deskthority

Besides the "70% block" on the keyboard there are usually two other blocks: the arrow block with some infrequently used keys such as sysrq, and the numpad.

One can replace the other, but no the other way round: Given there is Num-Lock it looks for me like it was intended that smaller keyboards could save some space and the num block took take both roles. But that almost never happens.

I think it's strange. I wonder why it is the way it is.

My experience is that if I need the numpad, I NEED it! Switching numlock off and back on every time I need to move around the fields would drive me crazy! (Don't forget that the numpad is there mostly for serious number entry)

I don't follow what you're saying, Miko. Got a diagram?

(Unless Chzel is right and you mean why have arrow keys when you have the numpad with its own embedded navigation keys? The answer is: AAARGH! Almost no one uses Num Lock and 8 to go Up, etc. Many people have no idea why those legends are even there. And even those of us who do, wouldn't like to have to switch in and out of a mode all the time. Plus it doesn't work on a Mac, where the numpad is just a numpad, pure and simple.)

The thread title is a good question, but I think it has a simple answer: relatively few people are daring enough to use a 60% keyboard, leaving arrows to the function layer. Arrows are very frequently used keys indeed, and retaining them is a high priority for many designs. The many compact layouts that squeeze arrow keys into the right hand side of the 60% block is evidence for that.

A standard TKL is a very safe and easy design. Drop the numpad, done!

It's a good question. I guess it's mostly because people are addicted to the inverted T and the navigation cluster as it is, and navigation is used much more frequently today than entering a lot of numbers.

Do you mean something like the Quickfire TK?


For me, I can pretty much touch type on the number row, so I don't really need a num pad as I never input anything more then the occasional number here or there.

I find it strange that so called "left handed"keybords are so uncommon. Back in the pre mouse days sure you wanted the num/nav block on the right . But now ? It would be better on the left, then you get the advantage of both a numberpad and a TKL ?

Correct! My biggest complaint with full size keyboards is their asymmetry. Everything was tagged onto the right. Yuck. Right handers have to reach way over to their mouse, and all of us get ungainly layouts that don't look particularly "humane" to me. Whenever I type at a traditional fullsize keyboard, I get the sensation I'm using something asymmetrical, like blowing a flute. Instead of symmetrical, like it should be. All my favourite layouts keep your fingers close to the midline.

Miko wrote: Besides the "70% block" on the keyboard there are usually two other blocks: the arrow block with some infrequently used keys such as sysrq, and the numpad.

One can replace the other, but no the other way round: Given there is Num-Lock it looks for me like it was intended that smaller keyboards could save some space and the num block took take both roles. But that almost never happens.

I think it's strange. I wonder why it is the way it is.

The secondary functions on the numpad date from the IBM XT keyboard:


Numlock and those secondary numpad functions should have been scrapped as soon as there were discrete keys for them. But of course, someone insisted that they stick around, to avoid confusing people who were used to the previous design.

The AT used them as well. That likely added up to enough time that third party software began to assume their presence. And you just can't break backwards compatibility, my goodness!

Easiest design by committee decision ever: "So, compatibility or elegance? Anyone want to make the case for the latter? No. Done."

Another entry in the vestigial keys series: the dreaded Sys Req!

I think backwards compatibility is fine but it goes too far, keep it for a bit but then ditch it.

Meanwhile at Microsoft

Windows 10 32Bit errrrr why exactly ?

Firefox still uses 32 bit, many programms don't need 64 bit pointers, the programms are smaller, etc, there is some reason for 32 bit. Linux even has a 32 bit ABI especially for 64 bit programms.

A negative example of backwards compatibility is the current intel processor architecture (amd64 or x86_64 or how is it called?) It's unbelievable how complex it is. The manuals are huge. Incredibly obscure features such as optional roms (from a time where once could buy a basic interpreter as a rom and plug it into a intel motherboard) are still supported. Nowadays even via Thunderbold. I think modern computers can still run CP/M. I'm sure they can run MS DOS 2.


And, yes I mean exactly a layout like the Quickfire TK. When entering more than tiny amounts of data a numpad is really helpful. But that non standard arrows are unnecessary. Numlock can be deactivated by pressing shift (with the left hand). so during entry one can switch really quickly between those two.

Doesn't he mean they're doing a 32 bit edition of the OS? I've no idea, I don't pay much attention to Microsoft. But supporting 32 bit apps is a necessity, even Apple does that. Can't expect MS to take the lead in throwing software off their platform! The customers are hard enough to convince to update as it is!

By the way, about a quarter of the time I'm pressing arrows, I'm holding Shift. To create and extend selections!

As long as there are Intel Atom processors used in popular tablets that don't support more than 2 GByte of RAM why not offer a 32 bit version of Windows?

Also, some functios/programs need 32bit OS, take Tipros ChangeMe for example!
I had no idea you can "shift out" the numpad!

Muirium wrote: Doesn't he mean they're doing a 32 bit edition of the OS? I've no idea, I don't pay much attention to Microsoft. But supporting 32 bit apps is a necessity, even Apple does that. Can't expect MS to take the lead in throwing software off their platform! The customers are hard enough to convince to update as it is!

Apples latest OS cannot even booth without a 64bit EFI unless you have a tinker.

Nothing wrong with supporting 32 bit apps but why in the name of zombie Jesus would you still bother to ship a 32bit native OS ?

Disk space and RAM usage will be the biggest reasons to stick with 32-bit.

Windows 10 needs to run on the glut of Windows 8.1 tablets with 1 GiB RAM and 16 GiB flash. Considering how much larger a 64-bit Windows install is...

Also, a lot of those tablets (well, all of them) shipped with 32-bit UEFI with no CSM, so even if you wanted to run 64-bit Windows on there, you couldn't (64-bit Windows can only be booted by either a 64-bit UEFI or a BIOS/CSM). And, they shipped with 32-bit UEFI because of the above issues with 64-bit Windows on such a resource-constrained device, and the fact that 32-bit Windows can only be booted by either a 32-bit UEFI or a BIOS/CSM. Linux and old versions of OS X used some crazy convoluted scheme to get a 64-bit kernel running on a 32-bit EFI, but I don't see Microsoft doing that.

Minimum requirements for Windows 8 32 bit are 1 GB RAM and 16 GB storage space.
Minimum requirements for Windows 8 64 bit are 1 GB RAM and 20 GB storage space.

If you want a "small" footprint of Windows on a tablet with an Atom processor and 1 or 2 Gb of RAM, you need Windows 32 bit.

Well 64 bit one is only so big as it has to support all the old 32 bit stuff, its time to move on , its only 22 years until 32bit numbers cannot longer store the time!

OS X Yosemite: installed size 6.4 gigs here.

(That's the /System folder. I've installed a bunch of stuff on my Mac Pro, but it all comes to 12 gigs tops, anyway.)

As Bhtooefr says: Apple used to be up to some weird stuff to support a 64 bit kernel on 32 and 64 bit EFIs. They ended that back with 10.8 which was the first OS this 2006 Mac Pro couldn't officially run.

I use a hacked boot.efi file to make it run 10.10 with nary a hitch. Well, there's three: no boot disk selector at startup, occasional blank screen when waking from sleep (had that just now, put it back to sleep then it comes back) and no FaceTime (it just returns errors logging in). The first two are because I'm running a modern graphics card in an old machine. The Radeon HD 7xxx series was never supported in the same era this Mac Pro was, but Yosemite has a driver for its close relatives in the new Mac Pro.

Anyway, I can see why they don't want to support such weird configurations. And I did pick this 9 year old machine up from a dumpster a couple of years ago… not bad performance at all for a freebie. 2x dual core 2.6 GHz Xeons and 11 gigs of RAM; and 6 Sata busses now chock full of drives. I ditched the opticals.

andrewjoy wrote: Well 64 bit one is only so big as it has to support all the old 32 bit stuff, its time to move on , its only 22 years until 32bit numbers cannot longer store the time!

In an ecosystem where software is sold in binary form this doesn't work.

What makes Windows different from Mac and Linux is that there has always been a huge amount of custom development going on in organizations. This custom development is quite expensive, and you just don't rewrite your tailored business applications if there's no important business gain.

No company would do that amount of custom development on MacOS because, just a few years later, some hipster at Apple will inevitably decide that "it's time to move on" and your applications won't work any more, your investment will be lost, and no one at Apple will care. Apple caters to customers that use standard software, it's a limited scope which allows them to cut old strings faster.

There's a parallel problem in custom or special interest hardware of course.

A partial solution would be to have source code for every custom application you use ...

Muirium wrote: no FaceTime (it just returns errors logging in)

You need to contact Apple via their support site. Seriously. Their server blocks weird/unsupported OS/machine type combinations because of security reasons. If you contact them directly, they will lift these restrictions for your Apple ID.

Oh really? I never considered that. Thanks.