Re: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
- From: Bill <bill.cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:18:15 -0500
yardbird not sure how your g m analogy relates to f s and the sale of jfw,
first of all if i own a 1999 chevy and decide to buy a 2005 chevy i am not
required to pay for all the models in between.
the full price for each model.
such is the practice of f s.
k 1000 software for the blind does not use such a scheme for its pricing.
for the above reason plus the fact buying in advance gives a price break
many buy the s M A.
to my knowledge g m has no way to pay now at a discounted price for a new
car 3 years down the line.
so because of its S m A policy jfw really has no real reason to make 6.0 a
very good version because the folks paid in advance.
which in turn ruins the traditional model of free enterprize.
this in turn ruins the typical law of supply and demand that cars are sold on.
so hence its almost always the case that jfw released shipped to the home
is always buggy.
same is true of version 6.
also 5.0 and 4.50 and so forth.
so when a less buggy release appears after the .o release many buy the
6.1 cd rom.
not cheap.
conspiracy theory, hardly, its pretty straight forward what f s doing and
out in the open.
one last point, hmmm why doesn't f s put the iso image of the patch
versions on their site for easy burning.
because they want you to buy copies of the .one release.
as far as others comments that software is not perfect well one needs to
consider several factors here.
factor one jfw discontinued the public beta.
the number of beta testors that jfw has is far from enough to test all the
types of programs that are in the market.
so a public beta is a good idea.
in fact i heard that f s actually trimmed down their regular beta testers
prior to the 6 release.
second fact if the competition can do better and reduce more bugs on less
revenue why cann't f s.
the main reason they do so is a public beta that last much longer than any
f s ever did.
third fact, jfw has some bugs that go way back in time.
some of these are well documented and f s knows about them.
fourth fact, jfw 6.0 is not what i would call a radical change from version 5.
the less changes to the software the less chance of a bug being introduced
Which in turn should mean less bug fixes.
now the claim that f s has no knowledge of these bugs, thats hard for me to
believe they do not read these list, but assuming for the sake of arguement
that they do not, who's fault is that?
who's fault is it that they don't have their own list?
who's fault is it that they do not have a proper forum for a public beta test?
weather that forum be their own list or this list.
personally it makes sense to just make it this list in my view.
who's fault is it that their not trying to learn what their customers want
in the next release.
my point being i here folks on this list say that folks don't report bugs,
but i truely find that hard to believe.
several friends of mine reported the find bug and one person on this list
even posted the f s answer verifying it was an acknowledge bug.
about 5.1, yep it was free but buggier than 5.0.
my best result their was the 844 release of version 5.
one last comment on bugs, to me what is acceptable depends on the type of
bug your talking about.
a bug that appears on most computers should be considerred a must fix as
opposed to a bug that occurs on say one in 10 computers.
this type of bug occurs to often in jfw releases.
they should try to fix this type even in a .o release.
and the 1 in ten bug should have a higher priority over a bug they cannot
duplicate in the lab.
so hence no not all bugs will be solved but major bugs should be addressed
even before the release of a point o release.
my view f s is equally at fault for not doing the proper steps to find bugs.
often i am amazed at the attidudes of software developers often blaming
the end user because they did not do a good job of testing and finding bugs.
software developers are also guilty of this when it comes to documentation.
its their responsibility to make sure their product is being maid right.
bill
At 09:56 AM 3/28/2005, you wrote:
>Hello. This isn't what I said. Please look below. You are expressing a
>conspiracy theory, which is not the way I would account for the release of
>imperfect software. I'm not saying I love Microsoft uncritically, or love
>Freedom Scientific uncritically, but this isn't the actual logic involved.
>
>One of many points to be aware of: When a version of Jaws is released with
>bugs, it's free updates that attempt to correct them. It is *not* that you
>have to spring for the next paid version (upgrade) in order to fix a
>malfunction. Not in most cases.
>
>Here is an example that is at least partially analogous. In the 1950s,
>when the Big Three American automakers became notorious among socially and
>economically critical thinkers and writers for pushing Americans to
>continually trade in their cars for new models, this tactic for corporate
>enrichment was not accomplished by sending out Fords, Pontiacs and Plymouths
>riddled with manufacturing defects that would, at the least, inconvenience a
>driver or, at worst, potentially cause a crash. By which I mean a *real*
>crash. With broken steel and glass, blood, twisted bodies. No.
>
>It was done by racing each other to put new models on the nation's showroom
>floors each September that most often distinguished themselves from previous
>models in the same product line by cosmetic changes like differently shaped
>fenders, new colors, and so forth, with relatively minor mechanical changes
>to critical components like engines, transmissions, suspensions, and brakes.
>It was a reprehensive and greedy practice, and it made a company like
>General Motors economically powerful beyond anything that had been dreamed
>of to that time, or at least since the days of powerful steel, petroleum and
>railroad barons, to the point where there was a saying in government
>circles that went , "What's good for GM is good for America." But that all
>was not achieved by producing and shipping severely flawed product and then
>smilingly telling the customer to trade in his or her new car to upgrade, or
>face being stranded on the highway or killed in a collision.
>The update process that helps to fix and patch a flawed software release is
>free, for one thing, and is comparable not to the sales of new products but
>rather a safety recall. Would that you could get a manufacturing flaw in
>the brakes or fuel system of your Camry as easily as you can download an
>update for the current release of Jaws.
>
>So, when I see Alan Greenspan quoted in the New York times saying "What's
>good for Freedom Scientific is good for America," then I'll reconsider this
>explanation. Until then, as we say, hope this helps.
>
>thanks for everything,
>Daniel
>
>
>,busineweroful xtrabut itbodei
>s showroom a new model an in
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Miller" <n1umj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 5:38 AM
>Subject: Re: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
>
>
>it's usually done on purpose so you'll buy the next update. though I don't
>find a lot of issues most people do with jaws.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Yardbird" <yardbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 9:34 PM
>Subject: Re: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
>
>
>Not meaning to be sarcastic, it's worth noting that almost *no* software is
>ever released in a form anywhere near perfection. That's just taken for
>granted, I think, and then come the updates to patch and debug the flaws of
>the official release. Just the way things are done,I think.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Grossoehme" <davegross1@xxxxxxx>
>To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:23 PM
>Subject: Re: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
>
>
>Hi Guys: I believe that this subject was spoken about right after JFW6.0
>hit the market. It seems like another program that wasn't completely tested
>before it hit the market. Unfortunately, it just one more thing to set us
>back from the sighted user of a computer.
>Your Friend
>Dave
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <philwh@xxxxxxxx>
>To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:12 PM
>Subject: Re: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
>
>
> > Hi.
> > I am not the orginal person that started this thread,
> > but this is my experience and what the techs told me.
> > any change in your computer requires a new key.
> > I added an additional hard drive. i had
> > to reauthorize.
> > I replaced a bad floppy drive, another key gone.
> > I temporarily put a different sound card in
> > to test it, another key.
> > by the way, jfw doesn't tell you what has prompted the reauthorization,
> > it just says that you must run the proceedure or
> > run in demo mode.
> > this problem has happened to me even if I haven't changed anything
> > that I know of.
> > I have had to call fs 3 times so far to
> > have them fix my keys.
> > the last time, the tech told me to buy a dongle
> > to solve the problem, more money for fs of course.
> > phil
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:03:07PM -0500, Jerry Neufeld wrote:
> >> Hello Dick.
> >>
> >> I was curious about FS's verification procedure. Do you happen to know
> >> what
> >> they consider a significcant change in the machine? And if they do come
> >> up
> >> with what they view a significant change, I assume they allow eloquence
> >> to
> >> tell you so? If I ask these questions, it is because one of my machines
> >> will
> >> no longer talk once the desktop comes up, or at least, I think it's up. I
> >> will know tomorrow when an assistant confirms my hypothesis that it is
> >> the
> >> new SoundBlaster audigy platinum that wants registering before it lets me
> >> proceed.
> >>
> >> In any event, any info you have on this issue would be interesting to a
> >> lot
> >> of us.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >> jerry.neufeld@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "AB7HW Dick Lee Chrisman" <ab7hw@xxxxxxx>
> >> To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:50 PM
> >> Subject: New features JFW 6.0 that I dislike
> >>
> >>
> >> > One new feature that started with JFW 6.0 is the many times JFW wants
> >> > to
> >> > perform a Verification! It seems like JFW 6.0 seems to think I have
> >> > made
> >> > a
> >> > change to MY COMPUTER and I under line MY COMPUTER, I have had to have
> >> > my
> >> > Authorization Keys up dated 10 times or more so far!
> >> > So I have to go out and have a email sent to Freedom Scientific to
> >> > request
> >> > new Keys, in 24 hours or so they do up date my number of Keys, but if I
> >> > do
> >> > not do this in time I will be running in Demo Mode while being a Legal
> >> > paid
> >> > up JFW user with additional SMA's paid for!
> >> > Freedom Scientific does not argue about providing new Keys, to their
> >> > credit!
> >> > I wrote Freedom Scientific and ask about, but of course they have never
> >> > heard of this complaint or problem?
> >> > Today I rebooted or should I say shut off the computer and restarted
> >> > and
> >> > both times it ask for a new Verification and of course removed one Key
> >> > for
> >> > each occurrence, Poop!
> >> > I hope Freedom Scientific finds this to be as big of a Pain to them as
> >> > it
> >> > is
> >> > for me and fixes this problem!
> >> > I don't think their new way of Verifying users is well thought out, so
> >> > that
> >> > is my only complaint on the new JFW 6.0!
> >> > I look forward to their correcting this dilemma!
> >> > Dick Chrisman
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
