- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Jonathan Epstein: "RE: Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
- Previous message: Daft, Christopher M: "RE: Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
- Maybe in reply to: Jamie Ferguson: "Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
of the discrete versions) is not 32 bit is because Dragon is still
attempting to address the less than Pentium class users. My assumption
is that a 32 bit program would not run on a 486, is that right?
Rose
Daft, Christopher M (CRD) wrote:
>
> > Larry Allen writes:
> >
> > One person last week noted DragonDictate performed more slowly on a
> > PentiumPro
> > - -- not a Pentium II. Correspondence with that person discovered that
> > the
> > person went from a M-APCA card to an on-board sound card; a very likely
> > cause
> > for the slowdown. My own experience with clients is that Pentium-II
> > systems
> > make DragonDictate look very good.
> >
> It was me! I should largely retract my comment. I believe the slowness I
> was observing using DragonDictate was due instead to not completely
> disabling the onboard sound hardware on this Hewlett-Packard machine. As
> someone else noted, Hewlett-Packard is not renowned for audio quality. So I
> bought a Tropez sound card on the recommendation of Dragon technical
> support. Unfortunately, Windows 95 still wants to install drivers for the
> motherboard sound chip unless you try very hard to stop it. I believe that
> I have achieved this now, and DragonDictate is working better. I didn't
> have to do the possibly unwise replacement of my ACPA card into this
> machine.
>
> The Pentium II processor is reputed to perform better on sixteen bit
> software than the Pentium pro, for a given clock speed, but for the system
> I'm building for home use, I went with the 233 MHz AMD K-6 processor and the
> HX (not TX) chipset.
>
> What I don't understand is why Dragon doesn't compile the whole of
> DragonDictate as 32 bit software. From what I can tell from using Norton
> Utilities, pieces of it are 32 bit, but the majority is sixteen bit. The
> macro facilities of NaturallySpeaking seem incomplete enough to hold off
> moving to that program until Dragon has done some more work on it. At least
> for my type of work, which tends to be short bits of text and programming.
>
> Chris
- Next message: Jonathan Epstein: "RE: Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
- Previous message: Daft, Christopher M: "RE: Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
- Maybe in reply to: Jamie Ferguson: "Performance (was RE: TX chipset and voice applications)"
 |  |