"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:01:30 GMT

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Doe writes:

I would be glad if Windows included highly functional speech
input and output.

There's very little demand for that,

I have a very great demand for that.

Are you visually impaired?

and it requires a lot of horsepower.

My system, probably no better than a current store-bought computer,
is running it just fine, input and output.

I'm using a Celeron 400MHZ with 192MB of RAM under Windows 2000. And
it hits really hard here.

It also tends to be imprecise and error-prone.

That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about
text to speech, it's very understandable even though probably not
very good sounding to most people. If you're talking about speech
recognition, yes it can be very frustrating.

Then again, some day that will be water under the bridge.

Hopefully.

Input and output is a basic function of the operating
system.

Most operating systems, including Windows, allow for third-party
drivers to be installed to support just about any device. If
someone writes drivers that allow a microphone and speaker to be
substituted for a keyboard and screen, Windows will support it
just fine.

Windows supports keyboard input all the way to the desktop and
program window. Microsoft should be doing the same with speech.

Huh? Windows has text to speech built right into it.

Narrator is intended to help people with low vision to setup
their own computers, or use other people's computers. Narrator
may not perform well with some applications. Most users with
visual impairments will need a utility with higher
functionality for daily use.

For a list of Windows-based screen reader utilities, see
http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

Getting
voice input to work is hard enough, but converting all the visual
information in Windows to audible output is a Herculean task, and
requires skills and techniques that nobody actually has right now.

Speech recognition is the difficult part. Screen reading is not
nearly as difficult.

Screen reading is right there in at least Windows 2000/XP.

To disabled people, using a microphone and speakers is no
different than using a keyboard and monitor is to most of us.
Unfortunately, disabled people don't make Microsoft lots of
money.

Disabled people don't make anyone lots of money. Even so, many
companies, including Microsoft, spend more money accommodating
them than such customers bring in.

That sounds like pure guesswork and it's beside the point. I guess
it depends on whether you believe the disabled people should have
equal access. But again, as I stated below, it also has to do with
the future and how easily we get there.

You know some people can push this disabled stuff too far. So where
do you draw the line? For example, real disabled people still can't
get good parking. Yet zillions of dollars were forced from people's
pockets to build them. And one of the lawyers who did the forcing
and made probably zillions of dollars, didn't even have handicap
parking at his own office (this was on like 20/20 or something). Go
figure! It always comes down to it's about the money and who is
going to pay for it, now isn't it?

So even though speech will be part of the future personal
computer (or hybrid) ...

It may, or it may not.

It certainly will.

I'm not betting on that. As humans have a clear advantage over
computers when it comes to speech recognition. And I haven't even
heard of a workable theory in how computers could ever surpass
humans in this area.

I've never seen any proof that speech input
and output is in any way superior to the current arrangement.

Judging solely by your own experience I'm sure. Speech input is way
superior here on my machine. I hate to say this, and that's what I'm
doing, but current technology does require a good speaking voice and
the ability to properly configure sound input.

They
are handy when one cannot type or see, but if one can type and
see, they aren't that useful, except as novelties.

Sorry, but you're just making excuses for your own inability to use
the current technology.

Huh? The current technology in this area is very frustrating.

... we will have to wait until other software companies
develop it so Microsoft can easily buy or steal it.

Microsoft doesn't build specialized hardware or drivers for such
hardware,

There is no such special hardware. There are no special drivers.

You need a microphone and speakers for one. And I don't know how
anybody can reroute the keyboard to a mic and the screen output to
speakers without added drivers? So you're saying that Windows has
this ability built in? Gee and here I thought you were saying it
does not.

nor is it in the habit of stealing such things.

Microsoft can bully its way into anything that has to do with
personal computers.

Not so. They would like to make Linux disappear and can't for
starters. They probably would like IBM to fade away and can't. And I
bet they wished they didn't have to improve their products when
someone comes out with something better. And lastly, Microsoft has
no power over the end user! As the end user can choose what they
want to do with their money.

At the same time, other companies are lazy about software
development simply because Microsoft can put them out of business
by developing a lower quality but Windows-integrated version of
the same software.

They are lazy about producing software for the disabled because
they don't see any money in it,

There isn't any money in producing software that Microsoft can
integrate into Windows. I guess Microsoft is limited to the most
popular software in order to be less obvious about it.

Can you elaborate?

But in fact, other software publishers have already produced better
speech software that Microsoft, even though speech is a valid part
of the operating system. And indeed, whether Microsoft sees money in
it is the question.

and they are not operating as charities.

The future is not a charity.

Well Bill Gates has given millions of dollars to charity all of the
time. And while the future is not a charity, the future also isn't
here yet as well.

The market for such specialized hardware and software is too small
to allow the costs of development to be recovered in sales.

In a prior post, you suggested the author you were replying to
should start writing applications for a different operating system.
Of course that's impractical because he wouldn't sell any copies. In
this argument, you are very much aware of the fact that costs of
development must be recovered.

Are you aware that Microsoft does have disability features built
into Windows itself right now? And offers a web page for other
solutions between Windows for the disabled? How can you imply they
are not doing anything about it?


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0