I've never noticed video card issues with the later versions of JFW at all,
I have tried mine at all resolutions at the request of some one at the MA
commission for the blind just to see what would happen and I didn't notice
any difference from JFW 4.5 I think it was on up, might have been 4.02 I did
that though before that though forget it you couldn't do it.trouble
shooting a computer isn't bad with jfw either really, just make a portable
version like I did, I installed it on a CD, then made an autorun.inf file on
the CD and it works fine. Oops, probably shouldn't have said that lol but
I did anyway. because I do a lot of work on family and friends computers.
John Miller N1UMJ
Owner of J. E. M. Racing http://home.comcast.net/~jemracing5/wsb/index.html
AIM screen name: JEMracing3
MSN messenger: [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:01 AM
Subject: JAWS vs. Window-Eyes
| Hi.
|
| I thought it was time to change the subject line.
|
| Basically, I see no problem with the way that JFW handles file lists or
| folders in tree views. Sounds like Howard might have had a bad experience
| with something that didn't go well. Having said that, I will comment that
| there are a few things that I do find annoying with JFW, but I am used to
| its foibles so I live with it. JFW seems to be much more fussy about
video
| issues, even in modern versions than Window-Eyes is, and if you don't give
| it the right resolution, color depth, and in some cases color scheme, it
| just decides not to read a lot of things. I find Window-Eyes to be a
| little more tolerant in this area. And, like most users of JFW, I find
| their authorization scheme to be obnoxious to say the least. I have
| recommended Window-Eyes for people that like to experiment with computers,
| just because there is no authorization key to lose if it becomes necessary
| to wipe a hard drive. Ok, I know this one is a sacred cow for FS.
|
| However, I do have to comment about something with Howard's post. While
it
| is true that Window-Eyes are much easier to construct than JAWS scripts,
| they are also much more limited in their capabilities. For example, it is
| often helpful to create keys to click conrols or move focus to an object
in
| a program that does not readily provide keyboard access. JFW scripts have
| a lot of tools to address this type of shortcoming, while Window-Eyes has
| very little to address it. If you are not inclined to delve into such
| complicated issues, then Window-Eyes is probably right for you. Its
| Hyperactive Windows and User Windows are somewhat better thought out and
| less convoluted then JAWS Frames, which I hate to troubleshoot.
|
| I guess to be fair, I should also point out that JFW seems to lose focus
| more readily than Window-Eyes and that is annoying.
|
| I guess that for my part, I'd feel a little better about Window-Eyes if it
| weren't for a couple of problems that I see with it. First of all, it has
| a nasty tendency to lose file associations, especially if it becomes
| necessary to unload and reload Window-Eyes. Secondly, I have had a nasty
| time with locating underlined text, which I sometimes need to do in my
| work. It is pretty straightforward with JFW, and I figured out how to
| modify the Word SET files to improve it with Window-Eyes, but it's kind of
| clunky. The other thing GW-Micro would need to do to sell me is provide a
| command like the ALT+DEL command in JFW that tells you how many inches
from
| the top and left edge of the page you are in when using Word.
|
| These are issues for me, but a more casual user might not care. That's
why
| John's suggestion of pulling down the demos for both and trying them out
is
| probably the best one. Of course, the comment that was made several days
| ago about the difference in price is a valid one, too. Especially if you
| are running a Professional version of Windows, the cost of JFW is
horrible.
|
| That's why I say that there are pluses and minuses to both products and
| it's not all one or the other.
|
| 73, de Lou K2LKK
|
|
|
| Louis Kim Kline
| A.R.S. K2LKK
| Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]
| Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
| Work Telephone: (585) 697-5753
|
