[DECtalk] new to the list
GUI Access
guiaccess at covad.net
Wed Mar 1 00:28:01 EST 2006
>Hi,
>Actually if I recall correctly the DECtalk USB uses some flavor of DECtalk
>5.0 so the DECtalk portion of the firmware would be totally different from
>that contained in the DECtalk Express. The software I disassembled is the
>DECtalk 4.3 demo which, in my opinion, sounds just about like the 4.2CD
>Express firmware. I seem to recall that the DECtalk Express uses an 80386
>processor, so if you could separate the kernel and lowest level code from
>the DECtalk code which I don't know if you could, but you could use that.
>However, the Speak43 application doesn't have to have the very basic stuff
>since Windows provides all that.
I think the DECtalk USB uses some variant of ARM processor. ARM and
80386 aren't even close to being the same instruction set. Not to
mention that the DECtalk Express and the DECtalk USB have totally
different low-level means of generating audio--I'm sure the devices
are about as technically different as apples are to oranges.
GUI Access
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brent Harding" <bharding at doorpi.net>
>To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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