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.

10 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by ricebowl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kabz found the 10 Worst PC Keyboards of all time which leads off with the Commadore 64 and take a trip through PCjr country. Might trigger some nostalgia, or some sort of flashback wrist strain.

    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...

    1. Re:Well... by darthflo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Caps Lock can be quite useful with exotic keyboard layouts. The best example of which I could think is the standard Swiss layout. It accomodates all the accents and umlauts for Switzerland's four official languages and an awesome shitload of special chars most people wouldn't even dream of having on a single keyboard (ranging from $, £ and to , and ).
      To accomodate all those functions, several keys have three, some up to five(!) functions (example: Normal: ü, Shift: é, CL: Ü, CL+Shift: É, Ctrl+Alt: [). There's also discrete umlaut and accent keys (e.g. Ctrl + Alt + , then Shift + E for É).

      Long story short: Some languages require more characters than US-ASCII and some layouts have been built to provide those with CapsLock as a modifier.

    2. Re:Well... by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you move diagonally with the arrow keys?

      I'm confused by this statement. First, there's the obvious answer: press two arrows at once.

      Secondly, you can't move diagonally with the numeric keypad with numlock off. 7 is Home, 1 is End, 9 is Page Up, and 3 is Page Down. So pressing diagonally will either take you to the start/end, or up/down a page. It won't move diagonally.

      In one of the responses you mentioned video games, but the only game I can think of that actually uses movement like that is Civ 4, and it supports using the number keys on the numeric keypad regardless of Numlock's state. I would hope that most games that support the numpad will work in both states.

      I've never felt the need to pop off numlock (I've never accidentally hit it) but it still is fairly useless - why would I ever want to turn the numpad into a duplicate of the keys to its immediate left? (I'm aware of its historical use, on keyboards without the navigation keys. But on modern keyboards it's pretty useless.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  2. Full text of article by duguk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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,

  3. Re:Apparently... by word+munger · · Score: 3, Informative

    What I find odd is that Apple's newest keyboard is just a modern rehash of the IBM PCjr chicklet design, and yet nobody I've talked to has made big complaints about it. Honestly, the thing is worse than a rollup USB pocket keyboard, worse than those little laser-on-the-table keyboards, worse than typing through one of those plastic grease-shield membranes on a cash register, and yet, because it's done by Apple, it's gotten a free ticket to reinvent the chicklet without an uproar.
    I'm typing on the new Apple keyboard as we speak. I actually voluntary upgraded to this keyboard from the previous model because I didn't like the feel of that one. It's nothing like the PC Jr chiclet keyboard -- the keys have excellent feel and it's easy to type fast. It would be better if the keys had a least a little bit of depression in the middle like the older iBooks and PowerBooks, but I much prefer this model to the last Apple keyboard.
  4. Re:What, no ZX81? by JenniP · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ZX81 was there, it just went by its American name the Timex Sinclair 1000. I was a bit surprised not to see a Spectrum though, I used to hate those rubber keys.

  5. disagree on some points by Tom · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have to disagree on a number of points, that I think could've been researched better:
    • The "nonstandard keys" complaint about the C64 ignores that back in 1973 when the C64 was designed, there was no standard. You can't be "nonstandard" if there isn't a standard. Even the IBM 8086 keyboards where "nonstandard" by that definition (check here and here for examples)
    • Snide remark: The vast majority of C64 owners didn't do "real work on daddy's IBM PC" because daddy didn't own a computer at all back then. We were the first generation with computers at home, for the most part.
    • The constant whining about the lack of backspace ignores that on many of those machines (I don't know all of them, so some might work differently) the delete key actually worked as backspace when you were at the end of a line.


    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
  6. C64 was a testament to good marketing by WebCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...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.

  7. Re:Apparently... by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 3, Informative

    What I find odd is that Apple's newest keyboard is just a modern rehash of the IBM PCjr chicklet design, and yet nobody I've talked to has made big complaints about it.
    Have you ever actually used one for more than an hour? I switched from the old Mac keyboard to the new keyboard when my computer was refreshed and at first I thought I'd hate it, but I've fell in love with it. The keystroke travel is just as good as the old keyboard and it's thin and light. I have no problems at all typing on it just as fast as the old style keyboards.
  8. Re:How about the best by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!