How Much Is Too Much for a Screen Reader?

Introduction

In the modern age, computers are fast. They range from small form-factor machines to extremely powerful systems. We have desktops, laptops, mini PCs and even handheld devices. However, the question remains: how much is too much for a screen reader?

It Is Not About Price

This is not about the price of a screen reader, at least not in the monetary sense. It concerns a cost of another kind. Every computer requires RAM, or Random Access Memory. Typically, the more RAM available, the more applications can be run simultaneously. For those of us who are technically inclined, this may sound very basic. However, without that fundamental context, the question we are about to explore cannot be fully understood.

I remember the days of Windows XP, when Windows and other applications could run with as little as 128 MB or 512 MB of RAM. Consider that for a moment. We were not even discussing gigabytes of RAM at the time, yet systems could still be fast and responsive. However, hardware has clearly changed since 2001, as has the software that powers it.

Windows 11

Everyone who uses Windows 11 is aware of its system requirements. The requirements listed by Microsoft specify a minimum of 4 GB of RAM. However, many computers now come with 16 GB of RAM as a baseline. If your screen reader requires 16 GB or more and you have exactly 16 GB available, what is the resulting cost?

If Windows requires at least 4 GB, JAWS requires approximately 16 GB and your computer has only 16 GB, the available headroom will quickly disappear. In my own experience, 16 GB of RAM was insufficient to run JAWS alongside my web browser tabs and other software. The system could not allocate the memory appropriately.

In Task Manager, JAWS has multiple instances of the same process, as well as several additional processes that it runs. FSsynth32 is the synthesiser. JAWS also uses the FSitproxy service, the OCR process and others. All of this leads to my central point.

It Is Time for a Change

There is no reason why a screen reader should use up to 16 GB of RAM. If we examine NVDA's system requirements, they amount to one quarter of what JAWS recommends. Furthermore, although I am a JAWS user, when I compare NVDA with JAWS in terms of responsiveness, NVDA performs better. This is not to suggest that JAWS is unresponsive, but NVDA does feel faster.

A blind person would need at least 32 GB of RAM to run JAWS and other programs successfully. Over the years, I have suggested to Vispero on multiple occasions that the JAWS code needs to be reviewed. What happens if 32 GB becomes the recommended system threshold for JAWS?

JAWS should be optimised to run on modest hardware rather than requiring users to purchase computers with twice as much RAM simply to run it successfully alongside other applications. Software will change and hardware capabilities will expand, but optimisation is essential. The technical debt of a product should not be passed on to the user.

Users already face their own costs: the price of a computer, the price of JAWS, and the time and training required to learn how to use it. RAM should not be an additional concern. If NVDA can run using a fraction of the RAM, should the leading screen reader on the market not also be able to operate with less?

Final Thoughts

One could argue that as software evolves, more powerful hardware is required, but I believe I have made my point. Windows ran on significantly less hardware in the early 2000s. Less was, quite literally, more. NVDA runs on less and remains a highly capable screen reader.

JAWS, on the other hand, has accumulated substantial technical debt that must be addressed. Its system requirements specify four times as much RAM as the operating system on which it runs. The smaller its resource footprint, the more computers will be able to run it successfully, making JAWS accessible to a greater number of users.