In article <edBIJ$LtKHA.3536@newsgroup>, andy t
> I see you haven't many people answering you.
> Could that be because you are a troll?
> Most probably.
First off, let me congratulate you that you _mostly_
accept the spirit of this thread and therefore keep
your comments as constructive and useful to others
here as it is possible for you to do, considering your
innate destructive nature.
I was not really expecting many to answer this thread,
given the present unpopularity or SR among personal
> > WSR is free, provided you use the built in microphone
> > that comes with your PC. I think a lot of WSR users
> > wind up buying a microphone, which can run the cost
> > up to $50 or $300, depending on the microphone.
> Very true ;-). I started using the built in microphone
> in my laptop for WSR, as you very well know young Mark.
> Unfortunately, using this can be very frustrating as the
> built in microphone is not noise cancelling and the slightest
> noise from anywhere will allow text to come up on screen
> willy-nilly. Also, without a decent microphone, this will
> impair accuracy with dictation.
There you go, lurkers, right from the horse's mouth, from a
user "Andy" who was introduced to Vista speech recognition
"for free", then found out he needed to spend money to improve
the performance of SR. (SR short for Speech Recognition)
> Another advantage when using speech recognition
> all the time as I have to being disabled; speech
> recognition never makes a spelling mistake.
Out-of-the-box, yes, but of course we can get it to
make spelling mistakes if we want it to, as in both
creating and _recognizing_ slang words.
> So this is also a useful tool for somebody who is
> semi-illiterate and does not spell too well.
Yes indeed, I was not born with a silver spoon in
my mouth, had to support my family while others
my age were learning how to spell correctly.
> That is, why for the life of me do you not use it more
> regularly instead of typing Mark? Because then you
> would have spelt auxiliary right above like I have here.
Because you are not worth the effort for me to break out
my spell checker. I just do not share your belief that
correct spelling is all that important.
I manage to get across my meaning quite well, thank you,
without using 100% perfect spelling, and after all,
that is the purpose of language, to get across intended
Oh certainly, whenever I was grinding out a scientific
paper for one of the three scientific organizations I
belonged to, the IEEE, ACM, IAAA, _THEN_ I broke out
the spell checker.
> > DNS costs up to $1,600 which does not include all the
> > auxillary hardware and software, which can easily run up
> > the total cost to over $7,000 if you happen to be a doctor.
> Really? $7000 seems a bit steep. What do you mean by all
> auxiliary equipment? Are you including the PC
> within that price?
No, the PC would be an additional $3,000 - bringing the
grand total up to $10,000
$5,000 just for software to handle voice data entry into
EMR and EHR forms, those forms are _required_ by law
to be filled out. This voice controlled software is sold by
outfits like "MacPractice MD".
As for auxiliary hardware, the doctor finds it advisable
to buy a high quality 30" additional monitor to spot
important details on CAT scans that would be missed by
a lower quality monitor. These 30" high resolution Apple
monitors do not come cheap, I have one that costs over
$3,000 , not to even mention the higher cost video card
that I needed to buy to properly drive that monitor.
> > Some people speak from experience, others speak from
> > a broad base of ignorance, still others are trying to
> > sell you something, like microphones for example.
> Well if the second one above is aimed at me young Mark,
> (tee-hee) I can only reply by saying; seeing as I do not
> have a choice and I have to use speech recognition all the
> time, I can certainly say without sounding conceited, I
> speak from experience now.
No you do not "speak from experience now", because you
have not yet grasped the importance of a correctly
functioning document scanning feature.
People just can't afford the waste of time of the WSR
"workaround" for the broken document scanning
feature of WSR.
Speech Recognition is a marginal endeavor, any half-vast
"workaround" that consumes additional time means that
a person might as well just type the data in, instead of
> Dragon has slowly been developing over the last 18 years.
> WSR has only been developing just over 2 and is not aimed
> at the medical market in the first place. So stop panicking.
Whose panicking? I am sure everyone realizes that WSR is
only a toy, suited for introducing a newbie to SR.
Certainly the medical industry realizes WSR is a toy, of the
600 major hospitals in the US that use SR, not one of them
uses WSR, they ALL use Dragon - - - and your argument
that WSR "is not aimed at the medical market" does not
hold water either, because standard "hobby" versions of
Dragon, such as the $200 "Preferred" version, have
successfully been used by many hospitals here as a
Of course I and everyone else here knows you are a
sales agent for $Microsoft$, and get a lot of big bucks
from them to promote the bottom of the barrel WSR,
whose bugs they refuse to fix, such as the broken
document scanning feature.
I can't help wondering how many naive WSR users are
sucked in by believing that check-marking the box:
"Allow computer to review your documents"
....would be any good at all to increasing accuracy,
because that feature is broken.
Seems it would be the basis for a class-action
lawsuit against $MS, for false advertising.