Dragon for W2K

  • Thread starter Thread starter dc
  • Start date Start date
D

dc

Anyone have any experience with "Dragon Naturally Speaking" for W2K? My
brother is blind and I am trying to find out if this may help him to use a
computer.

tia,
dc
 
dc said:
Anyone have any experience with "Dragon Naturally Speaking" for W2K? My
brother is blind and I am trying to find out if this may help him to use a
computer.

tia,
dc
Click to expand...


"Dragon" may of course to used to read text...
but may not be of much help for actually using the computer.

Although Win2k is a good operating system...
a newer OS such as XP or Vista probably have more "accessibility
options."..which would
help one actually use the computer itself
 
Anyone have any experience with "Dragon Naturally Speaking" for W2K? My
brother is blind and I am trying to find out if this may help him to use a
computer.

tia,
dc
Click to expand...

Tia,

You should visit http://www.aph.org if you haven't already done so.
They publish a vast catalog of aids for the visually impaired,
including some software.

While I don't have any experience with Dragon, I know a few of the
software developers at APH who are blind: they use a screen reader
called Jaws, available at http://www.freedomscientific.com. I'm fairly
certain that all of them type rather than use a speach interpreter,
such as Dragon.

Good Luck.
Joseph
 
I have Dragon Naturally Speaking 8.0 installed on my W2K computer. It
installed with no problem and opens up with no problem, but I confess I
haven't put in the time to learn the program, which includes the program
sampling your voice. I don't see how there could be a perfromance difference
between W2K and XP. Processor and memory would be more of a factor, IMO
 
Roger Fink said:
I have Dragon Naturally Speaking 8.0 installed on my W2K computer. It
installed with no problem and opens up with no problem, but I confess I
haven't put in the time to learn the program, which includes the program
sampling your voice. I don't see how there could be a perfromance difference
between W2K and XP. Processor and memory would be more of a factor, IMO
Click to expand...


I only suggested the OP look at XP or Vista to see if they had better
"accessability options".
If they don't , then it would be best to stick with Win2k.
Since XP takes more resources than Win2k, Win2k may actually be the best
option
 
philo said:
I only suggested the OP look at XP or Vista to see if they had better
"accessability options".
If they don't , then it would be best to stick with Win2k.
Since XP takes more resources than Win2k, Win2k may actually be the
best option
Click to expand...

Actually I didn't infer any reference to accessibility issues from OP's
original post. Perhaps I should have. Your reply was very insightful.
 
Back
Top