sean not so sure that i agree with your theory here, if the lack of i s a slots
was the issue then why is it that
drivers are maid for serial port synthes?
After all they are, serial ports part of the isa bus.
with that said the real truth is that the n t operateing system has security
makeing harder to write drivers for hardware.
this is the same reason fax software took so long to be written for n t.
much longer than similar software in o s 2.
now i do agree that a hardware synth in n t is not required, by the way in n
t the software speech will be free and ship with n t 5.
plus their is no dos so no dos stand alone synth is needed.
so the only advantage of hardware synth in n t is speed.
one other point a person could easily design a p c i synth.
personally i think the blind market could support one of these, though i doubt
that as many hardware synths could survive in the n t enviroment because most
will choose the cheaper software.
of course such a synth would need to incorporate new technology, like maybe a
on board pronunciation
dictionary, which used real data base rules to look up words instead of the
methods currently used in screen reader software.
such a synth could produce every word accurately, or awful close to 100
percent, and would find great value with medical transcriptionist or lawyers.
as the main c p u incorporates more and more capabilities to act as a more
powerful digital signal processor, that in turn means better ability to make
speech software work faster.
also as the main c p u also incorporates bigger and bigger on board cqache it
may be possible to actually
design the whole synth i am proposeing and be able to store all the correct
spellings in the cache itself.
right now some c p us from intel have 1 meg of cache.
of course the cost of such a synth would need to be reduced.
translation by using a intel processor that is no longer a mainstreem chip
the p c i synth could be built using
a chip that cost nothing for the blind community to develope.
so such a synth could reduce price and still retain high quality speech.
bill cameron
At 11:00 AM 1/22/99 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I will answer your two questions in the quoted message below. My
>comments are preceded by SM:.
>
>>>> "Tim Culhane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21/January/1999 10:40pm >>>
>What is the reason for this?
>SM: If you mean why internal synths will have a short life spand in
>computerrs, the answer is very simple. NT at this point of time does
>not have any ssill drivers. Until Arkenstone brings out NT drivers,
>you wil not get your Internal synths to work. Yes, you could sya that
>JFW or any other screen reader should develop their own drivers. But
>they will not do so because new computers will not have any ISA slots
>in them. ISA slots are being phased out. Also software synthesizers
>are becoming more common and cost less. Using Australian prices, the
>cost of a Dectalk PC or Express is around the $1500 and the Dectalk
>Access 32 is about $400 and if you buy a cheap sound card, you are
>looking about $100. A total of $500, which means I save $1000. In
>other words, the main stream market is seeing the advantages of
>software speech and this will completely change the way that synths
>are sold.
>
>Will there be an alternative?
>SM: Software synths are the replacement.
>
>Regards
>Sean.
>-
>Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
-
Visit the jfw ml web page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~nallan/jfw
