RE: Here is a cheer for FS
- From: Jesse Pozzo <jlpozzo@xxxxxxx>
- To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:34:32 -0600
You want to know something ed I agree with you one hundred percent
-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of emarquette
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:01 AM
To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Here is a cheer for FS
I don't claim to be able to add much to the discussion about the virtue
of faster releases as compared with better releases or the issue of the
delay in releasing a remote access version of JFW, but here is a
perspective I wanted to share:
1. I have been extremely critical of JFW5.0. Some of you on the list
"corrected" me when I referred to the "video bug" in version 5.0 that I
(and several others) experienced. This "non-bug" was so significant
that, on my system (an IBM ThinkPad R-30), I had to use 4.51. When
version 5.1 came out, since there was no mention of any fix of the video
bug, I was unimpressed, particularly because of this glaring omission
and the disappointing omission of remote access. I didn't even bother
to install version 5.1.
After a couple of months, I installed version 5.1 just because I had a
spare half hour one Saturday morning. To my astonishment, the "non-bug"
went away. JFW 5.1 is actually wonderful. The video bug is fixed!!!!
In fact, I had occasion to speak to technical support at Freedom
Scientific about an issue on my desktop and commented about the fix in
version 5.1. The representative said that 5.1 had indeed cleared up
some "video issues."
I just wish FS had said so when the product was released.
2. No one is more impatient than am I at not having remote access. In
a press release last Fall (I think the original press release is still
on the FS site), remote access was promised for release in the first
quarter of 2004. My calendar says it is the 4th quarter now. When 5.1
was released, news about remote access was promised in a matter of
weeks. That was August. I believe the time lapse is now months.
These teasers, coupled with silence, at least for me, have produced
enormous frustration, and I see it in the messages of others on the list
too. Still, I am not so frustrated that I want to go to my firm's IS
department with a special request for a module to be loaded on my firm's
server. I don't think they would do it, and I don't want to ask.
Also, I used to use that other screen reader, and if, as I do, it is
essential to use the sophisticated features of MS Word, JFW is the only
way to go. I need Word all day every day. I don't have that kind of
need for remote access.
The people who make the other reader have known of that reader's
deficiencies with Word for far longer than the absence of remote access
has been a serious problem for JFW users.
So, even though tempted to take a bite out of the nearest CD (out of
frustration) I know that won't do any good. Complaining on this list
won't either.
Sending notes to technical support at Freedom Scientific might not
either, but it at least has a chance. I've been trying. If enough of
us made such inquiries, even though I doubt it would increase the
priority being placed on developing remote access, perhaps it would
encouraged some kind of news. Posts, beta releases, a press release--
almost anything would be better than silence.
Ed Marquette
930 West 34th St.
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 561- 7111
--
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:
