Dragon for W2K

[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

 

[philo]

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

"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

 

[dc]

thank you philo,
I will look into maybe using XP home for this

dc

 

[philo]

thank you philo,
I will look into maybe using XP home for this

dc

Have a look here...
Win2k might have sufficient options


http://www.microsoft.com/enable/guides/vision.aspx

 

[Joseph O'Brien]

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

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

 

[Roger Fink]

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

 

[philo]

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

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

 

[Roger Fink]

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

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