From: STeve Andre' (andres_at_msu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 27 2000 - 12:21:34 EDT
Oh My! Keyboard religious wars! I'd forgotten how much fun they were. I
shall
only say that having the crtl key where shift-lock normally is was/is
great, if you
are a programmer/command line type of person. For those people, hitting
a control-char is a lot more frequent than needing to go into a shifted
mode. What
I'd love to see is a keyboard which could do either--have a little switch
on the
bottom and an extra set of keys to change out so us could have what we wanted.
Sigh.
--STeve Andre'
At 09:03 AM 4/27/00 -0700, Randal Whittle wrote:
>At 11:56 AM 04/27/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Randal Whittle wrote:
>>
>> > Then what Ronald is complaining about is that IBM didn't continue
>> > the *flawed* keyboard in the original PC/XT design, because that Ctrl key
>> > had no business supplanting the position where the Caps Lock key had
>>
>>I have no intention to start a religious OS war but the placement of the
>>Ctrl key is only flawed to users limited to MS Windows/DOS OS's. For other
>>OS's, viz., Unix and the various varients the Ctrl key is best placed in
>>the position that the cap lock key now typically resides.
>>Regards,rj
>
> By "Flawed" I meant only that the other flavors of computer
> keyboards broke ranks with the standard Dvorak layout (which had already
> been in pace for decades) by moving already established keys around.
>
> The current PC keyboard keeps the keys where they always were,
> adding space for computer-specific F-keys, Ctrl, etc.
>
> The Suns, etc. monkeyed with the original--they are the ones that
> broke ranks, and even among all of them, the keyboard layouts vary
> somewhat (I remember all too well the DEC VT-100's keyboard).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:56:00 EST