Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
- From: <ptusing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:27:31 -0500
In fairness, I must say JAWS 6 agreeing with Bruce is more stable and works
much better than 5.1 but I was always a bigger fan of JAWS 5.0038.
I figured out that reading list views often requires using "read current
line" since they are often silent but one can use letters to get through
listviews.'Again, F S did not implement "read whole number"
correctly--delimiteres are read right in emails--I am talking about the
needfor better number reading efficiently elsewhere since numbers are
so important. We get to set the "control insert arrow"thing again.
Dangit.
JAWS 6 does show " some improvement working with MAGIC at the sametime and
since I cross tested every MAGIC version with the 4 JAWS versions I have, I
now believe the F S take on video cards made by ATI may be less correct
than they think since J 6 tolerates simultaneous MAGIC/JAWS use "better".
(However list of video cards for use with MAGIC and JAWS still is not
available). I suspect problems relate more to which JAWS version not the
video card.
Now, amazingly, every JAWS version since 4.51 has yielded different results
using my cherished "s" keystroke which saves me 70% searching time on very
extensive web sites, shoppingsites etc. and with J 6, some text links are
skipped capriciously or entirely depending on the site with graphics found
instead but the "s" is quirky whereas it worked great with 4.5 and 4.51.
Of course a broken "s" key comand is better than none as saving time these
hectic days means more time not working.
Finally JAWS 6 is more responsive and better meaning faster at
proofreading text in email messages and I appreciate it.
Hope they finally give us great number reading with a" single keystroke
past those delimeters like decimals and keep working on the "s".
When some one installs the i l m, could they please write me off list
with instructions for doing it in detail as I disagree that clear and
adequate info is available now but do not wish to start a fight.
Happy New Year to all and thanks to the help given here onthis great list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Toews" <water_drinker@xxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: beginning to think that JAWS 5.1 is more stable than 6
> This is odd, and proof positive that different people experience different
> results. It's been my experience that JAWS 6, at least on my work computer
> where I've been able to try it, has been quite a lot more stable than 5.1.
> So ... go figure.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> Bruce Toews
> E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: water_drinker@xxxxxxxx
> Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net
> For information on my weekly radio show visit
> http://radioclassics.ogts.net
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Ray Foret Jr. wrote:
>
> > Dear Tracey Jackson and JFW list,
> >
> > After nearly a week or so with JAWS 6, and after having done 4
> > installations of JAWS 6 and reconfiguring manually all my settings each
time
> > but the first two, and after having done quite a bit of browsing on the
> > internet, and after having experienced problems with how JFW version 6
> > behaves with Windows Messenger, and after having audio skipping issues
with
> > JFW version 6 and not any of these issues with JAWS version 5.1, I am
> > beginning to come to the conclusion that JAWS 6 is quite a bit of a step
> > backward rather than forward. Some sluggishness still remains with my
> > keyboard, I still cannot resolve the Windows Messenger issues with names
of
> > contacts signing in and not being announced without also having option
12
> > JAWS Messages turned on (this was not necessary with JAWS 5.1). Pages
are
> > taking much longer to load with JAWS version 6 than they ever did with
JAWS
> > 5.1. There are just so many issues I have found that I may revert back
to
> > JAWS 5.1. I'm willing to wait to see if the ILM version of JAWS version
6
> > behaves better than the Quella version of JAWS version 6 I'm now using;
but,
> > if all of the behavior factors I mentioned above remain the same, I will
> > most likely switch back to 5.1. I'd kind of hate to do that because I'd
> > like to believe that FS. always moves forward with progress of this
product.
> > It does seem to me, however, that, despite the best of advice which I
have
> > had directly from FS tech support and from others who are very
knowledgeable
> > about JAWS, many an issue yet remains with at least the Quella version
of
> > JAWS 6. IF the ILM version of JAWS version 6 proves no better, I may
revert
> > to JAWS version 5.1 upon installing my new hard drive. I still have a
key
> > on floppy disk which I could use, however, if I do switch back to JAWS
> > version 5.1, would I be better off using the ILM version or just stick
with
> > the Quella? If anybody else out there can shed some light on this
matter,
> > I'd appreciate it very much.
> >
> > Sincerely Yours,
> >
> > The Constantly BAREFOOTED
> > Ray
> >
> > Home Phone And Fax: (985)853-0139
> > E-mail and Windows Messenger:
> > rforetjr@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > God Bless President George W Bush
> > God Bless America
> > And God Bless Our Troops
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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:
