KeyWiz seems a new product and it got me thinking about it as I was planning on getting a IPAC. So I did a search and learned that RandyT is the creator and visited his website. Okay, it doesn't have enough information like the IPAC.
With the IPAC, I can see that it is programmable via software and it is saved even when powered off. It has picture of a real product. It showed a list of all the connecters and I can see how it can be mounted.
With KeyWiz, I don't know how it is mounted as the picture is grainy.
I know it takes time for the website to get full featured with explaination. How does one program a button if there is no software. I can guess the same way as how you remap the inputs on MAME32.
I guess time will tell but I don't visit this board often and I (and maybe other newbies) would like a side-by-side comparison of those two products showing what both can do along with pros and cons.
KeyWiz seems a new product and it got me thinking about it as I was planning on getting a IPAC. So I did a search and learned that RandyT is the creator and visited his website.
With KeyWiz, I don't know how it is mounted as the picture is grainy. I know it takes time for the website to get full featured with explaination. How does one program a button if there is no software. I can guess the same way as how you remap the inputs on MAME32.
I guess time will tell but I don't visit this board often and I (and maybe other newbies) would like a side-by-side comparison of those two products showing what both can do along with pros and cons.
Ok what is the differences between the keywiz and the IPAC? Which is better?Hmmmn, not much I can say that hasn't been said already.
Gracias!
I should probably say "shine" or vivid. Can you take a picture straight down instead of an angle?I might get in trouble for this, but what I do is look at the ECO pic if I want to know what the PCB says (connection points, etc.) Actually, I can see the advantage of a straight down shot, but you also lose the perspective that you get with the current shot. Maybe two pics.
About the keyboard pass-thru, do you have to have the switch for it? So does that mean you have to mount it where it can be access to switch it.On the KeyWiz, yes, you have to use the switch to access the keyboard. On the I-PAC you do not.
I find myself rather bemused by all this...I suspect (hope) RandyT will answer this later, as it is his product, but I haven't let that stop me from offering my opinions in the past, so why start now. . .
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Keywhiz at all, there is room in this market for both of us. But just mulling over what I would need to do to the I-PAC if (perish the thought!) I wanted to mutate it into a Keywhiz clone.
OK firstly, in the microcontroller code, the state-based shift function would have to go, even though this allows any button to be the shift button and also have it's own function as well, or be dedicated as shift (total flexibility?). That's replaced by a simple selection of codesets based on the state of one specific input..a much simpler programming task!Shift functions - I can't comment on the programming involved. Although simpler programming doesn't necessarily mean decreased functionality.
Then out goes the nice interrupt-based pass-thru code, which uses nested bit and byte-level state machines (for the nerds) to handle the bitstream from the keyboard, a design which uses no clock cycles when the keyboard is idle.See my comments above on the need/lack of need for a pass-thru.
Delete the routines which allow the I-PAC to be programmed or tested by the device "typing" characters into a text editor on the PC.This is a useful feature, but the included WinIpac is a much better programming utility and the testing feature could be accomplished almost as well with Ghostkey.
Delete the interface to the EEPROM chip which saves codes from the MCU RAM into the EEPROM.I see little difference in EEPROM and SDRAM, other than SDRAM requires an extra autoexec.bat line if I want to load a custom code set at startup.
Delete LED support.LED support is nice, given the same number of inputs. I have said this before.
Delete all the USB support.I was the first one who mentioned I-PAC USB support in this thread.
Now to the hardware:I plan to hook my encoder up maybe twice or at most three times during it's lifetime (initial build and then when I revise my initial plans). As long as the terminals grip the wires, I'll find a Phillips screw driver.
Replace European made screw-terminals with Far East ones with tiny phillips screws which I don't personally like (OK that's probably just me, there's probably nothing wrong with them really).
Four more connections.Which means the difference between supporting 4-player 3-button games and supporting at best 4-player 2-button games. (I realize 4-player support was not a goal of the I-PAC/2, but it is possible with the KeyWiz).
Delete EEPROM chip.And add SDRAM. All three of these are covered in the paragraphs above.
Delete LED header connector.
Delete pass-through connector (there's no way I would put that switch on the board, have to draw the line somewhere!)
Add 5 volt connection, something I conciously avoided adding before (except on a header) owing to the risk of accidentally connecting a switch to it and damaging the motherboard.Ok, but you then end up usually needing to access this to run various devices (Opti-pac, P360's, LED's, etc.). I think it's a good bet that most of the people in this hobby can figure out how to wire one of these up, but it's not the end of the world either way.
Shrink the board and therefore by necessity the labelling on the connections.Which is a feature as a smaller board makes it easier to find room for the encoder in a small desktop CP, or a project box.
It would be a mere shadow of it's former self! Maybe I should not rule this out though. It seems that the advanced features are not really needed, going by Tiger-Heli's opinion at least (and yes I actually do genuinely respect his long-standing interest and enthusiasm for this kind of product)...I appreciate and thank you for that. Merry Christmas, BTW!
Based on the fact that deleting stuff is much easier than adding it, I should have this done by tonight...Probably. I have always said that the products, while similar, have different feature sets and the choice depends on what you want to do with it.
<snipped>
Or would I risk a consumer revolt "Bring back the old-taste I-PAC"??
I can state this - Shift functions pose a problem in that they can't be used for action buttons, and you don't want to accidentally activate them. (i.e. the I-PAC's "both players hit start and the game exits" syndrome). The KeyWiz avoids this by making the Shazaam! button independent of the action inputs, and by allowing you to wire a button to both the Shazaam! and another input so you can press one button to Exit wihout having to remember "I press P1 Start and then, um, one of these other keys, to exit."But you can do this on the I-PAC as well, just assign the shift input as "no keycode" and it becomes a dedicated shift, independent of action inputs, just like the Shazam key. To wire as you mention you need diodes on both encoders as you know. Or just program an input as "esc"...
But you can do this on the I-PAC as well, just assign the shift input as "no keycode" and it becomes a dedicated shift, independent of action inputs, just like the Shazam key. To wire as you mention you need diodes on both encoders as you know. Or just program an input as "esc"...Fair enough, but now you're down to 27 inputs against the KeyWiz's 32. And agreed, it's mainly an issue with 4-player panels.
All of this shift key issue really comes down to numbers of inputs, and yes the KeyWhiz has 4 more. But realistically these only would be used for a certain configuration of limited 4-player panel (ie no more than 3 buttons per player) or maybe a 3 player panel. With a 2-player panel you have enough inputs on the I-PAC-2 (which was designed as a 2-player device) to have a dedicated shift key if you wish, plus dedicated "major function" keys.
I find myself rather bemused by all this...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Keywhiz at all, there is room in this market for both of us. But just mulling over what I would need to do to the I-PAC if (perish the thought!) I wanted to mutate it into a Keywhiz clone.
OK firstly, in the microcontroller code, the state-based shift function would have to go, even though this allows any button to be the shift button and also have it's own function as well, or be dedicated as shift (total flexibility?). That's replaced by a simple selection of codesets based on the state of one specific input..a much simpler programming task!
Then out goes the nice interrupt-based pass-thru code, which uses nested bit and byte-level state machines (for the nerds) to handle the bitstream from the keyboard, a design which uses no clock cycles when the keyboard is idle.
Delete the routines which allow the I-PAC to be programmed or tested by the device "typing" characters into a text editor on the PC.
Delete the interface to the EEPROM chip which saves codes from the MCU RAM into the EEPROM.
Delete LED support.
Delete all the USB support.
Now to the hardware:
Replace European made screw-terminals with Far East ones with tiny phillips screws which I don't personally like (OK that's probably just me, there's probably nothing wrong with them really). Four more connections.
Delete EEPROM chip.
Delete LED header connector.
Delete pass-through connector (there's no way I would put that switch on the board, have to draw the line somewhere!)
Add 5 volt connection, something I conciously avoided adding before (except on a header) owing to the risk of accidentally connecting a switch to it and damaging the motherboard.
Shrink the board and therefore by necessity the labelling on the connections.
It would be a mere shadow of it's former self! Maybe I should not rule this out though. It seems that the advanced features are not really needed, going by Tiger-Heli's opinion at least (and yes I actually do genuinely respect his long-standing interest and enthusiasm for this kind of product)...Based on the fact that deleting stuff is much easier than adding it, I should have this done by tonight...
To be perfectly honest I would not be unhappy about doing this, because all that clever code has not been wasted, having been incorporated into several non-gaming consumer USB/PS2 products from US corporations (the income from which far exceeds what I have made from the I-PAC!). Or would I risk a consumer revolt "Bring back the old-taste I-PAC"??
But now I want a control panel that does more so I'm getting one of these devices (hopefully for Christmas) am I gonna be able to figure this out? Or should I just call NASA now? ;D
You know when I first decided to build my control panel based off of one of these devices it sounded so simple. Now that I've read all the techinical jargon in this thread it sounds like instead of connecting a few wires to a circuit board and plugging it into the PS/2 port of my PC that I am gonna have to program the Space Shuttle's guidance system first!
I currently have an X-arcade control panel...which I'm sure both of you guys probably think is junk! ;) However, I plugged it in and it worked with MAME32 easily and so far it's worked well for me. But now I want a control panel that does more so I'm getting one of these devices (hopefully for Christmas) am I gonna be able to figure this out? Or should I just call NASA now? ;D
I have used both products in installations. The I-Pac was an easier install, but only because the keywhiz wiring sheet was a bit confusing with all the stuff about shazam keys and alternate keysets. I had to look it over about 10 times to make sure I was doing it right. It is wired exactly the way you would think it is, but all that business about Shazam and alternate keysets confuses that basic issue.
Here is my quick and easy keywhiz instruction manual.
The default keys listed on the LEFT chart are the ones that are actually DEFAULT. Otherwise it installs exactly the same as an I-pac, unless you want all that shazam stuff.
I have a question about the 5 volt input. I recently bought a Keywiz. Not yet started on my CP, but hopefully in the next couple of weeks, anyway, what exactly can it be used for?
Everything looks simple enough to me, already mapped out the DB25 connector for the Swappable panels I am planning. Got an Atari Stand Up Cabinet. Got the Joysticks, buttons and KeyWiz. Just got a lot of things to do between now and when I can start working on it.
Looking forward to it.
I have a question about the 5 volt input. I recently bought a Keywiz. Not yet started on my CP, but hopefully in the next couple of weeks, anyway, what exactly can it be used for?
Agreed, the initial comment about room for both of us was true. The KeyWiz and the I-PAC have different feature sets and a given person will prefer one over the other. The post went downhill fast from there though.I find myself rather bemused by all this...I'm dissapointed in you Andy. This was not very friendly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Keywhiz at all, there is room in this market for both of us. But just mulling over what I would need to do to the I-PAC if (perish the thought!) I wanted to mutate it into a Keywhiz clone.
Publicly trying to spread misinformation about your competition tends to sour people towards you.Agreed on all counts
In every post I've ever seen from Randy he has tried to explain how both products work. A little information is good for everyone and in my opinion a little competition can only be good because it makes you both work harder to make your products better.
Unless I'm mistaken the only reason that the ipac has documented some of the advanced wiring techniques is directly related to the competition of the keywiz. The keywiz has forced you to make your product and service better.I assume you mean things like having a button activate a shift function with one press (Stealth shifting). In Andy's defense (and I could be incorrect in his motivation), the KeyWiz has a different shift methodology than the I-PAC. Which one is better depends on the application, but the KeyWiz is more flexible. And the implementation is easier with the KeyWiz (two diodes vs. IIRC a capacitor, a resistor, and two diodes). Also, there probably was not much reason to think about doing this on an I-PAC until it was pointed out that the KeyWiz could do it. (I remember a post on the old I-PAC board asking about it, but I think that was after the KeyWiz was released.)
At the risk of fanning the flames still further, I didn't think that Andy's post was that bad. I generally find RandyT's posts far more aggressive and over the top. His response to Andy's (almost certainly innocent) spelling mistake is a good example of this.
But to make a general point (and this is not aimed at anyone in particular) I think product sellers are very ill-advised to get involved with threads of this nature, unless perhaps they are correcting blatantly inaccurate factual information.
When considering purchasing something there are two things that tend to put me off - a hard sell, and denigration of a competitors products. I'm a strong believer that good products can almost sell themselves. Sellers should stick to hard facts and leave opinions to their customers.
As far as the Keywiz vs Ipac issue is concerned, they both do the job they are designed to do and I'd be happy with either. The Ipac is clearly the superior product (despite having 4 fewer inputs available). However the Keywiz is much cheaper. I don't really see them as being in direct competiton with one another.
From a customer perspective competition can only be a good thing. Both Ultimarc and Groovygamegear are producing good products at a reasonable price and responding to what their customers want. It's therefore a shame when threads such as this one turn nasty.
You don't say why it limits functionality?QuoteDelete the routines which allow the I-PAC to be programmed or tested by the device "typing" characters into a text editor on the PC.The limited functionality of such things as opposed to what can be done with dedicated software on the PC side, make these extraneous for the large majority of users. They wouldn't be missed.
I get the opposite point of view, I think many people use the LED support. Especially if the person picked up volcano buttons or is more into classic games.QuoteDelete LED support.
A few people out there like the LEDs....but seemingly, just a few.
Exactly, Mac people need it too :)QuoteDelete all the USB support.The Mac people need something too.
Kick the annoying buddies butt then, don't stand for that :) I don't get why people are so afraid of a certain setup because their buddy could screw them up. Come on folks, the buddy could just reach over and grab your joystick or mash your buttons anyway! Are you going to put a guard over your controls then too?QuoteDelete pass-through connector (there's no way I would put that switch on the board, have to draw the line somewhere!)Oh, so a hidden extra switch on a panel with 30 other switches is the end of the world, eh? Heh.
How about that annoying buddy that beats on the keyboard while you are playing and screws up your game? Not with the KeyWiz!
RTFMQuoteAdd 5 volt connection, something I conciously avoided adding before (except on a header) owing to the risk of accidentally connecting a switch to it and damaging the motherboard.
That's why you make it abundantly clear in your printed documentation where it is and why to avoid doing that. You do provide printed instructions, don't you?
As far as the Keywiz vs Ipac issue is concerned, they both do the job they are designed to do and I'd be happy with either. The Ipac is clearly the superior product (despite having 4 fewer inputs available). However the Keywiz is much cheaper. I don't really see them as being in direct competiton with one another.Actually, they are in direct compettion and you explained it. One has more features but the other is cheaper. That's the basis for competition between many products. It's going to come down to the needs of a particular customer and which one fits his needs better. Same reason why some people will use the JPAC over the IPAC, it suits a need that the other just can't do.
QuoteAs far as the Keywiz vs Ipac issue is concerned, they both do the job they are designed to do and I'd be happy with either. The Ipac is clearly the superior product (despite having 4 fewer inputs available). However the Keywiz is much cheaper. I don't really see them as being in direct competiton with one another.Actually, they are in direct compettion and you explained it. One has more features but the other is cheaper. That's the basis for competition between many products. It's going to come down to the needs of a particular customer and which one fits his needs better.
QuoteAs far as the Keywiz vs Ipac issue is concerned, they both do the job they are designed to do and I'd be happy with either. The Ipac is clearly the superior product (despite having 4 fewer inputs available). However the Keywiz is much cheaper. I don't really see them as being in direct competiton with one another.Actually, they are in direct compettion and you explained it. One has more features but the other is cheaper. That's the basis for competition between many products. It's going to come down to the needs of a particular customer and which one fits his needs better.
That quote made me chuckle too, "I don't really see them as being in direct competition." In my canine opinion, there are no two products in more direct competition, than the Keywiz and Ipac.
The reason I described the Ipac as a superior product is because it provides USB support, automatic keyboard pass-through, LED support, and retains its settings when the power is switched off. For many people, at least one of these features will be absolutely vital. If however if you don't need any of those features then you can save quite a bit of money by buying a Keywiz. I never suggested that Keywiz owners would not be happy with their purchase.Grasshopper I made a statement about how wise you were then you go ahead and say that, now I have to respond.
The reason I described the Ipac as a superior product is because it provides USB support, automatic keyboard pass-through, LED support, and retains its settings when the power is switched off. For many people, at least one of these features will be absolutely vital. If however if you don't need any of those features then you can save quite a bit of money by buying a Keywiz. I never suggested that Keywiz owners would not be happy with their purchase.Grasshopper I made a statement about how wise you were then you go ahead and say that, now I have to respond.
The keywiz also has several unique features which might be vital someones particular application. Price is not the only feature that the keywiz has going for it. I won't get into how shift differs and if one is technically faster or has a bigger buffer than the other but there are some other obvious features. None of which may be important to you. Its smaller, it has more inputs, it has 2 codesets with on the fly code set switching. I'm sure there is more that I am missing but the point is there is no definitive way to say which one is the superior product. I'm sure there are people out there that would be willing to buy the keywiz even if it cost more than the ipac if they needed any of the features that it provided just like there are people today willing to pay more for the ipac.
Okay, okay! Everyone to their corners. This match is over.
If I have tried to pass on misinformation on the Keywiz, this would indeed be a cardinal sin on this board, and would also be very stupid as people on here are generally well informed.
I am very concerned by your post. In fact I am so concerned that I would like to find out exactly what you have interpreted as misinformation, in order that I can redress the situation and apologise if necessary.
Although Randy, and yourself (and probably others) see it differently, I really genuinely did not intend to be negative about the Keywiz. I agree completely that competition is good for everyone.
I have read and re-read the thread so many times now, but can't really put my finger on exactly what the misinformation was. Just to mention a few points:
I fully understand that the Shazam input is an extra input above the 32 regular ones, I did not mention otherwise.
But just mulling over what I would need to do to the I-PAC if (perish the thought!) I wanted to mutate it into a Keywhiz clone. ...<snip>.....
That's replaced by a simple selection of codesets based on the state of one specific input..a much simpler programming task!
I did not imply that the connector blocks are inferior, I only mentioned that I personally prefer the slotted over the Phillips head screws that are used on the Far East products.
Replace European made screw-terminals with Far East ones with tiny phillips screws which I don't personally like (OK that's probably just me, there's probably nothing wrong with them really)."
(by the way they might have a German brand name but are definitely made in Asia, and none the worse for it).
It would indeed be strange if I were "Anti-Asian" as my wife (50% owner of Ultimarc) is Asian.
I can't find any more comments on my post that could remotely be interpreted as misinformation.
<snip>.....a design which uses no clock cycles when the keyboard is idle.
I can find a few in Randy's post though, for example implying that we don't inspect and test each board, and a few others.
I really wish this thread would go away.
The reason I made that original post was that I received a few emails from customers and friends suggesting that I should "push" the I-PAC a bit more on this forum. This is something I have never really done before and probably never needed to (and wish I had not started!) as I am of the view that this is not the place to advertise.
Posted by Andy Warne on November 19, 1999 at 06:28:10:
In Reply to: MAME box control interfaces posted by Chris Ainsworth on November 19, 1999 at 04:24:29:
Chris,
Maybe I could supply you with some pre-programmed chips from the interface I have just finished - see my earlier postings. This would handle the sticks/buttons in one hit. The trackballs would go into the serial port anyway?
I am looking into USB at the moment but have yet to be convinced it is responsive enough for a game interface. OK the bandwidth is no problem but what about the time the key-press takes to get across the bus, with all the excess baggage of addresses, protocol and software drivers etc? I'll post any findings here.
Incidentally last night I hooked up a standard keyboard to my logic analyzer and measured the time taken between pressing a key and the key code being sent to the PC. As expected it is random and varies between 10 and 100 milliseconds. So your firing could be delayed by up to one tenth of a second which is not an insignificant time in a fast game.
But, as some people pointed out, I will need to do so, if the "competition" does.
You don't say why it limits functionality?
A few people out there like the LEDs....but seemingly, just a few.QuoteI get the opposite point of view, I think many people use the LED support. Especially if the person picked up volcano buttons or is more into classic games.
QuoteExactly, Mac people need it too :)QuoteDelete all the USB support.The Mac people need something too.
QuoteOh, so a hidden extra switch on a panel with 30 other switches is the end of the world, eh? Heh.Kick the annoying buddies butt then, don't stand for that :) I don't get why people are so afraid of a certain setup because their buddy could screw them up. Come on folks, the buddy could just reach over and grab your joystick or mash your buttons anyway! Are you going to put a guard over your controls then too?
How about that annoying buddy that beats on the keyboard while you are playing and screws up your game? Not with the KeyWiz!
The pass through is probably one of the extras I use the most. I puts a ps/2 port up near the front of my cabient. If I want to connect a keyboard for maintainence all I have to do is poen the coin door, plug the keyboard in, tada.
QuoteThat's why you make it abundantly clear in your printed documentation where it is and why to avoid doing that. You do provide printed instructions, don't you?RTFM
http://www.ultimarc.com/ipac2.html
Now you will argue it isn't printed. Does it have to be printed? I would have to buy your product over the internet so I should be able to know how to use the internet.
If you complain about it not being printed then I will complain about you not having a printed catalog.
It's nice if you have a printed manual but definately not something to scorn the opposition about since both are internet based sellers.
The whole 28 inputs versus 32 inputs isn't that big of a deal either. The only time that will make a difference is making a 4 player setup where each player only has 2 buttons. So converting a simpsons cabinet (blasphemy) would be easier with the keywiz.
4 (joystick) + 2 buttons + coin + start = 8 x 4 = 32
That sounds more like information isn't in an obvious place.QuoteThat's why you make it abundantly clear in your printed documentation where it is and why to avoid doing that. You do provide printed instructions, don't you?RTFM
http://www.ultimarc.com/ipac2.html
Now you will argue it isn't printed. Does it have to be printed? I would have to buy your product over the internet so I should be able to know how to use the internet.
If you complain about it not being printed then I will complain about you not having a printed catalog.
It's nice if you have a printed manual but definately not something to scorn the opposition about since both are internet based sellers.
My point here is that in this thread there was a person who stated they could not find information on my site that was listed in at least 4 places. Without a piece of paper in hand, even if it is one you print yourself from the website in question, silly errors are more likely to occur. I realize this and that is why one is included with the product.
QuoteThe whole 28 inputs versus 32 inputs isn't that big of a deal either. The only time that will make a difference is making a 4 player setup where each player only has 2 buttons. So converting a simpsons cabinet (blasphemy) would be easier with the keywiz.
4 (joystick) + 2 buttons + coin + start = 8 x 4 = 32
The extra inputs just mean you will have enough on a 2 player panel, without resorting to re-using inputs or shifted combos unless you want to. It is true that not all users will need them, but it does make a 4 player panel more achievable "on the cheap".
RandyT
Andy & Randy you both have great products. Same as sony and nintendo.
My point here is that in this thread there was a person who stated they could not find information on my site that was listed in at least 4 places. Without a piece of paper in hand, even if it is one you print yourself from the website in question, silly errors are more likely to occur. I realize this and that is why one is included with the product.That sounds more like information isn't in an obvious place.
28 is plenty though for 2 players :)
My point here is that in this thread there was a person who stated they could not find information on my site that was listed in at least 4 places. Without a piece of paper in hand, even if it is one you print yourself from the website in question, silly errors are more likely to occur. I realize this and that is why one is included with the product.That sounds more like information isn't in an obvious place.
Yeah, the home page and the FAQ page isn't obvious ::)
I can definitely sympathize with this. :)
Having gone from not supplying printed instructions --> supplying printed instructions --> back to not supplying printed instructions, this is my experience: Doesn't make any difference in the amount of tech support emails.
There will always be customers that would rather send an email to ask rather than read supplied instructions or go to the readily available instructions online (no matter how easy they are to find). I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just a fact.
Heh. It doesn't happen too often, but I don't mind when a customer asks questions or needs that little bit of extra reassurance. If it means the difference between a happy customer and one that has problems because they didn't read or understand the instructions, I'll glady take the tech support email.
Someone please email me if this thread gets out of control. Everyone make nice, it's a new year! Yes, I don't know quite how that relates but ...Saint, are you implying that this thread could be locked or even deleted? If so, I think this is a good idea.
It has been suggested that the Keywiz's 4 extra inputs could be useful for some people building a 4 player panel. Maybe. But for a typical 4 player panel you really need 8 inputs per player (4 for the joystick plus 4 buttons) making 32. This doesn't leave any inputs left over for player start, coin, etc.Better get my replies in before the thread gets locked or deleted!
OK, from a consumer point of view:RandyT did NOT say that it limited functionality, he said that the feature provided limited functionality. I.E., not that the feature kept you from doing stuff, but rather that the feature wasn't very useful.QuoteYou don't say why it limits functionality?QuoteDelete the routines which allow the I-PAC to be programmed or tested by the device "typing" characters into a text editor on the PC.The limited functionality of such things as opposed to what can be done with dedicated software on the PC side, make these extraneous for the large majority of users. They wouldn't be missed.
Anyway, it's a cool idea but Randy is right, it isn't used as much since there is software for the main OSes to program the IPAC. I've used it once to try it out.
Saint, are you implying that this thread could be locked or even deleted? If so, I think this is a good idea.Yes, I'm sure you do (for obvious reasons). I wouldn't mind seeing the thread get locked (not sure there's much more to say that would benefit anyone at this point, but I hope it is NOT deleted. There is a lot of good info in here (amongst the jibes), and I would hate for it to be deleted, and someone else ask "Which is better?" and everyone have to re-hash this all again.
True, but you brought that up.
Some of the issues here, especially the terminal block issue, have been way overcooked.
There is nothing wrong with the ones on the Keywiz and I never said there was.What you said was:
I can't even figure why you quoted the post to Chris Ainsworth..Let me help you out here, I think it was in response to your statement that:
The "test mode" feature of the I-PAC has proved to be invaluable as a support tool. Ghostkey generally is not good at detecting stuck keys which have been stuck right from power-on, ie before the program was started. The test-mode feature will always type the description of the stuck key onto the screen when invoked.This is useful information that I was not aware of. Thank you for clarifying.
I will think more carefully before posting in future, and also will not post after coming back from the pub! (which probably caused the problem in the first place!)Yep, that might be a good idea. Those pubs can be dangerous!