5 ms·

OverType – The Over-the-Top Typewriter Simulator

73 points by henriquemaia 11y ago

chrisan 11y ago
Tom Hanks has an obsession with type writers and had an app made: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hanx-writer/id868326899?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hanx-writer/id868326899?mt=8
DonHopkins 11y ago
*I 050 THE INFINITE NO. OF MONKEYS Written by Bruce Tognazzini, this program was released by Apple Computer, Inc, on the DOS 3.2 disk for the Apple II in June 1979. It ran under Integer BASIC, and made use of some special tricks, which Tognazzini made available for interested programmers to view, from within the program (notice the menu choices at the start). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfMDWhc_ohU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfMDWhc_ohU
- kyberias 11y ago
  Why do you mention this? It's related to typewriters but still...
napsterbr 11y ago
It stopped working after I pressed enter, didn't know if it was part of the simulation. Awesome work.
massysett 11y ago
Simulation of a crappy typewriter, sure. In the 1990s even a $100 typewriter had a correction button, and in the years before that any office would buy a decent model that had correction. This simulation also does not register keys if you type too fast; no decent typewriter required you to type this slowly.
- hibbelig 11y ago
  Maybe he wanted to show this feature to people who were mere mortal typists? But maybe the instructions page should have explained, if so.
- snogglethorpe 11y ago
  I had a mechanical typewriter I bought in the '80s, and it was pretty basic, no real features at all, and the same classic type-bar mechanism that would jam if you pushed it too hard... but I rather liked it. Lots of typewriters of that class were very nice well-built reliable machines. I think it's unfair to label them as "crappy typewriters," because they weren't. I will note that my actual typewriter was much less annoying than this simulator, because there was a lot more feedback from the physical mechanism, both by touch—the keys were directly connected to the type bars, and one could feel their momentum and how hard they hit the paper—and sound. One could relatively easily judge if you were pushing the mechanism too hard (and adjust accordingly), how evenly you were typing, etc. Using this feedback, one could easily get into a nice typing rhythm and type pretty quickly with a decently low error rate (much faster and more accurately than this simulator allows). [Certainly as typewriter manufacturers at the very end of the typewriter era began to be aware of the threat of computers, and started employ some of the same technology, there were a lot of features added to try and compete.]
  - Sharlin 11y ago
    At least I'm fairly sure that no non-crap typewriter would skip characters if you try to type at any speed that's not glacially slow (basically normal touch-typing is impossible with this simulator.)
    - snogglethorpe 11y ago
      [BTW, I edited my comment to add some more detail, which might touch on the reason for this...]
    - kpil 11y ago
      I think it more or less matches my old mechanical typewriter from early 80s. Adjacent hammers can block each other without jamming when typing too fast.
    - mcguire 11y ago
      No, either * the two type bars would lock together, requiring you to stop and pick the traffic jam apart, or * you wouldn't use enough force on each keystroke, leaving the type bars waving around ineffectively without touching the ribbon, paper, and roller.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Who said it had to be a 90s typewriter?
- cstross 11y ago
  What you're describing isn't a typewriter, it's a daisywheel printer with a computer keyboard bolted on front. I learned to type on a manual typewriter in the 1970s. Unless you had somewhere north of $1000 for an IBM Selectric, or somewhat less for a second-tier knock-off, that's what you got. (Ordinary electric typewriters were basically a manual typewriter -- like the sim -- with motor assist for the type arms. They didn't jam as much and were lighter on the fingers and gave more even imprints on the paper, but still ...) The jamming is a side-effect of hitting keys too close together so that the type arm from the first key struck doesn't have time to fall back and clear the space the second type arm is trying to move into. Experienced manual typists learned not just touch-typing but the correct rhythm to minimize the time between keystrokes without quite jamming the machine.
OliverJones 11y ago
Wow. This old guy, who learned to type on a machine like that, sure has become dependent on stuff like rollover and backspace. Humbling.
- jerf 11y ago
  Don't be in such a hurry to second-guess your brain... it's very good at optimization problems you don't even realize it's solving. If you're using the correction buttons heavily, I'd suggest it's more likely because you're more efficient using them than because of the intellectual slovenliness you seem to so casually assume.
arocks 11y ago
Another equally good simulator (built in Om, React): http://cmdrdats.github.io/undertype/ http://cmdrdats.github.io/undertype/
- forgotmypassw 11y ago
  That doesn't seem to work for me, the paper page is always blank.
raldi 11y ago
It's missing support for the way you used to get boldface on a typewriter: Type a word, then go back and type it again. This is why the source of manpages does boldface (and underlining) like that -- it's from the days of lineprinter terminals! For example, to write "hi" in bold, a manpage's source does this: h^Hhi^Hi .. and to underline it: h^H_i^H_ Also, if you keep typing off the end of the page, it doesn't simulate what would usually happen on a real typewriter: you'd get ink on the roller.
- peterfirefly 11y ago
  No, that works fine. I can't make the colour change work, though. I was looking forward to see if I could make it type in part red, part black :)
  - raldi 11y ago
    I seem to be having the opposite experience as you; I can make text part red, part black just fine.
    - peterfirefly 11y ago
      I misunderstood the instructions. I have to hold the Esc key down to type red text (with a bit of black here and there at the top). I'm pretty sure the old typewriter I played with as a child didn't have a "shift" key for that but a toggle switch of some sort. I am also pretty sure that I could type a lot faster on that than I can on this simulation. (I took typewriting lessons at school as an elective.) (I think it might have been an old Remington and I think my parents bought it used.)
      - gchpaco 11y ago
        A real manual has better tactile feedback so you can know when it's safe to hit keys without getting a jam, I think that's a lot of what was going on here.
sampl 11y ago
If you like this, I made a something similar: http://typwrtr.com/ http://typwrtr.com/
ricardobeat 11y ago
I learned to type on a mechanical typewriter in the 90s, and if my memory doesn't fail me could type at up to 80wpm, much faster than this simulation allows.
chengiz 11y ago
I started to learn typing as a kid on an old manual typewriter (didnt have the patience to fully learn but that's not relevant). I do not remember the brand but it was fricking heavy and solid and mechanical, not one of those electrical lightweight types. The point is, this simulation is just not good. You never missed that many keys. If you typed out an entire paragraph you might lose a letter or two. It NEVER happened this often. And yes, I was banging on the keys. This is a simulation of a POS typewriter - just because things are mechanical doesnt mean they suck.

73 points by henriquemaia 11y ago

Tom Hanks has an obsession with type writers and had an app made: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hanx-writer/id868326899?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hanx-writer/id868326899?mt=8

DonHopkins 11y ago

*I 050 THE INFINITE NO. OF MONKEYS Written by Bruce Tognazzini, this program was released by Apple Computer, Inc, on the DOS 3.2 disk for the Apple II in June 1979. It ran under Integer BASIC, and made use of some special tricks, which Tognazzini made available for interested programmers to view, from within the program (notice the menu choices at the start). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfMDWhc_ohU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfMDWhc_ohU

kyberias 11y ago
Why do you mention this? It's related to typewriters but still...

napsterbr 11y ago

It stopped working after I pressed enter, didn't know if it was part of the simulation. Awesome work.

massysett 11y ago

Simulation of a crappy typewriter, sure. In the 1990s even a $100 typewriter had a correction button, and in the years before that any office would buy a decent model that had correction. This simulation also does not register keys if you type too fast; no decent typewriter required you to type this slowly.

hibbelig 11y ago
Maybe he wanted to show this feature to people who were mere mortal typists? But maybe the instructions page should have explained, if so.
snogglethorpe 11y ago
I had a mechanical typewriter I bought in the '80s, and it was pretty basic, no real features at all, and the same classic type-bar mechanism that would jam if you pushed it too hard... but I rather liked it. Lots of typewriters of that class were very nice well-built reliable machines. I think it's unfair to label them as "crappy typewriters," because they weren't. I will note that my actual typewriter was much less annoying than this simulator, because there was a lot more feedback from the physical mechanism, both by touch—the keys were directly connected to the type bars, and one could feel their momentum and how hard they hit the paper—and sound. One could relatively easily judge if you were pushing the mechanism too hard (and adjust accordingly), how evenly you were typing, etc. Using this feedback, one could easily get into a nice typing rhythm and type pretty quickly with a decently low error rate (much faster and more accurately than this simulator allows). [Certainly as typewriter manufacturers at the very end of the typewriter era began to be aware of the threat of computers, and started employ some of the same technology, there were a lot of features added to try and compete.]
- Sharlin 11y ago
  At least I'm fairly sure that no non-crap typewriter would skip characters if you try to type at any speed that's not glacially slow (basically normal touch-typing is impossible with this simulator.)
  - snogglethorpe 11y ago
    [BTW, I edited my comment to add some more detail, which might touch on the reason for this...]
  - kpil 11y ago
    I think it more or less matches my old mechanical typewriter from early 80s. Adjacent hammers can block each other without jamming when typing too fast.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    No, either * the two type bars would lock together, requiring you to stop and pick the traffic jam apart, or * you wouldn't use enough force on each keystroke, leaving the type bars waving around ineffectively without touching the ribbon, paper, and roller.
coldtea 11y ago
Who said it had to be a 90s typewriter?
cstross 11y ago
What you're describing isn't a typewriter, it's a daisywheel printer with a computer keyboard bolted on front. I learned to type on a manual typewriter in the 1970s. Unless you had somewhere north of $1000 for an IBM Selectric, or somewhat less for a second-tier knock-off, that's what you got. (Ordinary electric typewriters were basically a manual typewriter -- like the sim -- with motor assist for the type arms. They didn't jam as much and were lighter on the fingers and gave more even imprints on the paper, but still ...) The jamming is a side-effect of hitting keys too close together so that the type arm from the first key struck doesn't have time to fall back and clear the space the second type arm is trying to move into. Experienced manual typists learned not just touch-typing but the correct rhythm to minimize the time between keystrokes without quite jamming the machine.

OliverJones 11y ago

Wow. This old guy, who learned to type on a machine like that, sure has become dependent on stuff like rollover and backspace. Humbling.

jerf 11y ago
Don't be in such a hurry to second-guess your brain... it's very good at optimization problems you don't even realize it's solving. If you're using the correction buttons heavily, I'd suggest it's more likely because you're more efficient using them than because of the intellectual slovenliness you seem to so casually assume.

arocks 11y ago

Another equally good simulator (built in Om, React): http://cmdrdats.github.io/undertype/ http://cmdrdats.github.io/undertype/

forgotmypassw 11y ago
That doesn't seem to work for me, the paper page is always blank.

raldi 11y ago

It's missing support for the way you used to get boldface on a typewriter: Type a word, then go back and type it again. This is why the source of manpages does boldface (and underlining) like that -- it's from the days of lineprinter terminals! For example, to write "hi" in bold, a manpage's source does this: h^Hhi^Hi .. and to underline it: h^H_i^H_ Also, if you keep typing off the end of the page, it doesn't simulate what would usually happen on a real typewriter: you'd get ink on the roller.

peterfirefly 11y ago
No, that works fine. I can't make the colour change work, though. I was looking forward to see if I could make it type in part red, part black :)
- raldi 11y ago
  I seem to be having the opposite experience as you; I can make text part red, part black just fine.
  - peterfirefly 11y ago
    I misunderstood the instructions. I have to hold the Esc key down to type red text (with a bit of black here and there at the top). I'm pretty sure the old typewriter I played with as a child didn't have a "shift" key for that but a toggle switch of some sort. I am also pretty sure that I could type a lot faster on that than I can on this simulation. (I took typewriting lessons at school as an elective.) (I think it might have been an old Remington and I think my parents bought it used.)
    - gchpaco 11y ago
      A real manual has better tactile feedback so you can know when it's safe to hit keys without getting a jam, I think that's a lot of what was going on here.

sampl 11y ago

If you like this, I made a something similar: http://typwrtr.com/ http://typwrtr.com/

ricardobeat 11y ago

I learned to type on a mechanical typewriter in the 90s, and if my memory doesn't fail me could type at up to 80wpm, much faster than this simulation allows.

chengiz 11y ago

I started to learn typing as a kid on an old manual typewriter (didnt have the patience to fully learn but that's not relevant). I do not remember the brand but it was fricking heavy and solid and mechanical, not one of those electrical lightweight types. The point is, this simulation is just not good. You never missed that many keys. If you typed out an entire paragraph you might lose a letter or two. It NEVER happened this often. And yes, I was banging on the keys. This is a simulation of a POS typewriter - just because things are mechanical doesnt mean they suck.