Re: GeekHack Official: "MX-Compatible" Key Switches

[CPTBadAss]

Just for some reading material, I think these links will help:

DT Discussion about Kailh switches

DT Wiki entry on Kaihua/Kailh switches

Ripster's Imgur album on Kailh switches

Neowin Article on Razer switches with a video

May I copy your links to other thread? How I may "cite" your post there?

The code I used to make hot links like in the post you quoted would look like this:

Code: [Select]

[url=http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=56406.msg1273453#msg1273453]Check out CPTBadAss' links on some Cherry compatible switches[/url]


Thank you. I did it, but I do not like people have to navigate first to the original post, but I think it works well.

If you want to grab the actual post's URL, click on the title of the post itself (above where it says "Reply #XX")and it will pop up in the URL bar. Then you can tweak my code as you like.

[jdcarpe]

To me at least, the term "clone" does carry a negative connotation to it. Maybe some of you are old enough to remember when the only PCs were made by a little company called International Business Machines. Back then IBM was THE standard for personal computing (and business computing with microcomputers). Now, because their products were so expensive, and sometimes production was not enough to supply the huge demand for these PCs, other companies brought competing products to the marketplace. These were referred to, in a somewhat derogatory manner, as IBM-clones, or PC-clones. While their machines used x86 processors, which were compatible with the operating system and software used by the IBM PC, the computers being made by companies such as Compaq were arguably as good or better than the IBM PCs with which they were designed to compete. The industry finally settled on the neutral term "IBM-compatible" or "PC-compatible" to describe these machines which competed in the marketplace with the IBM PC. The tech industry, of which mechanical keyboards are a part, still denotes some negative connotation with the term "clone," as being an inferior copy of the original.

It was really inevitable that other manufacturers would step in to fill the void caused by Cherry's lack of supply in regard to MX switches. First, the patent on the MX design is expired. Second, if Cherry had ramped up production, expanded their product lines or whatever, OEMs and ODMs wouldn't need to look elsewhere for a supplier of switches for their keyboards.

[samwisekoi]

For me the Razer/Kailh switches are clones, since even the inner parts are compatible. Just because they say it is different, it doesn't have to be. I mean see this image:

Show Image

The slider colour is different and the case is also different, but apart from the outside this is a exact copy.
What you used to sell was "compatible", but probably not a clone since you didn't copy parts of their design. If somebody made for example a switch with a different slider or a different mechanic on the inside (say hall effect or simply a rearranged leaf spring), then that would not qualify as a clone, yes, but this is not the case here.

Check noesc' reply for the MX Lock clones/whatever: http://deskthority.net/marketplace-f11/mxlocks-t7654-60.html

Thanks.  That is as much of a "clone" as I could imagine.  What Cherry stem color is it a clone of?

 - Ron | samwisekoi

[BlueBär]

Thanks.  That is as much of a "clone" as I could imagine.  What Cherry stem color is it a clone of?

MX Red iirc. Remember, Razers switches are made by the same manufacturer, so they would qualify as a clone as well.

[SpAmRaY]

Thanks.  That is as much of a "clone" as I could imagine.  What Cherry stem color is it a clone of?

MX Red iirc. Remember, Razers switches are made by the same manufacturer, so they would qualify as a clone as well.

http://www.kailh.com/gb/Newsdetail.asp?Newsid=37

google translate seems to agree

[BlueBär]

http://www.kailh.com/gb/Newsdetail.asp?Newsid=37

google translate seems to agree

There's also Kailhs logo on their switches...

[SpAmRaY]

http://www.kailh.com/gb/Newsdetail.asp?Newsid=37

google translate seems to agree

There's also Kailhs logo on their switches...

I mean the cherry mx red compared to the yellow clones, actually maybe they were more like blacks 

[BlueBär]

I mean the cherry mx red compared to the yellow clones

Oh ok

[davkol]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the CM Storm NovaTouch with MX-compatible Topre switches, Cherry MY switches with MX-compatible stems/keycaps or even good old rubber domes with MX-compatible stems. Not to mention that Cherry MX are MX-compatible by definition.

[Photoelectric]

MX-Compatible covers a wide range of possible [present and future] switches, including those with some palpable differences from the current Cherry MX line up.  MX Clone would imply a direct copy of a particular MX switch, which is more specific and doesn't cover all cases. 

For example a hypothetical switch made to have the same bottom housing as a Cherry MX externally, but with a difference in the top, reduced travel distance, and a stem with TWO bumps could still be MX-compatible as far as keycaps and mounting go.  But it would not be a direct clone of any existing Cherry switch.

[BlueBär]

MX-Compatible covers a wide range of possible [present and future] switches, including those with some palpable differences from the current Cherry MX line up.  MX Clone would imply a direct copy of a particular MX switch, which is more specific and doesn't cover all cases. 

For example a hypothetical switch made to have the same bottom housing as a Cherry MX externally, but with a difference in the top, reduced travel distance, and a stem with TWO bumps could still be MX-compatible as far as keycaps and mounting go.  But it would not be a direct clone of any existing Cherry switch.

Agreed, I would never call such a switch a clone. I'm just saying that at least for the Kailh switches it should be "allowed" to call them clones, cause that's what they are.

[davkol]

Why not use the same terminology as in the ALPS world?

[jdcarpe]

Why not use the same terminology as in the ALPS world?

You mean clones? I've never thought it was a good way to describe Alps compatible switches such as the Matias switch. Matias are definitely not a lesser quality switch than original Alps, IMO.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Why not use the same terminology as in the ALPS world?

You mean clones? I've never thought it was a good way to describe Alps compatible switches such as the Matias switch. Matias are definitely not a lesser quality switch than original Alps, IMO.

That may be true, but as of right now we can't definitively say for sure that these Cherry "clones" are of lesser quality than the originals. We all assume they are, but that doesn't really mean anything...

MX-compatible seems to be the most logical name IMO.

[BlueBär]

You mean clones? I've never thought it was a good way to describe Alps compatible switches such as the Matias switch. Matias are definitely not a lesser quality switch than original Alps, IMO.

Oxford English Dicitionary:

Something thing produced in imitation of, or closely resembling, another; esp. a microcomputer designed to simulate the functions of another (usu. more expensive) model.

I don't see anything negative here.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

You mean clones? I've never thought it was a good way to describe Alps compatible switches such as the Matias switch. Matias are definitely not a lesser quality switch than original Alps, IMO.

Oxford English Dicitionary:

Something thing produced in imitation of, or closely resembling, another; esp. a microcomputer designed to simulate the functions of another (usu. more expensive) model.

I don't see anything negative here.

If one considers the term in a different context, it could be seen as negative...

Example: a genetic clone, while being identical to the original lifeform, won't have nearly as long of a lifespan...

[BlueBär]

If one considers the term in a different context, it could be seen as negative...

Example: a genetic clone, while being identical to the original lifeform, won't have nearly as long of a lifespan...

I'm quite sure people know that switches are not alive.

[Krogenar]

I like the term 'MX-compatible' over 'clone' or 'replica' because the latter two terms have positive connotations that the new switches may not deserve. Using 'MX-clone' or 'MX-replica' could be construed to mean that the switches are identical to the original in quality -- and we don't really know how they would stack up. 'MX-compatible' is more ambiguous -- which is accurate. 'Compatible' means something will work with something else -- but is inherently different.

This is an interesting development. Maybe we'll see a whole new lineup of new MX-compatible switches. Maybe Cherry will come out with a newer switch technology? Maybe these MX-compatible (ok, that's kind of a mouthful -- MX-compat?) switches will be better than vintage Cherry or modern Cherry switches?

[davkol]

Aristotle switches have been called clones for years AFAIK. What's the difference between Aristotle and Kailh? O.o

[CPTBadAss]

Maybe these MX-compatible (ok, that's kind of a mouthful -- MX-compat?) switches will be better than vintage Cherry or modern Cherry switches?

MX-C? MXC? MX-Com?

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

If one considers the term in a different context, it could be seen as negative...

Example: a genetic clone, while being identical to the original lifeform, won't have nearly as long of a lifespan...

I'm quite sure people know that switches are not alive.

But they do still have lifespans...

[davkol]

If one considers the term in a different context, it could be seen as negative...

Example: a genetic clone, while being identical to the original lifeform, won't have nearly as long of a lifespan...

I'm quite sure people know that switches are not alive.

But they do still have lifespans...

And they're shorter than Cherry's. What's the problem?

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

If one considers the term in a different context, it could be seen as negative...

Example: a genetic clone, while being identical to the original lifeform, won't have nearly as long of a lifespan...

I'm quite sure people know that switches are not alive.

But they do still have lifespans...

And they're shorter than Cherry's. What's the problem?

Problem? No problem, that's precisely the point I was making...

[CPTBadAss]

Aristotle switches have been called clones for years AFAIK. What's the difference between Aristotle and Kailh? O.o

Daniel describes the difference here. In addition to the differences noted in the DT wiki in Daniel's link, it also seems that the Aristotle switches can't support LEDs.

[BlueBär]

But they do still have lifespans...

Hehe, good one

[davkol]

Aristotle switches have been called clones for years AFAIK. What's the difference between Aristotle and Kailh? O.o

Daniel describes the difference here. In addition to the differences noted in the DT wiki in Daniel's link, it also seems that the Aristotle switches can't support LEDs.

I wasn't asking about the technical stuff though. Good link though.

[mkawa]

I like the term 'MX-compatible' over 'clone' or 'replica' because the latter two terms have positive connotations that the new switches may not deserve. Using 'MX-clone' or 'MX-replica' could be construed to mean that the switches are identical to the original in quality -- and we don't really know how they would stack up. 'MX-compatible' is more ambiguous -- which is accurate. 'Compatible' means something will work with something else -- but is inherently different.

This is an interesting development. Maybe we'll see a whole new lineup of new MX-compatible switches. Maybe Cherry will come out with a newer switch technology? Maybe these MX-compatible (ok, that's kind of a mouthful -- MX-compat?) switches will be better than vintage Cherry or modern Cherry switches?

they may not be clones or replicas. however, they are mx-compatible.

see: the new razer mechanical keyboard switch http://www.razerzone.com/razer-mechanical-switches

it is not appropriate to call this a clone or replica. it is an original design that razer is claiming as IP. it is, however, MX-compatible. this is why we chose this nomenclature. it is as precise as we can get.

[SpAmRaY]

I like the term 'MX-compatible' over 'clone' or 'replica' because the latter two terms have positive connotations that the new switches may not deserve. Using 'MX-clone' or 'MX-replica' could be construed to mean that the switches are identical to the original in quality -- and we don't really know how they would stack up. 'MX-compatible' is more ambiguous -- which is accurate. 'Compatible' means something will work with something else -- but is inherently different.

This is an interesting development. Maybe we'll see a whole new lineup of new MX-compatible switches. Maybe Cherry will come out with a newer switch technology? Maybe these MX-compatible (ok, that's kind of a mouthful -- MX-compat?) switches will be better than vintage Cherry or modern Cherry switches?

they may not be clones or replicas. however, they are mx-compatible.

see: the new razer mechanical keyboard switch http://www.razerzone.com/razer-mechanical-switches

it is not appropriate to call this a clone or replica. it is an original design that razer is claiming as IP. it is, however, MX-compatible. this is why we chose this nomenclature. it is as precise as we can get.

What about the 'chinese' switches @ techkeys? We don't even know who makes those other than its not cherry.

[BlueBär]

it is not appropriate to call this a clone or replica. it is an original design that razer is claiming as IP. it is, however, MX-compatible. this is why we chose this nomenclature. it is as precise as we can get.

Do they have a patent on it? Don't think so.

[davkol]

Kaihl's knock offs are after slight modification an original design, or have I missed something? If they claim it... well, they've claimed that the BW was the first mechanical gaming keyboard (i.e. lied).

[samwisekoi]

What about the 'chinese' switches @ techkeys? We don't even know who makes those other than its not cherry.

Techkeys.us has now updated the description of those switches to read:

Please note: the Red and Brown switches are Chinese made MX-Compatible Switches, and while fitting and functioning the same have a different style housing.

 - Ron | samwisekoi

[mkawa]

it is not appropriate to call this a clone or replica. it is an original design that razer is claiming as IP. it is, however, MX-compatible. this is why we chose this nomenclature. it is as precise as we can get.

Do they have a patent on it? Don't think so.

cherry doesn't have a patent on the MX either. the only patent ascribed to the MX1a switch line is basically unenforceable AND it expires this year sometime. i see no reason in this argument. the only IP claims that can be made are trademark and FTC type trade confusion or likeness suits which are a huge mess and not our business frankly.

[BlueBär]

cherry doesn't have a patent on the MX either. the only patent ascribed to the MX1a switch line is basically unenforceable AND it expires this year sometime. i see no reason in this argument. the only IP claims that can be made are trademark and FTC type trade confusion or likeness suits which are a huge mess and not our business frankly.

As written earlier I'm fully aware that their patent ran out. What I'm trying to say is, has Razer claimed in a formal way (for example via a Patent) that their switch is new and original and not a clone? Yes they say in some marketing text it's "all new", that does not mean that it actually is.

[ideus]

A patent search with the following keywords:


switch computer keyboard razer


from Jan 1 2013 to date, found no patents. Maybe the wrong keywords though, maybe the wrong time period for filing. You may try your own.

[SonOfSonOfSpock]

The matias ergo pro page say their switches have an "ALPS-inspired design" http://matias.ca/ergopro/pc/. That's the only page on their site that I saw use that phrase though. I guess "MX-inspired" could be accurate as well, but that leaves open the possibility of not being compatible with keycaps, etc.

[davkol]

The compatibility can be on two levels: keycaps and housings. Then the switches could have internals similar to Cherry MX (i.e. copied), but lack compatibility with PCB or keycaps.

Therefore, I'm going to use the term MX-like, just like we have unix-like systems (e.g. GNU/Linux).

[BlueBär]

The compatibility can be on two levels: keycaps and housings. Then the switches could have internals similar to Cherry MX (i.e. copied), but lack compatibility with PCB or keycaps.

Therefore, I'm going to use the term MX-like, just like we have unix-like systems (e.g. GNU/Linux).

MX-like, I like that. It's a lot shorter than MX-compatible, too.

[samwisekoi]

Can I put my large collection of keycaps on an "MX-like" switch?  Will they fit on a Phantom PCB?  In a plate?

In other words, are they "MX-like" enough to be MX-compatible?

[sidebar]
BSD is Unix-like, as is Linux.  But don't go typing Unix commands on a FreeBSD router or a CentOS server.  Unpredictable results may occur.
[/sidebar]

For all of the kilo-posters in this thread, please remember that we are not being careful in describing these for you.  We (including you) are being careful in describing them for other people who don't understand the intricacies involved.  Remember the "IBM clicky" keyboards on eBay that turned out to be rubber dome?  And that eBay declared that "clicky" was not false, and so the buyer had no recourse? 

We can all argue here that we understand what a "clone" means, or that just because an ancient keyboard has switches with vertical crosses, it might not be compatible with our keycap collection.  Or suitable for keycap harvesting.  And, like PSUs and keyboards, the ODM and factory mean more than the brand name.

GeekHack is a place where literally tens of thousands of people come for expert advice regarding mechanical keyboards.

So, in the interests of making things clearer for people who do not have an in-built knowledge of all things keyboard, we have settled on the (possibly unwieldy) term "MX-Compatible".  And especially in for-sale postings, the use of any other term to describe such switches is discouraged, and subject to moderation.

Sorry to be all authority-figure, we have read and thought about all of the posts in this thread, and we still come back to "MX-Compatible" being the most useful descriptive term for a keyswitch that is not made by Cherry, but can be used in its place.

Depending on typing speed, it may take an extra 100 milliseconds to type "MX-Compatible"  I therefore draw your attention to keyboard macros, your local dictionary, the Customizable Shortcuts plug-in, and other forms of saving tenths of seconds typing.

Anyhow, please continue debating the topic.  A beam of truth may stream from the sky (cue Monty Python animation) and show us all a way out of the Babel that divides us.

TL;DR  Please use the term "MX-Compatible", especially in for-sale and review threads.

Thanks very much indeed!

 - Ron | samwisekoi

p.s.  On a peronsal note, and just to seed the discussion here, I don't think anyone has yet proposed or debated the term "MX-style"?

[BlueBär]

Depending on typing speed, it may take an extra 100 milliseconds to type "MX-Compatible"  I therefore draw your attention to keyboard macros, your local dictionary, the Customizable Shortcuts plug-in, and other forms of saving tenths of seconds typing.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm or some sort of joke? Do you really think the word length matters?

On a peronsal note, and just to seed the discussion here, I don't think anyone has yet proposed or debated the term "MX-style"?

Why would we need to discuss this if

we have settled on the (possibly unwieldy) term "MX-Compatible".

The decision is made and even though you advertise discussion I see no movement on your part.

I feel as if you have lost the reason you actually made this: you didn't want non-Cherry "MX Compatible" switches to be called MX - that is absolutely fine, and I doubt anybody has an issue with that.
What you are doing now though is forcing to call them "MX Compatible" and nothing else.  That is in my opinion an overreaction that could be avoided. Moderate where there is need for moderation (i.e. false advertisement or misguiding newbies) but don't force it.

[Techno Trousers]

The decision is made and even though you advertise discussion I see no movement on your part.

I'm not sure why so many people are assuming a discussion thread is a debate. It was clear to me from the first post that this is a done deal by the mods, but we are free to discuss our own thoughts about it, or talk about implementation, etc.

I personally have no issue with this decision. I think "MX compatible" is the best term, as long as the switch in question can be soldered, as-is, into a board with Cherry-brand MX switches, accept the same key caps, and function in a like manner. The way things are going, though, I suspect something akin to a Monterey Blue switch will appear in the world of MX switches, where it's compatible with the MX caps but not the PCB. I guess that will necessitate its own term if we get there.

On a lighter note, if "fake" and "clone" are negative terms, I thought that the best way to put a positive spin on MX compatible switches would be to call them "tribute to Cherry MX," the way musical imitation cover acts sometimes do.

[Krogenar]

The compatibility can be on two levels: keycaps and housings. Then the switches could have internals similar to Cherry MX (i.e. copied), but lack compatibility with PCB or keycaps.

Therefore, I'm going to use the term MX-like, just like we have unix-like systems (e.g. GNU/Linux).

MX-like, I like that. It's a lot shorter than MX-compatible, too.

I think that statement is what Sam's sarcasm may be referring to -- what's more important, the meaning of the new terminology, or how it looks or how quickly it can be typed? Over time the term will probably be truncated to MX-comp or something similar, but the meaning will remain clear: these switches were not manufactured by Cherry but should be (!) compatible with technology designed for use with Cherry switches. I love words, and this strikes me as the right term: means what it says, and has a slight aroma of caveat emptor.

Compatible -- not original, but likely to work.

[BlueBär]

I didn't say that that is what makes that term good or relevant. It was just an observation.
Compatible means compatible - it has to work, not only "it should work" or "is likely to work".

Also, how is this connected to "let the buyer beware"?

[davkol]

wall of text

Why so many words? So you have decided, you don't care about other opinions and your decision will be enforced. Why is there this thread?

[FoxWolf1]

Hm.

Well, I currently use the phrase "ALPS-style" as a way of covering both genuine ALPS switches and their close relatives. So I'll probably use "MX-style" as a collective term for Cherry MX, Kailh PG1511, and whatever else might join that group based on family resemblance (whether or not it maintains full compatibility with Cherry MX).

"MX compatible" is a nice term for describing an attribute of switches, but often it is useful to have a general category that covers both the originals and that which was inspired by them. "MX style" seems to be a natural fit for that group. There is also a good bit of potential for difference between "MX-style" and "MX compatible"-- a switch that is keycap-compatible with Cherry MX, has a similar internal mechanism to Cherry MX, and, most of all, feels like Cherry MX, but a different pin layout, would be MX-style, but NOT MX-compatible. sometimes, both terms will have to be used

Edit: Of course, I should add-- I also consider it best to be specific wherever possible. So "Kailh PG1511, an MX-style, MX-compatible switch" is better than just "an MX-style switch", and "Cherry MX" in that situation would be completely and utterly inappropriate.

[samwisekoi]

This thread exists because it might very well come up with a better way to describe these switches than the Mods, Admins and Keepers did.

The wall of text was because I tend to say more if I believe I am not understood.  That is a failing on my part.

There is a point to having a common term for these switches.  As of yesterday, that term -- on GeekHack -- is "MX-compatible".  No one can say that the terminology will be the same forever, least of all me.

I wrote the OP on behalf of multiple people.  I am commenting in this thread in that capacity.  I'm happy to lurk instead or let another Mod or Admin comment.

Best to all!

 - Ron | samwisekoi

[CPTBadAss]

I think JD and I are going to be calling the these switches MX-compatible in anything we do as Keepers. He seems to like the term and I don't have a problem calling them that.

[BlueBär]

This thread exists because it might very well come up with a better way to describe these switches than the Mods, Admins and Keepers did.

I didn't see no thread?

I wrote the OP on behalf of multiple people.  I am commenting in this thread in that capacity.  I'm happy to lurk instead or let another Mod or Admin comment.

I feel like you're trying to defend the decision on your own. Would like to see the input of more people.

I think JD and I are going to be calling the these switches MX-compatible in anything we do as Keepers. He seems to like the term and I don't have a problem calling them that.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the decision or the term, I just don't like how it is so forced.

I'll stay out of the discussion for now, I feel I've said enough and been too vocal.

[CPTBadAss]

This thread exists because it might very well come up with a better way to describe these switches than the Mods, Admins and Keepers did.

I didn't see no thread?

It was in the mod subforum. To be honest, I'm not sure why the thread was started there in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the decision or the term, I just don't like how it is so forced.

I'll stay out of the discussion for now, I feel I've said enough and been too vocal.

You're free to call it whatever you like. Again, I'm still unsure why there was an "official" announcement about it but I don't mind the term. I think the point of this thread is supposed to allow us to talk or debate about it but I'm not really sure what's going on. It seems to just have sprang up as a response to future arguments and this thread was supposed to clarify things.

[Krogenar]

I didn't say that that is what makes that term good or relevant. It was just an observation.
Compatible means compatible - it has to work, not only "it should work" or "is likely to work".

The words "clone" or "replica" have slightly positive connotations that may not be warranted. I think of a "clone" as being identical -- that is, equivalent. And we really don't know that about these new switches. Maybe the quality is not the same. Entire threads have been devoted to vintage MX blacks to modern MX blacks, etc. That's why I think MX-compatible is a more accurate term.

(samwisekoi hands Krogenar a nickle)

Also, how is this connected to "let the buyer beware"?

The word compatible (to me) connotes "not OEM" and thus makes me slightly wary. To some people, "non OEM" might make them fall into a defensive crouch, their wallets tucked and covered, and other people may not care at all. But at least the term MX-compatible let's them decide on their own how to react.

(pockets another nickle.)

But you do raise a good point -- how do we really know these things are completely compatible? We don't. They may only be compatible with the keycaps? GH isn't going to vet these things for suitability, besides discussing them. So we should be responsible and try to make the term as accurate as possible. I think it's a good choice.

[QuadGMoto]

There is also a good bit of potential for difference between "MX-style" and "MX compatible"-- a switch that is keycap-compatible with Cherry MX, has a similar internal mechanism to Cherry MX, and, most of all, feels like Cherry MX, but a different pin layout, would be MX-style, but NOT MX-compatible. sometimes, both terms will have to be used

I tend to think the same. More specifically, it seems to me that there can be a range of MX compatible switches ranging from "clones" or "copies" which copy a particular MX switch in all the important details (pin, mounting, keycap connection, travel, force, force curve, etc.), to a "compatible" switch that interfaces with keycaps and circuit boards but are different in other ways (travel, actuation point, force, etc.) to switches that are compatible in a specific fashion, but incompatible in others, such as CM's new Topre switches that can use MX keycaps but are otherwise a very different switch.

It seems to me that terms used should be able to specify how closely or not the switches adhere to the Cherry MX originals. "Compatible" seems to me to fall into the middle of that range. I actually think that for Classifieds, etc., the mods need to enforce a "Full MX Compatible" vs. "Partial/Specific MX Compatibility". But I also tend to think that terms like "MX clone" or "MX copy" are more precise than "Compatible" and should only be modded if the referenced switch is not fully spec equivalent to a particular Cherry switch. For example, "MX Red Copy" should be appropriate if it's a knockoff of Cherry's real MX Red.

But that's just my opinion, and I fully agree that it's important for the Mods to enforce the clarity between genuine Cherry switches and not Cherry switches.