Author Topic: Cheap Library Keyboard (Read 7003 times)

microsoft windows · « **on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 16:09:56 »

This guy needs a SERIOUS talking to!
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mikecase.net/ModelM/IBM-Model-M-Keyboard.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php%3Ftopic_id%3D26814713&usg=__x860fViUdlP2_HXVNonr8kQkZP4=&h=444&w=700&sz=82&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=k5GFy0I8b6M6xM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dold%2Bkeyboard%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

chimera15 · « **Reply #1 on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 18:48:02 »

Yeah, but he's a gamer. I wouldn't suggest a model m as a gaming keyboard. lol

microsoft windows · « **Reply #2 on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 19:04:12 »

But how's a 6-pound tank of a keyboard "cheap"?

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #3 on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 19:12:12 »

I agree

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #4 on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 19:13:37 »

Quote from: Computer-Lab in Basement;134307

I agree

Lets re-phrase that: I agree that the IBM Model M's are very high quality keyboards, and I also think they would not be the best for some computer gamers.

quadibloc · « **Reply #5 on:** Thu, 19 November 2009, 19:21:43 »

Quote from: ripster;134309

He said in the thread that he just cut and pasted the pic from the internet. I don't think he has a Model M.

Yes, I see the post too where he specifically states that while the photo looks sort of like his keyboard, it isn't quite the same. Maybe he has one of those evil Fujitsu keyboards (although I'm not sure what is wrong with them, except for being lesser than a Model M).

When I saw the thread title, I was hoping to see a picture of an OCLC keyboard.

JBert · « **Reply #6 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 06:13:26 »

Maybe he has an IBM rubber-dome keyboard. Still got two of these laying around, although they are still decent rather than "cheap".

lmnop · « **Reply #7 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 06:26:01 »

don't bother I used to try and deter people from spending $70-200 on a Razer or Logitech keyboard but it's futile. 9/10 gamers don't know what a Model M is yet alone a Mechanical Keyboard and some of them are so young that they actually grew up with Logitech Classic Keyboard and a MX-518 or G5 no matter how hard you try to convince them of the performance advantage and higher quality construction they just prefer the ladder.

ch_123 · « **Reply #8 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 06:27:22 »

Logitech's mice are pretty decent. Their keyboards however...

microsoft windows · « **Reply #9 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 06:58:12 »

Their mice are pretty good. I have one that's lasted for almost 20 years!

lmnop · « **Reply #10 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 07:03:12 »

I prefer Microsoft mice like the Intellimouse, Wheel Mouse Optical, etc. I have always preferred large mice even though I have small hands because my older brother had big hands so he always had the biggest ball mouse he could find on our XT, Tandy 2000, 486DX, etc. so that is what I grew up with.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #11 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 07:04:55 »

The Microsoft ones are good. The older serial mice are built like tanks.

lmnop · « **Reply #12 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 07:10:57 »

oooer

microsoft windows · « **Reply #13 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 12:46:22 »

I remember those old Keytronic's. They were pretty loud.

ch_123 · « **Reply #14 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 12:48:14 »

I don't see how the old MS Mice are any more tank-like than just about any mouse on the market nowadays. That said, they very reliable by the standards of ball mice.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #15 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 13:28:45 »

They are very well-built. Any mouse that can withstand what my serial mouse has is a tank.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #16 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 18:13:41 »

Windows 95 was another thing Microsoft did well.

zwmalone · « **Reply #17 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 18:19:03 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135072

Windows 95 was another thing Microsoft did well.

this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down

microsoft windows · « **Reply #18 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 18:22:12 »

When you think about it, remember how big a step up Windows 95 was from DOS/Windows 3.1? It's a lot like comparing Windows XP and Windows 7. (By the way, I just installed 7 on one of my computers and am playing around with it).

ch_123 · « **Reply #19 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 19:04:15 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135077

When you think about it, remember how big a step up Windows 95 was from DOS/Windows 3.1? It's a lot like comparing Windows XP and Windows 7. (By the way, I just installed 7 on one of my computers and am playing around with it).

That must have been some feat with your machines.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #20 on:** Sat, 21 November 2009, 19:06:55 »

Windows 3.1 used MUCH less resources than 95. I ran 3.1 on a computer with 2mb of RAM and a 24Mhz processor.

I guess the changes in 7 vary in how you like it. Personally, I like the taskbar in Windows 7. But that doesn't mean that everyone else should. People use computers for different things.

I personally like it better than XP. XP would freeze up and there were some advanced options that were in 2000 that XP lacks such as Intel SpeedStep in power options. Those options plus more are in Windows 7. But, on the other hand, Windows 7 doesn't run too well on older computers with less than 2Ghz microprocessors and less than 512MB of RAM whilst XP can run on a 120Mhz computer with 80MB of RAM perfectly well.

ch_123 · « **Reply #21 on:** Sun, 22 November 2009, 06:22:58 »

Quote from: kishy;135097

XP freezing up?
Hardware problem, not software.

Not necessarily. I've ran 7 on machines I've ran XP on, and there's a notable improvement in reliability from switching to 7.

Quote

XP should be able to get down to 64MB of RAM but you'd need virtual memory on and absolutely cranked (with a huge performance tax involved). IIRC the installer will refuse to install if on a CPU <233MHz though...

I ran XP on a PII 400MHz with 64MB of RAM when it first came out. It was somewhat slow, but still usable.

mmgoose · « **Reply #22 on:** Sun, 22 November 2009, 07:52:22 »

well i wouldn't try and convince the guy that bs/generally mech switches are better than what he's currently looking for. he can compare for himself and has an unbiased eye. people who've been playing for a long time are much more concerned about the old familiar feel of what they've been playing on. domes aren't that bad and in the context of gaming, clicky switches are worse than the 5$ rubbers (way worse).

case in point, people who've been told that they just drank a 100$ bottle of pinot but were in fact given a supermarket 5$ merlot are more inclined to rate it higher than they otherwise would have had they known it was just mediocre.

either way, you'll still get buzzed but with the merlot the hit to the wallet doesn't put you on welfare.

BUT if you can afford the pinot, then why not?

microsoft windows · « **Reply #23 on:** Sun, 22 November 2009, 09:26:12 »

Quote from: kishy;135097

XP should be able to get down to 64MB of RAM but you'd need virtual memory on and absolutely cranked (with a huge performance tax involved). IIRC the installer will refuse to install if on a CPU <233MHz though...

You can install XP on something less than 233Mhz if you upgrade instead of doing a clean install.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #24 on:** Sun, 22 November 2009, 10:30:51 »

The upgrade worked fine on that old Compaq with a 120Mhz Pentium and 80MB of RAM.

Now, if you use Windows 98, that's a whole different story. (Windows 98 is terrible and it freezes up)

Rajagra · « **Reply #25 on:** Sun, 22 November 2009, 10:50:25 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135191

You can install XP on something less than 233Mhz if you upgrade instead of doing a clean install.

Or you could do a normal install using the /nm and /im switches to bypass the minimum hardware checks.

JBert · « **Reply #26 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 13:51:11 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135072

Windows 95 was another thing Microsoft did well.

You mean how they drove OS/2 into the ground?

microsoft windows · « **Reply #27 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 13:56:06 »

Or how they created a very well-made operating system which is robust, reliable, and more user-friendly than previous editions?

timw4mail · « **Reply #28 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 13:58:00 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135623

Or how they created a very well-made operating system which is robust, reliable, and more user-friendly than previous editions?

*snicker*

lmnop · « **Reply #29 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 15:12:45 »

can we stop with this already.

ch_123 · « **Reply #30 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 16:06:02 »

Come on folks, he's obviously taking the piss. Don't take the bait!

microsoft windows · « **Reply #31 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 20:22:54 »

Quote from: kishy;135647

I lol'd

Windows 95 reliable...sure. Only operating system I know of that immediately after installation can corrupt its own registry and become unusable before you ever get to use it.

That's never happened to me with any of the installs I've done. All I've gotten is over a decade of good, reliable computing out of Windows 95. (Yes, that was all I had till 2007)

ricercar · « **Reply #32 on:** Mon, 23 November 2009, 20:51:08 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;135077

(by the way, i just installed 7 on one of my computers and am playing around with it).

gasp

News:

Author Topic: Cheap Library Keyboard (Read 7003 times)