tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post6265243553782460140..comments2024-03-25T15:02:25.695+11:00Comments on oz.Typewriter: On This Day in Typewriter History (LXXXIV)Robert Messengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04366507489948676594noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-41215246473984692822019-01-29T01:23:44.696+11:002019-01-29T01:23:44.696+11:00Come to think of it, though, the statement by IBM ...Come to think of it, though, the statement by IBM did contain an error. While I would dare to say that typebars were efficient in a way that the typing elements of Hammond and Blickensderfer were not - unlike the Selectric typeball - that efficiency didn't really encompass the entire "first 90 years of typewriter technology".<br /><br />Some time elapsed between Remington and Sholes (which is presumably where IBM started counting from) and the introduction of the Underwood Five.quadiblochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02677796062022258684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-9814495273646747452017-05-04T02:30:39.418+10:002017-05-04T02:30:39.418+10:00I have not much to add, except: what a fantastic a...I have not much to add, except: what a fantastic article this is.Marcinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663244405495235071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-84486127509888156242016-10-15T13:23:06.354+11:002016-10-15T13:23:06.354+11:00I have used a VariTyper, and so I know that typing...I have used a VariTyper, and so I know that typing on it is slow compared to typing on a conventional manual typewriter, and the keys require considerably more force to press. So, although I have no direct experience with the Blickensderfer, I would dare to tell Mr. Hammond, at least, that the Selectric did bring something new to the table, even if it certainly was not the very idea of a single element typewriter.quadiblochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02677796062022258684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-4456669139699061622012-10-14T05:13:51.450+11:002012-10-14T05:13:51.450+11:00And, of course, I post that before checking...
Th...And, of course, I post that before checking...<br /><br />The CURRENT world record typing speed (over 1 minute in this case) is 216 wpm.<br /><br />Set by Stella Pajunas, in 1946... on an IBM electric. That thing was being driven harder than a Selectric's theoretical max.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14079513952888145252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-11932838002852624272012-10-14T05:06:48.028+11:002012-10-14T05:06:48.028+11:00There's a few reasons why IBM continued sellin...There's a few reasons why IBM continued selling typebar machines after the debut of the Selectric.<br /><br />1. Price - a Model C with a 13" carriage cost $460 in 1962, a Selectric 723 (13" platen, 11" writing line) cost $475, and a 725 (15" platen, 13" writing line) cost $495. Fast forward to the Model D (with 12.5" carriage)'s debut in 1967, at $490, and the 723 was $500, 725 was $520. And, in 1969, it was $510 for the D, $520 for the 723, and $540 for the 725.<br /><br />2. Speed - While the Selectric is faster for ordinary typists that aren't trained in how to run a typebar typewriter properly (myself included), a fast typist can get a burst of speed that out-types a Selectric. 15.5 characters per second is the most a Selectric can do - that means that if it takes you less than 64.5 ms for a character (or, the other way, if you burst at over 186 wpm), you're out-typing the machine. (If you do a 2-character burst and then slow after that, it's no problem, the machine can absorb that in the interposer system, but a *3*-character burst - that is, selecting the third character less than 129 ms after selecting the first character - and now you're slowed down by the machine.) Experienced typebar typists could keep the cadence such that multiple typebars were in flight but not colliding, and world records were set on IBM typebar machines (but never the Selectric AFAIK). IBM didn't want to lose that market.<br /><br />3. Executive - while the Selectric was IBM's "flagship", it was also a mid-range machine (although the cheapest machine they sold, from the day the Selectric debuted, was the Selectric 721/711). The bottom of the line was shared by the 11" platen Selectrics and the typebar machines, and the top of the line was exclusively the domain of the proportional spacing Executive typebar machines. The typebar machines didn't go away until IBM came up with a proportional spacing Selectric that was suitable for office use (the Mag Card Executive).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14079513952888145252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-29246293525858634412011-08-15T09:32:42.646+10:002011-08-15T09:32:42.646+10:00Thank you, notagain, you are very kind and I'm...Thank you, notagain, you are very kind and I'm naturally delighted and encouraged to know that you get something from these posts. I have been thinking along the lines of a biographical dictionary on typewriter inventors for 2014, to mark 300 years since Henry Mill. Might have to start saving up something apart from words for that, though.<br />Yes, it is interesting about the manual IBM. Apparently Bemer wanted to expand the golfball, with ASCI in mind, but IBM told him the Selectric would only ever be a "correspondence" machine! IBM was actually taken by surprise by its immediate sales success, though it doesn't like to admit that now!Robert Messengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366507489948676594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-21794292032342880202011-08-15T09:02:42.811+10:002011-08-15T09:02:42.811+10:00Fabulous research. I get a lot out of these posts...Fabulous research. I get a lot out of these posts. You should bind them together in book (or calendar) form after a year.<br />I find it interesting that they continued to produce typebar machines competing with the selectric, like the one I found yesterday.<br />http://manualentry.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-not-buy-this-one.htmlnotagainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02915679111849352765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-63861817456895136902011-08-15T08:19:25.892+10:002011-08-15T08:19:25.892+10:00Thank you, Richard, this is very kind (and of cour...Thank you, Richard, this is very kind (and of course encouraging). As you may imagine, a lot of elements, so a lot of time and effort, putting me way behind schedule again. But your comments help make it worthwhile.<br />I have added in an 1888 Stover 'mushroom' design which the IBM people failed to cite, for some reason. By sheer luck I stumbled across it while researching August 13.<br />I was a bit surprised they didn't reference the Lambert. But it is fascinating to see such unfamiliar designs as those by Perry, Aronson etc, and uncover characters like Ray Lohr of Cincinnati. <br />Like you, when I saw it I thought "flying walnut" was a far better name than golfball.Robert Messengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366507489948676594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5248447883714712696.post-52799908999241880532011-08-15T04:37:51.233+10:002011-08-15T04:37:51.233+10:00One of your most impressive research articles so f...One of your most impressive research articles so far! It far exceeds anything else I've seen about the Selectric.<br /><br />It's quite interesting to see the early patents for "wobbling" type elements that tilt to use different rows of characters. The only such machine that I was familiar with is the Lambert.<br /><br />I think from now on I'll call the IBM element a "flying walnut."Richard Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16232053429935587826noreply@blogger.com