holding down both left and right shift keys
Franc Zabkar
English alphabet, I get the following:
ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSUW
Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
missing?
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Phil Robyn
In Win2000 CMD.EXE I get ACDEGIJLNRSTUVWY with both Shift keys
held down simultaneously!
--
Phil Robyn
Univ. of California, Berkeley
u n z i p m y a d d r e s s t o s e n d e - m a i l
R.Wieser
bbk7gh$abuqc$1...@ID-55492.news.dfncis.de...
> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> > If I hold down both left and right shift keys while typing the entire
> > English alphabet, I get the following:
> >
> > ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSUW
> >
> > Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
> > missing?
> >
> >
> > -- Franc Zabkar
> >
> > Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
>
> In Win2000 CMD.EXE I get ACDEGIJLNRSTUVWY with both Shift keys
> held down simultaneously!
In Win98 it's : BCEHJKLMNQRTVWXZ
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Robert Riebisch
> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
> missing?
Just a wild guess: Cause it are special keys together with <Ctrl>, e.g.
Break, New line, ?,
--
Robert Riebisch
Bitte NUR in der Newsgroup antworten!
Please reply to the Newsgroup ONLY!
Joe Batch
> If I hold down both left and right shift keys while typing the entire
> English alphabet, I get the following:
>
> ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSUW
>
> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
> missing?
>
I get this on my system: ACDEGIJLNRSTUVWY
Missing are: (B, F, H, K, M, O, P, Q, X, Z)
Franc Zabkar
<Robert....@epost.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
>> missing?
>
>Just a wild guess: Cause it are special keys together with <Ctrl>, e.g.
>Break, New line, ?,
Actually, I suspect that the problem is related to the keyboard
row-column matrix. I'll disassemble the keyboard and report back. In
any case, the "problem" occurs in DOS, in the Win95 GUI, and in a
Win95 DOS box. I've also Echo-ed the string to a file. Examining this
file with Debug does not show any nonprintable characters.
Howard
Hmmmm, sounds like a conspiracy to me! (I know there's another
programmer behind the grassy knoll!!!)
Howard
Michael Bednarek
<zipp...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> If I hold down both left and right shift keys while typing the entire
>> English alphabet, I get the following:
>>
>> ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSUW
>>
>> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
>> missing?
>>
>>
>> -- Franc Zabkar
>>
>> Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
>
>In Win2000 CMD.EXE I get ACDEGIJLNRSTUVWY with both Shift keys
>held down simultaneously!
No anomalies here under NT5.0, CMD.EXE or whatever, using keyboard
Hewlett Packard SK-2502C.
However, keyboard HP C3758A will miss BFHKMOQXZ; in other words: same
result as Phil Robyn and Joe Batch, except I get a P.
I suspect a hardware keyboard problem.
--
Michael Bednarek, IT Manager, Tactical Global Management
Waterfront Pl, Brisbane 4000, Australia. "POST NO BILLS"
http://mcmbednarek.tripod.com/
DONALD G. DAVIS
>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:31:50 +0200, Robert Riebisch
><Robert....@epost.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
>>> missing?
>>
>>Just a wild guess: Cause it are special keys together with <Ctrl>, e.g.
>>Break, New line, ?,
>Actually, I suspect that the problem is related to the keyboard
>row-column matrix. I'll disassemble the keyboard and report back. In
>any case, the "problem" occurs in DOS, in the Win95 GUI, and in a
>Win95 DOS box. I've also Echo-ed the string to a file. Examining this
>file with Debug does not show any nonprintable characters.
When I hold down both Shift keys on my keyboard (an old NCR 84-key
keyboard) in a DOS prompt under Win98SE, I get the entire capitalized
alphabet. The differing results reported by others do suggest a cause in
keyboard hardware.
--Donald Davis
Franc Zabkar
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:31:50 +0200, Robert Riebisch
><Robert....@epost.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
>>> missing?
>>
>>Just a wild guess: Cause it are special keys together with <Ctrl>, e.g.
>>Break, New line, ?,
>
>Actually, I suspect that the problem is related to the keyboard
>row-column matrix. I'll disassemble the keyboard and report back.
As I thought, the "problematic" keys occupy a common row. The Left and
Right Shift keys are in the same row but different columns. I suspect
that holding down three or more keys in the same row or column causes
a "lockout". This appears to contravene IBM's PC/AT keyboard spec
which states that "the keyboard is able to detect all keys that are
pressed, and their scan codes will be sent to the interface in correct
sequence, regardless of the number of keys held down".
BTW, I came upon this curious behaviour whilst examining an even
stranger keyboard problem in the following thread:
Franc Zabkar
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:26:28 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fza...@optussnet.com.au> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 12:31:50 +0200, Robert Riebisch
>><Robert....@epost.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone know why "C", "M", "T", "V", "X", "Y", and "Z" are
>>>> missing?
>>>
>>>Just a wild guess: Cause it are special keys together with <Ctrl>, e.g.
>>>Break, New line, ?,
>>
>>Actually, I suspect that the problem is related to the keyboard
>>row-column matrix. I'll disassemble the keyboard and report back.
>
>As I thought, the "problematic" keys occupy a common row. The Left and
>Right Shift keys are in the same row but different columns. I suspect
>that holding down three or more keys in the same row or column causes
>a "lockout". This appears to contravene IBM's PC/AT keyboard spec
>which states that "the keyboard is able to detect all keys that are
>pressed, and their scan codes will be sent to the interface in correct
>sequence, regardless of the number of keys held down".
I believe the original IBM spec called for "n-key rollover". The
following website claims that "you are not alone if you unpack your
lovely new PC and discover that its keyboard does not conform to the
original IBM PC specification. We estimate that more than half of the
keyboards that come with name-brand computer systems today do not
conform to this specification (we do not know why this is, the issue
is not cost)."
See http://www.braille2000.com/brl2000/KeyboardReq.htm
The article claims that many keyboards are limited by design to 3-key
rollover.
Artur Yelchishchev
<fza...@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
-snip-
>I believe the original IBM spec called for "n-key rollover". The
>following website claims that "you are not alone if you unpack your
>lovely new PC and discover that its keyboard does not conform to the
>original IBM PC specification. We estimate that more than half of the
>keyboards that come with name-brand computer systems today do not
>conform to this specification (we do not know why this is, the issue
>is not cost)."
>
>See http://www.braille2000.com/brl2000/KeyboardReq.htm
Very interesting information, Franc! I've just discovered, that
my KeyTronic is unable to handle more that three keys, too...
Cheers,
Artur
Sami Sihvonen
"Joe Batch" <joe_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If I hold down both left and right shift keys while typing the entire
>> English alphabet, I get the following:
>I get this on my system: ACDEGIJLNRSTUVWY
>Missing are: (B, F, H, K, M, O, P, Q, X, Z)
With my finnish-language version of Windows 98SE missng are: ertuiojk
In Debian GNU/Linux everything works fine, with both shifts pressed...
Kevin G. Rhoads
QWERTYUIOP{}| <none missing>
ASDFGHJKL <:" are missing>
ZXCVBNM<>? <none missing>
Win XP Pro
Dell Dimension 4550 with factory keyboard
I think the poster who brought up the keyboard's internal scan matrix was probably correct, and the results will probably be OS independent but keyboard dependent.
DOS Guy
On 2003-06-05 kgrh...@alum.mit.edu said:
> I think the poster who brought up the keyboard's internal
> scan matrix was probably correct, and the results will
> probably be OS independent but keyboard dependent.
Don't think so, Kev. I just tried the experiment
under true DOS (both M$ and DR) on three different
machines, with three different makes of keyboards.
In all instances, every keypress was correctly pro-
cessed and displayed.
Undoubtedly, the problem is with WinDoze. As usual.
How long will the unenlightened, lemming-like masses
continue to gobble up whatever sh#t Mikro$loth decides
to dish out?
Face it, folks: that dumbed-down pointee-clickee M$
abomination has dumbed YOU down. You've been lulled
into a stupor by superficial graphical glitz.
Wake UP, people! Take back your computers! Say "No!"
to WinDoze and Mikro$loth.
-------
This message was written and posted entirely under
DR-DOS, using true DOS-based application software.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Tom Lavedas
Even the IBM branded AT keyboard I use (because it 'clicks') has this
problem ("ABDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSUW").
Tom Lavedas
===========
Martin Whittaker
A windows issue?...er...I don't know...
XP Pro, Logitech Internet Keyboard (PS/2 connection, model: SK-2500, no
keyboard driver loaded) and ABIT KD-7 motherboard - all alphabet keys work
just fine in Notepad/Word, "DOS
window" and "4DOS window", or using F8 "Safe Mode Command Prompt."
Martin
"DOS Guy" <dosguy@M$-Sucks.org> wrote in message
news:3ee0...@post.newsfeed.com...
Michael Bednarek
comp.os.msdos.misc:
[snip]
>Undoubtedly, the problem is with WinDoze. As usual.
[snip]
I think attacks on Microsoft are much more effective when they are
supported by facts. In this case, the findings on my system, posted
earlier, do not support your assertion.
Digger Blue
m...@tgm.com.au (Michael Bednarek) wrote:
>I think attacks on Microsoft are much more effective when they are
>supported by facts. In this case, the findings on my system, posted
>earlier, do not support your assertion.
Strewth! 'Oo's the bloody blow-in from Brisbane? Fair dinkum,
sport, yer talk like some bleedin' Pommy stand-over merchant.
Prolly drinkin' bloody Fourex. 'Ere's a bloody fact for yer:
mug galah!
Michael Bednarek
<digge...@black-stump.au> wrote in comp.os.msdos.misc:
>m...@tgm.com.au (Michael Bednarek) wrote:
>
>>I think attacks on Microsoft are much more effective when they are
>>supported by facts. In this case, the findings on my system, posted
>>earlier, do not support your assertion.
>
>Strewth! 'Oo's the bloody blow-in from Brisbane? Fair dinkum,
>sport, yer talk like some bleedin' Pommy stand-over merchant.
>Prolly drinkin' bloody Fourex. 'Ere's a bloody fact for yer:
>mug galah!
Look, mate!
I'm annoyed by Microsoft as much as the next guy, and probably more.
But I have found no evidence in this case that BG and cohorts have
anything to do with the misbehaving keyboards discussed here. To me,
it seems a hardware issue.
Blaming the general state of the world and all of society's illnesses
on Microsoft clearly blunts those attacks where MS deserves to be hit
over the head. This newsgroup provides room for technical discussion,
not opinion pieces.
Fourex, VB, Tooheys - whatever, I have no particular preference.
Although tonight (State of Origin, match 1) it'll be XXXX.