Per your comment on the 3279: Did you ever use any of the original 3279 terminals with the ³chicklet² keyboards? We had serial numbers 6, 10 and 12, and the keyboards were horrible; there was ample space between the keys (both vertically and horizontally) for you to be able to miss a key entirely. The intent was to allow overlays to be put over the keyboard describing additional functions and / or layouts, but it was abysmal to type on.
We also had some of the 3290 terminals, with the 160 column screens, which could be split into four 80 column virtual screens. These were great, other than coming only in orange. We had them as Operator consoles, allowing them to monitor four screens at a time, and blow up one screen when something deemed important was going on there. There¹ve been so many attempts to supplant the 80 column ³card² mentality that have failed so completely. I.E. The 90 column System-3 cards, for example. I¹m not sure why Mr. Hollerith chose 80 columns, but it has really hung on. (Actually, Hollerith¹s original cards were 45 columns, with round holes. It would appear that IBM is responsible for the rectangle holes and the 80 columns.) Have a great Tuesday... -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation .~. RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW /V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 / ( ) \ ----- ^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but ³Join the story... Ride Ural.² in practice, theory and practice are different." On 2/12/08 1:08 PM, "David Boyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All facetiousness aside, there¹s a remarkable amount of ergonomics and human > factors stuff that went into the 3278 that is still valid. Having that sucker > be 2.5-3 ft high just to put the screen at eye level was a Good Thing. Having > a keyboard that gave you really good tactile feedback was a Good Thing > (perfected, IMHO, in the 3279). Having fonts that clearly distinguished > between O and 0 and S and 8 was a Good Thing (as was the sizing of same). > > All in all, maybe the 80-col 3270 *isn¹t* such a bad thing. > > -- db > >
