11 May
2000
11 May
'00
3:20 p.m.
See embedded remarks, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Keyboard actuator
a
I was not aware that there was a
"falls apart by itself" model from IBM.
The ones I had, and which I'd split with a number of friends was extracted
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Yes, that's the "rate" for the selectric. However, there were at
least
two
> selectric mechanisms, and the 134.5 baud rate was
for the ruggedized
printer
> for the 1130 system. Those would last over a
year under pretty hard
useage
(I was the
user and watched the same mechanism run for about a year).
> However, the normal desktop selectric typewriter would fall apart within ^^^^^^
> very short time with a mechanical actuator. I tried this myself once,
but
> was dissuaded from continuing it when a
friend's selectric broke under
the
actuator
he'd bought through an ad in BYTE.
from a building about to be domolished but belonging to
the "Phone Company"
(before the breakup) and the three that I got were
still in the sealed box.
These were definitely not "home" typewriters.
There were also numerous Teletype terminals (glass TTY) with band printers
and several different modems, not to mention quite a number of other fancy
phone hardware items, e.g. 6-button repertory-dialing phones, etc. This was
during the '70's when such things were still considered VERY fancy.
A properly setup mechanical actuator is quite a bit LESS stressfull to the
keyboard than a human. You are probably talking about the POS "home"
model, that would fall apart within a very short time if anybody typed on
it. It was nice to have for home use, but not suitable for office usage.
Using the keyboard actuator and a selectric as a substitute for a normal
printer seems a pretty BAD idea.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
<A HREF= "http://www.xenosoft.com/dogears" >DogEars</A>