Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Kenneth Son via Talk]

Hello list.
I have noticed that Window Eyes does become so slow on large web pages 
that it makes it a chore to get on those pages.

Here at this end I am also worried if the problem will ever be fixed.
There seems to be no answers whatsoever.

Kenneth Son.

On 11/25/2015 22:52, via Talk wrote:

I agree that having only 4 GB of Memory is very little, and yet, I see
systems for sale at Costco, and other On Line Dealers, getting sold with
only 4 GB of memory.

These are your $350 to $500 machines, and when I see them, I wonder how
quick they would be with so little memory.

I am using 6 GB of memory on this machine, and it too is too often very
slow when on web sites like Ebay and Youtube.

WE 9.X has been a disappointment.  If I would have paid the $250 for a
new Computer monitor, and it was said to be a fast monitor, but on my
system it was not, I would have returned the monitor to the store where
it was purchased.   Something I could not do after forking out $200 for
9.1, and then finding it to be a Big Disappointment.  Then a few months
later, forking out another $50 to upgrade to 9.2, only to find 9.2 was a
minor improvement, but 9.2 still crashes, locks up, goes quiet far too
often, especially if I am on the Web, or am typing too fast within a
word processor such as MS Word 2010, or an Email program like Becky.

And the longer I have the system ON, the funkier the system gets.  I
suspect something is messing up memory in some way.  Perhaps a program
using what ever memory it needs, and then when that program is closed,
the system is not given back all of the memory first used by the first
program, so there is less memory for the second program to operate.

I am just guessing here.  If this is a memory management issue, then I
doubt if this is a WE problem, unless it is WE that is causing the
problem with WE not giving back the memory it has used.

Again, I know just enough to be dangerously guessing.

Some here swear they have no problems what so ever.  I do not know what
is different about their systems, than mine, but apparently there are some
differences that  are important.

have heard nothing from A I Squared.  have called them probably four or
five times.

They don't have any answers.  I get it, sometimes there just isn't an
answer.

While I would love to walk out and purchase a brand new system, say one
with 16 GB of RAM, and one of those I7 Chips under its hood.It won't
be this Christmas, or any time shortly after the new year.

After this long of time, I was hoping that A I Squared might have made
some correlations, as I know I am not the only person with a System WE
9.2 does not like.  When I worked in Tech Support, we would keep track
of hardware and Windows configurations if the software we were
supporting was having some troubles on some systems out there in the
real world.

I recall one time, out CD discs would not be read by a number of
customers systems.  And yet, loads of other customers had no issues what
so ever.  We started looking at the manufacturer, and model of the CD
drives on the systems that would not read our discs.  As it turned out,
this one model of CD drive would not read our discs.  No one ever knew
why, but when we had a customer call in, telling us our disc would not
read, we could easily look to see the model and manufacture of the CD
drive, and sure enough, if the customer had that particular drive, we
had a solution to make that drive work.  But until we started keeping
track of hardware and software used on machines that refused to read our
discs, we had no idea why, or how to give the customer a solution.

I was hoping, and am still hoping for something like this from A I
Squared.   So far they have my $250 and all is too quiet.








___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

RE: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Chris Grabowski via Talk]

If you want to go back to 8.4, I would not do a system restore as you could 
make the computer worse.
Uninstall 9.2 and install 8.4.

Browsing the internet can be a little slow on some sites.
Give us web site examples.
Thanks,
Chris


Window-Eyes Product Support
Ai Squared
725 Airport North Office Park
Fort Wayne, IN 46825
(802) 362-3612
www.aisquared.com
 

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+cgrabowski=aisquared@lists.window-eyes.com] 
On Behalf Of Jed Barton via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List 
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest 
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I 
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big 
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever 
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really 
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web, 
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally 
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very 
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with 
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state 
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully 
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really 
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/cgrabowski%40aisquared.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com


___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Chris Skarstad via Talk]

I'm very glad I got 8 gigs of ram when I put this computer together many 
years ago.  For the most part, Window-eyes runs flawlessly under windows 
7 64-bit.  I do notice that there are some websites that simply lock 
Window-eyes up, causing a reboot of the system.  This is the first 
version of this new way of displaying webpages, so i'm hoping that in 
the next version of Window-eyes, some of those issues can be resolved.  
I notice that it particularly has trouble with sites that have a lot of 
flash content and large webpages with lots of links seem to choke it 
up.  Smaller sites like google work just fine. So if any AI squared 
staff need any examples, i'd be really glad to help to resolve some of 
these things.  I'd like to see the next version load web pages even 
faster than this one does, if that's possible.







On 11/25/2015 4:29 PM, Michael Capelle via Talk wrote:
4 gb of ram is a very minimum basic configuration.  I usually 
recommend at least 8 gb of ram or higher.


-Original Message- From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:25 PM
To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern
computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm 
sure

somebody will tell me.  Pam.

-Original Message- From: Jed Barton via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author

and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net. 


For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/mcapelle%40charter.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/rascal0826%40verizon.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com




___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Portia Scott via Talk]

Hi,

I have no issues with Window-Eyes on any of my computers running 4 Gb of ram. 
Maybe see what is hogging up processes that are running in the background.

Portia.
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Chris Skarstad via Talk 
> <talk@lists.window-eyes.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm very glad I got 8 gigs of ram when I put this computer together many 
> years ago.  For the most part, Window-eyes runs flawlessly under windows 7 
> 64-bit.  I do notice that there are some websites that simply lock 
> Window-eyes up, causing a reboot of the system.  This is the first version of 
> this new way of displaying webpages, so i'm hoping that in the next version 
> of Window-eyes, some of those issues can be resolved.  I notice that it 
> particularly has trouble with sites that have a lot of flash content and 
> large webpages with lots of links seem to choke it up.  Smaller sites like 
> google work just fine. So if any AI squared staff need any examples, i'd be 
> really glad to help to resolve some of these things.  I'd like to see the 
> next version load web pages even faster than this one does, if that's 
> possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/25/2015 4:29 PM, Michael Capelle via Talk wrote:
>> 4 gb of ram is a very minimum basic configuration.  I usually recommend at 
>> least 8 gb of ram or higher.
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:25 PM
>> To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive
>> 
>> Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern
>> computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure
>> somebody will tell me.  Pam.
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Jed Barton via Talk
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
>> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
>> Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive
>> 
>> Hey guys,
>> Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
>> feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
>> just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
>> under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
>> used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
>> need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
>> it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
>> count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
>> slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
>> changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
>> I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
>> drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
>> expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
>> thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
>> Any thoughts?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jed
>> ___
>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
>> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>> 
>> For membership options, visit
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
>>  
>> For subscription options, visit
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>> List archives can be found at
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>> 
>> ___
>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
>> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>> 
>> For membership options, visit 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/mcapelle%40charter.net.
>> For subscription options, visit 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>> List archives can be found at 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>> ___
>> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
>> and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>> 
>> For membership options, visit 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/rascal0826%40verizon.net
>>  
>> <http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/rascal0826%40verizon.net>.
>> For subscription options, visit 
>> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 
>>

RE: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Sky Mundell via Talk]

Also 6 GB can be used as well.

-Original Message-
From: Talk [mailto:talk-bounces+skyt=shaw...@lists.window-eyes.com] On
Behalf Of Chris Skarstad via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:52 PM
To: Michael Capelle; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

I'm very glad I got 8 gigs of ram when I put this computer together many
years ago.  For the most part, Window-eyes runs flawlessly under windows
7 64-bit.  I do notice that there are some websites that simply lock
Window-eyes up, causing a reboot of the system.  This is the first version
of this new way of displaying webpages, so i'm hoping that in the next
version of Window-eyes, some of those issues can be resolved.  
I notice that it particularly has trouble with sites that have a lot of
flash content and large webpages with lots of links seem to choke it up.
Smaller sites like google work just fine. So if any AI squared staff need
any examples, i'd be really glad to help to resolve some of these things.
I'd like to see the next version load web pages even faster than this one
does, if that's possible.






On 11/25/2015 4:29 PM, Michael Capelle via Talk wrote:
> 4 gb of ram is a very minimum basic configuration.  I usually 
> recommend at least 8 gb of ram or higher.
>
> -Original Message- From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:25 PM
> To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive
>
> Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern 
> computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm 
> sure somebody will tell me.  Pam.
>
> -Original Message- From: Jed Barton via Talk
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
> To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
> Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive
>
> Hey guys,
> Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some 
> honest feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of 
> ram.  I just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big 
> under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever 
> used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i 
> really need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the 
> web, it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and 
> literally count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just 
> being very slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they 
> did with changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
> I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state 
> drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I 
> fully expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am 
> really thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jed
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40opton
line.net. 
>
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/mcapelle%40cha
rter.net.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> ___
> Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
> author and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.
>
> For membership options, visit
>
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/rascal0826%40v
erizon.net.
> For subscription options, visit
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
> List archives can be found at
> http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
>

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/skyt%40shaw.ca
.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[via Talk]

I agree that having only 4 GB of Memory is very little, and yet, I see
systems for sale at Costco, and other On Line Dealers, getting sold with
only 4 GB of memory.  

These are your $350 to $500 machines, and when I see them, I wonder how
quick they would be with so little memory.  

I am using 6 GB of memory on this machine, and it too is too often very
slow when on web sites like Ebay and Youtube.  

WE 9.X has been a disappointment.  If I would have paid the $250 for a
new Computer monitor, and it was said to be a fast monitor, but on my
system it was not, I would have returned the monitor to the store where
it was purchased.   Something I could not do after forking out $200 for
9.1, and then finding it to be a Big Disappointment.  Then a few months
later, forking out another $50 to upgrade to 9.2, only to find 9.2 was a
minor improvement, but 9.2 still crashes, locks up, goes quiet far too
often, especially if I am on the Web, or am typing too fast within a
word processor such as MS Word 2010, or an Email program like Becky.  

And the longer I have the system ON, the funkier the system gets.  I
suspect something is messing up memory in some way.  Perhaps a program
using what ever memory it needs, and then when that program is closed,
the system is not given back all of the memory first used by the first
program, so there is less memory for the second program to operate.  

I am just guessing here.  If this is a memory management issue, then I
doubt if this is a WE problem, unless it is WE that is causing the
problem with WE not giving back the memory it has used.  

Again, I know just enough to be dangerously guessing.  

Some here swear they have no problems what so ever.  I do not know what
is different about their systems, than mine, but apparently there are some
differences that  are important.  

have heard nothing from A I Squared.  have called them probably four or
five times.  

They don't have any answers.  I get it, sometimes there just isn't an
answer.  

While I would love to walk out and purchase a brand new system, say one
with 16 GB of RAM, and one of those I7 Chips under its hood.It won't
be this Christmas, or any time shortly after the new year.  

After this long of time, I was hoping that A I Squared might have made
some correlations, as I know I am not the only person with a System WE
9.2 does not like.  When I worked in Tech Support, we would keep track
of hardware and Windows configurations if the software we were
supporting was having some troubles on some systems out there in the
real world.  

I recall one time, out CD discs would not be read by a number of
customers systems.  And yet, loads of other customers had no issues what
so ever.  We started looking at the manufacturer, and model of the CD
drives on the systems that would not read our discs.  As it turned out,
this one model of CD drive would not read our discs.  No one ever knew
why, but when we had a customer call in, telling us our disc would not
read, we could easily look to see the model and manufacture of the CD
drive, and sure enough, if the customer had that particular drive, we
had a solution to make that drive work.  But until we started keeping
track of hardware and software used on machines that refused to read our
discs, we had no idea why, or how to give the customer a solution.  

I was hoping, and am still hoping for something like this from A I
Squared.   So far they have my $250 and all is too quiet.  






-- 
Dave 

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Christopher Edwards via Talk]

Hello Jed,

I really understand your frustration. I am running WE 9.2 on two laptops with 
almost identical hardware and running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. On one 
system things normally run very well but sometimes browsing web pages becomes 
unacceptably slow. On the other machine browsing web pages is always slow and 
frequently reaches the unacceptable point. When I say “unacceptable” I mean 
that wen moving down a web page a line at a time the response time can be up to 
30 seconds or more.

My conclusion is that this issue is probably machine related but is very 
frustrating. I too would like to know what AI Squared staff might have to say 
about this.

Chris


From: Jed Barton via Talk 
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List 
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest 
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I 
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big 
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever 
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really 
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web, 
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally 
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very 
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with 
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state 
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully 
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really 
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/cae2006%40hotmail.co.uk.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

RE: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Vaughan Dodd via Talk]

Jed: I think you've drawn a short straw, as I can vouch for two sets of 
experiences.

My work situation with Window-eyes v9.2. on Windows seven was totally 
unsatisfactory.  After persistence, they agreed to replace the work station 
with a higher spec machine.  Significant performance improvements.  This 
corporate environment has several layers of security and other tasks running in 
the background, all of which contribute to taking resources away from 
Window-eyes.  So if you can, I'd urge putting the replacement machine at the 
top of your list.

I do run Windows 10 at home, and Window-Eyes v9.2. flies.  Its specs are 
similar to what you have described.

In short: on the new work station, and on my personal machine, with different 
configurations such that direct comparisons are unwise, Window-Eyes 9.2. works 
well for me.  The work environment required a high than usually issued spec to 
work as it should.

I do understand the reasoning behind returning to Window-eyes 8.4. in the 
interim, but when you experience the web enhancements associated with 
Window-eyes 9.2. running at proper speed, I am sure you'll appreciate them.

Best.

Vaughan.



Vaughan.



-Original Message-
From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+vaughan.dodd001=msd.govt...@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Jed Barton via Talk
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 6:33 a.m.
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest 
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I just 
upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big under-statement.  
This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever used.  Guys at aisquared, 
i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really need some insight here.  I'm just 
being bluntly honest.  On the web, it's horrible.  I can press the up and down 
arrow keys, and literally count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's 
just being very slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did 
with changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state drive, 
and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully expected it 
would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really thinking of doing a 
system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/vaughan.dodd001%40msd.govt.nz.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

---
This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and 
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is 
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author 
immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of 
Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message 
or attachments after transmission from the Ministry.

---
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Pamela Dominguez via Talk]

That sounds like my old Dell laptop that has two gigs of ram.  Sometimes, I 
would wind up saying stuff like "Hello?  Is anybody in there?  Come on! 
Some time this year!"  Pam.


-Original Message- 
From: Christopher Edwards via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 2:41 PM
To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hello Jed,

I really understand your frustration. I am running WE 9.2 on two laptops 
with almost identical hardware and running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. On 
one system things normally run very well but sometimes browsing web pages 
becomes unacceptably slow. On the other machine browsing web pages is always 
slow and frequently reaches the unacceptable point. When I say 
“unacceptable” I mean that wen moving down a web page a line at a time the 
response time can be up to 30 seconds or more.


My conclusion is that this issue is probably machine related but is very 
frustrating. I too would like to know what AI Squared staff might have to 
say about this.


Chris


From: Jed Barton via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/cae2006%40hotmail.co.uk.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 


___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Pamela Dominguez via Talk]

Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern 
computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure 
somebody will tell me.  Pam.


-Original Message- 
From: Jed Barton via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 


___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Michael Capelle via Talk]

4 gb of ram is a very minimum basic configuration.  I usually recommend at 
least 8 gb of ram or higher.


-Original Message- 
From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:25 PM
To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern
computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure
somebody will tell me.  Pam.

-Original Message- 
From: Jed Barton via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/mcapelle%40charter.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 


___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

RE: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[Vaughan Dodd via Talk]

The old 32 bit versions of Windows can only use 3gb, and I also agree that 
eight is probably now the minimum specs but it is only of proper value if the 
Windows version is 64 bit.

Lots of legacy stuff within Windows still is 32 levels of performance, and I 
think this is also true of individual components within Window-Eyes.

My rule of thumb is buy the highest spec machine which can be afforded, as new 
software demands more and more of the hardware.


Vaughan.



-Original Message-
From: Talk 
[mailto:talk-bounces+vaughan.dodd001=msd.govt...@lists.window-eyes.com] On 
Behalf Of Michael Capelle via Talk
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 10:30 a.m.
To: Pamela Dominguez; j...@jedbarton.com; Jed Barton; Window-Eyes Discussion 
List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

4 gb of ram is a very minimum basic configuration.  I usually recommend at 
least 8 gb of ram or higher.

-Original Message-
From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 3:25 PM
To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern 
computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure 
somebody will tell me.  Pam.

-Original Message-
From: Jed Barton via Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest 
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I just 
upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big under-statement.  
This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever used.  Guys at aisquared, 
i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really need some insight here.  I'm just 
being bluntly honest.  On the web, it's horrible.  I can press the up and down 
arrow keys, and literally count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's 
just being very slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did 
with changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state drive, 
and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully expected it 
would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really thinking of doing a 
system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/mcapelle%40charter.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/vaughan.dodd001%40msd.govt.nz.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

---
This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and 
subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is 
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author 
immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of 
Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message 
or attachments after transmission from the Ministry.

---
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

[net bat via Talk]

it also depends on if you are useing a dedicated or onboard sound card.
the dedicated plug in card has its own processor to handle the sounds  freeing 
up the motherboard processor to do something else.


-Original Message- 
From: Pamela Dominguez via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:25 PM
To: j...@jedbarton.com ; Jed Barton ; Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: Re: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Part of your problem could be the amount of ram you have.  On a modern
computer, I don't know that four gigs is much ram.  If I'm wrong, I'm sure
somebody will tell me.  Pam.

-Original Message- 
From: Jed Barton via Talk

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:32 PM
To: Window-Eyes Discussion List
Subject: we 9.2, very unresponsive

Hey guys,
Alright, before i throw this computer out the window, i need some honest
feedback.  I am running we 9.2, a win 7 machine with 4 gigs of ram.  I
just upgraded to we 9.2, and to say i am disappointed is a big
under-statement.  This is by far the slowest version of we i have ever
used.  Guys at aisquared, i do not mean this in a bad way, but i really
need some insight here.  I'm just being bluntly honest.  On the web,
it's horrible.  I can press the up and down arrow keys, and literally
count seconds before it responds.  I find that it's just being very
slow.  I am assuming, that because of the new thing they did with
changing web pages, that this old machine just can't handle it.
I am planning on getting a new machine with windows 10, a solid state
drive, and 8 gigs of ram.  Please guys, i need some input here.  I fully
expected it would be a lot more responsive than this.  I am really
thinking of doing a system restore at this point.
Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Jed
___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/geodom%40optonline.net.
For subscription options, visit
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com

___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.


For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/netbat%40comcast.net.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com 


___
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent those of Ai Squared.

For membership options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/options.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com/archive%40mail-archive.com.
For subscription options, visit 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/listinfo.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com
List archives can be found at 
http://lists.window-eyes.com/private.cgi/talk-window-eyes.com