Re: Crack For Jaws 64 Bit Win 7


Ambrose, Pretty Severe, even from my perspective. Someone is having problems
with their setup and it's almost always the setup and not the human.

Dave Carlson
Sent from somewhere in the Western United States, using a Dell Latitude
E6520 and Windows 7

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ambrose Harrison" <ambroselh@...>
To: "'The Jaws for Windows support list.'" <jfw@...>
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

-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounces@... [mailto:jfw-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of epierce@...
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:14 PM
To: jfw@...
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:

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
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 distortions.

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 disability

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 and culture.

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 mailing list

Join to automatically receive all group messages.