21 Apr
2011
21 Apr
'11
1:48 p.m.
Yes, chicklet keyboards were inferior and I'm no fan of them but they did
make the machines cheaper. Buying a computer for personal use was expensive
back in the late 70s/early 80s. At the time cheap keyboards did allow
exposure to the technology that a lot of people would not have be able to
afford.
Regarding the Atari 400, the flat membrane keyboard makes sense. Don't
forget, the 800 was released at the same time. People who wanted the
"serious" model were expected to buy that one. The 400 was a cheaper family
games machine mostly cartridge driven. However, it was software compatible
with the 800 and had a keyboard just in case people might want to dabble in
BASIC, learn some programming etc. A keyboard which could be wiped down and
quite robust and kid-proof. I think the Atari 400 keyboard was quite
sensible for the market it was aimed at.
Terry (Tez)
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandre Souza - Listas" <pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: F&*#ing chicklet keyboards (was Re: Retro Atari
400lookingKeyboard)
I didn't
type very fast when I was a kid, so I didn't mind how
unsuitable the keyboard was for "real" typists. Now, I'd find it
incredibly awkward.
Nice point, Ethan!
Someone here said that these keys should be banned. It was the ONLY way
to create a computer cheap enough to cost below (pound)100, and to make
more expensive puters cheaper.