Talk:Buckling spring

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Why is it nice?[edit]

Why is it nice? Midgley 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever had the priviledge to work on one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anripol (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"privilege" (note the spelling) is overstating it. Nonetheless, they are a joy to work on. But noisy, when you're really getting into it, which can piss off other people around you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.228.6.74 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why disuse?[edit]

Why are buckling springs now so uncommon, besides price? Even very high-end keyboards don't use buckling springs. The patent has expired, so it seems like most high-end keyboards should be using them. What's the deal? Do most people just not like them? Herorev (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's a bit late to answer this, but: It's the noise. Even if you could make the keys around them silent, the springs themselves would still sound, well, springy. IBM produced several Modem M variants with rubber dome switches instead of buckling springs, for places where BSs would be too loud and distracting. Nothing feels like a BS, though, or is as responsive. As with many things in life, it's a tradeoff. – AndyFielding (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link External links[edit]

Link in External links looks like an ad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.159.56.242 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More durable?[edit]

Is this design more durable? Will the original IBM patent generally work longer than other keyboards commonly for sale today? This is assuming all other variables are the same and the measurement is simply use as a keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.215.60 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Model M I'm typing on has a manufacture mark of 10/30/95, and is still entirely functional. I've another one that's usable, but the LED's don't work, with a mfg date in '86. Doubtless there are similar anecdotes for some rubber dome keyboards, but I've worn some of them out (i.e. rubber dome tears out or wears down and the key won't return to ready). That's a couple anecdotes, not a rigorous study, but my experience certainly trends supportive of reliability claims.

For the same cost, though, you could buy 5 or more rubber dome squishboards. However, the experience of typing on them is dramatically less-than... At least, for those of us who appreciate the particular qualities of the buckling spring. The other big downside is its noise level - a hundred keyboards of these working away in a call center would be an unendurable racket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.39.22 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]