Re: PC or Mac?

[russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <290120021635554075%gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com>,
Greg Weston  <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:
>In article <u5dfpqb449im2e@corp.supernews.com>, Matthew Russotto
><russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> >It's not a myth, just confusion on your part. The GOAL of QWERTY was to
>> >prevent keyjams. The METHOD chosen to achieve that goal was to slow
>> >down the typists (thereby reducing the odds that keys would attempt to
>> >violate physics). Hardly a side-effect.
>> 
>> No, the method was to place frequently-typed combinations far apart
>> (usually on opposite hands).  Slowing down typists (if indeed it did so)
>> was a side-effect.
>
>a) I'm having trouble taking seriously the comments of someone on this
>topic who questions whether QWERTY is an inefficient layout.

It is best not to take one's conclusions as premises.  In any case, the
question is not whether it is inefficient.  It is whether it is more
inefficient than the earlier alphabetical layout.

>b) When was the last time you used a mechanical typewriter? 

Several years ago.

>Spreading
>out common letter combos doesn't have a significant effect on
>preventing jams (given a fast typist) because you're still going to end
>up with 2 key heads trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

Keys which are closer together are more prone to jamming because there
is a larger area in which they type bars can interfere -- they don't
just interfere at the very, or jamming would be almost a non-issue.

>The only way it's effective in preventing jams is if the typist is
>artificially slowed down.

Not so.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                mrussotto@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives.             DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."