From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtppop1.gte.net([207.115.153.20]) (2103 bytes) by braille.uwo.ca via smail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe (sender: ) id for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:36:58 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.102 1998-Aug-2 #2 built 1999-Sep-5) Received: from gte.net (lsajca1-208-245.dsl.gtei.net [4.3.208.245]) by smtppop1.gte.net with ESMTP ; id KAA2009633 Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:36:46 -0600 (CST) Sender: gorgotek@gte.net Message-ID: <38CA7657.AF73A7E3@gte.net> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:37:43 -0800 From: Greg Keto Organization: Gorgotek Systems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kirk Reiser CC: cpt.kirk@1tree.net, speakup@braille.uwo.ca Subject: Re: PDA's References: <38C9E43A.D79E0065@gte.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Hi Kirk, read an earlier post of yours, I also have a blind friend. My statement is referring to the Windows C.E. O/S not the C language. I think the Palm O/S is well suited for an audio interface compared to Windows C.E. O/S because the all applications on the Windows C.E. O/S have to work through the Windows GUI. Greg Keto Kirk Reiser wrote: > > Greg Keto writes: > > > I can't see a pda audio interface being done right in any O/S other > > than the palm O/S, CE is out of the question, why should an audio > > Hi Greg: I would be interested in hearing your reasoning with respect > to the above points. I don't know the Palm O/S but it seems to me > that an audio interface or any other interface shouldn't be better or > worse than any other OS. I particularly don't understand why you > think C is out of the question. With a good compiler like gcc you > can create better tighter code than you can in assembler if you're > not an experienced assembler programmer. > > Kirk > > -- > > Kirk Reiser The Computer Braille Facility > e-mail: kirk@braille.uwo.ca University of Western Ontario > phone: (519) 661-3061