Talk:Model M keyboard

message: What about the Model-Ms that were "Manufactured for IBM by Lexmark" that do not have bucking springs, but instead membranes?  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about them? If you know anything about them, you might want to add it to the article — Felix the Cassowary 03:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have covered this in the history section Esr (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Some Model M's were made with a rubber dome under each key (they're in the variants chart), but none were made with a membrane contact sheet instead of buckling springs (or domes), as you describe. All standard buckling-spring M's have a membrane whose contacts are closed by the spring-operated "feet" above it. But no Model M's were made with only membranes, similarly to the cheap membrane keyboards that flooded in from Asia, ending the "golden age" of vintage mechanicals. Those are different things entirely. IBM did indeed switch to membrane keyboards when they phased out the Model M; they continue to sell them today. But although they say "IBM", none say "Model M"; that'd be a contradiction. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model Ms without Buckling Springs 

message: Since this page no longer simply deals with IBM made Model Ms, I suggest we move it to "Model M Keyboard" and create redirects from IBM Model M Keyboard, Model M, Lexmark Model M Keyboard, etc.  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 02:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done.  Now redirects to "Model M keyboard" Brak710101 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me stupid, but it seems the page was not moved so much as copied. Is there a reason the history and relevant talk page were not moved with the article? Also, I'm sorely disappointed that this move wasn't done with some sort of consensus being reached, although I would have voted in favor of it. --BorgHunter (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just moved the talk page.  I posted the original message in this thread in order to come to a consensus before moving.   It seems that anytime I make a suggestion similar to this, someone either removes it or carries it out with no consensus being reached.  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 06:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe try following WP:RM; just making a suggestion seems open-ended, and although people moving the page is WP:BOLD, it may sometimes confuse or anger people, and it also might be inappropriate. If, when suggesting a move, you list it on RM, you might have better luck reaching consensus before someone up and moves the page, especially in the manner this one was moved (i.e. copy-and-pasted). --BorgHunter (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Model M Keyboard"? 

message: The article says that drinks spilled in a Model M will imediately short circuit it.  I have seen Model M's survive drink spills without any permanent damage on several occasions.  I'm wondering whether this claim is accurate. --jacobolus (t) 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine has even survived a glass of red wine impacting on the keyboard for two days. OK. I had to soak the dissected Model M in warm soap sud for some hours. This happend about 8 years ago and it is still in operation.--87.183.130.186 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Indeed, I have it on good authority that only spilling a drink made in the same year as the keyboard will reliably put it out of commission. It must also be the type of junk-food drink favored by computer users. Thus if you want to short out a 1987 p/n 1390131, you must track down something akin to a 1987 Coke, Dad's Root Beer or Nehi. This is not an easy task, and unopened examples of these beverages may cost more than the keyboard itself. :?)  – AndyFielding (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, following up (seven years later, LOL) on my facetious preceding comment: The "Drainage Channels" column in the Variants chart indicates a feature IBM/Lexmark added in the '90s, specifically to allow spilled liquids to drain out of the bottoms of M's. If you look at an M with the keys removed (example here), you'll see that there's otherwise not much of a place for spilled liquid to go, as the protruding key "barrels' are moulded into the plastic plate around them. But if spilled liquid were left in the M, most people would do the worst thing: picking up the keyboard and inverting it to pour the liquid out. And that could cause trouble, allowing sugary liquid to get up under the keys. I've never had to try this (I'd disassemble and clean it first)—but it's possible that if you spilled some pop (for example) into a drainage-hole-equipped M, you could follow it up with a reasonable amount of water, to clean the stickiness out. Perhaps someone else can confirm or debunk this. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  drinks spilled 

message: I have a keyboard here whose FCC ID is IYL1395100 (that 1395100 on the end is what is meant by "model number", right?). Everything on the label: manufactured by Lexmark, copyright Lexmark Int'l Inc. 1984, part number 1370477, ID number 5053040, plant number F2, 21-NOV-94, Model M, made in the USA, part-15-of-the-FCC-rules-stuff, FCC ID IYL1395100. There are also some electrical-symbol-looking things, and some logos and such. --Ihope127 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1395100 by Lexmark? 

message: During the summer of 2004, I was working for the US Army Judge Advocate General's Office in DC as a summer legal intern.  One particular day, I had nothing to do, and sitting in my office browsing the internet, when I came across Daniel Rutter's (of dansdata.com) article about the Model M.  I immediately recognized this as the keyboard that, some months earlier, I quite by accident acquired and had come to love.  A little later that same afternoon, I was looking around Wikipedia (having come from a Slashdot article about Wikipedia if I recall) - and quite skeptically I might add.  But after finding no page about my keyboard, I thought I might try to put my own little stamp on it, and went ahead and created this article.
The point is: I never, ever thought that so many people would pick it up and run with it, and that it would turn into the astounding piece of community-produced work that it is today.  So I wanted to just take a few minutes here and thank everybody - not just for making this a good article, but for all the contributions you have made or will make to all the articles.  I was skeptical of the value of Wikipedia then, but I am assuredly not anymore.  Thanks! 
Pusher robot 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for creating the article. I'm one of the ones who has done a bit of work to this article, though I can't recall how I managed to come across it. I do have a Model M, and I'm currently waking up my roommate by using it, but I still love it. I'm not sure if the articel inspired me to get this keyboard, or having the keyboard inspired me to visit the article, but it was one of the first articles I really edited heavily. And now I'm quite proud of it, though it still needs work. Such as, references. —BorgHunter  (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly off topic 

message: I have a Lexmark 1984 model m2.  It's got softer keys and doesn't have removable keytops (just removable keys).  I can supply more info and pictures if requested. -- Sy / (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to supply more info and pictures would be in the article. ;) —BorgHunter  (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  model m2 

message: I might add that some Model M's have different key feel, but they all have the same distinctive sound. I think they soften up and become less resistant to keypresses with use, I have here like 3 Model M's. My 1991 model that has seen loads of use, is softer than my practically NOS 1993. I'll probably not add this into the article without consensus, as it could be perceived OR. »ctails!« =hello?= 23:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  key feel after use 

message: First, this apparently was never reviwed in the first place, and second, just three references, none of which are inline and thusly are hard to determine where they go to, is not "well-referenced". Homestarmy 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: Is there a citation for Lexmarks being "Widely regarded as somewhat inferior in build quality to the original Model M" in the History section.  Not something I'd heard before, and not my experience either.
--76.178.251.61 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative quality of Lexmark Model Ms 

message: Model M Keyboard was recently moved to IBM Model M Keyboard.  Since Lexmark and Unicomp have also made the keyboards, I think the move should be reverted.  This also applies to the ThinkPad (now made by Lenovo) --Karnesky 11:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The article was originally at IBM Model M Keyboard but was moved to Model M Keyboard for exactly that reason. —BorgHunter  (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that bit of history, I think the initial move was premature think the burden should be on any arguments to move it to IBM Model M Keyboard.  As such, I've moved it back.  --Karnesky 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I have a strong feeling that the table is getting increasingly crufty and unmanageable. Do we really need to know about every single Model M model ever made (except notably the split one)? As it stands, it's about 1/2 size of the article. I have half a mind to remove it as keyboardcruft. Thoughts? —Crazytales o.o 03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a slight preference to keep it, or at least to keep some of the most common models.  It serves as an informative comparison.  I wouldn't be opposed to breaking it off into a new article, but I don't think it should just be deleted. --Karnesky 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I userfied it. Check User:crazytales/Model M table. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Since a separate person readded it & I stated that it should be part of WP proper, I don't know why you'd move it to your own userspace.  Do you intend to clean the list up & then readd it? --Karnesky 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to clean up the list; that's why I copied it to my own userspace. I ws a bit unclear on that. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add that I just purchased a model M keyboard and the table on this page was very useful for me for getting an overview of the different models. Debolaz 20:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the list is extremely useful; it's really the only place online that comprehensively lists all the models and their types.  Deleting it would be a shame.  That said, it needs some clean-up TheHolyMacintosh (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd chip in that I'm the anon user that re-added the table.  The information in it is invaluable.  If anything, it could be cleaned up and perhaps moved to a linked page. Bwojcik (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Besides, as it's normally folded up, only those who actually want to see it need to. If only more things in life were like that, huh? – AndyFielding (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove table? 

message: I just bought myself a model M 42H1292 keyboard. The thing is, this page lists that particular model as being produced by Lexmark, while the keyboard is marked on the keyboard itself as being produced by IBM UK. Is this an error in the article? Debolaz 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see this was added. I've also added to the Copyright column, (UK-produced examples have no ©). I'm sure this is true of other UK-produced M's as well, as a copyright notice didn't seem to be part of their labeling format. Maybe there was some concern in the European community that IBM might try to claim copyright on anything produced with IBM-copyrighted equipment.  :?)  – AndyFielding (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  42H1292 produced by IBM UK? 

message: From www.clickykeyboards.com...
:As a computer systems engineer in real-life, I typically spend long hours in front of a computer. The last time I checked, I could type as fast as 100 - 110 words per minute. I have always needed an industrial-strength keyboard. In November of 1984, I was able to purchase my first IBM PC 5170 PC/AT (Intel 80286 processor at 8 MHz (.008 GHz) with a 30MB (0.03 GB) hard drive, and 512K (0.5MB) of RAM for $9000. Little did I know that I would still be looking forward to using the same keyboard in 2006 (i.e., TWENTY TWO (22) years later).
:Today’s new entry-level computers (Intel Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz, 40GB of hard drive, 256MB of RAM) start at $399. Computer manufacturers bundle these systems with cheap, lightweight "free with purchase" keyboards. As a cost-savings measure (in other words, in order to maximize their profit ) they can not justify anything more than a $5 - $7 keyboard with the belief that most people will not notice the difference. The first thing that I do when I setup a new computer for myself, is re-attach my very durable 1985 IBM model M keyboard (serial #5548).
::Of course, he sells them, too.  ;?)  – AndyFielding (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation regarding durability 

message: My German 1391403 with fixed cable by lexmark/uk was made 1994-09-29, i added this date to the table as end of production for now.
If someone finds a later made one, please change.
- I just purchased one from as late as 1997-03-27, I will update the table  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius1979 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1391403 

message: My 1394542 has drainage channels, and is made 1993-12-09.
I changed the table accordingly.
Polemon (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1394542 

message: I've added that 1391411 also comes with PS/2 since mine does. But I noted that the list is inconsistent about the order of the AT and PS/2 connector. I suggest that someone (maybe even I when and if I have time) changes it so that AT is always first with PS/2 second. Like so: "AT or PS/2" because AT is the older standard and should come first. As it stands the list is random when it comes to the order of the connector types. Kattspya (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feature chart inconsistency

message: The Model M is one of those rare products that approaches a kind of objective "perfection" (not unlike, say, the movie version of Amadeus, so I'm bothered by at least one major error, and a significant omission. But first, a word from our sponsor...
I learned to type 45 years ago in high school, on an manual Olympia. It was probably the only manual typewriter to ever have a really good keyboard -- light, crisp, and snappy. (My mother loved Royals, which responded as if someone had poured crankcase oil in the mechanism.) The Olympia is one of three great keyboards.
I later used a Smith-Corona portable electric. A completely different feel, with the long stroke men prefer. (We'll come back to that later.) The S-C is another of the three great keyboards. (If you dig into the early-60s Consumer Reports, you'll see that their panel of typists preferred the Olympia and S-C keyboards, proof of their practical quality.)
The third classic keyboard is, of course, the Model M. The first time I used one I was blown away. I could type faster and more accurately than on any other keyboard I'd used (including the Selectric's).
So, what about the Selectric? This article -- as well as a recent NPR piece on Unicomp -- states that the Model M has a feel much like the Selectric's. Anyone who says this has not used both keyboards! If the Model M is "tea", then the Selectric is the output of the Nutramatic drink dispenser.
As Captain Redbeard Rum might say about the Selectric typewriter... "It has a woman's keyboard." It's obvious that the Selectric was designed for female typists, the Model M for men. (Could that be the origin of the model name?)
Men tend to "bang" when they type (I do, at least); both the S-C keyboard and Model M seem designed for men. The long stroke and distinctive mechanical feedback of the latter is ideal for male bangers. Ask any serious male typist, and he's likely to agree that the M is the best keyboard, ever.
I used to work with Charles Frankston (brother of Bob Frankston, co-developer of VisiCalc). He loved the Model M, and every time I entered his office, he'd pull open a drawer full of them and intone "Look what I've got, and you don't." I was sorely tempted to steal one, but didn't.
The Selectric keyboard is designed for people who "tippy-tap" -- thus, female secretaries. The stroke is very short, and though there's a click, and a bit of resistance near the end of the stroke, the "feedback" is at a lower level and of a distinctly different character from the Model M's. The Selectric keyboard seems designed on the assumption tha the young lady's fingers will just fly over the keys. (Which they had to, if she expected to keep her job.) It took me years of irregular use to get accustomed to the Selectric keyboard. It never felt "right".
This serious mis-statement of fact needs to be fixed. And the article needs a stronger statement about why people -- men especially -- love the Model M. Its long stroke and outstanding feedback would be meaningless if they did not improve the speed and quality of one's typing. And they do.
I can make these changes, but would much prefer that the author did so.
WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, there is no "the author" of any article on Wikipedia, except really short stubs. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So by all means, make the changes yourself, but be careful; the kinds of changes you want to make seem like the type which need citations from reliable sources moreso than other edits, due to the POV line those changes would be flaunting. —BorgHunter  (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: * In case any doubt remains: The M2 was marketed as the "Selectric Touch Keyboard". However, as IBM struggled to compete with the growing number of low-cost PC "clones", they simply produced the M2 as a cheaper version of the M (smaller case, simplified plate construction, plastic key stabilizers, lower-quality [and more failure-prone] PCB, non-detachable cable, etc.). Its shorter key travel and different feel were not attempts to emulate the Selectric; that was just a clever post-design marketing idea. And while I'm sure this is obvious, it was definitely not produced "for women"—that notion is ludicrous. To be fair, it may have been encouraged by the fact that virtually all secretaries—the most common typists in the '80s/'90s—were women, as it was so hard for them to obtain better-paying jobs. But it's as accurate and relevant as claiming Model M's were produced for men. – AndyFielding (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  significant error(s) / omissions 

message: I recently bought a 1394542 and it is (C) Lexmark International Inc. 1985, born 1994-11-08, manufactured in United Kingdom. It also has a speaker built in like the 1394540. I was not able to do any changes (no wiki account), so could please somebody else make the following changes?
Change "Manufacturer" from "IBM UK" to "IBM UK / Lexmark UK", and add the sentence "Contains real speaker." to "Misc features".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.107.69 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment re the speaker had been added, but not the secondary manufacturer info—so I've done that. (Hey, a mere five-year delay isn't that bad for a huge bureaucracy, is it?) – AndyFielding (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1394542 (again) 

message: I propose that the long, unwieldy table that has every model of Model M ever made be removed from the article for the following reasons:
* The table is too long.
* The table is mostly unsourced and original research.
* The table is quite hard to verify, absent a document from IBM stating the various models.
* The table does not contain critical information.
* WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information.
I think information about a couple of critical models (like the 1391401 and 42H1292) could be merged into the article proper, but the rest of it can go. —BorgHunter  (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, while much of this is WP:NOT, it is a general sad commentary on the content and direction of WP where people can look up every Harry Potter character and yet not find a list of these actual historical physical devices. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm going to revert your change.  While some points of criticism you raised are valid, there was not sufficient comment & the removal runs counter to the consensus of the 2007 discussion, above, which had more active participation.  --Karnesky (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have solicited feedback from the users who contributed to the past discussion on this topic.  I'd encourage you to try to get the word out regarding this as well (perhaps use the edit history to track down those who have contributed to the section). --Karnesky (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd like feedback too, but what needs to be addressed is how the table relates to some core content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR, and the guideline WP:RS. Unless the material in the table can be properly cited, it unambiguously needs to go. The discussion of if the information, once it's been cited, is something that contributes to the article is only a secondary concern of mine. —BorgHunter  (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly some material can be sourced, even without "a document from IBM stating the various models:" some models are exceedingly popular (such as the 1391401 and 42H1292) & there exists many independent and easily accessible reviews and articles about them.  I agree that it is "hairy" that some edit summaries and some comments on this talk page that some rows are amended based on an editor's personal experience with a keyboard they own.  But not all rows in this table have been based on speculation & it seems better to cleanup the table if the only concern is over WP:V. --Karnesky (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: LOL, guess you didn't want to go to the trouble. That's okay, as long as the table stays! It's a resource used and appreciated by many people in the Model M community. (And to those claiming it's just "fan cruft": At least it's a list of real things, compared to, say, superheros' powers—and WP has lots of those.) – AndyFielding (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features by part number 

message: I just picked up a pile of 4 Model-M 1391406 keyboards, with a date of 12-05-99, made my IBM UK - the table says the last date for these is 1996; should I just correct the table, provide photos, or what would be sufficient?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.25.23 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for 1391406 

message: I'm very interested in the content of the occasionally disputed table, but the table is currently borked in such a way as to prevent it from expanding when prompted. 
My own wiki-fu (to quote an earlier poster) doesn't allow me to understand the code well enough to fix it. 
Please don't remove it. In this case, I don't think photos of the individual keyboards would be a bad way of citing the sources.
You might also contact the guys at clickykeyboards.com for sources, as I'm sure they know everything that ever been written or typed on the Model M. I do know that they have an extensive database of individual keyboards and their part numbers/manufacturing dates. 
It might also be worth noting a recent trend in the Steampunk fanbase involving elaborate modifications to Model M Keyboards. 
69.132.51.97 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Needs Fixing 

message: I noticed that the Model M4's are not in this list. I'm not sure if there is a reason for this or not. The M4 is the one that is the Thinkpad 360/755/etc. keyboard but by itself, and had a built in TrackPoint (some didn't) and detachable numpad. I am not sure since this isn't the standard form factor of the desktop Model M if it was being left out on purpose, even though it says "Model M" under it. I don't have a model number (mine was made by Unicomp under the "Mighty Mouse" moniker), so I am not sure where to add it. Maybe someone with an actual IBM/Lexmark version can add it. - KnightCrusader (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's more than just the M4. This is briefly discussed above. I have another variant. I suspect it's not being discussed because it's not an M or M based keyboard. The M4 and similar versions are laptop keyboard based (as you noted), while the M13 and even M15 are plain ol M based. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model M4? 

message: I have the IBM model M 1396790 keyboard, with a date of 1991-09-27. This keyboard featured an oval, white IBM logo with grey lettering in the top left of the board, and it does not have drainage channels. Table needs fixing.
Photos of IBM model M 1396790
Good Loki (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a 1396790, date of manufacture 1995-08-22 in the UK.  It is identical to yours (except mine has spent less time in the sun). Psychlohexane (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1396790, production date 1991-09-27 

message: "The Model M was designed to be a more cost effective keyboard than the Model F keyboards it replaced."
While cost reduction was certainly a reason (the earlier PC/PC-XT and AT keyboards were really robust, and thus I expect more expensive to manufacture) it was the additional 2 "F" (PF) keys and the horizontal layout across the top of the keyboard that was the bigger change.  I know – how could it have ever been any other way?  At the time IBM brand PCs were still relatively new (1981), and had undergone somewhat rapid evolution (PC => XT => AT).  Even the transition to the original AT keyboard  - adding the larger “enter” key and  moving the “esc” key from the upper left to over the numeric keypad on the right - was moderately controversial.  But the uproar over the move to horizontal “F” keys on the Model M keyboard was huge.  Many 3rd-party companies had built their products (Lotus 123, word processors, etc.)  based on that left-hand-side F-key arrangement, and millions of customers were used to this location for program commands.
Remember, however, that at that time IBM produced a wide variety of devices with keyboards.  I recall just about all of these being different in some way.  For the PC alone you had (1) the PC and PC/XT keyboard (PC 83-key keyboard) , (2) the original AT keyboard (PC 84-key keyboard), and (3) the 3270 PC XT and AT keyboard (IBM 6110344).  It is this last that is the key to this mystery in my opinion(nice photo here: http://www.seasip.info/VintagePC/ibm_6110344.html).  Note to IBM folk: I wasn't "blue" at that point in my career, so all this has been based on my experience at that time working within corporate IT at a "Fortune 50" multinational IBM customer with operations in 50+ countries.  As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary ..."
Initially the PC could not be connected to the IBM Mainframe, but the introduction of various emulator adapters (the IRMA card being one of the biggest until IBM introduced its own 3270 adapter card) led to a problem.  Mainframe terminals typically had 12 PF keys (and some had 24); the PC, XT and AT only had 10 F keys that could be used for emulation, while the 3270 PC series actually had the full 24 PF keys.  Placing the 12 F-keys over the top row of keys on the Model M was the only way for all 12 to fit without making the keyboard an odd size or making major changes to the rest of the layout.  This also insured that using a PC as a terminal emulator would work great - all the PF keys were in the right place (too bad about all those PC programs, but hey ... Mainframes! ).  Thus I have always viewed the Model M as IBM's attempt to “end the insanity” - one keyboard for both PC and Mainframe use (yes, I have to say it - “One keyboard to rule them all!”).  It also had the benefit of being easily adaptable for certain foreign language support variants (for Japanese, Korean, and other character sets) w/o a real layout change; just some additional keys.
For those of us using the Mainframe with our PC's the new keyboard was great, but also a pain – all those PC program shortcuts had to be relearned! (remember – this was the pre-Windows GUI days of DOS programs).  Even so, this fundamental layout (AKA the “IBM 101-key” keyboard) has not been much altered since then, except for the introduction of the additional “windows” keys at the insistence of Microsoft in the 1990's.  I for my part prefer the classic nature of the 101-key Model M, which which these words were typed (mine is a 1988 P/N 1390655 that I bought from a friend for $1 years ago).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Fortan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It wasn't Just about the Cost of Manufacturing 

message: Currently the closed captions for the sound are something like this:
"TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK TAKK"
Change that?
50.149.74.137 (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  To what? "THOCK THOCK THOCK"? The spelling's pretty subjective. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the subtitles? 

message: There's been much discussion of the long and detailed Features by part number table. As a member of the vintage keyboard community, I assure you the table is considered a unique resource, and is regularly consulted, corrected and amended. 
However, while making the table optionally expandable has satisfied some of its critics, others still feel it gratuitously complicates the article.
I have an utterly logical, WP-consistent solution: Suppose we move the table to its own Model M Keyboard Variants page, and place a link to it here? This is routinely done with things like episode details of long-running TV shows, to avoid cluttering those "base" articles.
Moving the table to its own page would also make it much easier for people to consult the Part Numbers table, as it'd no longer be necessary to scroll down this page and click "More". Each. Time. Anyone. Wanted. To. See. It. 
I don't know what the actual mechanism is for accomplishing something like this, other than to initiate it by suggesting it here. I imagine it'll help, though, if those of you who think it's a sensible idea will chime in here. Thanks! – AndyFielding (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we delete them entirely. It's quite a bit outside of Wikipedia's project scope to hold a catalog of keyboard part numbers... - Anonimski (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's been proposed several times, and always vigorously opposed. I beg to differ: The table is much more than a "catalog"; it's a painstakingly compiled source of detailed information, unavailable elsewhere, about the most significant line of computer keyboards ever. I'm guessing that, while you may appreciate computing history in general, you're not a keyboard collector yourself. If you were, you might have a better idea of how much the table is valued in that community. Simply deleting it would be a big mistake—a disservice not only to those who regularly consult it, and who would consult it in the future, but to those who've done the considerable work of creating and maintaining it. As I've suggested above, we could improve things all around by moving the table to its own page—how can we put that in motion? – AndyFielding (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the Part Numbers table to its own page? 

message: I commented on these things while editing the Features by Part Numbers table tonight, but I thought they were significant enough to mention here too:
* I noticed some recent entries had been added to the end of the list without regard to their Part Numbers. (I may be guilty of doing that myself.) I don't know if the table sorts itself by Part Number by default—but I'm sure we agree, it makes sense for it to initially appear that way. Thus I made sure the entries were arranged by Part Number in the source code.
* Since we now have -valign tags that assure each entry starts on a new line, I went through the table and made sure each entry (except the last) was followed by a line with a pipe (|) character only. This makes it much easier to see the entries while editing the table.
– AndyFielding (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Andy, how kind of you it was to go to all that trouble. True, several years have passed without anyone expressing their appreciation—but that's largely our lot here on WP, innit? Indeed, through history, untold throngs of dedicated peeps such as us have quietly lurked behind the scenes, preserving and protecting cultural riches so that future generations might appreciate them... Okay, I'll shut up now; I just wanted a bit of typing practice. 😊 – AndyFielding (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Features by P/N" table: Fixed entry order; improved format for editing 

message: Does anyone know why an extra column has started appearing at the right side of the "Features by part number" table—and why it doesn't appear on some entries? I took a quick look at the source, but the entries I saw contained the right number of records (including an empty line for those with nothing in the Features column). – AndyFielding (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone fixed this, or it fixed itself. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably just a formatting error. That's the thing about tables: You get one entry off, and all the rest can suffer. It's not nearly as confusing as the kind of temporally displaced multiple-personality jazz you see right here, though. 😄 – AndyFielding (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus column on Features table? 

message: Models 43.229.90.80 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandhra 

message: Sandhra 103.70.197.71 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandhra 

message: Okay, I wanted to play too. Anybody? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sandhra 

message: Thanks to whomever added entries for Unicomp's new "New Model M' and "Mini M" models (UT40U4A and UB40E7A, respectively). However, I noticed their descriptions say:
:  Black case; options for white or white and gray keys.
That make have originally been true; however, Unicomp's product pages:
• New Model M
• Mini M
...currently offer only these two "colourways":
• "Black [case] w/White & Gray Keys"
• "Black [case] w/Gray Keys"
– AndyFielding (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicomp "New M" and "Mini M" colour choices? 

message: Hey, fellow keeb obsessives:
My mother-in-law just gave me her Model M p/n 92G7453, made by Lexmark in November, 2015. Here, curiously, it's mentioned in two adjacent table—one of them, along with p/n 92G7454—with these differences (and oh boy, I actually get to make a table in Talk 😊 ):
Part number	Detachable keycaps	Detachable cable	Years
92G7453
92G7454	No                	No              	1995-1996-?
92G7453    	Yes               	Yes             	?-1994-?
I assume this isn't an error, but that it means disparate 92G7453's have been observed with those traits.
Here's the strange thing: My 92G7453 has detachable caps and a non-detachable cable—so should create a third 92G7453 entry?
As some of you may know, Lexmark closed its keyboard factory less than a year after this board was made. Is it possible they were using up whatever parts were on hand, causing such irregularities? Your theories and input are welcome, especially if you don't have much else to do at the moment. (Unlike me; I have lots to do. Lots.) – AndyFielding (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  92G7453 double entry?