Slashdot Mirror
The 10 Worst PC Keyboards of All Time
Kabz found the 10 Worst PC Keyboards of all time which leads off with the Commodore 64 and takes a trip through PCjr country. Might trigger some nostalgia, or some sort of flashback wrist strain.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I don't know about the Commadore, but I loved the Commodore 64 despite its own keyboard; though on that computer the keyboard took quite the back-seat, in terms of irritation, to the tape deck...
Though he may be on to something, since, as I sit here typing this, I'm consciously flexing my wrists ever few seconds...
The layout of the keyboard on the n810 is not that good either.
Its more geared (as the rest of things are on the device) for a right handed person and theres odd things missing.
(just a bit frustrated, the rest of the device is amazing)
liqbase
10. Commodore 64 (1982)
The Commodore 64 sits on a mile-high pedestal in the adolescent memories of millions of people, but its keyboard design--shared by Commodore's earlier VIC-20--was incredibly clumsy. One glance at it reveals three major flaws. It was visually confusing, with too many symbols printed on each key. The computer's anti-ergonomic 2-inch height made it extremely hard on the wrists of untrained typists. And the keyboard's layout leaves much to be desired, with numerous examples of poor key placement. For example, the Home/Clear key sat directly to the left of Delete (Backspace), resulting in users' making repeated accidental hits and sending the cursor back up to the top of the screen. In addition, the layout was peppered with an unusually large number of nonstandard keys such as Run/Stop and Restore. Luckily, most C64 owners remained oblivious to these problems: More often than not, they used the C64 for playing games with joysticks, saving the heavy computing work for dad's IBM PC.
9. Timex Sinclair 2068 (1983)
In the process of "improving" the wildly successful Sinclair ZX Spectrum for the United States market, Timex ruined the line with a bastardized version known as the Timex Sinclair 2068. But the 2068 shared one significant feature with its progenitor that it should have left behind: an atrocious keyboard. It's no exaggeration to say that using the 2068's keyboard without training was like trying to type while drunk and blindfolded. Some of the keys controlled as many as six different functions. Just to rub it all in, the unit had no Backspace key, a fault of many other early home computers. Did the designers assume that typists would never make mistakes? I bet the masterminds behind the 2068's keyboard backspaced over this part of their design history long ago.
8. Commodore PET 2001-32-N (1978)
Critics hailed the revised, full-stroke keyboard of the updated Commodore PET (model 2001-32-N) as a huge improvement over Commodore's first PET keyboard. But Commodore still got a few layout points terribly wrong. For one thing, the design repeated the old "Run/Stop key placed directly to the left of the Return key" trick. For another, it went with the ever-popular "lack of Backspace" maneuver; to perform something resembling a Backspace, you had to hold Shift and the left/right cursor key above the numeric keypad. And since the creators of this keyboard included a numeric keypad in the design, they cleverly omitted numbers from the primary keyboard area altogether--if you pressed keys that would conjure up numbers on any other remotely semistandard QWERTY keyboard, you'd get symbols instead. And hey, has anyone seen the period key? Oh, it's over there on the numeric keypad.
7. Texas Instruments TI-99/4 (1979)
With the release of the TI-99/4 in 1979, integrated-circuit pioneer TI took its first shaky steps into the home computer market with a $1150 package that included a special monitor and a calculator-like Chiclet keyboard. Like the original Apple II, the 99/4 did not support lowercase letters. Because of this limitation, the Shift key served as a function modifier, with the functions typically marked on a plastic overlay. The most frustrating of these key combinations was Shift-Q, which would quit a program or reset the computer, much to the chagrin of users who lost a day's work while erroneously trying to capitalize the letter Q. The 99/4's layout problems extended beyond the Q conundrum: The Enter key sat where a Right Shift key would normally reside on a standard layout. Also, the keyboard had a space key instead of a spacebar, and it was located in an odd position. The design had no dedicated Backspace key,
Having used (blissfully) a Kinesis Contour for half a year now after a bout with nasty RSI.....I think PC manufacturers still have a long, long way to go. And yes, Dvorak is better than Qwerty (switched shortly before buying the Kinesis). http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/contoured_usb.htm
Okay, they get some credit for including the Atari 400 keyboard. That thing was useless.
I take issue with the complaint about the C64 keyboard. The only serious problem with the C64 keyboard was its integration with the computer so that every bang of a key sent a nice little shockwave into the electronics. The extra symbols were on the edge of the key and printed in a different color. It took about 5 minutes before the operator learned to ignore them. They were, however, extremely helpful to the software developers that wanted to use those symbols. I also don't recall having any trouble missing the backspace key and hitting clear/home. I can see how I might if I had previously been used to a long backspace key, but I wasn't previously used to one.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
How could they miss out the ZX-81 - a flat, plastic, touch-sensitive membrane with almost no tactile feedback... it was like typing wearing gauntlets
It was only slightly improved with the spectrum keyboard which was like typing on a the back of a slightly tacky, warty toad...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
ScienceSeeker.org
I've discovered a use for the Windows key.
I don't have multimedia keys, so I mapped Win+Left = previous track, Win+Right = next track, Win+Up = volume up, Win+Ins = Play/Pause, etc. I also have Win+F = Firefox, Win+T = Thunderbird, etc.
In this way, they do act as global modifiers rather than a separate key.
It's a wrist rest; look on the left and you'll see a key marked "SPACE". I made the same mistake too.
Macs have used USB for ages, so go get a "PC" keyboard & mouse and use those instead. I've used (now-discontinued) MacAlly keyboards for years because I don't like the ones that Apple makes, Apple's for some reason have slightly larger keycaps that make me prone to typos (big hands as well).
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Mostly, I don't understand why the article complains so much about old keyboards, from times when everyone, including the computer companies, was still working things out. There are perfectly crappy keyboards on the market right now. Sure, they have a "standard" layout, but after using them for 3 weeks the keys start to rub off so you can start to learn touch-typing, except that the tactile feedback is nonexistent and the keypresses unreliable. I'd consider that much worse than having key X next to key Y.
Also, can we add the article to the list of "10 worst article navigation methods"?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...because aside from its sound it was a rather mediocre machine.
I dunno, given that the real competitors to the C=64 was the Atari 400 and the T.I. 99/4, I think it wasn't so bad.
The Atari 400 and the TI 99/4 were released almost 3 years before (1979) the C64 (1982). They were the VIC-20's competition, not the C64's competition.
Atari's competition to the C64 was intended to be the 1200XL (similar capability and also released in 1982). It's too bad you never owned one of those, because it's keyboard was VASTLY superior to the C64's. Also, the 1050 disk and the 1010 tape drives were both better then the commodore equivalents and it had better graphics than the C64.
Sadly, the 1200XL had compatibility problems with the 400 and 800, and Atari couldn't make money with the price pressure put upon it by the C64, so the 800XL was brought out that ironed out some bugs integrated BASIC into built-in ROM, etc, but in its cost cutting effort the keyboard was of lower quality (yet still better than the C64).
Also, at what point does price enter into this? C=64 was around $199 at the time the PC came out at, oh 7 or 8 times the price...
The IBM PC came out a few months BEFORE the C64 you know, and the C64 didn't start out at such a low price, it just got there quite quickly.
Also, to make the C64 usable you had to add a tape or floppy, and most likely a printer. The floppy cost more than the C64 itself for a time when supply was much smaller than demand. Also, the C64 and the 800XL were quite closely priced, and the 800XL was faster and had better graphics and a better keyboard even though it was a "cheapened 1200XL" design.
I also owned a Coleco ADAM which was sold as a package with built in tape drive and printer included. in 1984 it was about $100 cheaper than a comparable C64 system. The Coleco TAPE drive literally loaded faster than the C54 FLOPPY drive, and a Coleco tape held 75% more data than a C64 floppy. The Coleco CPU ran at 4 times the clock speed of the C64 and could do raw computations ad a bit more than twice the speed of the C64, and it had dedicated video RAM so nearly all the 64K of main ram could be available for applications. Above all, the ADAM keyboard was of very high quality--it had about 75 keys and 4 properly-arranged actual arrow keys (not 2 arrow keys side-by-side that needed the shift key to move up and down). Made it really good for typing out papers.
Looking back, the C64 was really a lesson in marketing--there was technically superior competition out there on all fronts except sound--it had a bad keyboard, bad BASIC with barely more than 50% of ram usable, very slow floppy, middle-of-the-road graphics and was a bit flimsy. It was, however, very well marketed, priced very aggressively and had the best software library out there (pretty much all the hit games of the Atari and better application software in addition). All that momentum led to third-party enhancements to overcome many C64 weaknesses. Still had a bad keyboard for years though.
I can't believe that the C64's keyboard was given a worse rating than the Atari 400? If I remember well enough, wasn't there a model that had a keyboard grid that overlayed the plastic pressure keys?
All I can remember of the Atati 400 was having not having a natural feel while typing on it. It seemed I spent more time holding a single key down until the keyboard registered that I was pressing the key.
It was the Atari 400's keyboard that kept me away from that thing.
And not even original
I don't care why you're posting AC
Damn near everything is worse then one of those "Roll Up USB Keyboards" since I actually use one of them. very nice and I don't have to worry about buttons popping off, liquids contaminating the insides and such.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
There is indeed a second PCjr keyboard that came out very soon after release. This keyboard could operate in wireless mode or with a wire.
Also, the PCjr could display 16 colors at one time in 160x200 or 320x200 mode and 4 colors at 640x200. I believe a stock machine had 64K and can be expanded up to 640K.
PCjr was a great machine, but some idiotic decisions in some areas killed it.
You know, you can still buy Model M keyboards from Unicomp. You want their "Customizer" line. The Das Keyboard is also a good option. It's a little quieter than the Model M, but still gives plenty of feedback. It's also a whole lot lighter than the Model M, which you may or may not like.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I just love my new Apple Wireless keyboard. It's very thin and light. It uses so little desktop space. I can use it as a media remote. And the keys feel great. I've been programming since 1980, and I like this as much as the old IBM clickys. I do lose the home row, but that's very seldom, and a quick glance down maybe once a day, and that's fixed. My verdict -- it's great! They got the feel of the keys just right! I can actually type faster on that keyboard.
What makes it worse is that every now and again, Apple pulls out the stops to make a keyboard or mouse that isn't just good, it's legendary.
Serious. In the "Best Keyboard Ever" sweepstakes, there's the IBM Model M, and there's the Apple Extended II at the top, and then it falls off a cliff. Nothing else is anywhere near as good. There's a company charging almost $150 for a bog-standard 110 key USB keyboard - and getting it - because its key action and layout are almost exactly like the old Extended II.
Then Apple turns around and gives us crap like the new Son of Chicklet bluetooth rattleboard or the original iMac hockey-puck mouse. Madness, I tell you.