Re: New update
- From: "Debbie Scales" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:55:53 -0400
Jerry you said:
wonder if the updating procedure is sufficiently sophisticated to alter
some scripts in a source file while leaving the remainder intact.
Jerry, if it is, then I will truly consider this jaws update to be one of
the greatest things that FS has ever done, ha-ha. I too find it odd that
no changes were made to the default, but maybe they were concentrating on
fixing problems in the individual applications and those didn't involve any
changes to the default?
What about your word jss file? I read through the list of fixes in the
update, and there definitely WERE several changes made for Word.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Neufeld" <jerry.neufeld@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: New update
Hi Debbie.
Well, although the default.jss file in all users is dated 4/12/2006, from
all that I can see, the source file is one I modified a week ago as
indicated on the top line. It appears to be identical to my own default.jss
file in my own user files. I have looked through it and find no differences
in the default source code although there must be, given the over 70 fixes
there were.
My concern about window loader updates, convenient as they are, is that
those of us who do a lot of scripting have no way to know which files have
been updated. In my case, for example, I have over 200 either new or
modified script files in the default source file, almost as many for MS
Word. Imagine the agonizing hours of work I have each time a new update or
release comes, inserting all my scripts.
I wonder if the updating procedure is sufficiently sophisticated to alter
some scripts in a source file while leaving the remainder intact. If so, it
would explain the virtual identical appearance of my April 7th modifications
and the new file.
All very curious.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Scales" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: New update
> Jerry, what makes you think the default file hasn't been touched? I don't
> have a prior default jss to compare this one too. What I am wondering
> though is if you had ever made any changes to the default jss file before
> you installed the new build? If you did this is what I believe may be
> happening.
> Remember now that when you make changes to a script file, it is saved it
> into your own settings enu folder. So now we install the update and it
> updates the default file in the ALL USERS settings enu.
> I don't think the update changed anything in our individual settings enu
> folder. But when jaws loads scripts, it first looks in YOUR settings enu
> folder. So it might be loading the default jss you have in your settings
> enu, not the updated one from the all users folder.
> Did that make any sense at all, grin? I guess what I am saying is look in
> your settings enu folder and see if you do indeed have a default jss file
> in
> there. If you do, then look at the default jss file in the all users
> settings enu and see if you find new changes there. That one has a
> modified
> date of 4/12, as if they were indeed updating it up until the very last
> minute they released the update, ha ha.
> Debbie
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Neufeld" <jerry.neufeld@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:04 AM
> Subject: Re: New update
>
>
> Hello Clark & others.
>
> The error reported at the very end of the updating process is erroneous, I
> believe. From here, at least, the update seems to have been correctly
> installed, despite the error I got at the end like many others.
>
> Although I have noticed numerous differences in this newest build, I was
> surprised to see that the source code for the default files had not been
> touched. I have not attempted to recompile it, fearing that I may lose
> hundreds of default scripts. Is there anyone on the list who has the new
> beta with the default.jss file changed? I'd like very much to know.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Playful Heart" <playfulheart@xxxxxxx>
> To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:32 AM
> Subject: Re: New update
>
>
>>I have not been able to install the update either. It says to call Freedom
>>Scientific and the item failing to install is a patch.
>> Has anyone been able to successfully install this update?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Clark Friedrichs" <1clarkf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "JAWS Mailing List" <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "JAWS Lite List"
>> <Jawslite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:55 PM
>> Subject: New update
>>
>>
>>>I tried the new update procedure for JFW 7.10. It failed on what appears
>>>to
>>> be the final step giving the message:
>>> Beta Update Release 321 install failed
>>> (or something to that effect
>>> The error message instructed me to call technical support. I called
>>> tech
>>> support and they knew nothing of what was going on.
>>> I guess a Beta trouble report is in order.
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Clark Friedrichs / 1clarkf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
--
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:
