Re: Future or TAPI

There are a lot of things about TAPI which are annoying. Here is my list.

1. Unimodem driver is pretty pathetic. You can't really do a lot with a
voice modem. Progress detection is poor as is the half duplex limitation.
I thought about developing a basic voicemail application and still might,
but will use AT commands.

2. Vendor support is pretty good but often you have to pay for the TAPI
driver or what I would consider fairly basic call control features such as
forwarding and DND are only available if you pay a licence. I would like to
see more advanced TAPI features from PBX manufacturers.

3. In my small experience wave drivers for TAPI PBX's are not available,
don't work or cost. Network Alchemy only had a wave driver for a particular
model, and apparently it didn't work. Wave driver for next models cost
quite a bit. Strange thing is that these PBX's cost less than $1000 for
basic models but you pay another $1000 for the wave driver/extended TAPI
support.

Also generally getting ANY sort of developer support from vendors is like
pulling teeth.

I have worked with CSTA too. From experience it tends to be available with
larger PBX's. Perhaps Microsoft was more interested in bigger companies.

Intel don't seem too bothered about TAPI either. They now own Dialogic and
someone told me the latest cards don't even support TAPI. Or maybe their
latest software doesn't include a TAPI driver. Not sure.

Having said all that, TAPI does appear to be the number one API for any
telephony work. does anyone else agree/disagree?

Angus






"Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e5yPmF6XFHA.2796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hello all,
>
> in case you didn't already know, I'd like to inform you that the
> new call control capabilities of Live Communications Server
> 2005 SP1 in combination with Office Communicator 2005
> rely on a CSTA link to PBXs instead of TAPI.
> I don't know the reason for this decision but anyway I think
> it's kind of sad that MS does not seem to rely on TAPI for
> new products. (MS Speech Server is not built on TAPI either,
> although TAPI would have been an ideal platform for it).
>
> Please share your comments...
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matthias Moetje
> -------------------------------------
> TERASENS GmbH
> Ackermannstraße 3
> 80797 München
> -------------------------------------
> Fon: +49 89 143370-0
> Fax: +49 89 143370-22
> e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
> www: www.terasens.de
> -------------------------------------
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Future or TAPI
    ... duplex and that the Unimodem driver only supported half duplex operation. ... And when the modem disconnects it does eventually know ... Modems don't have hardware support ... > TAPI application. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)
  • Re: Future or TAPI
    ... In my experience, the three PBX ... I have some problems with TAPI. ... Vendor support is pretty good but often you have to pay for the TAPI ... Wave driver for next models cost ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)
  • lineMonitorDigits
    ... I am writing a TAPI application using the Avaya Definity first party TAPI ... acting on CallerID or CalledID but instead by digits entered by the caller. ... will be able to pick up entered digits using INTERACTIVEVOICE? ... I have a PBX TAPI driver for the IP Office and ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)
  • Re: MODEM driver
    ... While installing Modem Driver TAPI sends ATQ0E0V1. ... The classic example is a service modem which is listening for an ...
    (microsoft.public.development.device.drivers)
  • Re: Future or TAPI
    ... > duplex and that the Unimodem driver only supported half duplex operation. ... You can try to study modem chipset documentations yourself, ... Modems don't have hardware support ... >> TAPI application. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi)
Loading