|
|
|
Re: Adding Machines--Hermes; Underwood 1937 ten-key [message #347889 is a reply to message #347839] |
Sun, 09 July 2017 17:27 |
|
Originally posted by: Whiskers
On 2017-07-09, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 7/9/2017 1:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <ojts2021jo0@news7.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 2017-07-09, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Perhaps this was already explained, but I'm still confused why
>>>> _columnar_ adding machines and cash registers remained common into
>>>> the 1970s when the easier and faster _ten-key_ were available.)
>>>
>>> Inertia?
>>
>> Is a 10 key necessarily faster? You have to punch each digit in
>> sequence on those. The columnar machines are chording--you can enter
>> as many digits as there are columns simultaneously, so a skilled
>> operator would potentially be faster on the columnar machine.
>>
>> The level of effort needed to achieve that degree of skill however is
>> another story.
>>
> Probably less than the level of effort needed to achieve the skill to
> work a 10-key without looking at the keys.
>
> A column layout also helps ensure that the units go into the right
> place (e.g. 10s in the 10s column). And you don't have to key zeros,
> as they're the default. With a 10-key, if you miss a stroke you've
> changed the number by an order of magnitude.
I seem to remember the tabulator operators would save time by not using
the numbers above 5 - to enter 7 in a column, they'd type 5 then 2, both
keys being reachable without moving the arm at all.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Re: Adding Machines--Hermes; Underwood 1937 ten-key [message #347900 is a reply to message #347881] |
Sun, 09 July 2017 21:50 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 2:42:32 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ojts2021jo0@>, cgibbs@ says...
>>
>> On 2017-07-09, hancock4@ <hancock4@> wrote:
>>
>>> (Perhaps this was already explained, but I'm still confused why
>>> _columnar_ adding machines and cash registers remained common into the
>>> 1970s when the easier and faster _ten-key_ were available.)
>>
>> Inertia?
>
> Is a 10 key necessarily faster? You have to punch each digit in sequence
> on those. The columnar machines are chording--you can enter as many digits
> as there are columns simultaneously, so a skilled operator would
> potentially be faster on the columnar machine.
>
> The level of effort needed to achieve that degree of skill however is
> another story.
Having used both, as well as been a customer in supermarkets where both
were used, my experience has been that a ten-key was significantly faster.
It is true a skilled operator theorectically could hit multiple columns
simultaneously on a columnar keypad, but I don't recall it being done
and would imagine its cumbersome.
There was a time when supermarkets had electronic cash registers but
they weren't scanners. That alone sped up the lines. My recollection
is that even experienced cashiers were slow punching in the numbers on
a columnar keypad.
Admittedly, there was an adding machine known as the Comptometer where
its operators were known for being very fast on a columnar keypad.
I can only guess that ten-key was faster than columnar since ten-key
eventually replaced it, even in mechanical adding machines. My _guess_
is that columnar was cheaper to manufacture, which is why it lasted
so long. I don't think anyone ever made a columnar keypad for an
electronic device.
Question--did the 026 keypunch have its numeric characters in the same
place as the 029?
|
|
|
Re: Adding Machines--Hermes; Underwood 1937 ten-key [message #347913 is a reply to message #347900] |
Mon, 10 July 2017 02:28 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:50:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I don't think anyone ever made a columnar keypad for an
> electronic device.
Oh, yes, they *did*, but since it was unnecessarily expensive, this was done only for a very few early electronic devices.
> Question--did the 026 keypunch have its numeric characters in the same
> place as the 029?
Yes.
John Savard
|
|
|
Re: Adding Machines--Hermes; Underwood 1937 ten-key [message #347914 is a reply to message #347913] |
Mon, 10 July 2017 02:33 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399 Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:28:20 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:50:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I don't think anyone ever made a columnar keypad for an
>> electronic device.
> Oh, yes, they *did*, but since it was unnecessarily expensive, this was done
> only for a very few early electronic devices.
And here's one example:
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/cold-cathode_tube___d ekatron.html
which is interesting for another reason. This electronic calculator was from
1961, and so it used vacuum tubes, not transistors.
>> Question--did the 026 keypunch have its numeric characters in the same
>> place as the 029?
> Yes.
This page
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/026.html
shows a diagram of the keyboard of the Model 026 keypunch from IBM
documentation.
And here is a photograph of a Model 26 keyboard,
http://zdnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/08/25/4c0dac64-2c1 6-11e4-9e6a-00505685119a/resize/1170x878/e30482fe5ab642d5c9e c55899a87b59f/2punchmach-v2.jpg
it's contained within this page
http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/photos-100-years-of-computing- from-punched-cards-to-floppy-disks/
For comparison, this page
http://physicsmuseum.uq.edu.au/ibm-card-punch-model-29
has a photograph of the Model 29 keyboard, and the numbers are in the same
place.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Adding Machines--Hermes; Underwood 1937 ten-key [message #347941 is a reply to message #347914] |
Mon, 10 July 2017 14:45 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:33:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:28:20 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:50:26 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>> I don't think anyone ever made a columnar keypad for an
>>> electronic device.
>
>> Oh, yes, they *did*, but since it was unnecessarily expensive, this was done
>> only for a very few early electronic devices.
>
> And here's one example:
>
> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/cold-cathode_tube___d ekatron.html
>
> which is interesting for another reason. This electronic calculator was from
> 1961, and so it used vacuum tubes, not transistors.
Interesting, thanks.
Also had a nice explanation of cold-cathode tubes vs. hot tubes.
> And here is a photograph of a Model 26 keyboard,
>
> http://zdnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/08/25/4c0dac64-2c1 6-11e4-9e6a-00505685119a/resize/1170x878/e30482fe5ab642d5c9e c55899a87b59f/2punchmach-v2.jpg
One data center we used to visit had both 026's and 029's. We
always tried to get an 029, but only because they were newer and
the 026 seemed so damned old fashioned. But for what we were doing,
either machine would've worked.
Thanks for the pictures.
|
|
|
|