One of the major downfalls of software speech systems is that they have been less reliable in specific situations. Especially, in os installation. For example back in the early 90's I use to use Jaws for dos with a hardware synth to install dos on to my computer and then install hardware. Software speech wasn't up to the task. Later on I updated to Windows 95/98 etc and still used Jaws for dos and a special batch script to install MS Window's independantly. Eventually, speakup boot disks came along to install Slackware, Red Hat, debian etc to get Linux on a system independantly. Point here all of these os installs required some commandline screen reader for dos or Linux, and a hardware synth. Software speech still does not proform on dos boot diskettes or be loaded into a Linux install without alot of development. In other cases I have found software speech fails if your kernel should panic and speech would still not be present yet. One last example is when I install Window's sometimes my soundcard drivers are not installed. I can install Window Eyes blind, switch to the dectalk Express, install drivers, and then choose to switch to a sofware speech if I wish to do so. Dispite that software speech has existed simply because it is cost effective, is fine for general usage, but unless major advancements or changes are made it's not going to help out in areas where a hardware synth can go. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Whitley CTR Cecil H" <WhitleyCH.ctr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.'" <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:40 AM Subject: Software synths > Hi, > I'm sorry, I can't buy into there being anything inheriently bad with > software synths. They actually provide an elegant solution. Even the > dectalk is at it's heart a software synth, it just runs on an external > computer all it's own. If I remember the specs, it's a 386 with a meg of > memory. If you can get that out of a 386, what should you be able to do > with one of the modern processors? > > Admittedly, the dectalk has some fancy DAC's..... But once again, they are > circa 1990.... Shouldn't todays technology be able to at least match it?? > After all, we're not talking tubes here. > > So in summary, I contend that with a modern processor and high end sound > hardware it should be possible to exceed "old" hardware synths in all > catagories. On the other hand, if you get my dectalk express you'll have to > pry it from my cold dead fingers..... > > Cecil > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >
