Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778!Chip.Orange
From: Chip.Orange@f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Chip Orange)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: KPR VS. Arkenstone
Message-ID: <13109@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 90 02:14:57 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Chip.Orange@f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:115/778 - COPH-2 (BGMS), Chicago IL
Lines: 29
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 9479

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi Donald,
     I was using version 1.1 of the KPR firmware and don't understand 
why, if you were using that version, you had so much trouble.  It is as 
good over-all as the Arkenstone on the first pass, and on the second 
after it has "learned", it generally is better.
     Yes, I know very well that the two products are aimed at different 
markets, and therefore was only trying to compare them on their general 
reading machine like characteristics.  This is certainly a trait they 
have in common, and a very valid comparison.
     I am not sure what all "extra capabilities" you feel the Arkenstone 
has that the KPR doesn't.  The two I can think of are dot-matrix print, 
and landscape print.  That is it, and the PC/KPR has both of those as 
well.  By the way, Kurzweil is shipping me a PC/KPR to review as well 
before I write an article on the subject.
     One last point that comes to mind is the speed of scanning.  I 
didn't mention it in the review, and should have.  I found that the KPR 
scans an average page in about 45 seconds, while the Arkenstone takes 
about 90.  This rule of twice as long generally holds as far as I can 
tell.  Will be interested to see how the PC/KPR does here.
  
     Chip

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778!Chip.Orange
Internet: Chip.Orange@f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org