Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!MBF@cmu-cs-c
From: MBF%cmu-cs-c@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: none
Message-ID: <2232@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 13:43:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2232
Posted: Thu Jun 16 13:43:00 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jun-83 15:04:32 EDT
Lines: 54

From: MBF

First, on the Apple keyboard:

	Since many system designers, Apple probably included, simply
arrange their keyboards as 8x8 (or some such) matrices of keys and scan
them, the only way they can get "true" n-key rollover would be to put
a lot of diodes on the keyboard matrix to prevent the "key aliasing"
syndrome which occurs when three keys depressed simultaneously "look like"
a fourth key.  No matter that the software polling algorithm really DOES
implement true n-key rollover (or 8-key, in some cases); the software
simply cannot tell the difference between 3 or 4 depressed keys which
are vertices of a rectangle in the keyboard matrix.  This phenomenon
occurs only for certain key combos, of course, resulting in an effective
3-key rollover capability; a shame, since I find 4-key to be pretty much
what I need.

	Frankly, I find that I type MUCH faster on a well-designed electronic
keyboard than I am able to on any traditional electric typewriter; thus
it's no surprise that a "traditional" (mechanical) typist is unfamiliar
with the concept of rollover - his painfully slow typing style was developed
on a rollover-less keyboard!

	Aside: I've personally standardized on the keyboard layout with
which I've found I can do the most per keystroke: the VT-52/VT-100/Human
Designed Systems/Heath H19/etc.. layout, which is sort of an extension of
the basic selectric layout and a departure from the standard low-end
tyewriter layout.  I wish everyone agreed with me; however, in the
meantime, I am soliciting similar and differing opinions on this practical
issue.  What's your favorite keyboard?  Why?

	On another issue, the bits and pieces I've picked up on the new,
$600 Coleco machine are that it is basically an in-house design - no big
OEM subsystems - with lots of shared components and bare-bones engineering
(read "economizing", not necessarily "cheap").  My personal opinion is
that it won't be a serious contender in the under-$1000 pc/hc market, largely
due to a serious case of the Commodore-itis: hardware and software engineering
executed by a technical group seemingly devoid of experience with serious
computers.  Admittedly, all of the machines in this price category have
varying degrees of congenital head injury, but some, like the Ataris and
to some degree the TI, show at least a measure of integrated systems
engineering as if they were designed by people who wanted to be proud
of their efforts.  But this is a religious issue...and unfortunately,
clever marketing plays entirely too much a part in successfully selling
large quantities of incompletely designed microcomputer systems (and
everything else, for that matter).

flames 'n' busses,
Mark Dzmura
via mbf@cmu-cs-c

p.s. I wonder how the Atari hackers, for all their basically sound design,
implemented a rollover-less (sounds good, eh?) keyboard?  I can't touch-type
on the stupid thing withou missing letters!!