[DECtalk] new to the list
Brent Harding
bharding at doorpi.net
Tue Feb 28 22:07:28 EST 2006
Wouldn't it be the hex file of the firmware that one would need to
disassemble to continue development with the old sound? I would imagine that
the USB ones would be the same as the express with a serial to USB converter
built in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jayson Smith" <ratguy at bellsouth.net>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
> Hi,
> The other night I ran speak43, from DECtalk 4.3 demo, through a
> disassembler. I do have to say that the output does have loads of
> probably
> useful symbol names, so it isn't as totally devoid of meaningful info as I
> would have initially thought. The actual code is way beyond my ability to
> comprehend, being machine code. I will not be putting the disassembly up
> on
> my website since Fonix owns the software and giving out the source like
> that
> without their permission would just be wrong. But Snoopy, if you want to
> contact me off-list and get it or if you can get someone from Fonix to
> subscribe to this list or something, I'd be glad to provide a copy of the
> disassembly to the right person, along with a copy of the disassembler I
> used to generate the output, as well as the original speak43 executable if
> they don't already have it, for reference purposes.
> Jayson.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Dectalk at aol.com>
> To: <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>>
>> Man I wish someone would crack version 5.40. Fonix doesn't have the
>> uncompressed files for the Dectalk versions that we all know and love.
> Ed somehow
>> has bad files of some newer version that has problems and has been
>> trying
> to
>> duplicate 4.40. Don't ask me what happened to the files, I've been
> trying to
>> figure that out for 2 years.
>>
>> If anyone could crack version 4.40 and unconpile it, you'd be helping in
>> ways you can't imagine! What puzzles me is why Fonix can't crack it.
> They
>> bought it, they own it, so I'll never understand why they say they can't
> crack it.
>>
>> I have a friend that could crack it, and I tried to talk him into doing
> it.
>> He wouldn't because he was scared of getting into trouble. If I had the
>> skills I'd do it myself and then give it to Ed so we can all get back on
> track.
>>
>> Man I wish someone would do it.
>>
>>
>> SNOOPI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:20:16 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>> Let's not start World War III about this, but here are a few more
> thoughts
>> on this.
>> First, if you've ever seen the darker side of the net, you doubtless
>> know
>> there are people out there who just love to take popular commercial
> software
>> packages and crack them. Copy protection mechanisms are disabled,
>> registration key systems are bypassed or, if not bypassed, a key
> generator
>> program is included so you can make up your own key out of thin air. In
>> some cases, the crackers may even have to disable sanity checks built
> into
>> the programs designed to prevent just this sort of happening. Also
>> there
>> are programs on the market designed to encrypt executables so they can't
> be
>> cracked so easily. E.G. you write a program that's going to bring in
>> millions, run it through an encrypter program before putting it on the
>> market so crackers either can't crack it at all or have to do lots of
> extra
>> work to get the job done.
>> Also, I'm not saying that by disassembling a program you get the
>> original
>> source. You don't. What you'd get is the machine code, probably
> something
>> like assembly language for whatever microprocesser the program was
> designed
>> for. Let's say you took the Apple II Textalker program and disassembled
> it.
>> You'd most likely get 6502 machine code. Now Textalker may well have
> been
>> written in Assembly, but the original source would probably have
> meaningful
>> label names if not comments, and the developers of the original program
>> would know, or would have known, how to make changes to their version.
> With
>> a disassembled program you wouldn't get the meaningful label names,
> comments
>> or anything, and you wouldn't have the knowledge of the program's
> internal
>> structure that the original developer had. But still, if you knew what
> you
>> were doing you could probably modify the software, and you could
> certainly
>> find out how certain things were done. In fact, the author of Cider
> Press
>> did disassemble some copy protection code on some old Apple II cassette
>> tapes to find out how it worked and how to circumvent it.
>> As for the DECtalk software itself, I seem to recall that the DECtalk PC
>> uses an 80186 processor and the Express uses an 80386. Both have some
> type
>> of digital to analog convertor. So it might not have been that
> difficult
>> for Digital to modify the software to run under Windows, since I don't
>> assume they're emulating an old board.
>> Jayson.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tony Baechler" <tony at baechler.net>
>> To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>>
>>
>> > Hi. I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here. First, the
>> > point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the source
>> > isn't easily apparent. If it was possible to just randomly
>> > disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD, Linux or any
>> > other open source project. I could just take the Windows kernel,
>> > crack it, invent my own version and release it as the free kernel or
>> > something. It obviously doesn't work that way. Also, remember a
>> > previous discussion about emulating the Echo on the Apple II? The
>> > problem is the same in both cases. The Echo is a chip on a card that
>> > goes into the computer. The DEC-Talk is a separate
>> > computer. According to the manual, it has its own
>> > microprocessor. So, even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
>> > them much good. It's a nice thought though. Considering that it
>> > keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have the
>> > 4.40 source, or won't release it if they do. Personally I would like
>> > to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer, either using
>> > already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or easily programmable
>> > software with good speech quality. I'm not interested in what's
>> > already out there for free, it all sounds like crap and won't sing
>> > very well if at all.
>> >
>> > At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
>> > >I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code. If the
> only
>> > >copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send the drive in
>> > to
> a
>> > >data recovery company if they still have it, but those places are
>> expensive.
>> > >I mean, with the move from Digital to Force and then from Force to
> Fonix,
>> > >you'd think somebody somewhere would have something laying around. I
>> have
>> > >the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as well as the DECtalk PC
>> drivers
>> > >which as I understand it actually contain the DECtalk code which is
>> loaded
>> > >onto the board at startup. And of course the 4.3 demo is available
>> > >at
>> the
>> > >archive. I don't know how to disassemble the software, but bet the
> right
>> > >person who knew what they were doing could do it and create machine
> code
>> > >from which new equivalent source code for the lost versions could be
>> > >recreated.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DECtalk mailing list
>> > DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> > http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DECtalk mailing list
>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
More information about the Dectalk
mailing list