[DECtalk] new to the list

Wed Mar 1 00:12:22 EST 2006

Hi,

Where can I get that demo?

---

Matthew F.  Horspool

E-mail:
matthew at thehorspools.com

Microsoft .net Messenger:
drjaws at blueyonder.co.uk

Skype:
matthewhorspool

Web:
www.thehorspools.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "shaun everiss" <shaun.e at xtra.co.nz>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list

there is a demo of dectalk 5.
and aparently the voice is sort of back and the problem of the newer 
crap voice was addressed.
Aparently.
There is still a split with some of the voices though.
Some are better, others not.
At 03:08 p.m. 28/02/2006, you wrote:
>I heard it's sort of back. I heard about it in spam though. Whatever 
>service it is ripping off the name.
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <mailto:Dectalk at aol.com>Dectalk at aol.com
>To: <mailto:dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>I guess there is.  I spoke with Corine today and she said Dennis use to 
>give out the codes.  So yes, the code is out there somewhere.
>
>Where is E-voice when you need it?  E-voice was a free voice mail 
>services with tons of Dectalk groups on it.  Out of all those people I 
>bet someone knew the codes.
>
>How the heck do we track it down?
>
>
>SNOOPI
>
>
>
>In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:33:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
>ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
>Hi,
>You mean, there is publicly available source code for DECtalk?
>Jayson.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Corine Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu>
>To: "'DECtalk Discussions'" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:29 AM
>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>Thanks for the encouragement, Snoopi, but unfortunately I have no 
>influence
>on Fonix decisions.
>
>
>
>I was thinking tho that we might be able to get federal grant support
>(NIH-NIDCD) for such a project. Whoever thinks this would be a good use 
>of
>OUR tax dollars, please reply. If I can show enough need for the 
>project (to
>take publicly-available source code for DECtalk and update it to run 
>with
>current operating systems and be usable to current screen readers and
>accessible devices), then we can show the need. I'll volunteer to write 
>the
>application, and have been able to get funding for similar projects in 
>the
>past, and I'd be extremely interested in making this happen - IF enough
>users out there want it. Please let me know what you think.
>
>corine
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
>[mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com] On Behalf Of Dectalk at aol.com
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
>To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>
>Well, Corine is on this list.  When she reads that this can be done, 
>she'll
>probably call Fonix and scream for permission.  I've been trying to 
>tell her
>that this could be done, but Fonix says it can't.  I know it can, I had
>friends crack and modify other programs, even Windows professional. 
>Illegal
>as you can get, but we did it.  So I laugh when Fonix says it can't be 
>done,
>I know it can.
>
>
>
>I hope we get the go ahead, it would put Fonix back on track.
>
>
>
>
>
>SNOOPI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>In a message dated 2/27/2006 3:00:22 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>shaun.e at xtra.co.nz writes:
>
>What we could do is approach the current owner of dectalk and ask them 
>if we
>could hack the old code out of either the old dectalk synths, or out of 
>old
>software, say 4.3 and make some open source mod bassed on that.
>We couldn't call that dectalk  or access 32.
>Probably open dectalk simular to open office or whatever though.
>We could have  someone set up something on sf.net.
>There are loads of such opensource projects on linux, I don't see any
>problem if we get permission to, if we just hacked the code and based 
>on
>that made our own synth.
>After they will not sell olded out dated software.
>At 09:52 p.m. 27/02/2006, you wrote:
>>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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