My observation of this thread leads me to believe that the net cast is too large and people are comparing apples and oranges here.
Auto-completion only makes sense when large portions of text are used repeatedly or when an integrated look-up/reference system is required. An example of the former are form letters and two examples of the former are directory and filename completion on the command-line and code-completion in a programmer's editor.
As for spell-checkers, the best are the one's that don't break your train of thought, your flow. The, now common, method of using red wavy underlining is a fine way of doing this. Word's auto-correct is the worst, it often misinterprets what you want and distracts you by requiring you to edit in real time instead of proofing later.
Although, if you develop your own form of shorthand, like Sri apparently has done, it can be helpful. I can see this being helpful with things like medical transcription, legal writing, or scientific papers, where there are many long and complex words used often.
Auto-completion only makes sense when large portions of text are used repeatedly or when an integrated look-up/reference system is required. An example of the former are form letters and two examples of the former are directory and filename completion on the command-line and code-completion in a programmer's editor.
As for spell-checkers, the best are the one's that don't break your train of thought, your flow. The, now common, method of using red wavy underlining is a fine way of doing this. Word's auto-correct is the worst, it often misinterprets what you want and distracts you by requiring you to edit in real time instead of proofing later.
Although, if you develop your own form of shorthand, like Sri apparently has done, it can be helpful. I can see this being helpful with things like medical transcription, legal writing, or scientific papers, where there are many long and complex words used often.
, it's actually called rapidreader.