Why IBM's Amazing 'Sliding Keyboard' ThinkPad 701 Never Survived Past 1995 (fastcompany.com)
- Reference: 0178421862
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/07/20/0557204/why-ibms-amazing-sliding-keyboard-thinkpad-701-never-survived-past-1995
- Source link: https://www.fastcompany.com/91356463/ibm-thinkpad-701-butterfly-keyboard
> As part of Fast Company's " [2]1995 week ", I wrote about IBM's ThinkPad 701, the famous model with an expanding "butterfly" keyboard [which could be stretched from 9.7-inches to 11.5 inches]. By putting full-sized keys in a subnotebook-sized laptop, it [3]solved one of mobile computing's biggest problems .
>
> IBM discontinued it before the end of the year, and neither it nor anyone else ever made anything similar again. And yet it remains amazing.
Check out [4]this 1995 ad for the keyboard ! The article calls the butterfly ThinkPad "one of the best things the technology industry has ever done with moving parts," and [5]revisits 1995's race "to design a subnotebook-sized laptop with a desktop-sized keyboard."
> It's still comically thick, standing almost as tall as four MacBook Airs stacked on each other. That height is required to accommodate multiple technologies later rendered obsolete by technological progress, such as a dial-up fax/modem, an infrared port, two PCMCIA expansion card slots, and a bulky connector for an external docking station... Lifting the screen set off a system of concealed gears and levers that propelled the two sections of keyboard into position with balletic grace... A [6]Businesweek article cited sales of 215,000 units and said it was 1995's best-selling PC laptop. Yet by the time that story appeared in February 1996, the 701 had been discontinued. IBM never made anything like it again. Neither did anyone else...
>
> As portable computers became more popular, progress in display technology had made it possible for PC makers to use larger screens. Manufacturers were also getting better at fitting a laptop's necessary components into less space. These advances let them design a new generation of thin, light laptops that went beyond the limitations of subnotebooks. Once IBM could make a lightweight laptop with a wider screen, "the need for an expanding keyboard was no longer essential," says [butterfly ThinkPad engineer] George Karidis. "It would have just been a novelty."
The article notes a fan's open source guides for repairing butterfly Thinkpads at [7]Project Butterfly , and all the fan-community videos about it on YouTube, "from an [8]excellent documentary to people [9]simply being entranced by it .
"As a thing of wonder, it continues to transcend its own obsolescence."
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~harrymcc
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/section/1995-week
[3] https://www.fastcompany.com/91356463/ibm-thinkpad-701-butterfly-keyboard
[4] https://youtu.be/W_RQp2aoLDs
[5] https://www.fastcompany.com/91356463/ibm-thinkpad-701-butterfly-keyboard
[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030146/http://www.businessweek.com/1996/08/b346311.htm
[7] https://www.701c.org/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8U40b1hWIE
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tckMtkFpG9s
I worked on those (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in a repair shop and was warranty authorized on those things. They were assembled upside down, so any time you needed to replace or repair the keyboard mechanism you'd flip it over, take off the bottom, and then proceed to completely diassemble the unit until you arrived at the keyboard. They were surprisingly robust considering the mechanism. I was mostly repairing or replacing that keyboard for the same reason I'd have to replace other laptop keyboards: spills and mechanical damage.
u b thick (Score:2)
> "And yet it remains amazing."
If you are OK a super-thick laptop, yes.
> "IBM never made anything like it again. Neither did anyone else..."
Probably because people didn't want super-thick laptops :) Adding a sliding mechanism like that and being rigid-enough to work would easily at least double the thickness of modern notebooks, while also adding significantly to the weight and cost. And the cherry on top would be reliability; it is yet another mechanical thing to fail.
I agree it is very cool.
(But it
Re: (Score:2)
> Probably because people didn't want super-thick laptops :) Adding a sliding mechanism like that and being rigid-enough to work would easily at least double the thickness of modern notebooks, while also adding significantly to the weight and cost. And the cherry on top would be reliability; it is yet another mechanical thing to fail.
That and I think one of the main reasons this existed was larger displays were more expensive relatively than they are today. So it was gimmicky solution to the problems of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
In those days all laptops were thick....
I got one at the time, and put OS/2 Warp on it. Was pretty happy with the small and light form factor. Of course we all know how Microsoft double crossed IBM on OS/2, so I didn't end up using it as much as I had imagined.
Because the laptop was small, you needed to keep an external CDROM drive attached via a flimsy cable, at least that's what I vaguely remember. The cable didn't inspire confidence.
Most popular laptops in the market ended up having a built-in CD/DV
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody cared how thick laptops were in the 90s. People caring about thickness only started when Apple launched the macbook air out of a manila envelope. But at the time, Apple's only audience was egotistical pretentious people with more money than brains.
Maybe... (Score:3)
Maybe there were only 215,000 people interested in buying one?
Seriously, I remember it when it came out, but to be honest it looked gimmicky, flimsy/delicate, and small screen laptops were on the wane, as larger, higher resolution displays were coming out.
The space/weight savings weren't that significant, and as a new IBM model in 1995, I suspect it was at least as expensive as its non-butterfly competitors.
The disadvantage of a bigger laptop (Score:2)
> and small screen laptops were on the wane, as larger, higher resolution displays were coming out.
The disadvantage of a bigger laptop is that a bigger laptop is less convenient to use in a cramped space, such as on a bus commute to and from your day job. It's also less convenient to pack in a cramped space, such as your tiny personal locker at your day job. A 10.1" laptop fit in (say) a locker in the back of a Walmart Supercenter, and a 11.6" laptop did not. That's part of why I was so disappointed that [1]manufacturers suddenly discontinued 10.1" laptops at the end of 2012 [slashdot.org]. I remember recommending that pe
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/12/31/1829212/does-2012-mark-the-end-of-the-netbook
Re: (Score:3)
IBM's target demographic for ThinkPads was road-warriors. Excel users who flew on airplanes a lot. The road-warriors cared about weight , but didn't want to compromise on battery life. A fairly difficult circle to square in those days.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's part of why I was so disappointed that [1]manufacturers suddenly discontinued 10.1" laptops at the end of 2012 [slashdot.org].
I also was stunned by the sudden, complete disappearance of the netbook, which I thought was an ideal combination of form, capability and price (they were cheap ). I had kept on running on Linux for years.
[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/12/31/1829212/does-2012-mark-the-end-of-the-netbook
Re: The disadvantage of a bigger laptop (Score:2)
That's now the Chromebook niche.