PC 4GB RAM limit

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


No, but they may be more practiced at things previously not even available
to practice with.


The poor ergonomics of cell-phone keypads are related to human anatomy,
not practice.

Non sequitur, not to mention a contradiction of your own admission they're
'reasonably' fast at it.


This reminds me of the arguments 'proving' that people would never be able
to remember 7 digit telephone numbers, and now there are 10.


And there are a lot more people looking numbers up.

Another one of your imaginary polls?

Actually, they identified that their analysis was simply not realistic and
had left out various factors about the way people remember things, such as
the fact that one is not faced with memorizing a random set of unassociated
numbers.

"Touch typing" doesn't 'imply' any particular number of fingers. That just
happens to be the methodology used with a 'full sized' keyboard because it
was made for 10 fingers.


Touch-typing means typing without looking at the keyboard, using all
available fingers.

No, it doesn't. There is no 'number of fingers' implicit at all.

If that were not the case, it wouldn't be called
TOUCH-typing.

I can 'touch' anything I like with just *one* finger and I certainly don't
have to use all 10 to 'touch'.

You put your fingers on home keys, and thereafter you
type without looking at the keyboard, and with all fingers.

Only because that is a method for using large keyboards with keys spread
out all over the place and QWERTY is laid out that way.


And there's nothing about a standard QWERTY that makes it the 'last word'
(pun) in alphanumeric entry methods.


I didn't say otherwise,

You've been doing everything *but* say it explicitly by making every
'complaint' a reference back to the QWERTY keyboard as if that is the only
'reasonable' means to input text. And you just did it again by claiming
that only how one uses a QWERTY keyboard can be called "touch typing."

but the size and ergonomics of a standard
keyboard make it much more conducive to fast typing than a cell-phone
keypad.

If speed were the only criteria then you might, might, have a case.

There are faster keyboards, but unfortunately they are not compatible
with the standard QWERTY keyboards. If one need only type on one's own
keyboard, this incompatibility is not a problem; but if one must retain
the ability to type quickly on a standard keyboard, then a high degree
of compatibility must be maintained. That's why I use a Microsoft
Natural Keyboard, which is much more ergonomic than a straight keyboard,
but retains most of the key layout.

So you've picked one that is neither the fastest nor most compatible.

These people have tons of studies to show this one is 'better' than a QWERTY


They are probably right.

I wouldn't know but the first thing I'd ask is how they defined 'better'.

Frankly, I think a lot of the resistance to one handed keyboards is because
the QWERTY is easier to hunt and peck.


I suspect the main reason for resistance is as above, i.e., the need for
compatibility.

Frankly, I doubt many people give a second though to what keyboard someone
else has. It's possible but I've never heard anyone looking at a keyboard
mention it.

That's why the Dvorak keyboard has never caught on.

My guess would be because it's different with not enough of a perceived
'improvement' to warrant the 'change'.


The originaly QWERTY was designed to make typing _difficult_, in order
to help avoid jamming type bars on the typewriters.

Just goes to show that 'fast' isn't always the best measure.

The the 'argument' part is over. "Reasonably fast" is, well, reasonable.


It's nothing compared to touch-typing on a real keyboard.

And a Ford Taurus is 'nothing' compared to a Ferrari but it's 'reasonably'
fast for the purpose for which it is intended.


The topic wasn't a speed contest. The topic was whether the small devices
were ergonomic enough to be useful. And 'reasonable' fills the bill.

Speed is the primary measure of ergonomy in this case.

Says who? And if so then why are you intentionally using a keyboard you
just admitted isn't the fastest?

The Dvorak folks disagree and say theirs is even faster.


I agree with them. Unfortunately, until everyone has a Dvorak keyboard,
I need to stay familiar with the traditional keyboard layout. I don't
even think I could get a Natural-style keyboard in Dvorak layout.

So, according to the definition you just gave, you've intentionally decided
to use a 'less ergonomic' keyboard in exchange for 'other reasons'.

Hey, maybe being able to carry one in your shirt pocket could be another
reason.

But then fastest
possible may not be the criteria of interest for you, just as it isn't
necessarily with the portables.


It has to be fast and it must not induce RSI.

Then you're on the wrong keyboard, pal, because it ain't the fastest.


Sure it will. Compare the speed of a small keypad that, because of it's
size and portability, one has to that of a full-size keyboard that isn't
there. The small keypad will win every time.


Not a valid comparison.

Of course it's valid. That's the whole point behind 'small' keyboards on
'small' devices. They're PORTABLE and carried where no one in their right
mind, short of Superman or Hercules, would carry a full sized system.


I prefer to wait until I'm in front of my PC to type text messages, even
though I have a cell phone. It allows me to writer longer messages in
less time, thereby wasting less time overall. High-school students may
have lots of time on their hands, but I do not.

And you are perfectly free to make whatever choices you like but just
because that's how you do it doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same
way. I, for example, am quite content, when appropriate, to take small
notes, on the spot, without feeling a need to write an essay.

Besides, have to have some way to add email text to that fantastic pic one
took with the cell phone camera one wonders how mankind survived without.

Frankly, I don't have either but that's not the point. The point was that
just because you don't use a particular piece of technology doesn't mean
that no one wants it.

David Maynard writes:

Only because that is a method for using large keyboards with keys spread
out all over the place and QWERTY is laid out that way.

The method doesn't work with tiny keypads, because they are too small.
That's why you don't have palm-sized piano keyboards.

Frankly, I doubt many people give a second though to what keyboard someone
else has. It's possible but I've never heard anyone looking at a keyboard
mention it.

A great many people must use more than just their own keyboard during
the course of their lifetimes. Therefore compatibility is important.

My guess would be because it's different with not enough of a perceived
'improvement' to warrant the 'change'.

I attribute it to simple inertia, the same kind of inertia that has most
Americans still watching NTSC.

And if so then why are you intentionally using a keyboard you
just admitted isn't the fastest?

Because I have to remain familiar with other keyboards laid out like
this one. If I used a Dvorak and forgot how to touch-type on other
keyboards, I'd be handicapped each time I stepped out of my house.

So, according to the definition you just gave, you've intentionally decided
to use a 'less ergonomic' keyboard in exchange for 'other reasons'.

I'm forced to use a keyboard with a less than optimal layout in order to
have the ergonomy of the split configuration. As far as I know,
Microsoft is the only company that markets a keyboard with the Natural
Keyboard configuration.

Then you're on the wrong keyboard, pal, because it ain't the fastest.

It is when other keyboards give you RSI.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article , Mxsmanic wrote:
David Maynard writes:

"Touch typing" doesn't 'imply' any particular number of fingers. That just
happens to be the methodology used with a 'full sized' keyboard because it
was made for 10 fingers.

Touch-typing means typing without looking at the keyboard, using all
available fingers. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be called
TOUCH-typing. You put your fingers on home keys, and thereafter you
type without looking at the keyboard, and with all fingers.

Touch typing implies not having to look at the keyboard: there is no
implication by definition about the number of digits involved. That is
merely the convention taught when learning to type. In any case the
traditional method is hardly 10-fingered typing since both thumbs are
reserved for the space bar. You rapidly adopt your own preferred thumb for
this so it becomes 9 digit typing even if you do type 'properly'

In any case I touch type without using the 'correct' method: As a programmer
I use all kinds of strange punctuation a hell of a lot: I've slowly adopted
a method where the index and second fingers are used for alphanumeric input
and the little finger is used for the shift key and punctuation. (the ring
fingers are shared between the two) The standard method of typing doesn't
address the sheer number of keys on a PC keyboard.

There are faster keyboards, but unfortunately they are not compatible
with the standard QWERTY keyboards. If one need only type on one's own
keyboard, this incompatibility is not a problem; but if one must retain
the ability to type quickly on a standard keyboard, then a high degree
of compatibility must be maintained. That's why I use a Microsoft
Natural Keyboard, which is much more ergonomic than a straight keyboard,
but retains most of the key layout.

I know it's not quite as radical as the QWERTY/Dvorak transition, but I can
quite happily touch type on either a US or UK keyboard layout. While both
are QWERTY keyboards, the punctuation (which as I have said is crucial for
me) is substantially different. All I need do is remember which keyboard I'm
using.

Frankly, I think a lot of the resistance to one handed keyboards is because
the QWERTY is easier to hunt and peck.

Take a look in your local toy shop and have a look and kid's typewriters and
pre-school computers. You'll find a lot of them have alphabetical keyboards:
designed to optimise the hunt-and-peck approach. After all, you can't expect
five or six year olds to touch-type. ;-)

--
Andrew Smallshaw

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Only because that is a method for using large keyboards with keys spread
out all over the place and QWERTY is laid out that way.


The method doesn't work with tiny keypads, because they are too small.

I was specifically saying it wasn't appropriate for 'tiny keypads'. Nor is
it the 'definition' of "touch typing."

That's why you don't have palm-sized piano keyboards.

The concept you seem to be having trouble with is "alternate methods," as
opposed to simply taking the current method, placing it on a Xerox machine,
and shrinking it.


Frankly, I doubt many people give a second though to what keyboard someone
else has. It's possible but I've never heard anyone looking at a keyboard
mention it.


A great many people must use more than just their own keyboard during
the course of their lifetimes. Therefore compatibility is important.

That's certainly one method. Another is being sufficiently familiar with
more than one keyboard.

My guess would be because it's different with not enough of a perceived
'improvement' to warrant the 'change'.


I attribute it to simple inertia,

That's pretty much what "not enough of a perceived 'improvement' to warrant
the 'change'" means. Change costs. What's the profit?

the same kind of inertia that has most
Americans still watching NTSC.

Cost is the driving factor there. Millions upon millions of TV sets, cable,
satellite, and broadcast stations don't just magically transform themselves
into something else for 'free'.

And if so then why are you intentionally using a keyboard you
just admitted isn't the fastest?


Because I have to remain familiar with other keyboards laid out like
this one. If I used a Dvorak and forgot how to touch-type on other
keyboards, I'd be handicapped each time I stepped out of my house.

Then it would be a good idea to not 'forget'.

But the particular reason is unimportant. The fact is you have a reason
other than what you had just said was 'the measure' for picking a keyboard
and I'm saying you're right the second time: there often *are* 'other
reasons' and portability is one of them. It may not matter to you, just as
the MS split configuration apparently doesn't matter to the millions who
don't buy it, but portability apparently matters enough for the significant
number who buy devices with 'tiny keypads'.

So, according to the definition you just gave, you've intentionally decided
to use a 'less ergonomic' keyboard in exchange for 'other reasons'.


I'm forced to use a keyboard with a less than optimal layout in order to
have the ergonomy of the split configuration. As far as I know,
Microsoft is the only company that markets a keyboard with the Natural
Keyboard configuration.


Then you're on the wrong keyboard, pal, because it ain't the fastest.


It is when other keyboards give you RSI.

See, the problem is you make statements like 'speed IS the measure' when
you want to criticize 'tiny keypads' but then you change the criteria to
suit whatever new argument you feel like making and, all of a sudden,
'speed' isn't 'the measure' any more (It may still be 'a' measure but it
isn't 'the' measure).

Which, of course, has been my point all along: that 'the measure' is
dependent on what one needs and that picking a measure(s) inconsistent with
those needs, for the purpose of criticizing the thing, is "an appropriately
inappropriate measurement criteria."

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


"Touch typing" doesn't 'imply' any particular number of fingers. That just
happens to be the methodology used with a 'full sized' keyboard because it
was made for 10 fingers.

Touch-typing means typing without looking at the keyboard, using all
available fingers. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be called
TOUCH-typing. You put your fingers on home keys, and thereafter you
type without looking at the keyboard, and with all fingers.


Touch typing implies not having to look at the keyboard: there is no
implication by definition about the number of digits involved. That is
merely the convention taught when learning to type. In any case the
traditional method is hardly 10-fingered typing since both thumbs are
reserved for the space bar. You rapidly adopt your own preferred thumb for
this so it becomes 9 digit typing even if you do type 'properly'

In any case I touch type without using the 'correct' method: As a programmer
I use all kinds of strange punctuation a hell of a lot: I've slowly adopted
a method where the index and second fingers are used for alphanumeric input
and the little finger is used for the shift key and punctuation. (the ring
fingers are shared between the two) The standard method of typing doesn't
address the sheer number of keys on a PC keyboard.


There are faster keyboards, but unfortunately they are not compatible
with the standard QWERTY keyboards. If one need only type on one's own
keyboard, this incompatibility is not a problem; but if one must retain
the ability to type quickly on a standard keyboard, then a high degree
of compatibility must be maintained. That's why I use a Microsoft
Natural Keyboard, which is much more ergonomic than a straight keyboard,
but retains most of the key layout.


I know it's not quite as radical as the QWERTY/Dvorak transition, but I can
quite happily touch type on either a US or UK keyboard layout. While both
are QWERTY keyboards, the punctuation (which as I have said is crucial for
me) is substantially different. All I need do is remember which keyboard I'm
using.


Frankly, I think a lot of the resistance to one handed keyboards is because
the QWERTY is easier to hunt and peck.


You mixed in a reply to me in here so I'll deal with just this one.

Take a look in your local toy shop and have a look and kid's typewriters and
pre-school computers. You'll find a lot of them have alphabetical keyboards:
designed to optimise the hunt-and-peck approach. After all, you can't expect
five or six year olds to touch-type. ;-)


True, although I suspect there's more than one purpose, such as teaching
the alphabetic ordering, or at least not adding to a confusion of it. I
mean, it's not as if 'speed typing', I.E. finding the keys quickly, would
be much of a criteria

Someone looking at one handed keyboards isn't faced with an 'ABC' keyboard
as one of the choices, though. It's typically "should I get a one handed or
stay with QWERTY?" But hunt and peck on a one handed, if it has enough
labels, is an order of magnitude more difficult because they depend heavily
on key combinations.

You need 'a good reason' to learn it.

Here's what happens when you spend too much time using non-ergonomic
devices such as laptops:

http://news.com.com/Is+your+laptop+a...3-5723559.html

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:20:34 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Here's what happens when you spend too much time using non-ergonomic
devices such as laptops:

http://news.com.com/Is+your+laptop+a...3-5723559.html

Yeah, I suppose pneumonia is the result of "repetitive breathing
disorder".


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English, thank an American soldier.

well known fact that migraines are caused by a Tylenol deficiency.


"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:20:34 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Here's what happens when you spend too much time using non-ergonomic
devices such as laptops:


http://news.com.com/Is+your+laptop+a...22_3-5723559.h
tml

Yeah, I suppose pneumonia is the result of "repetitive breathing
disorder".


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English, thank an American soldier.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:55:56 -0700, "JAD"
wrote:

well known fact that migraines are caused by a Tylenol deficiency.

This has distinct possibilities.


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English, thank an American soldier.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Here's what happens when you spend too much time using non-ergonomic
devices such as laptops:

http://news.com.com/Is+your+laptop+a...3-5723559.html


You mean 'bad' things can happen when you obsessively use anything in a
manner, as the article says, "it was never intended to be."

I don't suppose you noticed that of the "More than 9,200 nongovernment
workers reported missing a day or more of work because of typing and
keyboarding-related injuries in 2003" that "For notebook computer use, such
statistical information on injuries is scarce."

Would seem pretty clear that "typing and keyboarding-related injuries" are
not strictly, or even predominately, a 'notebook' issue.

Frankly, I'd take the anecdotal stories with a grain of salt, especially
when laced with such stunning revelations as "having a history of
orthopedic injuries, such as tennis elbow or tendonitis, are other risk
factors." I.E. You're more likely to have orthopedic problems if you have a
history of orthopedic problems. No kidding? LOL