Unicomp Vs. Model M vs. Matias

[1391406]

For the money Matias is asking, I'd much prefer a 122-key Model F.

[noisyturtle]

Used to have a Unicomp Wildcat board and it was a really nice, except the top left corner didn't fit properly and there was a tiny gap. Never owned a Model M, although I have had a Model F AT. But comparing an M and an F is like comparing a Humvee to a Tank. Not really sure what the point of my comment was.....

[dorkvader]

It's only worth it to bolt mod if it's missing a lot of rivets or otherwise needs work done, or if you're interested and have a weekend afternoon to kill.

as for what M to look for: they are all very similar. The older ones have thicker plates and the really old ones have wire stabilizers. I'd look for a beige (sometimes called "white") oval label on the left. or a silver square badge on the right if you can find one. There's nothing wrong with the lexmark blue labels, but they're just pretty similar to the modern unicomps (and often have drainiage channels inside.)

[mougrim]

Well, Unicomp producing their keyboards on Lexmark equipment, are they not? Of course they're similar

But yes, oval white or metal square logos are the best

[1391406]

Well, Unicomp producing their keyboards on Lexmark equipment, are they not? Of course they're similar

Similar being the operative word.

[shem]

I have or have had a few model Ms, a model F AT and a Unicomp. The Unicomp was clearly the stiffest. Nice board, used it for a few years daily, until an AC unit puked water on it. The old model Ms are mellower, somehow more luxurious feeling, I prefer them over a Unicomp. But feel-wise, nothing can beat a model F. It's just bliss.

[ander]

I've had to modify this, as, after using my Unicomp for a while, I've ended up agreeing with what people have said about their shortcomings. It's too bad, as I respect what they're trying to do. But IMHO, they're either not paying enough attention to their build quality, or they can't charge enough for their products to make them more like "real" Model M's.

[1391406]

No matter what you think of Model M's as workaday keyboards, their primary allure is as collectors' items.

I don't think people buy IBM Model M's because they're essentially rare(they're not). Most people buy them because they have a history of being workhorses whose design, quality control, reliability, and typing experience has been deemed great by the majority.

Personally, I don't consider case flex, case creak, cosmetic defects on the surface thereof and key cap flashing around the bottom edge of most key caps to be minor qualitative issues. For example, a lot of people generally consider the quality of the Chicony KB-5181 to be fairly shoddy for much of the same reason even though the switches and typing experience are generally revered.

[jacobolus]

No matter what you think of Model M's as workaday keyboards, their primary allure is as collectors' items.

Very few people are Model M “collectors”, but tons of people (at least a few tens of thousands, is my guess?) use them as “workaday” keyboards. Perhaps the “primary allure” for you is collecting them? If you’re talking about other people, then I think you’re projecting.

There are some people who intentionally collect Model Ms, particularly the “industrial” ones, M15s, and other rare varieties, but that’s a tiny niche (but well represented on places like geekhack and deskthority, for obvious reasons).

I don’t think all that many people are religious about the difference between boards produced in the IBM, Lexmark, and Unicomp eras. But there are still a ton of keyboards from the late 80s / early 90s in continuous use.

[ander]

I'm leaving my original post below, as it reflected my attitude prior to ordering and using a Unicomp keyboard. Unfortunately, I must now agree that their build quality leaves much to be desired.

 - - -

[Original post:]

Very few people are Model M “collectors”, but tons of people (at least a few tens of thousands, is my guess?) use them as “workaday” keyboards. Perhaps the “primary allure” for you is collecting them?

It's actually just the opposite, in my case: I'm looking for a buckling-spring KB to use, not to collect.

Believe me, I'd be glad to have an original Model M. If I did, I wouldn't keep it in a display case—I'd type on it and enjoy it!

I'm also well aware of how many Ms are still in use where they first landed. That's just how great they are.

Looking around GH, though, is where I clued in on the whole M-collecting thing. And I couldn't help thinking that, when comparing them to Unicomps, some people's judgment might be unduly affected by the vintage mystique—you know, the idea that an original anything must be better than a reproduction, even if the "reproduction" was made to the same specs, on the same assembly line.

To complicate things, I totally get the allure! Purely esthetically, I'd rather have a Model M myself—they're way cool!

But I must type, and I type a lot—probably twice as much as the average office person who'd rather be off doing something else—and whatever KB I end up with will be my main, working KB. So if I did get a Model M, I’d want it to be in very good shape. There's no way I can afford an unused one (we can dream!), so it'd need to be a very well-restored one. And wherever I look, those are all well over the price of a new Unicomp. (This would be especially true if, as some people here assert, only the rarer IBM-made M's—e.g. 1378710’s—are truly superior to Unicomps, which are essentially Lexmark-made M's.)

And unfortunately, I can't assume I'd actually be worse off with a new Unicomp than with an original M that'd already been typed on for 20–30 years, even if it had been cleaned up and re-bolted. Well, my wife can't assume it. Yeah, that's it. As you can see, bachelors, being married requires you to be way too logical about stuff, especially when you don't want to.

Of course, if I didn't care if I were married or not, I'd go wacky and get a restored M and a Unicomp, and spend the rest of my days in keyboard bliss. Uh, only joking, dear—please put down that rolling pin.
 

If you’re talking about other people, then I think you’re projecting... There are some people who intentionally collect Model Ms, particularly the “industrial” ones, M15s, and other rare varieties, but that’s a tiny niche (but well represented on places like geekhack and deskthority, for obvious reasons)... I don’t think all that many people are religious about the difference between boards produced in the IBM, Lexmark, and Unicomp eras.

Well, that's good to know. I was just reading quite a few posts here to the contrary. Maybe this thread, with its comparison focus, just drew an unusual number of responses from that "religious minority" you mentioned.  :?)

[jacobolus]

Looking around GH, though, is where I clued in on the whole M-collecting thing. And I couldn't help thinking that, when comparing them to Unicomps, some people's judgment might be unduly affected by the vintage mystique—you know, the idea that an original anything must be better than a reproduction, even if the "reproduction" was made to the same specs, on the same assembly line.

There are physical differences caused by the same tooling wearing out over the course of 20+ years. The cases (especially from <1990) were a bit sturdier. The keys themselves are reported to be slightly more uniform in feel when typing (I dunno, I’m not an expert and have never done an in-depth side-by-side comparison, that’s just what I’ve heard). There are various aesthetic defects in the plastic on the new keyboards and keycaps. The dyesub legend printing on the new keyboards is noticeably fuzzier. For most people (me for instance), these are fairly minor differences, but they’re not just invented “hype” or “vintage mystique”, and some people do care.

Additionally, used Model Ms are cheaper than Unicomp boards, and even dirty heavily used ones are typically in perfect working order. If you need to have a support line to call and a warranty on every tool purchase, then go for the Unicomp board, sure. Many of the people who hang out here are happy to dive in and fix something if it breaks, or will risk needing to buy two of something to find a working one (hey, extra replacement parts!), so the warranty isn’t as important.

But I must type, and I type a lot [...] So if I did get a Model M, I’d want it to be in very good shape. There's no way I can afford an unused one (we can dream!), so it'd need to be a very well-restored one.

Nah, if you buy any Model M at random from ebay, there’s a very high chance it will work perfectly out the gate, and stay working for 20 more years of heavy typing. I bought a 1987 Model M in about 2006 for $10 + $10 shipping that was dirty but otherwise in perfect condition, and happily typed on it for several years before I lost it moving across the country. Obviously prices have gone up since then, but they’re still fairly easy to find in the $40–60 shipped range.

Yeah, that's it. As you can see, bachelors, being married requires you to be way too logical about stuff, especially when you don't want to.

I think most Geekhackers’ wives are well beyond the point where they’d care about the specific details of just one keyboard. The more common sentiment is probably something like “Get these 20 keyboards the hell out of my house! And why are there baggies of keycaps piled on the kitchen counter?” Or else they’ve given up entirely by now.

[Synjin]

Jacob I didn't know you are a prophet. How do you know exactly what my wife used to say until she moved towards the dark side recently?

[Hypersphere]

My first mechanical was an IBM Model M, then an SSK. After I discovered Model F switches, the Model M switches feel scratchy to me. Next I moved to Topre (RF 87u 55g and HHKB Pro 2). Recently, I discovered Matias Click and Matias Quiet switches. My new daily driver twins are two KBP V60 mini keyboards, one with Matias Click and the other with Matias Quiet. The Matias switches provide excellent tactility, and I like them far better than any Cherry mx switch. From my perspective, the only downside of Matias is the difficulty in finding excellent keycaps, e.g., dye-sub PBT; I've harvested mine from Alps-mount vintage keyboards.

[Snowdog993]

Very few people are Model M “collectors”, but tons of people (at least a few tens of thousands, is my guess?) use them as “workaday” keyboards. Perhaps the “primary allure” for you is collecting them? If you’re talking about other people, then I think you’re projecting.

I don’t think all that many people are religious about the difference between boards produced in the IBM, Lexmark, and Unicomp eras. But there are still a ton of keyboards from the late 80s / early 90s in continuous use.

This is the primary reason.  They are designed for use.  Almost all of mine are being used.  The only 2 that are not being used are because I lent one to a friend who actually decided to get their own, and I just got it back today.  The other is "just in case" I have a problem with any of the others.  I'll probably put it to use anyway.  That's the way I am.

Edit: However, GH has influenced my thoughts on getting more and more for some strange reason.  I really don't need more and I am finding myself with this "just one more" thought in my head all the time.

[Nai_Calus]

I think most Geekhackers’ wives are well beyond the point where they’d care about the specific details of just one keyboard. The more common sentiment is probably something like “Get these 20 keyboards the hell out of my house! And why are there baggies of keycaps piled on the kitchen counter?” Or else they’ve given up entirely by now.

Until the day you come home and there's half a dozen keyboards piled on the dining table and the kitchen counter is covered in the cases your wife is plastidipping lavender and bags of pastel keycaps everywhere and you realize you've created a monster, right?

[ander]

I'm revising my post, as I've decided to return my Unicomp Ultra Classic.

Frankly, I thought it'd be much more like a Model M—at least as good as the fourth-generation Model M's Lexmark made before Unicomp bought them out.

After using it a couple of weeks, though, I couldn't keep overlooking the build quality. The case creaks when I handle it, and when I type on it, it sounds hollow and insubstantial compared to "real" Model M's.

And the legends. The alphanumeric keys are okay, but the text legends are fuzzy, bleedy, over-dark. The fonts are inconsistent—point sizes vary, and some legends look like narrow-font versions. They're nothing at all like IBM/Lexmark's crisp, elegant legends. I've never seen, much less owned, a keyboard this poorly printed. Oddly, even the product photos on Unicomp's website look substantially better... Did their printing staff change? Is their equipment wearing out?

It's admirable that Unicomp continues IBM/Lexmark's tradition of dye-sublimation printing, so its legends won't wear off. But if you've committed yourself to a superior printing method, shouldn't its visual quality show the same kind of commitment?

Regretfully, I've requested an RMA. Wish I didn't have to, as I respect what they're trying to do.

[1391406]

BTW, I haven't noticed any problems with my Unicomp's case—that it's "creaky"

If you haven't noticed, it's because you haven't tested the flexibility of the case. The plastic of Unicomp cases is fairly flexible compared to most of the other boards I've used. The flexibility lends itself to case creak in the process.

No, it's not as heavy as an IBM Model M—but yikes, what is?

The Model F, which is heavier.

Lots of new MKs are held in high esteem here that aren't as heavy as Model M's either. A KB doesn't have to weigh that much to be solid.

Other keyboard manufacturers aren't labeling their boards as Model M's, either. Since Unicomp is manufacturing keyboards under that moniker, comparisons to older Model M's is inevitable. While I've never claimed Unicomp Model M's aren't necessarily solid in their own right, I certainly don't consider them as solid as older (IBM manufactured) Model M's. My contention has always been that Unicomp variants don't live up to the standards set by earlier (IBM manufactured) Model M's.

[ander]

I've modified this, as I now agree with what you've said about Unicomp's build quality.

[1391406]

BTW, I haven't noticed any problems with my Unicomp's case�that it's "creaky"

If you haven't noticed, it's because you haven't tested the flexibility of the case. The plastic of Unicomp cases is fairly flexible compared to most of the other boards I've used...

Okay, you've got me there. I confess�I've never felt compelled to pick up any of my KBs and try to flex them.

I'll try it with my Unicomp now. Urg... Well, the only creaking I detect is coming from my 60-year-old bones. Does it pass the test then? Gee, that's a relief.  :?)

Have you checked your hearing aid? 

All kidding aside, quite a few others have noted the creaking, so yours would likely be one of the very few that doesn't. I suspect the creaking is mainly due to the change in the clamshell cover material back in '99, which I also suspect accounts for the overt case flex as well.

No, it's not as heavy as an IBM Model M�but yikes, what is?

The Model F, which is heavier.

So if I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that a Unicomp�which is supposed to emulate the Model M�isn't as heavy as a Model F, which is heavier than a Model M. Surprisingly, even I can follow that.

You did ask what was heavier than a Model M.

Lots of new MKs are held in high esteem here that aren't as heavy as Model M's...

Other keyboard manufacturers aren't labeling their boards as Model M's... Since Unicomp is manufacturing keyboards under that moniker, comparisons to older Model M's is inevitable. While I've never claimed Unicomp Model M's aren't necessarily solid in their own right, I certainly don't consider them as solid as older (IBM manufactured) Model M's...

As I mentioned in my Unicomp Ultra Classic review (linked above), the only mod I found necessary was to add more non-skid "feet" (spend $1 at the hardware store, then enjoy applying them). I now have a virtual Model M that, when I type on it, neither moves nor creaks. How can that be anything but good?

If it were pointlessly heavier, it'd just cost more to ship, and we'd have to pay more to get them. Sometimes "less is more".

I don't consider earlier Model M's pointlessly heavier, thus I wouldn't consider a Unicomp pointlessly heavier if it weighed as much.

My contention has always been that Unicomp variants don't live up to the standards set by earlier (IBM manufactured) Model M's.

Honestly, in all respects but the typography department�and of course, the fact that it doesn't actually say "IBM", and that it's not needlessly bigger and heavier�I can't find anything about my Unicomp that seems inferior to an IBM M.

Well, other than flashing around the bottom edges of a lot of key caps, cosmetic defects on the surface of the case, and the aforementioned creaking and case flex, you're right. However, when taken collectively and on the whole, factoring in the lower weight of Unicomp's offerings simply comes across as shoddy by comparison, in my opinion. I haven't compared the weight of just the cases by themselves, but that's possibly what accounts for the discrepancy between the weight of earlier and latter M's.

I'm completely with you about Unicomp's keycaps. They're not attractive. God knows what they were thinking with that. And yet:

• They're entirely legible.
• They're dye-sublimated.
• Their homeliness discourages you from looking at your fingers, thus encouraging faster typing.

My contention has never been regarding the dye sublimation or legibility of Unicomp key caps. It was regarding the color, which isn't a close enough match to earlier (IBM manufactured) Model M's for me to recommend them as replacements.

[ander]

I've modified this, as I now agree with what you've said about Unicomp's build quality.

[ander]

Sorry. I'd had a cocktail.  <–[still true]

[wyatt8740]

My 1985 IBM Model M (part 1386303, silver label) types just fine; it has exactly one missing rivet on the underside, which isn't enough to warrant a bolt mod.
My other Model M is a 1993 one; VERY early lexmark, I think. Part 59G7980, blue label, and has a detachable cable. No missing rivets to speak of.

Between those two, there is a bit of a difference in feel and the way they sound. I'm not sure that it's actually due to any difference in quality, it may very well just be that my older 1985 board was used more or less than the 1993 one. I think the older one feels a bit 'smoother' when you push down a key, but the 1993 one has a little bit more feedback and is just a wee bit louder. I would disagree with what people say here about the lexmark and newer boards feeling different; I think they are just newer. I think the IBM one is more worn in, so the plastic in the barrels has smoothed from rubbing against the key stems.
I equally enjoy typing on both; they are just a different experience, that's all. Assuming Unicomps feel similar to the Lexmark M's, I think that it will feel very good; it may just need to be broken in.
I've actually noticed more 'rugged' or jagged edges on the bottoms of keycaps on my older 1985 M than on the 1993 one, for what it's worth. Both are really good boards.

Don't be afraid to just get a Unicomp; IMO, you are not being cheated (though again, I don't have one - I'm assuming they feel the same as or similar to Lexmark ones). I had the Lexmark M first, and while I do enjoy typing on the IBM one, I don't really think that my Lexmark one was inferior... just a little different. I can attest to the 'sturdiness' of the >1990 M's cases being identical; both of mine survived drops down flights of stairs (accidental, BTW). I think that people try to imagine reasons that the Lexmark ones are 'lesser' despite them being the same board. And plastic tooling doesn't degrade too much over time; people point to things like distortion on the keystems of later M's, but my Lexmark and IBM ones have the same distortion - even the one from 1985 (although it only has stems on the keys with bumps on them: 'F', 'J', and '5' on the numpad).

Used model M's can be really cheap, though, which is a plus. My 1993 M was free when I was volunteering at a local school's "rummage sale" (where people bring their crap to the school and the school sells it for money). I helped load stuff onto the trucks so I got to keep the M when we got it.
My IBM 1985 one was $18 and came with the terminal. Great deals are out there: you just need to be patient and look!

On a separate note, I would not recommend Matias/ALPS switches in general - admittedly, I've only had ALPS black, which is generally seen as a sub-par ALPS, but you cannot hit a key on the corner; you have to be dead-center if you want it to go down.
For all I know, though, ALPS clicky or Matias Clicky might be good. I just prefer the ease of typing on my Model M more.

[1391406]

All kidding aside, quite a few others have noted the creaking, so yours would likely be one of the very few that doesn't. I suspect the creaking is mainly due to the change in the clamshell cover material back in '99, which I also suspect accounts for the overt case flex as well.

I don't know about you, but when I type on my Unicomp, it's lying flat on my desk. And as I've mentioned, under those conditions, it gives not the smallest hint of flexing. I assure you that, as I type on it now�indeed, vigourously, for the express purposes of this discussion�I detect no, I repeat NO, flexiness. I detect no movement whatsoever but that of the keys themselves�which, of course, must be permitted and excused under the doctrines of mechanical typey goodness.

Some rubber dome keyboards with cheap, flimsy cases don't move or exhibit case flex / creak when typed on, either. So, what does that say about the quality of the case in general? Nothing. It doesn't say anything about it. You can't determine the quality of a case simply by performing a typing test. Case quality is determined by inspecting and handling the case. I mean, my plastic Casio keyboard has a fairly sturdy plastic case for a music keyboard, but it's nothing compared to the quality of my all-metal Kurzweil K2600 case. Granted, I could just as well get by with a less sturdy case, but the all-metal shell is indicative of the level of detail and quality that went into the product, even if it has no direct bearing on the playing experience.

Considering that Unicomps�unlike certain vintage corporate-acronym-associated BS KBs�are obtained and utilized as office equipment rather than as objects of fetishistic scrutiny, fondling, etc., how could their flexiness or non-flexiness whilst not being typed on possibly be of any significance?

According to an NPR interview with Neil Muyskens in 2009, Unicomp is focused on selling to individuals, such as gamers. Whether that's still true today, I don't know.

If some people do consider such a thing important, I'd be willing to go along with it in a good-natured, "whatever-blows-your-skirt-up" kind of way (as I would, say, anyone with even the slightest interest in the Kardashians�and there are people like that, however unlikely it seems). However, it's nothing that would personally concern me. I don't think I could even talk myself into being concerned about it�and as I'm not interested in trying to talk myself into it (I just checked with myself), even that seems moot.

If case quality has no relevance for you and you'd be just as happy typing on a keyboard with a cheap, lightweight, plastic frame, I say more power to you. That said, this isn't about one issue (eg. weight) in particular. It's about several issues collectively. Flashing around the edges of key caps, cosmetic imperfections on the surface of the case, case flex, case creak. None of those are necessarily deal breakers in and of themselves. Collectively, however, they add up to a loss in standards originally set by IBM. Is it a good keyboard in its own right? Sure. I never said (nor have I ever said) it's a bad keyboard. I've maintained that the typing experience of Unicomp's version is fairly consistent with older Model M's, and if that's all that matters to a potential buyer, then the issues I've referenced really have no bearing on the matter. But for anyone who's curious how the Unicomp version stacks up against it's IBM counterpart on the whole, that's another story.

No, it's not as heavy as an IBM Model M�but yikes, what is?

The Model F, which is heavier.

So if I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that a Unicomp�which is supposed to emulate the Model M�isn't as heavy as a Model F, which is heavier than a Model M. Surprisingly, even I can follow that.

You did ask what was heavier than a Model M.

Indeed, many things are heavier than a Model M. My wife, for example, although I wouldn't make a point of mentioning that without first donning my hockey gear. How is that germane to our discussion, though?

For starters, since this is a keyboard (not a hockey) forum, when you asked "what is(heavier than a Model M)?" it was naturally assumed you were referring to keyboards, not hockey gear(or anything else). As such, I can think of at least a couple of keyboards that are heavier. I'm pretty sure your question was rhetorical either way.

However, I see no need for Unicomps to be heavier than they are. That's all I was saying. If the Unicomp I'm typing on at this very moment were any heavier, there's no way I'd even know that unless I picked it up�and then we're back to the "does it matter?" thing.

Again, what does typing on a keyboard tell you about case quality? Nothing. If you consider case quality to be irrelevant, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter whether Unicomp uses a cheap, flimsy, lightweight plastic or not, as long as it has no bearing on the typing experience.

My contention has always been that Unicomp variants don't live up to the standards set by earlier (IBM manufactured) Model M's.

A Unicomp is not "cheaply imitative". A new Unicomp costs more than most well-used IBM M's. And if the extra value that KB enthusiasts attach to "NIB" IBM M's is any guide, such virgin untyped-upon-ness must indeed, if we are to boast any democratic principles in the course of these forumly breeze-shootings, merit a premium for the humble Unicomp as well.

shoddy

a :  inferior, imitative, or pretentious articles or matter

Inferior and imitative, yes. Compared to IBM manufactured Model M's, I certainly think so. One could argue that Lexmark was inferior and imitative by my standard, and I suppose that may be true to an extent but less so, in my opinion.

Suppose you had a staff member who quit. Would you refuse to hire another unless he or she was the same colour? Why, then, make such discriminations when it comes to key colour? Have you not noticed the wild spectrum of key-colour-acceptance pervading this very forum?

If my company had a dress code and a staff member quit, their replacement would still wear the company uniform. I don't have anything against color diversity in a keyboard if that's your thing. What I personally have a problem with are shades of a particular color that don't match. My Model M has pearl and pebble key caps. If I were going to replace a couple of those, I would want them to match for the sake of consistency. For instance, I had a few that were missing on one of my Model M's and tried swapping them with Unicomp's variant. The result was a mish mash of shades that weren't consistent. The result was that some of the keys looked a bit dirtier / darker than the others. In my opinion, consistency matters. It's why a lot of people make an effort to obtain a consistent level of color when dying key caps.

[wyatt8740]

the hockey thing was a joke of sorts. He had called his wife heavier than a model M, so to avoid getting hurt he put hockey gear on, which is a lot of padding. And my guess is that when compared to other unicomp caps, your unicomp caps are the same shade of gray. Maybe not IBM gray, though.

I think the majority of the 'degradation' we see in unicomp boards (and indeed, lexmark boards) is in the stem itself. Swapping the stems on my IBM and lexmark boards makes the IBM board feel rougher, and vice versa. That said, my Lexmark has swappable keycaps, where my IBM one does not.

[1391406]

my guess is that when compared to other unicomp caps, your unicomp caps are the same shade of gray. Maybe not IBM gray, though.

Color wise, Unicomp key caps appear consistent from one Unicomp to another. I was referring to mixing Unicomp and IBM key caps. The color is distinguishable.

I think the majority of the 'degradation' we see in unicomp boards (and indeed, lexmark boards) is in the stem itself. Swapping the stems on my IBM and lexmark boards makes the IBM board feel rougher, and vice versa. That said, my Lexmark has swappable keycaps, where my IBM one does not.

In my opinion, there's a relatively negligible difference in key feel between IBM and Unicomp boards. If anything, I'd say the feel of the Unicomp is ever so slightly scratchier, but I suspect the difference would be practically imperceptible to most people.

[wyatt8740]

Maybe it's just the model I got, but the difference is relatively noticeable to me. It isn't that bad, though.

Have you compared a Unicomp to a Lexmark, yet? The 'scratchy' one is my lexmark.

[1391406]

Maybe it's just the model I got, but the difference is relatively noticeable to me. It isn't that bad, though.

Have you compared a Unicomp to a Lexmark, yet? The 'scratchy' one is my lexmark.

Not directly, no. My understanding is that Lexmark used the older clamshell cover material, so I don't think cosmetic imperfections on the surface of the case, or case flex / creak was an issue with them, but I could be wrong. I'm not sure about flashing around the bottom of the key caps, though. From what I understand, they didn't weigh quite as much as earlier M's, but I'm not sure if there's a weight discrepancy between Lexmark and Unicomp.

[ander]

I've modified this, as I now agree with what you've said about Unicomp's build quality.

[1391406]

Some rubber dome keyboards with cheap, flimsy cases don't move or exhibit case flex / creak when typed on, either. So, what does that say about the quality of the case in general? Nothing. It doesn't say anything about it. You can't determine the quality of a case simply by performing a typing test. Case quality is determined by inspecting and handling the case.

Dude, I feel compelled to ask: If a case doesn't creak or flex or move when you type on it, what exactly is it you're worried about? That it might spontaneously combust or something?

Like I said, a lot of the cheapest of the cheap cases don't creak, flex, or move when typed on. Again, what does that say about the quality of the case? Nothing. But who's worried? Some people just prefer higher quality products. I mean, I wouldn't knock anyone who drives a Dodge Omni if that's what they like. So, if case quality is irrelevant to you, that's your business. As for me, there's simply no reason to settle for a Unicomp when I have several perfectly good, working IBM Model M's, though. Of course, the truth is I use a 122-key Model F, which I consider a leap above any Model M, but if I were forced to choose, it'd be a no-brainer. When I add it all up, the Unicomp just feels like an inferior knock-off. That said, as far as I'm concerned, you can like cheap rubber domes for all I care. It's really none of my business what you buy.

I think I'm catching on that this is actually an esthetics-based discussion, not one about actually using a product. If so, I can dig that, but that makes it more of a collector thing than a keyboard-user thing, right? And I think I'm relatively safe in saying that Unicomps, as useful, durable and fun-to-use as they are, are not in much danger of being considered collector's items. So maybe we're making more of a fuss over this than necessary. I'm just trying to follow you, though.

If it were simply a collector fetish, there wouldn't be enthusiasts spending healthy sums investing in custom built cases. Personally, I'm not crazy about the idea of putting great switches in a cheap case. Assuming it would fit, why put an Alfa Romeo V6 24V in a Ford Pinto?

If case quality has no relevance for you and you'd be just as happy typing on a keyboard with a cheap, lightweight, plastic frame, I say more power to you. That said, this isn't about one issue (eg. weight) in particular. It's about several issues collectively... They add up to a loss in standards originally set by IBM...

Indeed, many products aren't made as heavily as they were 30 years ago. Companies often overbuilt their products back then. Look at old cars, appliances, furniture... There was a thing about how purely stout stuff was, even if it didn't need to be. For most of the 20th century, people had a hugely materialistic mindset. They assumed "more" always meant "better". No doubt part of this came from the Great Depression of the '30s, when few people had enough of anything. Then the economy recovered�a big war will do that for a war-based economy�the consumer pendulum swung the other way, and suddenly everyone was obsessed with having as much of everything as they could. I'm sure historians will have a field day with that. They already are.

Yes, IBM's KBs were super-heavy and super-solid�but did they really need to be? Must a KB really weigh five and a half pounds (2.5kg) if you're not also planning to use it to beat off attackers or go mini-snowboarding with it? And while these musclebound vestiges of a former era undoubtedly have their charms, could have they skewed our judgment as to how much KB is "enough"? I'd say�yuh!

It's hardly just about weight. Compared to products made 25+ years ago, a lot of products today simply aren't built to last; they're built to break. Thank you planned obsolescence. Of course, this is fine if you plan on upgrading on a regular basis, but it's a different story for products that you plan on using for the rest of your life. That's what IBM created with the Model M, and I can appreciate after nearly 30 years their keyboards still work without a hitch. How many products that are built today will still function 30 years from now? Older consoles, such as the N64, NES, Sega Genesis, etc. will likely still be functioning 20 or 30 years down the road. I doubt the same can be said for most current gen systems. So, while IBM probably didn't have to build a keyboard that weighed as much as the original Model M, considering it's lifespan and durability, I'm glad they did.

As I sit here using my Ultra Classic, it feels so solid, and sounds so wonderfully clicky-clacky, and I can't see any of its tiny cosmetic imperfections because I'm typing on it, not obsessively scrutinizing it... And I gotta say, I'm a happy buckling-spring-using dude.

Unsurprisingly, most people who touch type don't look at their keyboard when they're typing, either. I certainly don't. But a lot of enthusiasts look at their keyboards when they're not. There's a reason people perform all sorts of LED mods and change key cap color schemes.

Again, what does typing on a keyboard tell you about case quality? Nothing. If you consider case quality to be irrelevant, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter whether Unicomp uses a cheap, flimsy, lightweight plastic or not, as long as it has no bearing on the typing experience.

First, if I'm using it as a keyboard�and I know it may seem like a distraction to mention this, but technically, yes, a Unicomp is one of those�and its case is obviously strong enough to hold the thing firmly together for as long as I could possibly expect to remain breathing�no, I don't see a problem with that. Er, should I?

If your sole criteria is that the case holds the keyboard firmly together for as long as you're breathing, practically any cheap case will do. I mean, why drive a BMW where a Honda will suffice? As long as the chassis holds the engine firmly in place for the rest of your life, who cares? There's no sense in spending more money on a higher quality product where a lower quality product will do, you know? Who cares if the paint's screwed up or there's rust on the door. If you can't see it while driving, what's the difference? It feels good while driving and it gets you from point A to point B. What else could you want? I mean, why even wash the car for that matter?

Second, Unicomp cases�"flimsy"? LOL! Dude, are you kidding?

I never said Unicomp cases are flimsy. I said:

"If you consider case quality to be irrelevant, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter whether Unicomp uses a cheap, flimsy, lightweight plastic or not, as long as it has no bearing on the typing experience.

In other words, if the typing experience is all that matters, then who cares what kind of case Unicomp uses as long as the thing doesn't fall apart.

it's not overbuilt like an IBM.

If your criteria for what constitutes being overbuilt involves anything in excess of a case that holds a keyboard firmly together for as long as you're breathing, then I suppose anything beyond a cheap rubber dome case could be considered overbuilt. By that definition, even Unicomp's case could be considered overkill.

But besides that, sheerly from a product-quality viewpoint, it beats the pants off any other KB I've ever owned, used or seen. I'm actually poking myself here to be sure I'm not dreaming, that there'd ever be any reason, under any circumstances, to be concerned that this is not one hell of an example of superior, planned-obsolescence-defying workmanship.

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose. If all I ever owned were unbranded guitars, and one day I had the good fortune of acquiring an Ibanez JS-100, I'd probably think it was the be-all-end-all. Of course, one could just as easily argue it's the only guitar anyone would ever need to own and claim the supposed higher quality of other Ibanez guitars was simply an exercise in overbuilding.

To bring the analogy full circle, it's not that the Ibanez JS100 isn't a decent guitar for what it is. It is. But it's no Ibanez Artist 2618. The JS100 will likely outlive you(it's certainly not going to fall apart), but labeling other guitars 'overbuilt' because the level of workmanship is higher is a misnomer.

"Shoddy"�Inferior and imitative, yes. Compared to IBM manufactured Model M's, I certainly think so.

But again, why make something bigger and heavier than it has to be? I could walk around with my pockets filled with lead fishing weights, or wear one of those hats with fruit piled all over it like Carmen Miranda. (Okay, that's actually Kirsten Wiig pretending she's Carmen Miranda.) But why? Why insist that stuff be goofily bigger/heavier than necessary?

Again, weight is just one of many factors.

You presume IBM set out to make the heaviest keyboard possible. In reality, the more likely scenario is that the weight was simply a by-product of the materials and fabrication processes used. For example, the weight of high-end vintage audio gear is a by-product of the parts used, which were more costly to buy, manufacture, and fabricate. The truth is, many of the Model M manufacturing changes that took place in the latter '90s (integrated cable, lighter weight plastic, etc.) were cost saving measures. IBM was economizing. In essence, the weight didn't change because they determined that their keyboards were unnecessarily heavy, but because the company needed to cut costs. In my opinion, Unicomp's Model M is basically the diet cola of M's. A diet M, if you will.

This is not to say we can't appreciate the overbuilt products of the past. Personally, I love Model M's, and bulgemobiles, and huge chrome-plated toasters... But I don't demand that everything still be like that.

There's the cost thing, too. Unless you're willing to spend considerably more dough (than a Unicomp) for a professionally restored IBM�or 3/4x times as much as that for a NIB one�or spend many hours restoring one yourself, any IBM you're likely to find will be grimy, full of dirt and nosehair and spilled drinks and God knows what else, possibly have missing parts, possibly not fully work, or possibly not work at all.

For starters, I'd love for most products I own to be made with the same high-quality standards vintage manfacturers held. And I agree that for products I upgrade on a regular basis, that's probably overkill. For others though, why not? You typically end up saving money because you're not buying the product 10 or 20 times over.

Secondly, where are you getting this idea that you have to spend a lot of time or money restoring or paying someone to restore an IBM? Of all the used M's I've acquired from eBay, practically all of them worked, were in good condition, and required less than an hour of cleaning. As with anything you can find some really grimy ones on eBay, but if you look closely at the pictures and exercise a little patience, you can get a great deal on a fully working Model M in very good condition.

Whereas any Unicomp you order is already NIB, doesn't need a USB adapter, has Windows/Super keys, and is guaranteed to work perfectly. And while no, it's not a King Kong of a keyboard like an IBM, it's more than solid enough for anyone's daily use. Really. Believe me. You shouldn't worry about this. Considering how most stuff's made these days, it borders on paranoia to worry that a Unicomp wasn't built well.

Firstly, I'm not worried about it. I own a Unicomp. I also own a handful of Model M's and several Model F's.

Secondly, I've never stated that Unicomp's weren't well built keyboards. I've stated repeatedly that they strike me as inferior imitations of IBM Model M's.

If you're happy with (what I consider) an inferior imitation, I say knock yourself out. I've never knocked anyone for liking or owning a Unicomp.  If the Unicomp is good enough for you, then great. You're proud of your keyboard. I understand. It's a nice keyboard for what it is. It's not quite on par with an IBM Model M, but if you like it that's all that counts.

Ideally, I think we should all have an IBM and a Unicomp, so we'd get to enjoy the best of the vintage and modern buckling-spring worlds, and we'd get to support a small business that's courageously cranking out products that aren't made to wear out after a few years like everything else.

Like I said, I own a Unicomp. There are a couple of things I like about it. I like the grey on black color scheme. I like the fact Unicomp has practically eliminated the metallic hollow ringing / pinging following each keystroke. That said, would I buy another one? No, and I don't feel some allegiance to support a company whose product I'm not particularly crazy about simply because they're struggling. I support companies based on my interest in their product.

Do you think it could be possible that you might just need to, you know, get out a bit more?  :?)

All levity aside, no. If I got out any more, I'd practically be living in my car.

[jacobolus]

There's the cost thing, too. Unless you're willing to spend considerably more dough (than a Unicomp) for a professionally restored IBM—or 3/4x times as much as that for a NIB one—or spend many hours restoring one yourself, any IBM you're likely to find will be grimy, full of dirt and nosehair and spilled drinks and God knows what else, possibly have missing parts, possibly not fully work, or possibly not work at all.

Secondly, where are you getting this idea that you have to spend a lot of time or money restoring or paying someone to restore an IBM? Of all the used M's I've acquired from eBay, practically all of them worked, were in good condition, and required less than an hour of cleaning. As with anything you can find some really grimy ones on eBay, but if you look closely at the pictures and exercise a little patience, you can get a great deal on a fully working Model M in very good condition.

Yeah, I think that’s the main point of contention here. The vast majority of Model Ms from the late 80s are still in perfect working order, and any dirt/grime is pretty easy to clean off. A thorough cleaning takes maybe 15–20 minutes, if you’re being extra careful, not many hours. There’s always the chance of getting one with a fried controller, all the rivets broken off the back, some broken springs, missing keycaps, or a cracked case, but those damaged keyboards are the exceptions, not the norm.

In general, a keyboard you can get for $40–50 shipped from ebay will without much work be restored to perfect working order. You only need “professional” restoration (e.g. a bolt mod) if you want something better than the NIB original, or if the keyboard was heavily damaged. People paying 3–4x as much for a NIB one are either collectors or people who value “newness” above function per se.

[Snowdog993]

Two good things Unicomp is doing right:

#1: The new 103 key layout.  It does encompass the traditional 101 layout in every respect, and allows to have the Windows/Menu keys that are missing from the original 101.

#2: Allowing for people with existing keyboards to get replacement parts needed to repair and restore older boards.  That does include keysets, albeit them not being "as good" quality, but a satisfactory replacement at a reasonable price nonetheless.  (There are even complete blank sets you can get if you prefer.)

I wish Unicomp would think outside the box and provide more than just what they offer.  There is a lot of potential for them if they move forward with new designs.  There are other colors.  That even goes for the keys themselves!  Imagine having a model M with a red bezel with yellow keys, for example.  There is so much they could do but haven't yet.

Edit: My son keeps telling me he wants a purple keyboard.  Okay Unicomp, do that.

[ander]

Where are you getting this idea that you have to spend a lot of time or money restoring or paying someone to restore an IBM? Of all the used M's I've acquired from eBay, practically all of them worked, were in good condition, and required less than an hour of cleaning. As with anything you can find some really grimy ones on eBay, but if you look closely at the pictures and exercise a little patience, you can get a great deal on a fully working Model M in very good condition.

Dude, you're exactly right about that, too. Now that I've been more patient, and continued to look and learn, I have indeed seen some very decent deals on Model M's in fine, ready-to-go shape (perhaps with just a bit of cleanup). And for not that much more, you can get an M restored to near-original condition, even improved with case mods.

I must apologize for my rush to judgment. In our materialistic society, our first instinct is often to defend our purchases. If we're lucky, though, reality sets in.

Also, the obvious rant-type stuff I typed here was just the result of idle, creative hands without enough to do. Please don't take it personally.

All levity aside, no. If I got out any more, I'd practically be living in my car.

Glad to hear it!

[ander]

In general, a [Model M] you can get for $40–50 shipped from ebay will without much work be restored to perfect working order. You only need “professional” restoration (e.g. a bolt mod) if you want something better than the NIB original, or if the keyboard was heavily damaged. People paying 3–4x as much for a NIB one are either collectors or people who value “newness” above function per se.

Right you are, guy. This was my unfamiliarity with the general greatness of IBM's builds. Live and learn.

[jacobolus]

Edit: My son keeps telling me he wants a purple keyboard.  Okay Unicomp, do that.

A purple is going to require painting or covering the case in something, but PBT keycaps are pretty easy, just get white ones and dye them.

[Snowdog993]

Edit: My son keeps telling me he wants a purple keyboard.  Okay Unicomp, do that.

A purple is going to require painting or covering the case in something, but PBT keycaps are pretty easy, just get white ones and dye them.

I think he would rather have purple with white lettering.  That makes it even more difficult to obtain.  *shrug*

[1391406]

Where are you getting this idea that you have to spend a lot of time or money restoring or paying someone to restore an IBM? Of all the used M's I've acquired from eBay, practically all of them worked, were in good condition, and required less than an hour of cleaning. As with anything you can find some really grimy ones on eBay, but if you look closely at the pictures and exercise a little patience, you can get a great deal on a fully working Model M in very good condition.

Dude, you're exactly right about that, too. Now that I've been more patient, and continued to look and learn, I have indeed seen some very decent deals on Model M's in fine, ready-to-go shape (perhaps with just a bit of cleanup). And for not that much more, you can get an M restored to near-original condition, even improved with case mods.

I must apologize for my rush to judgment. In our materialistic society, our first instinct is often to defend our purchases. If we're lucky, though, reality sets in.

Also, the obvious rant-type stuff I typed here was just the result of idle, creative hands without enough to do. Please don't take it personally.

Hey, don't worry about it. No harm, no foul. It's rare and takes a pretty big person to truly reconsider a position they're seriously emotionally invested in and state it openly. Kudos.

[ctm]

I have tried my friend's Unicomp Ultra Classic and I myself have a KBP that came with Matias quiet switches. Just for fun, I also bought 5 Matias clicky switches and replace the quiet switch under esc key with a clicky swtich. From my experience, these three are interesting but quiet different switches.

Unicomp buckling spring is really clicky and I love it! Actually this is my favorite clicky switch. The feeling is really awesome. Also it's tactile/clicky point is at exactly the point of actuation. Also due to its simple mechanism, the feeling of each key is highly uniformed. Each key has the same clickiness, unlike Cherry blue switches that I have in which some are slightly more or less clicky than others (it's subtle, but does exists). I think I will buy a Unicomp when they make a TKL (if they ever will  ). But do note that buckling spring is a bit heavy, at least heavier than Cheery MX blues. Also it's quite loud and the sound is not as crispy as Cherry (personally I like the sound of Cherry better).

Matias quiet swtiches are also pretty good (typing on them right now). Some people say it's like Cheery MX brown but I think they are different (well I don't have a Cherry MX brown board. I only have a switch tester). It's very tactile and the feedback of keys is also very good. Highly recommended! About Matias clicky, I think they are nice too. Since I only have one on my keyboard, I can't give much comment about how it is like to type on a keyboard with all Matias clicky. What I can say is that even though it is a clicky switch, it is different from Cheery MX blue/green or buckling spring. I think it seems more solid than Cherry and on the other hand Cherry is more crispy.

[wyatt8740]

Hmm, this thread has me flip-flopping. I thought  had decided on an IBM, but the warranty and native USB (I am planning a new PC build soon and I doubt it will support PS/2) are considerations for the Unicomp. Do the terminal models require anything special for the use of those extra keys?

I hooked a terminal Model M into the controller board for a PS/2 model M. Mine's just a 102-key, but that extra key is picked up in linux as a '.'. Windows detects the key has been pressed but doesn't have a character assigned to it.
Don't let all the IBM confusion and stuff mess you up - the warranty is not usually a big deal since they break so rarely. Go ahead and get a Unicomp - I know mentally you'll be thinking 'oh, it isn't as good, and I'm missing out on something', but you aren't missing very much at all. They feel slightly different but I do not really think the newer Lexmark and Unicomps feel 'worse'.

for 122 key terminals, I know hasu's converter and soarers' converter have good reputations. I recommend Hasu's over Soarer's, because Hasu actually released source code.

I don't know much about the AEK, but from looking at pictures, that layout seems a bit odd for a PC devotee, though it does seem to have all the right keys. I would have to account for some custom keycaps if I went with the AEK. The two ALPS boards I've heard most about are the Northgate Omnikey and the Dell At101w, so how do these two compare? I know the Northgate has doubleshot caps, which is really nice, but is it really worth the price over the Dell? Are there other ALPS boards to consider in the <$75 range?

I have not had the pleasure of owning an OmniKey, sadly (If anyone here has a crappy one with missing keys or whatever, let me know - I might be interested), but I can speak for the AT101W.
The AT101W is not very good. I mean, it won't kill anybody, and it has N-key rollover, and it is cheap, and better than rubber domes, but IMO Alps blacks are terrible switches. For the sake of objectivity I've switched from my Model M to my AT101W to write this. It's a very different board and when you're typing quickly like I am now it's not that bad to use, but it's nowhere near the same level as the M. I think I can type faster on the AT101W, but the keys are not very tactile, they aren't linear, and if you stop typing quickly to try to enjoy the keys they don't feel that nice. I am infinitely happier typing on my Model M than on my AT101W. Also, ALPS switches don't respond well to being pressed down on the corner of the switch; this is usually not a big deal but it becomes a big deal when you have to use one of the larger, non-square keys like 'return' or backspace.
The ALPS is lighter to type on, and I think that's why I type faster on it. But it isn't therapeutic like the M is for me, and barely better than a rubber dome because of the way the ALPS black actuates.

The Omnikey sounds absolutely great for me - a bit like the Sun Type 5C layout, but with PS/2 protocol, the Control key in the right place (caps lock position), and the F keys on the left side of the board, and clicky switches. If I ever find one of those I will gladly pay up for it. Don't take my advice concerning the omnikey besides that I like the layout, however. I have not tried ALPS clicky switches, and only am interested because I love the layout and like clickiness.

Also, I've heard all ALPS are sort of 'wobbly', is this true? Wobbly keycaps are a pet peeve of mine and I would really like to minimize that if possible. How do the modern Alps-type switches like the Duckys I've seen compare to these old boards?

Yeah, ALPS caps wobble rather a lot on my AT101W. You don't notice it while you're typing generally, but you can make them wobble easily. I'd say it's not bad enough to break the keyboard or to ruin it for me.

[rowdy]

What about Lexmark?

Comparable to the original Model M, or closer to Unicomp?

[Snowdog993]

What about Lexmark?

Comparable to the original Model M, or closer to Unicomp?

Depends on the model Rowdy.  The 139x models are closer to the original model M and the 42H models are closer to the newer Unicomp.  I think that's the best way to explain it.  I have pictures of all three kinds for you to look at.  They all feel great!

Edit: More accurate comparisons on reply #93.

[rowdy]

How are Lexmark in terms of quality?  Unicomp, as I understand, is not quite as robust as the original IBM Model M.

[Snowdog993]

How are Lexmark in terms of quality?  Unicomp, as I understand, is not quite as robust as the original IBM Model M.

Okay.  White Label and Lexmark are essentially indistinguishable from each other when you are talking 139 series.  Quality is exactly the same as far as I can tell.

IBM Blue Label 42H clamshells are much higher quality than 42H Unicomp clamshells. (Although everything else inside is *essentially* the same)

The keycap legends on the newer Unicomps are not as nice as the IBM keycap legends.
(Different font, sometimes off center, etc...There is a whole big discussion on that too.)
(I guess I was lucky with my 103, although there is a difference, it's still not too bad.)

Edit: * The barrels are a bit different with the 103 key bottom row configuration. *

[rowdy]

How are Lexmark in terms of quality?  Unicomp, as I understand, is not quite as robust as the original IBM Model M.

Okay.  White Label and Lexmark are essentially indistinguishable from each other when you are talking 139 series.  Quality is exactly the same as far as I can tell.

IBM Blue Label 42H clamshells are much higher quality than 42H Unicomp clamshells. (Although everything else inside is the same)

The keycap legends on the newer Unicomps are not as nice as the IBM keycap legends.
(Different font, sometimes off center, etc...There is a whole big discussion on that too.)
(I guess I was lucky with my 103, although there is a difference, it's still not too bad.)

I've heard of Unicomp legends

[Snowdog993]

I've heard of Unicomp legends

Well, there may be some confusion about the Blue Label IBM in the first set of pictures.

[Snowdog993]

I hope that these pictures give everyone a true perspective about these wonderful keyboards!

Edit:Wherever the pictures went, I guess that this thread lost them.
Just go here and see for yourself.
http://snowdog993.imgur.com/
There are a bunch to compare there.

[Snowdog993]

I've been wanting to explore some non-Cherry mechanical switches for a while, and so I've recently been considering a couple of different options, namely buckling springs in Unicomps or an old IBM Model M or the modified-ALPS type Matias switch in their keyboards.

What ever happened Chuckster?  Did you find a new keyboard you wanted yet?  I have been wondering...

[ander]

What about Lexmark? Comparable to the original Model M, or closer to Unicomp?

I've had friends with both IBM-made and Lexmark-made M's. I agree with the general attitude that the latest 4th-generation boards (part numbers starting with 5, 8 and 9) suffered from cost-cutting and their builds weren't as good as earlier ones.

Otherwise, I think it all depends on how much a particular board has been used. We all agree that buckling-spring boards are impressively durable—but after a certain amount of use, everything starts to wear out.

I'd have to say that more Lexmark-made boards I've used have felt like new to me than older IBM-made boards. But that's just logical—the older the board, the more chance it's had to be used.

Otherwise, no, I don't think there's any inherent difference in equally-used IBM- and Lexmark-made boards, and that the notion of a board feeling more "solid" because it has a slightly thicker backplate—or a steel or gray logo rather than a blue one—is an illusion. Them's the beauty of buckling springs, IMHO.

[rowdy]

I'd concur.  Having used my Lexmark and IBM SSKs for a couple of weeks I'd say the Lexmark feels newer and smoother, and the IBM feels heavier and more solid.  Although the IBM still needs a total rebuild as it feels gritty, and the Shift keys are starting to stick again.  And the Esc on the Lexmark works, but doesn't click.

[shut up]

Unicomp Model M, go for it. Made in The US, very similar to the feel of the original Model M and they still retain the quality.

Check out their factory on Google Maps, it's tiny.

[Muffin860]

How are Lexmark in terms of quality?  Unicomp, as I understand, is not quite as robust as the original IBM Model M.

Okay.  White Label and Lexmark are essentially indistinguishable from each other when you are talking 139 series.  Quality is exactly the same as far as I can tell.

IBM Blue Label 42H clamshells are much higher quality than 42H Unicomp clamshells. (Although everything else inside is *essentially* the same)

The keycap legends on the newer Unicomps are not as nice as the IBM keycap legends.
(Different font, sometimes off center, etc...There is a whole big discussion on that too.)
(I guess I was lucky with my 103, although there is a difference, it's still not too bad.)

Edit: * The barrels are a bit different with the 103 key bottom row configuration. *

So how do the blue label and white label ibm compare to one another?