Re: [Freedos-user] more about screen readers
Hi Karen, while I have not used any screen reader, I have used both text to speech (to announce incoming mail) and written a tool to forward an extract of a DOS or Linux text screen to a 4 by 20 LCD display, navigated by buttons on the LCD. The latter arguably has some similarity to a screenreader. I also played with Orca in Linux, but given my experience with reading Brltty sources (once discussed the possibilty to port it to DOS for a while with somebody) I think I do have some idea on how those things interact with the user, although again only in text mode. Last but not least we had some Braille and screen reader enabled systems at university. In none of those contexts I got the impression that it would affect the user experience whether the voice output is generated by hardware, by the screenreader itself or by a separate text to screen software feed by the reader. My comment about DOS was mostly related to the idea that if things are modular, you are more flexible. For example I have an ancient text to speech TSR which, with patches, can still work on modern hardware. It uses the PC speaker, no soundcard. It can only do monotonous, English output. It is monolithical, so it cannot drive modern soundcards nor change voice and of course is not even a screen reader. To get back to the original topic, which aspects of DOS, EDR DOS and Freedos would you like to be improved? Eric PS: I also have a SP0256 chip somewhere which does hardware text to speech. To be more exact, phonemes to speech. Also has the problem that it only can do one English voice, while for example the free MBROLA software is much more flexible. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Sol-Terrasa mkfs ext4 da' Sussex alex.bu...@munted.org.uk wrote: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 14:22 +0100, Liam Proven wrote Windows 3.1x for high resolution displays i.e. beyond 1280x1024 with 16 million colours. Sadly I've had to abandon it due to lack of documentation and sources for existing device drivers. One problem with such things - and a few did exist, back in the day - was Windows 3's resource limitations. It had a few 64K heaps for holding Windows Resources, which includes icons, window decorations (widgets) and internal data structures. The bigger the display, the more resources needed; also, the higher the colour depth, the more resources. *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( There is a /reason/ why people dropped Windows 3 like a hot potato once they had a better alternative! To be honest, Windows 9x or NT 3 are far more interesting retro OSs to play with now, which can do vastly more. The 32-bit transition was /long/ overdue. But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. It is a long-dead OS. I really don't think there is such a need, no. The fact that there are some usable VESA drivers is enough, I think. Result, on 1280x1024 in 16M colours, after displaying the desktop opening Program Manager, there sometimes wasn't enough memory left to open any apps at all. So, really, from someone who was there and had to support the damned thing, 17-18Y ago: you're not missing much. It looked impressive but it was sod-all use. If that was a long time ago, dare I hope you might have some sample sources for me to look at? I still want to write graphic device drivers for WFWG. I installed and supported many many such machines, but I was never a developer, so no, I have no sources, I'm afraid. My sources of information, as a sysadmin, were magazines, not the Internet back then. I was online, but there was no Web yet, so really it was just email Usenet. Usenet is still there Google has the archives. :¬) If you want to get a feel for Win3-era Windows on a big desktop, use NT3. NT 3.51 was the last and best version was a very good OS in its way. It was fast, stable, lean efficient, it supported whacking great screens without issues, it ran most Win3 apps, it had a network stack TCP/IP support out of the box, supported VFAT with LFNs and NTFS and OS/2's HPFS, and was generally a pleasure to work with. You could run Netscape 4 32-bit on it, too, for a pretty good Internet Web experience - for 1995. I seem to remember there was once a port of NT 3.51 for Sun UltraSparcs. :) An unofficial one which I think was never commercially released. Officially, NT ran on MIPS, Alpha and later (and briefly) PowerPC as well as x86-32. Now, it is x86-32, x86-64 and IA64, but soon, IA64 will be dropped and I suspect x86-32 will follow before too long. On the other hand, there are consistent rumours about an ARM port, which I find hard to believe but would be interesting... -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508 -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 13:46 +0100, Liam Proven wrote: *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( There is a /reason/ why people dropped Windows 3 like a hot potato once they had a better alternative! To be honest, Windows 9x or NT 3 are far more interesting retro OSs to play with now, which can do vastly more. The 32-bit transition was /long/ overdue. Well, yes people needed more resources to do more things. But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. It is a long-dead OS. I really don't think there is such a need, no. The fact that there are some usable VESA drivers is enough, I think. If that was a long time ago, dare I hope you might have some sample sources for me to look at? I still want to write graphic device drivers for WFWG. I installed and supported many many such machines, but I was never a developer, so no, I have no sources, I'm afraid. My sources of information, as a sysadmin, were magazines, not the Internet back then. I was online, but there was no Web yet, so really it was just email Usenet. Usenet is still there Google has the archives. :¬) OK, fair enough I'm sure there's more than enough information to write one. Thanks. If you want to get a feel for Win3-era Windows on a big desktop, use NT3. NT 3.51 was the last and best version was a very good OS in its way. It was fast, stable, lean efficient, it supported whacking great screens without issues, it ran most Win3 apps, it had a network stack TCP/IP support out of the box, supported VFAT with LFNs and NTFS and OS/2's HPFS, and was generally a pleasure to work with. You could run Netscape 4 32-bit on it, too, for a pretty good Internet Web experience - for 1995. I seem to remember there was once a port of NT 3.51 for Sun UltraSparcs. :) An unofficial one which I think was never commercially released. Officially, NT ran on MIPS, Alpha and later (and briefly) PowerPC as well as x86-32. I think I'll cut my teeth on writing graphic drivers on NT 3.51. I need to learn how to write them, for fun :) Now, it is x86-32, x86-64 and IA64, but soon, IA64 will be dropped and I suspect x86-32 will follow before too long. On the other hand, there are consistent rumours about an ARM port, which I find hard to believe but would be interesting... I think Intel had a hand in that, it ensures a monopoly. It would have been a different world if Microsoft had succeeded in porting to all sorts of architectures (and far less bugs IMHO). Now we have Linux and its success in finding its way into most 32bit platforms. There is an ARM port, it's called WINCE. :) -- http://www.munted.org.uk One very high maintenance cat living here. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Any chance to use 1280x1024 on Win 3.11 in Virtualbox?
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Sol-Terrasa mkfs ext4 da' Sussex alex.bu...@munted.org.uk wrote: On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 13:46 +0100, Liam Proven wrote: *sigh* I'd forgotten about that 64k limitation. :( There is a /reason/ why people dropped Windows 3 like a hot potato once they had a better alternative! To be honest, Windows 9x or NT 3 are far more interesting retro OSs to play with now, which can do vastly more. The 32-bit transition was /long/ overdue. Well, yes people needed more resources to do more things. True... But 32-bit PCs are pretty ubiquitous now. Even a decade ago, 386/486 level PCs were available for in the region of US$5 - *per tonne*. You literally can't give them away today in most of the world. The entry level for the sort of old PCs given away for free is continually rising, as the spec of modern PCs rises. Now, where I live in London, it seems to be floating around the high-end Pentium III/low-end Pentium 4 mark. I gave 4 such machines to a charity last month. All had at least ½GB-640MB of RAM, 20GB of hard disk, a DVD reader and CDRW burner, sound and network cards an AGP 3D accelerator. That is the level of scrap kit now, in England. There is no need for Windows 3 on such machines; it was badly compromised, can't run any software more recent than 15Y old, and is just about useless for Internet access. They are over-specced for Windows 9x, in fact. Ideal low-end Linux boxes, though. I sent them out with FreeDOS on them, as I didn't have time to install configure Linux or Windows on all of them. (Well, actually, 1 had XP, as it came with a licence. 1 had Linux Mint. The other 2 had FreeDOS.) I can tell you what I'd like to see in the future for FreeDOS, but I think I'll make it a separate post. But there still is a need for display drivers for WFWG users; there are a lot of new graphic hardware out there that have no display drivers available for WFWG. It is a long-dead OS. I really don't think there is such a need, no. The fact that there are some usable VESA drivers is enough, I think. If that was a long time ago, dare I hope you might have some sample sources for me to look at? I still want to write graphic device drivers for WFWG. I installed and supported many many such machines, but I was never a developer, so no, I have no sources, I'm afraid. My sources of information, as a sysadmin, were magazines, not the Internet back then. I was online, but there was no Web yet, so really it was just email Usenet. Usenet is still there Google has the archives. :¬) OK, fair enough I'm sure there's more than enough information to write one. Thanks. Good luck! If you want to get a feel for Win3-era Windows on a big desktop, use NT3. NT 3.51 was the last and best version was a very good OS in its way. It was fast, stable, lean efficient, it supported whacking great screens without issues, it ran most Win3 apps, it had a network stack TCP/IP support out of the box, supported VFAT with LFNs and NTFS and OS/2's HPFS, and was generally a pleasure to work with. You could run Netscape 4 32-bit on it, too, for a pretty good Internet Web experience - for 1995. I seem to remember there was once a port of NT 3.51 for Sun UltraSparcs. :) An unofficial one which I think was never commercially released. Officially, NT ran on MIPS, Alpha and later (and briefly) PowerPC as well as x86-32. I think I'll cut my teeth on writing graphic drivers on NT 3.51. I need to learn how to write them, for fun :) O_o Well, I hope it works is fun! Now, it is x86-32, x86-64 and IA64, but soon, IA64 will be dropped and I suspect x86-32 will follow before too long. On the other hand, there are consistent rumours about an ARM port, which I find hard to believe but would be interesting... I think Intel had a hand in that, it ensures a monopoly. It would have been a different world if Microsoft had succeeded in porting to all sorts of architectures (and far less bugs IMHO). Now we have Linux and its success in finding its way into most 32bit platforms. Well, I know what you mean, but... There used to be a massive advantage to running x86 code. That's what killed PowerPC on the desktop, pretty much. But now, with Linux and to a lesser extent Mac OS X, the Windows stranglehold has been broken. Now, for Web access and media playback, an ARM can do everything an Atom can do, for about one-twentieth of the electrical power. I think things look pretty bright for ARM. Also MIPS is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, in the form of TileEra Til64 TilePro chips on the high end and the Chinese Loongson (AKA Godson) chips. MIPS is 99% licence-free - there are a couple of IP-protected instructions, which the clones just omit. Free hardware to go with free software! There is an ARM port, it's called WINCE. :) Nearly dead now, since the new, *much* more limited Windows Phone 7 is out. -- Liam Proven • Profile:
Re: [Freedos-user] more about screen readers
Eric, first, with all due respect. until you are using these tools in a situation that mirrors the varied ones by those experiencing vision loss, you cannot even guess at this. as for my interest in what I would want to see improved in freedos, have a look at enhanced Dr dos and you will get close. That and the kind of solid stability I enjoy in editions of dos that do not require upgrades with frequency. I chose ms dos 7.1 for that reason, even though not under development. I wish you success with *your own* continued exploration of what you think are screen readers. this is not something you try once as an experiment, its something, that due to your visual experience you work with for weeks or months or years to even begin to manage...in my opinion of course. The suggesting that someone could put on a blindfold play with some applications and be 100% solid in understanding how any aspect of that experience is like, let alone just screen readers and speech demonstrates why it can take so long for access to be universal grin. Karen On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Eric Auer wrote: Hi Karen, while I have not used any screen reader, I have used both text to speech (to announce incoming mail) and written a tool to forward an extract of a DOS or Linux text screen to a 4 by 20 LCD display, navigated by buttons on the LCD. The latter arguably has some similarity to a screenreader. I also played with Orca in Linux, but given my experience with reading Brltty sources (once discussed the possibilty to port it to DOS for a while with somebody) I think I do have some idea on how those things interact with the user, although again only in text mode. Last but not least we had some Braille and screen reader enabled systems at university. In none of those contexts I got the impression that it would affect the user experience whether the voice output is generated by hardware, by the screenreader itself or by a separate text to screen software feed by the reader. My comment about DOS was mostly related to the idea that if things are modular, you are more flexible. For example I have an ancient text to speech TSR which, with patches, can still work on modern hardware. It uses the PC speaker, no soundcard. It can only do monotonous, English output. It is monolithical, so it cannot drive modern soundcards nor change voice and of course is not even a screen reader. To get back to the original topic, which aspects of DOS, EDR DOS and Freedos would you like to be improved? Eric PS: I also have a SP0256 chip somewhere which does hardware text to speech. To be more exact, phonemes to speech. Also has the problem that it only can do one English voice, while for example the free MBROLA software is much more flexible. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
