home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!rsrodger
- From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
- Subject: Re: WinFAX PRO v3: OCR
- Message-ID: <1993Jan2.195552.1386@wam.umd.edu>
- Sender: usenet@wam.umd.edu (USENET News system)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rac1.wam.umd.edu
- Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
- References: <C0699s.A5r@hkuxb.hku.hk> <1i2g26INN3lc@mirror.digex.com> <rhughes.27.0@ucsd.edu>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:55:52 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <rhughes.27.0@ucsd.edu> rhughes@ucsd.edu (Richard J. Hughes) writes:
- >I purchased WinFAX Pro v2 and never received an upgrade offer to v3, nor do
- >I see any upgrades offered in the stores. I just purchased a copy of
- >ZSoft's UltraFAX program for $86, inclusive of tax. This program really is
- >*great*. I now see posted here that upgrades to WinFAX Pro 3 are available
- >for $49 plus s&h (why do they always sock it to us with the additional
- >shipping and handling?), perhaps $60 then. I doubt it compares well to
- >UltraFAX.
- >
- >Providing both sender and recipient are running UltraFAX, you have the best
- >of both worlds, as you can send binary files at 9600 baud on 96/24 baud
- >modems. How come no-one else thought of this?
-
-
- Intel has offered this capability on the SatisFaxtions since day 1.
-
-
- >The OCR component seems
- >reasonably capable, with omnifont recognition, although Calera's FAX Grabber
- >is better (albeit a pain in the rear to use). You can also scan directly
- >into UltraFAX using a multitude of scanners.
-
-
- Ahh. Anyone want to do a test? I was pretty impressed with Faxgrabber
- when it came to handling a variety of proportional fonts. OTOH,
- it is absolutely *miserable* at handling noise.
-
-
- --
- Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
-
- --- boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice ---
- Pain teaches. <for mailing and other info, .plan>
-