - like the Model M terminal keyboard, the wiring mod will also require a modified keyboard driver, I take it?

[quadibloc]

And another good thing that came out of the discussion here: in looking up more details about the Four-Phase Systems IV/70, I found out that it was a computer with a 24-bit word size. I have, for whatever reason, a particular fondness for computers of that word size, and have briefly described several on my web site.

[ch_123]

This raises a point though - how did the 122 key interface with the AT 3270?

[quadibloc]

This raises a point though - how did the 122 key interface with the AT 3270?

My understanding was that the AT/3270 had a lot of custom software in it; not only the terminal emulation program, but there were also changes to the operating system to let it run in one window while the terminal emulation ran in another.

The screen used the forms characters in the standard IBM PC character set to put windows on the screen in text mode.

So I didn't think that a custom keyboard driver was any problem.

[iMav]

Would you list a technology that you sold off (and is currently still being manufactured today) as one of your greatest achievements??

[quadibloc]

Would you list a technology that you sold off (and is currently still being manufactured today) as one of your greatest achievements??

Well, the video did list the IBM PC as one of IBM's greatest achievements.

Mind you, Lenovo doesn't manufacture anything with an 8088 microprocessor running at 4.77 MHz...

so perhaps that doesn't count.

More to the point, Unicomp is a company that provides a service to IBM customers, providing them with replacement parts based on an obsolete technology in quantities that would be uneconomic for IBM (or, rather, Lexmark) to handle itself. At least, that's the way it would look like from the IBM perspective, so the manufacture of buckling spring keyboards by Unicomp is not... embarrassing... to IBM in quite the manner it seems to me you are implying.

We know better than to think that the Model M is obsolete, but, hey, that's just us.

[JohnElliott]

This raises a point though - how did the 122 key interface with the AT 3270?

 
(Just stumbled across this thread).

I can't be sure, never having got my hands on an AT 3270. But the keyboard controller on the AT motherboard can be switched into a mode where it uses the XT protocol, and maybe this is why.