(for instance the Oric 1/Atmos used a matrix and had no multiple keypress restrictions, you could query each key by row/column independently) It seems that the design of "serious" machines like IBM PCs of the time doesn't take into account multiple keypresses like other more hobbyist machines would, one of the reasons could be that hobbyist machines keyboards need to be more performant for games played with the keyboard. That comments tends to restrict my answer to other types of keyboards. The mainboard processors do not see a matrix of rows and columns, and the remote microcontrollers know that certain keys are modifiers, transmitting their codes as fake modifiers to make newer keyboards work with older machine firmwares PC/XT, PC/AT, PS/2, and suchlike keyboards have two microcontrollers and a serial link between the mainboard and the keyboard. This J+K thing is just bad luck (and the only example I know). On a day to day basis, all key combinations aren't useful. So in that case you could not use "J" or "K" as shift since some combinations would not work. It worked perfectly on Amiga 500 model but with the A1200, J+K cannot be detected at the same time due to a different keyboard circuitry/cheaper design on the A1200 (a part of the reason is because they're next to each other on the same matrix line). However there are some limitations when several keys are pressed, depending on the hardware.Ī "famous" example is the Z-Out cheatmode on amiga: "press J+K for invincibility". So one could say that only the operating system makes the shift/control/alt keys different from others. From a pure hardware point of view, a significant amount of computers keyboards see each keypress as a bit set in a matrix of rows & columns, so with another operating system you could theorically map "shift" to another key.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |