Outlook 2007 was a pil for a long time--ever since it was installed in
our shop. Switching from JAWS 10 to 13 changed the problems, but did
not eliminate them. Then IT tried going to IE 7--hardly the latest and
greatest--and. . . problem solved! JAWS 13 runs like a top at both home
and work, and Internet apps that drove me to distraction are now
reliable. Had I only known. . . .
From: jfw-bounces at lists.the-jdh.com
[mailto:jfw-bounces at lists.the-jdh.com] On Behalf Of epierce at surewest.net
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:37 AM
To: The Jaws for Windows support list.
Subject: Re: Crack For Jaws 64 Bit Win 7
Dave, thanks for the excellent insights.
You seem to have imagined that I said that JAWS never works for anybody,
What I was actually reporting was a specific set of problems, and
attempts at solving them, in a specific place, with a specific JAWS site
license, under specific circumstances.
The reality is that DOS/Windows was never designed to do something as
weird as install a screen reader "driver". Doing such things is nothing
but an inelegant kludge from an engineering perspective, and is just
asking for trouble.
The lack of industry standards for accessible technology is appalling,
as are all the bureaucrats that collect fat checks while telling
everyone that AT products are "so cool". The sociological myth
structures that have been built up are largely a feature of distorted
market dynamics and unspoken institutional fear of disability lawyers.
Lots of people are in on the scam, the vendors simply attempt to satisfy
the resulting business demand on a cr*ppy architecture.
The error was seen on multiple models of Dell business class machines,
with various different methods of installing Windows 7 "Ultimate"
(Enterprise), 64 bit. Windows was hand installed from .ISO media. Then
it was installed from an industrial strength network imaging platform
(Altiris). Central computing has some undocumented "security" features
that are mandatory, so we have to live with that.
Extreme care was taken to install Windows 7 in as "bare metal" a manner
as possible, including taking excruciating pains to install Dell
hardware drivers exactly according to manufacturer's instructions.
Office 2003, 2007 and 2010 were installed in a completely standard
Microsoft anti-virus was installed, as per organizational standards.
Unfortunately, there is also an organizational standard to install the
"Kbox" inventory control client (and SCCM client), but it isn't apparent
that that would be a problem with JAWS. I do not have direct contact
with vendor support.
One visually impaired consultant who is a accessibility tech expert
provided guidance: Only AMD/ATI video cards should be used with JAWS, at
specific "standard, native" screen resolutions (1280 x 1024?).
Lots of stuff could have gone wrong. If the product is so fragile that
some subtle hardware or driver install-order issue (or whatever else
short of supernatural forces) causes it to not work correctly on some
hardware, or in some software configurations, in a professional IT shop,
then there is something very wrong with the product. If that is the
case, the vendor should only support their product on "certified"
hardware. Which would be a VAST RELIEF to most local IT support people
in organizations who would then be able to write up procurement
justifications for more expensive, vendor solutions that ACTUALLY WORK.
I have seen miserable results from multiple consultants/experts/vendors
for 20+ years in the accessible tech industry, including some awful
scams and pathetic bureaucracy.
The vendor has published tech support documentation that admits that
JAWS does not properly support attachment viewing in Outlook 2010.
Several months ago on this list, the exact symptoms: inconsistent
viewing experience of email message bodies by JAWS -- were reported by
several other customers (see list archives).
I'm a sighted technician, and I saw the product failure over and over
for many months and heard complaints and frustration from a visually
impaired user who had to endure doing tests of a variety of different
The user, a senior disabled advocate, reported hearing much unhappiness
from other leading figures in the disability rights movement at national
The architecture is junk and the products are junk. The society is
dysfunctional, the business models are bad and the customers
Other than that, everything is fine and any other problems are almost
certainly caused purely by "operator error".
Have a nice day.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:52:36 -0800
>From: jfw-bounces at lists.the-jdh.com (on behalf of "Farfar and His
>Beamer" <dgcarlson at sbcglobal.net>)
>Subject: Re: Crack For Jaws 64 Bit Win 7
>To: "The Jaws for Windows support list." <jfw at lists.the-jdh.com>
>>Ambrose, Pretty Severe, even from my perspective. Someone is having
>problems with their setup and it's almost always the setup and not the
>Sent from somewhere in the Western United States, using a Dell Latitude
>E6520 and Windows 7
>>>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ambrose Harrison" <ambroselh at att.net>
>To: "'The Jaws for Windows support list.'" <jfw at lists.the-jdh.com>
>Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 18:28
>Subject: RE: Crack For Jaws 64 Bit Win 7
>>>That's blatentley false, I use Jaws 11,12,and 13 with outlook 2007
>beautifully, outlook 2010 is just a bad program but 2007 is still
>attainable and works beautifully,if you have tried it and it still
>didn't work, then it must be opperater error
>From: jfw-bounces at lists.the-jdh.com>[mailto:jfw-bounces at lists.the-jdh.com]
>On Behalf Of epierce at surewest.net>Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:14 PM
>To: jfw at lists.the-jdh.com>Subject: Crack For Jaws 64 Bit Win 7
>>I'm new to the list, not discernibly disabled, but somewhat familiar
>with disability issues (labor activist). JAWS' poor quality has been a
>concern for several years. The last time I saw JAWS work well was on
>hardware from the Windows XP, MS Office 2003 era, using JAWS 7 or 8.
>>JAWS 10, 11 and 12 on Windows 7 (64 bit) does not work reliably with
>Outlook 2010, as was documented on this list several months ago.
>Attempts to revert to Office 2007 and 2003 showed same problems: JAWS
>does not seem to work well with any Win7-Outlook combination, at least
>64 bit. The published response from FS tech support was inadequate.
>>Back to the topic of this thread: I read this whole thread, did not see
>a technical definition for a "Crack", so here is one:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_cracking>>Summary: "Cracking" usually refers to removal of software protection.
>>My general impression of Computer Accessibility (for disabled people)
>is that current "legacy" architectures of operating systems such as MS
>Windows, and possibly hardware (Intel), are inadequate (accessibility
>is "not by design").
>Thus, poor quality products, and poor business models, are perhaps
>inevitable. Government support (including public education) in such
>circumstances probably creates, or reinforces, unhealthy market
>>In other words, FS knows that government programs are "held hostage" by
>accessibility requirements, and thus have to "buy something", even if
>it does not work well, to "get off the hook" and not be sued by
>>Such a "system" creates unintended side effects, including a lack of
>care about whether or not disabled people are actually getting good
>products and support. Bureaucrats tend to have a "style over substance"
>approach, and are more interested in creating the appearance of
>accessibility than the reality. This is part of the politically correct
>mentality that prevails in the younger generation: more concern with
thought policing than competency.
>>Again, it seems inevitable that even if the people working for
>accessibility companies are good, caring people (or were at some
>point), the organizational culture they work in, and the corresponding
>management climate, is warped by unhealthy market forces and unethical
>choices by business executives.
>>On capitalism in general, and ethics -- capitalism as it is currently
>constituted, Corporatist/State Capitalism, has become predatory in many
>respects (I'm anarcho-libertarian, not leftist). The largest failures
>of ethics in the area of economics are done in the name of capitalism,
>not because of poor blind people in 3rd world countries, or poor people
>anywhere, looking for "cracked" versions of JAWS software. State
>Capitalism is "socialism for rich people". It is a horribly rigged
>system, deeply corrupt and dysfunctional, and destructive of democracy
>>I've been told by people that have worked in disabled access for 30+
>years that there is very little respect for FS and most of the other
>accessibility tech businesses by senior members of the advocacy
>community, rather the access tech companies (at least screen readers)
>are seen as little more than necessary evils.
>>I personally place most of the blame on Microsoft. How could a company
>that has made $100s of billions in profit not do the proper research
>into creating a "good" accessibility architecture for its products? The
>answer might be that since no such thing is possible because of
>fundamental flaws in the legacy architecture, MS simply does not want
>the bad "PR" and support headaches involved in supporting accessibility
>products. They are probably happy that someone else has taken the
market niche and all its problems.
>>Any feedback is appreciated.
>>---- Original message ----
>>>General information about the mailing list is at:
Jfw mailing list
Jfw at lists.the-jdh.comhttp://lists.the-jdh.com/mailman/listinfo/jfw_lists.the-jdh.com