On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Ah, but how do you feel about the REPLACEMENT keyboards that RS (coco),
IBM (Jr), and maybe even Commodore (Pet) replaced the Chiclets with?
(mine were replcaced FREE by RS and IBM!)
Answer CAREFULLY. How much is riding on the SHAPE of the keys, and how
much on the underlying mechanism/feel?
That is a hard thing to determine. I'd say that shape and feel are both
important, as the shape of the keys can enhance speed and accuracy almost
as much as having a good mechanism.
When IBM was planning the Jr, they asked [focus
groups] what they wanted.
People said that they wanted a "home" version of the PC, at half the
price. They EXPLICITLY said that they WOULD be willing to cut corners on
the keyboard!, be limited to single drive, less RAM, etc. But, when the
Jr. came out, IBM found out that there is a gap between what is asked for
and what is demanded. The purchasers bought the half-price Junior, and
then were irate that they were unable to expand it all of the way to the
equivalent of their office PC.
Indeed. I kind of like the IR keyboard and it seems to work better than
what the press let on, but it does seem to eat batteries (at least the
chicklet one, not sure about the enhanced keyboard). I wouldn't want to
type a paper with it for sure. Still, I imagine this is probably a matter
of asking the right questions for a market survey. What, if any, detail was
the focus group privy to when the compromises to the keyboard were asked
about? Did they follow up afterwards? Seems like they probably didn't and
just ran with it.
The PCjr is kind of a neat machine in its own right, but I have to think
that it is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, IBM wanted
to capture a chunk of the emerging home computer market, but on the other
hand not cannibalize sales from the more expensive (and more expandable)
IBM PC. It obviously had a couple of things going for it over the PC
(graphics and sound capability), but it was also more or less priced
basically smack-dab between the Commodore and Atari 8-bit offerings and the
IBM PC itself. In a practical sense the memory limitation made it about as
powerful as a C-64 or Atari 8-bit machine when accounting for tradeoffs in
custom chip capabilities vs a less powerful CPU in the case of the other
8-bit rivals. Most of the design compromises for it vs the PC seem
rational, with the exception of using BERG connectors for everything, which
is nonsensical to me. Well, that and the fact that IBM didn't offer
upgrades for a full 640kB RAM. I'm sure that the latter would have made it
a bit more palatable to people since the vast majority of PCs weren't sold
with 64kB ( or 128kB for that matter). From what I can tell, the DMA
restriction isn't too much of a problem in practical use, with the
exception of the serial port), so with just the additional memory it
probably would have enjoyed fairly good software compatibility with its big
brother.