Let me tell you folks, you will get nowhere if you
think that Windows Speech Recognitions built-in "Help"
will actually help you learn how to run the speech app.

(WSR is short for Windows Speech Recognition)

I gave up, _nothing_ in the Help section about how to
make user-created macros, or user-created commands.

Knowing how to do that is absolutely necessary if you
desire to get WSR to be even halfways accurate and fast.

WSR has absolutely the worse Help section I have seen
in ANY speech app.


After a lot of searching on the web, using search phrases
like:

How to Make User-Created Macros

....I literally stumbled over this excellent site -

<[url]http://www.vista4beginners.com/Enhance-Windows-Speech-Recognition-Using-[/url]
Macros>


After you spend a lot of time and effort creating your own
macros and commands, WSR might perform much better,
at least I hope so.

Let you know for certain in a couple of weeks. It will take me
that long to build up a bunch of user-macros and user-commands,
guided by that excellent website.

Anyone else have trouble with WSR, or is it just me.

Mark-


Right now, WSR is at the bottom of the barrel for both speed
and accuracy, for me at least.

Mark Conrad wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Mark-
>
>
> Right now, WSR is at the bottom of the barrel for both speed
> and accuracy, for me at least.[/color]

Mark if you search on youtube you will see microsoft speech recognition
fail dramatically on many people trying to test the piece of crap.

Its part of vista... vista was a very low quality product, so dont
expect much. I have win7 now, but I have not tested WSR yet on that..
but I really doubt if there is much improvement.

In article <4a7a9bd0$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, FB
<B-stands-for-Bastard@com.ca.uk> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Right now, WSR is at the bottom of the barrel for both speed
> > and accuracy, for me at least.[/color]
>
> Mark if you search on youtube you will see microsoft speech recognition
> fail dramatically on many people trying to test the piece of crap.
>
> Its part of vista... vista was a very low quality product, so dont
> expect much. I have win7 now, but I have not tested WSR yet on that..
> but I really doubt if there is much improvement.[/color]

Well temporarily I will give WSR the benefit of the doubt,
at least until I spend several weeks trying to breathe life
into it :)

It is a blight on my record, as I literally have 9 different
speech recognition apps, from various vendors, and _all_
of them perform in a spectacular fashion as regards speed
and accuracy.

....even the extremely buggy "MacSpeech Dictate 1.5.2"
which runs only on Mac hardware. ($200 USD)

My speech apps vary from the very low cost to $1,600
in price.

My average sustained speed on all of them is 80 wpm on
the type of articles you would read from a daily newspaper,
and that 80 wpm _includes_ the loss of time necessary
to clean up any text mistakes.

I have ran brief tests (60 seconds) at 336 wpm, and it is
not uncommon for me to attain 100% raw accuracy on
such a short test, _no_ text corrections needed.

The raw accuracy at ordinary speaking speeds of 160 wpm
is generally 99% - - - in other words if I speak for
two minutes and dictate 320 words, I can expect to get
three text mistakes, on average.

Finding and correcting those 3 mistakes commonly takes
another two minutes, which is what drops my average speed
way down to 80 wpm.


Now _technical_ dictation is a whole different matter,
my sustained average speed drops way down to 40 wpm,
due to the complex multi-syllable words.

Mark-

(BTW, below is an example, which I ran on
the extremely buggy MacSpeech, one of
my not-so-good speech apps)

You will find, if you have a medical dictionary,
that the spelling on all the words is accurate,
even such terms as "Gy" as in "40 Gy" near
the end of this medical abstract.

"Gy" is a common abbreviation for "Gray" units,
a term used to specify how much radiation is
actually absorbed by a malignant growth.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit[/url])

--

Spinal Cord - Radiation Damage

The post-irradiation lower motor neuron syndrome
neuronopathy or radiculopathy?

Bowen J, Gregory R, Squier M, Donaghy M.

Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe
Infirmary, Oxford, UK.

It is not known whether the post-irradiation
lower motor neuron syndrome results from
radiation damage to motor neuron cell bodies or
from damage to the nerve roots of the cauda
equina. ... The first reported neuropathological
study... was performed in one patient who died.
This showed a radiation-induced vasculopathy of
the proximal spinal roots, with preservation of
motor neuronal cell bodies and spinal cord
architecture. These clinical, radiological,
neurophysiological and pathological findings all
point to a predominantly, but not exclusively,
motor radiculopathy affecting the irradiated
portion of the cauda equina proximal to the
dorsal root ganglia. Radiation exposure exceeded
40 Gy both in our series and in previous
reports. The natural history of this disorder is
one of relentless deterioration occasionally
punctuated by 1-2-year periods of stability.
Post-irradiation lumbosacral radiculopathy is a
more accurate name for this condition.

Mark Conrad wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <4a7a9bd0$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, FB
> <B-stands-for-Bastard@com.ca.uk> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Right now, WSR is at the bottom of the barrel for both speed
>>> and accuracy, for me at least.[/color]
>> Mark if you search on youtube you will see microsoft speech recognition
>> fail dramatically on many people trying to test the piece of crap.
>>
>> Its part of vista... vista was a very low quality product, so dont
>> expect much. I have win7 now, but I have not tested WSR yet on that..
>> but I really doubt if there is much improvement.[/color]
>
> Well temporarily I will give WSR the benefit of the doubt,
> at least until I spend several weeks trying to breathe life
> into it :)
>
> It is a blight on my record, as I literally have 9 different
> speech recognition apps, from various vendors, and _all_
> of them perform in a spectacular fashion as regards speed
> and accuracy.
>
> ...even the extremely buggy "MacSpeech Dictate 1.5.2"
> which runs only on Mac hardware. ($200 USD)
>
> My speech apps vary from the very low cost to $1,600
> in price.
>
> My average sustained speed on all of them is 80 wpm on
> the type of articles you would read from a daily newspaper,
> and that 80 wpm _includes_ the loss of time necessary
> to clean up any text mistakes.
>
> I have ran brief tests (60 seconds) at 336 wpm, and it is
> not uncommon for me to attain 100% raw accuracy on
> such a short test, _no_ text corrections needed.
>
> The raw accuracy at ordinary speaking speeds of 160 wpm
> is generally 99% - - - in other words if I speak for
> two minutes and dictate 320 words, I can expect to get
> three text mistakes, on average.
>
> Finding and correcting those 3 mistakes commonly takes
> another two minutes, which is what drops my average speed
> way down to 80 wpm.
>
>
> Now _technical_ dictation is a whole different matter,
> my sustained average speed drops way down to 40 wpm,
> due to the complex multi-syllable words.
>
> Mark-
>
> (BTW, below is an example, which I ran on
> the extremely buggy MacSpeech, one of
> my not-so-good speech apps)
>
> You will find, if you have a medical dictionary,
> that the spelling on all the words is accurate,
> even such terms as "Gy" as in "40 Gy" near
> the end of this medical abstract.
>
> "Gy" is a common abbreviation for "Gray" units,
> a term used to specify how much radiation is
> actually absorbed by a malignant growth.
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit[/url])
>[/color]

may i ask why you utilize so many speech programs? what is the reason

In article <4a7bf1da$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, FB
<B-stands-for-Bastard@com.ca.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> mark' its all about choice, time is relative, you still are capable of
> doing the good that you seek. read the text below, it might inspire you
> a bit, thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail.[/color]

Thank you very much for sharing that detailed account.

Being a realist, of course I realize that probability comes
into play, so the chances for others to duplicate his success
are very slim indeed.

Few more details I would like to add to my lengthy prior post
concerning why I utilize so many _different_ speech apps.

Lately, the Mac is making inroads to what was previously
an entirely $Microsoft$ market. (medical)

Medical practitioners have a huge paperwork burden,
which adds a significant amount to what the common man
has to pay for medical care, both here and in the UK.

One of the things that is contributing to the present shaky
world economy is the cost of this paperwork.

It is not uncommon for a gynecologist in Dade county,
state of Florida in the USA, to have to pay $270,000
YEARLY premium to be covered for malpractice.

(year 2004 rates!)

<[url]http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/states-with-highest-lowest-malpr[/url]
actice.html>


Needless to say, if our doctor so much as goes to the
bathroom, he has to fill out detailed forms about
how many sheets of toilet paper he used.


Even tiny side-businesses that deal with filling out
paperwork are flourishing. Physicians use the app
named "MacPractice M.D." to fill out EMR forms
on the Mac platform.

MacPractice proudly bellows that their app will work
with "MacSpeech Dictate", one of the speech-recognition
apps that I am forced to use, in order to cover the
presently surging Mac inroads into the medical market.

To do MacPractice right, it is not uncommon to shell out
$5,000 for that app alone, including the many support
apps that go with it.

<http://www.macpractice.com/mp/md/>


Guess who ultimately winds up paying for all this
hardware/software associated with paper shuffling.

Mark-

"Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
news:070820091025355620%none-of@your-business.invalid...[color=blue]
> In article <4a7bf1da$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, FB
> <B-stands-for-Bastard@com.ca.uk> wrote:
> paperwork are flourishing. Physicians use the app
> named "MacPractice M.D." to fill out EMR forms
> on the Mac platform.[/color]

Bonjour Monsieur Conrad. Vous êtes un idiot complet et votre "Dragon
Naturally Speaking" est un overpriced tas de sottises. Vous êtes également
un complet analphabètes imbécile.

andy t

They say all idiot's stick together don't they!

"Mark Conrad" <none-of@your-business.invalid> wrote in message
news:070820091025355620%none-of@your-business.invalid...[color=blue]
> In article <4a7bf1da$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>, FB
> <B-stands-for-Bastard@com.ca.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> mark' its all about choice, time is relative, you still are capable of
>> doing the good that you seek. read the text below, it might inspire you
>> a bit, thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail.[/color]
>
> Thank you very much for sharing that detailed account.
>
> Being a realist, of course I realize that probability comes
> into play, so the chances for others to duplicate his success
> are very slim indeed.
>
> Few more details I would like to add to my lengthy prior post
> concerning why I utilize so many _different_ speech apps.
>
> Lately, the Mac is making inroads to what was previously
> an entirely $Microsoft$ market. (medical)
>
> Medical practitioners have a huge paperwork burden,
> which adds a significant amount to what the common man
> has to pay for medical care, both here and in the UK.
>
> One of the things that is contributing to the present shaky
> world economy is the cost of this paperwork.
>
> It is not uncommon for a gynecologist in Dade county,
> state of Florida in the USA, to have to pay $270,000
> YEARLY premium to be covered for malpractice.
>
> (year 2004 rates!)
>
> <[url]http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/states-with-highest-lowest-malpr[/url]
> actice.html>
>
>
> Needless to say, if our doctor so much as goes to the
> bathroom, he has to fill out detailed forms about
> how many sheets of toilet paper he used.
>
>
> Even tiny side-businesses that deal with filling out
> paperwork are flourishing. Physicians use the app
> named "MacPractice M.D." to fill out EMR forms
> on the Mac platform.
>
> MacPractice proudly bellows that their app will work
> with "MacSpeech Dictate", one of the speech-recognition
> apps that I am forced to use, in order to cover the
> presently surging Mac inroads into the medical market.
>
> To do MacPractice right, it is not uncommon to shell out
> $5,000 for that app alone, including the many support
> apps that go with it.
>
> <http://www.macpractice.com/mp/md/>
>
>
> Guess who ultimately winds up paying for all this
> hardware/software associated with paper shuffling.
>
> Mark-[/color]