Talk:IBM Selectric typewriter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does anyone remember whether Selectric I allowed half-spacing verticially? My Selectric II does, and I think my Selectric I didn't, but it's been so long I can't remember for sure. -- isis 06:33 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
I have rewritten this paragraph to remove the reference to WYSIWYG because I don't see how it's accurate in this context -- typewriting was always that, almost by definition. -- isis 20:53 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)
- The ability to change fonts, combined with the neat regular appearance of the typed page, gave many users their first taste of "what you see is what you get" text processing. Later models with selective pitch and built-in correcting tape carried the trend even further. Selectric models were also widely used as terminals for time-sharing computers, replacing Teletypes.
-
- Yeah, but it meant a lot to me, two-finger typist that I was, to have a real nice manuscript. The auto-correct was almost as important as any other feature. What you say is okay, but I feel more enthusiastic than that about it. Ortolan88
Give it up -- there's no way we're ever going to make them understand what a delight typing on one of them was compared to ordinary typewriters. You had to be there. I just barely passed typing (on Remington manual machines) in high school (thanks to extra-credit projects), but the feel of those Selectric keys was a joy I sigh for with every stroke on my PC keyboard now. -- isis 07:04 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
- No kidding. I just added a description of the "breakover" feeling of the keyboard, but you really had to have used one to understand it. On a Selectric I used to be able to type sequences like "th" and even whole words like "this" by positioning the various fingers at different heights and coming down on the keyboard with one smooth movement of both hands, relying on those little spheres in the tube to sort things out! All subconscious... This also worked on the 029/129 keypunch. As nice as the IBM Model M computer keyboards and the Northgate Omnikeys are, they can somewhat simulate the breakover but they can't simulate the rollover. Jeh 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Jeh 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the Selectric had any "typeahead buffer", it used a fully mechanical linkage and encoding mechanism between the keyboard and the typeball. I have seen old repair manuals on them explaining this mechanism and how to clean and repair it. This mechanism DID support some level of "key rollover", but if it was only 2-key rollover or n-key rollover I do not recall. This "key rollover" might have given an operator an impression that there was a buffer though. -- RTC 01:03 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- As nobody has commented on it I changed the item from "typeahead buffer" to "n-key rollover feature". If you have documentation either way or on exact details, please provide them. -- RTC 20:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"the electric typewriter design that brought the typewriter into the electronic age." Is there any electronic component in the Selectric ? Ericd 21:06, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- From the manuals I have seen, no. However the mechanical linkage and encoding mechanism used was VERY easy to interface to an electronic system. Much easier than a standard electric typewriter (e.g., the IBM Executive series typewriter which had a mechanical linkage but NO internal encoding mechanism at all). Of course I have only seen manuals on the original versions, electronics may have been added later. -- RTC 16:39, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The orginal versions up to the II's had no electronics. The only electical parts were the motor and switch. The design feature that made them easy to use for automatic operation was a set of latches that were connected to an interconnected lever system ("balance beams"?). The latches were pulled under a "bail", or bar that moved down with each keystroke cycle. The rotation (and tilt) of the ball depended on which latches were pulled under the bail. The choice of latches was made by the typebars under the keys. I never saw an electronic version, but these latches easily been actuated by solenoids place of the keybars. I used to be an IBM OPCE (Office Products Customer Engineer) in the late '60s, so I've seen a lot of the insides of these beauties. Wake 01:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Tricks section has a negative IBM POV without citation. I plan to remove it soon. Wake 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Done Wake 01:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Selectric II vs. Correcting Selectric II
FRom my experiences with Selectrics, I'm pretty sure that the early Selectric II's didn't have correcting tape, but this article kinda blends the versions together. Anyone have a good reference to doublecheck this? Kaszeta 12:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What superscripting? I see no superscripting here
The ability of typewriters in the 70s to insert superscripts has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Somebody (anonymous, first and only wiki-contribution) whipped in here last night with a can of white out and removed the statement that the platen-adjustment on Selectric II's was for inserting superscripts. I put it back in and now add a note here just to make sure no ax-grinder takes it back out. I also web logged on this, if anyone's interested. Ortolan88 15:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For his second edit of his Wikipedia career, the same address trashed the External links, but someone else caught it and put them back. Ortolan88 20:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Some info from the Musuem
Vertical line spacing: A quick check of the stack of Selectrics shows that the half spacing appears to have been introduced with the Selectric II, but as an option. My original Selectrics and some of my Selectric IIs have only full spacing. The 1973 II Operating Instructions note that some models allow single or double line spacing (on carraige return), while others allow single, space-and-a-half, or double. The mechanical differences include twice as many teeth on the detent wheel on the platen.
Selectric II models from 1971-1973 did not have the correcting feature. Starting in 1973, with the introduction of the Correcting Selectric II, the correcting feature was available. However, non-correcting models were still available, even in the time of the Selectric III (I have some cloth ribbon non-correcting Selectric III typewriters in my collection).
The Selectric does not appear to be designed to use superscripting per se, but the Symbol type balls have a set of numbers (0-9) of reduced point size, in the superscript position. Per a mid 1970s IBM Selectric Type Styles brochure.
RS-232 Link: I would like to see some documentation on this! I know that the first use of the Selectric mechanism was as a terminal for mainframe computers, and that many machines were modified in the early days of the microcomputer revolution to be used as terminals. But I am not aware of the widespread use of factory built Selectrics as RS-232 interface terminals.
Rollover is two-key, using a tube filled with balls that will let only one key be pressed at a time. It's just a mechanical lockout system, but in use it feels like a buffer.
The Operating Instructions call the platen detent release lever the "line finder".
by jforb, 13 sep 04, the stamping doesn't seem to be working?
Okay, infrogmation, why did you delete the images?
Atlant 23:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is it with people and images in this article? Why were all images removed?
Atlant 02:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Golf balls and the Wikipedia logo
Just a bit of idle speculation here, but does anyone else notice that the Selectric strike balls look a lot like the Wikipedia logo? -Litefantastic 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dvorak Simplified Keyboard
The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard article says that "the original ANSI Dvorak layout was available as a factory-supplied option on the original IBM Selectric typewriter". One slight problem is that the ANSI standard for Dvorak dates from 1983... So did ANSI just take the Selectric's Dvorak layout, or is the Dvorak article wrong? (After this has been cleared up, I think that a short sentence in this article mentioning Dvorak might be a good idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
