Computing desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 26[edit]

Keyboard layout[edit]

The article Keyboard layout tells us "Many Unix workstations (and also home computers like the Amiga) keyboards placed the Ctrl key to the left of the letter A, and the Caps Lock key in the bottom left." File:IBM PC XT 5160.JPG shows that the IBM XT too had its Ctrl key immediately to the left of A. But the IBM AT and generations of clones/derivatives thereof have instead put the Caps Lock key there. Why was this change made? -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific information about the actual decision, but as someone who learned to type in 1970, I can affirm that Caps Lock next to A was then the standard position on manual (and I'm sure electric) typewriters. Having it elsewhere on a computer keyboard is an annoyance to those who have already learned to type on non-computer devices, so the AT and successors were merely following established keyboard convention.

Perhaps the more relevant question is 'why did Unix, etc., deviate from the norm?' I suspect it was because designers and most users of those particular early computers were in the main not trained typists. When use of computers spread beyond the core IT community, the inconvenience of a non-standard Caps Lock position would have become more obvious, so perhaps the AT's designers sensibly took account of this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Ctrl key left of A is very much a Posix thing. It makes it easier to do Ctrl-key combinations because it is simply closer to the other keys. The decision to pick the Ctrl key most likely came from developing Unix (and C) on the PDP-11 through Unix version 4. The PDP-11 keyboard places both the caps lock and ctrl keys left of the A key. There are no keys down by the space bar. Because it became a vital key for Posix systems, it only makes sense that users would want it nearby. There are still people who map the Caps-Lock key to behave as a Ctrl key. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping the CapsLock key to something else is sometimes because users hate caps lock. Several of my users (before I retired) had the CapsLock key mapped to something else to avoid accidental switching into capitals, a serious problem for a case-sensitive OS. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating, but from what I can tell from the image, the older IBM keyboard only had one CTRL key, whereas the AT/Model M keyboard has two, right and left. Maybe the CTRL was moved to the first row to put them on the same row. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the responses. I do understand that some typing has to be in all caps, and that for five (or so) or more consecutive caps a caps lock key might be less of an irritation than leaving one finger on the shift key. But back in the 80s I very rarely wanted to type a header or whatever all in caps, and I've rarely wanted to do so since. By contrast, I've always made plenty of use of Ctrl combinations. I've no strong reason to think that my uses of keys were typical of computer users, but I doubt that they were freakish. It always puzzled me that IBM would move left Ctrl somewhere inconvenient, that the obvious place for it would be usurped by the (to me) near-useless caps lock key, that other companies would follow suit, and that computer buyers/users would acquiesce. But I assumed that IBM would have had a reason (other than just to annoy people like me). -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who learnt to type on manual machines, the caps lock was essential. It had to be positioned above a shift key as it mechanically locked the shift key in the down position. The shift key on a manual typewriter physically shifted the relative positions of the platen and typebars. See typewriter and more particularly the images thereon to see the relative positions of shift lock key and shift key. The first electric typewriters were used by people trained on mechanical machines so kept the same layout, see the illustration of the IBM Selectric II. Electric typewriters were of course among the first input mechanisms to computers, so when video terminals came along they kept the same layout and later PCs. So you see the positioning of the CapsLock key to the left of the A key is to enable the Shift key to be mechanically locked! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too learned to type on a manual machine; and for me, the shift lock was inessential. I do understand that it was essential for many people, and that by far the simplest way to implement it was as an actual lock of the shifted state, and thus right above the shift key. But back then shift lock wasn't in competition with a Ctrl key for a prime position in the keyboard. The first computer I had ran CP/M-80, mostly for WordStar; and in WordStar much was achieved with the combination of "WordStar diamond" and Ctrl key. That was of course decades ago, but even now copying, cutting, pasting, printing, reverting, etc are normally achieved with Ctrl combinations (if not via mousing around in menus), and I'd be very surprised if many people use their Caps Lock key more often than they use their Ctrl key. Though of course I'm most open to being shown that I'm wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is certainly the case, but it was not so during the extended overlap and transition from traditionally laid out typewriter keyboards to computer keyboards. Cultural inertia tends to accommodate established users, who will vociferously protest at a change that conflicts with their muscle memory.

For that matter, why do we stick with the QUERTY layout? It was introduced to avoid the key jamming that occurred when typing fast using once-widespread mechanical designs, a problem that no longer exists. Other earlier layouts (in combination with non-jamming mechanisms) were actually more efficient, having been designed with that intention (I possess an 1896 Blinkenderfer No. 5 with such a layout), but I see little likelyhood of such better layouts being re-introduced in the next generation of IT keyboards. 176.24.47.60 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some similarities between 21st-century adherence to the traditional siting of shift/caps lock and 21st-century adherence to the QWERTY layout. But there's at least one major difference. Whereas I expect that the average typist can adapt (with more or less initial/lasting annoyance) to an unfamiliar siting of Ctrl (or CapsLock, Alt, or whatever) a radical remapping (not merely to AZERTY) of the letters threatens to bring the competent typist back down to non-typist (at least at the start). -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt AI-supported vocal imput will replace keyboarding soon, anyway :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.103.187 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I can type faster than I can speak, and it is easier to check edit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What competent people can do is less important to vendors than what the majority of their customers want. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.103.187 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the change in key configuratiin has anything to do with copyright, or the ability to copywrite, a specific keyboard design. Ditch ∝ 10:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think copyright would be applicable. Patent might, but has anyone ever tried to patent a particular layout? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.103.187 (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emulated calculator runs as slowly as the real thing[edit]

This calculator when run on my pc runs as slowly as the real thing. While I do understand that there is a considerable overhead when emulating a calculator, you would think that there would still be an improvement in speed when emulating a 1980s calculator on today's computer. So, what causes this calculator to run so slowly? Count Iblis (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be emulating its behaviour if it went fast! It very possibly has a run fast mode in the documentation somewhere. NadVolum (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it says "If you want calculator programs to run faster, there's a setting for that. But watching the 7-segment flashing "running" message is, to my mind, part of the fun!". Quite right. I intend getting one up sometime that takes four seconds to multiply two numbers. 😁 NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it now. On the top right there is the menu, and one can then change the delay of 50 ms per instruction to 0 ms in the settings. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]