kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (01/15/91)
"If this program can be copied and given away, can someone please send me a "copy? I have wanted to use Macintalk on my IIcx for a long time, and the "version I have crashes royally. Also, the explanation about the differences "between 1.31 and 2.0 would still be appreciated . . . This isn't exactly what you were looking for, but Talking Moose includes a copy of Macintalk that was upgraded to work on current systems. It should work on the cx because it works on my SE/30 (System 6.0.5). Talking Moose isn't very expensive and is kind of fun if you set it to only go off after an hour and skip the talking menus. Shirley Kehr
chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) (05/24/91)
Donald Peterson's search for a Mac program that reads text out loud reminded me that this facility came out with the mac way back in '84 or so, in the form of Macintalk, but that in recent years, Macintalk seems to have been abandoned by Apple. In fact, most of the Macintalk-using programs I had died with 6.0.5 and I think the rest of them went with sys7... Why??????? Apple coulda boasted that Mac was the only computer that *came* with built-in speech synthesis... but no, they let it fall by the wayside. (If anyone knew of how to use Macintalk with Sys7, I'd appreciate the info.) -- Ian Chai Internet: chai@cs.ukans.edu Bitnet: 665instr@ukanvax I don't believe in flaming. If I appear to be flaming, either (a) it's an illusion due to the lack of nonverbal cues or (b) my sprinkler system has suffered a momentary glitch, so just ignore me until it's fixed.
neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May24.071611.4646@hawk.cs.ukans.edu> chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) writes: >Donald Peterson's search for a Mac program that reads text out loud >reminded me that this facility came out with the mac way back in '84 >or so, in the form of Macintalk, but that in recent years, Macintalk >seems to have been abandoned by Apple. The story as I heard it is that Apple only has the *binary* for MacInTalk, but absolutely no source code. All changes have to be made as binary patches. And MacInTalk is an *old* program. The first version even accessed hardware addresses directly. >Why??????? Apple coulda boasted that Mac was the only computer that >*came* with built-in speech synthesis... but no, they let it fall by >the wayside. I thought a complete rewrite was under way for some time. Matthias ----- Matthias Neeracher neeri@iis.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_
gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (05/24/91)
In article <NEERI.91May24130400@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes: >The story as I heard it is that Apple only has the *binary* for MacInTalk, >but absolutely no source code. All changes have to be made as binary >patches. And MacInTalk is an *old* program. The first version even >accessed hardware addresses directly. Quite true. And effectively, a new solution to text to speech translation is under way. Apple should release it not too far away from now. This will allow a better quality than Macintalk, with the added possibility to have several voices possible (male, female...). The only drawback is the size it will need, around 400 Kb. BTW, the only name I know of this system is TTS (Text To Speech), but there's probably a juicy code name in use at Apple... Arno. -- /======================//==========================================/ / Arnaud Gourdol. // On the Netland: Gourdol@imag.fr / / // Via AppleLink: Gourdol@imag.fr@INTERNET# / /======================//==========================================/
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (05/25/91)
In article <NEERI.91May24130400@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes: > > >Why??????? Apple coulda boasted that Mac was the only computer that > >*came* with built-in speech synthesis... but no, they let it fall by > >the wayside. > > I thought a complete rewrite was under way for some time. The new speech software that Apple showed at the Developer's conference was pretty good. Not light years ahead of Macintalk (to my ear), but with a lot more emphasis on "those boring details" like making it work with foreign systems and in alternate voices. Don't know when it might hit the streets though... -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (05/25/91)
In article <1991May24.071611.4646@hawk.cs.ukans.edu> chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) writes: > Donald Peterson's search for a Mac program that reads text out loud > reminded me that this facility came out with the mac way back in '84 > or so, in the form of Macintalk, but that in recent years, Macintalk > seems to have been abandoned by Apple. > > In fact, most of the Macintalk-using programs I had died with 6.0.5 > and I think the rest of them went with sys7... > > Why??????? Apple coulda boasted that Mac was the only computer that > *came* with built-in speech synthesis... but no, they let it fall by > the wayside. MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, and Apple purchased the program so the Mac could have an extra splashy intro in 1984: it could introduce itself. We never purchased the source code. That's why we can't upgrade it to work with new System software: we're as helpless as you are. (It was patched the hard way once, to get rid of some self-modifying code that failed on 68020's and 030's, but its current problems are much more fundamental.) I can't comment on possible replacements since I don't know of any. (Not my line of work - though it sounds like fun! :-) ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 3-PK | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
burchil@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Andrew Burchill) (05/25/91)
In <13663@goofy.Apple.COM> rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: >In article <1991May24.071611.4646@hawk.cs.ukans.edu> >chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) writes: >> Donald Peterson's search for a Mac program that reads text out loud >> reminded me that this facility came out with the mac way back in '84 >> or so, in the form of Macintalk, but that in recent years, Macintalk >> seems to have been abandoned by Apple. >> >> In fact, most of the Macintalk-using programs I had died with 6.0.5 >> and I think the rest of them went with sys7... >> >> Why??????? Apple coulda boasted that Mac was the only computer that >> *came* with built-in speech synthesis... but no, they let it fall by >> the wayside. >MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, and Apple purchased the program so >the Mac could have an extra splashy intro in 1984: it could introduce >itself. We never purchased the source code. That's why we can't upgrade it >to work with new System software: we're as helpless as you are. (It was >patched the hard way once, to get rid of some self-modifying code that >failed on 68020's and 030's, but its current problems are much more >fundamental.) >I can't comment on possible replacements since I don't know of any. (Not >my line of work - though it sounds like fun! :-) >========================================================================== >Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh >Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com >Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do >20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 3-PK | not necessarily represent those of my I would also really (and I mean really) like to see a replacement for MacIntalk. I currently work in an area for diabled people, many are blind and use a program called OutSpoken (based on Macintalk). Why should these people be left out of Sys. 7? I am not a programmer but I think something could be done with Ballon help hooks. Any Ideas? Send them to me, and Apple. Charles Burchil@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Talking to Berkely systems Outspoken continues to work if you don't use an sounds other then sys. beep, I have not had a chance to try on sys 7. It works OK on 6.0.7, albeit a little flaky). >Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
chai@hawk.cs.ukans.edu (Ian Chai) (05/27/91)
Thanks for all the info, people. Well, I for one (and looks like I'm in good company) eagerly await the rumoured new rewrite of Macintalk... (And, yes, I appreciate you Apple techies who take time out to read & reply to usenet.) -- Ian Chai Internet: chai@cs.ukans.edu Bitnet: 665instr@ukanvax I don't believe in flaming. If I appear to be flaming, either (a) it's an illusion due to the lack of nonverbal cues or (b) my sprinkler system has suffered a momentary glitch, so just ignore me until it's fixed.
jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) (05/29/91)
Recently, Rick Holzgrafe posted an article regarding the status (past and future) of MacinTalk. There were several incorrect and/or misleading comments made which I would like to address. In response to what Rick Holzgrafe writes: >MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, TRUE. MacinTalk was written by myself and Mark Barton. Apple contacted us back in late 1983 to write a speech synthesizer for the yet to be released Mac. >and Apple purchased the program so the Mac could have an extra splashy >intro in 1984: it could introduce itself. FALSE. Originally, MacinTalk was supposed to be included in the system folder and bundled with every Mac as part of the basic OS. Apple did indeed want at least a preliminary version working for the 1984 intro, and we busted our butts to provide them with one. Later (about June of '85) Apple decided that they would not necessarily distribute MacinTalk with every system. >We never purchased the source code. TRUE. During out initial contract negotiations, Apple was given various options regarding exclusivity, licensing arrangements, etc. They chose to purchase binary code only. >That's why we can't upgrade it to work with new System software: we're as >helpless as you are. FALSE. Over the years I've been in contact with various people at Apple and have tried several times to setup some arrangement to upgrade and maintain MacinTalk. Always, after some initial interest, the matter simply dies. >(It was patched the hard way once, to get rid of some self-modifying code >that failed on 68020's and 030's, Yes, MacinTalk was patched. No, MacinTalk has no self-modifying code. It would be more correct to say that MacinTalk did not maintain a pure code space (we stored a variable in a local area within a code module). When the Mac II was being developed we tried to negotiate with Apple to maintain and improve MacinTalk, but could not agree on terms. See below. >but its current problems are much more fundamental.) All too true. Originally the sound manager was much too slow to use and we had to directly access the hardware. THIS WAS DONE WITH APPLE'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL! Later, as I said, we were unable to come to terms with Apple regarding maintenance and upgrades. >I can't comment on possible replacements since I don't know of any. (Not >my line of work - though it sounds like fun! :-) Too bad. I guess we'll have to wait. As you may have gathered from the above, there was a falling out between Apple and us. The basic problem was that when the Mac II was under development, we went to Apple and tried to create a working relationship with them. At that time, totally out of the blue, Apple demanded source code to MacinTalk, and flatly stated that they would not consider any form of compensation. When we balked at that, they told us that unless we agreed to their terms, Apple would no longer support MacinTalk. We did not agree to their terms, feeling that to do so would be to support the all too common practice of big companies unilaterally and retroactively rewritting already agreed upon contracts. As I said before, since that meeting I've been in contact with several people at Apple (after about a year or so) and have actually found most of the initial contacts rather enthusiastic about resuscitating MacinTalk, but it never got very far. My intention is not to give the impression that this is a full and complete accounting of what went on with MacinTalk, and obviously it's my version of things, but I've seen these half-truths repeated too often now. It's been so long that I don't remember if Rick was actually present in any of our negotiations, or if he is simply repeating what he has heard. In either case, my intention is not to castigate him personally or to start a "you did this/ you did that" sort of flame war, but to answer some of the comments that have come out of Apple regarding MacinTalk. -- | Joseph Katz | SoftVoice | ... but don't his suit fit nice? (213) 390-4417 | jkatz@netcom.com | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jhagen@talos.npri.com (Jarom Hagen) (05/30/91)
jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes: >As you may have gathered from the above, there was a falling out between Apple >and us. The basic problem was that when the Mac II was under development, we >went to Apple and tried to create a working relationship with them. At that >time, totally out of the blue, Apple demanded source code to MacinTalk, and >flatly stated that they would not consider any form of compensation. Owch! >As I said before, since that meeting I've been in contact with several people >at Apple (after about a year or so) and have actually found most of the initial >contacts rather enthusiastic about resuscitating MacinTalk, but it never got >very far. I suppose Apple thinks that digitized voice and sound is better. I would rather have the synthetic voice of MacinTalk. It was great when the Mac could "speak" a text file too you! Digitized sound takes up lots of disk and memory too. :-( Jarom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Not paid for and/or endorsed by National Political Resources Incorporated. 602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jhagen)
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) (06/01/91)
jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes: >>MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, > TRUE. MacinTalk was written by myself and Mark Barton. Apple contacted > us back in late 1983 to write a speech synthesizer for the yet to > be released Mac. It is a pity you have not pursued macintalk as an independent product. It seems plausible that you could update and/or improve macintalk and market it yourselves, in many different ways. 1. You could have it speak the data coming in through the serial port, to make a talking terminal. 2. You could integrate it with quickdraw to make a macintosh for the blind. 3. You could integrate it with commercial scanners to make a book reader for the blind. 4. Macintalk could be the basis for a sound language for the macintosh. This is something that apple has been ignoring for many many years (finally they've started to address it in system 7.0). 5. Macintalk source code could be licensed to game manufacturers. Why haven't you pursued these options with macintalk? Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL --
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.233024.17115@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: |> jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes: |> >>MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, |> |> > TRUE. MacinTalk was written by myself and Mark Barton. Apple contacted |> > us back in late 1983 to write a speech synthesizer for the yet to |> > be released Mac. |> |> It is a pity you have not pursued macintalk as an independent product. |> It seems plausible that you could update and/or improve macintalk and |> market it yourselves, in many different ways. [5 ideas deleted] 6. A talking debugger. Some of my students once used MacinTalk for of debugging output. It was great fun - they could tell what their program was doing without having to mess up the screen. -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
steph@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Stephen Sakamoto) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.233024.17115@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes: >jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes: >>>MacinTalk was done by an outside firm, > >> TRUE. MacinTalk was written by myself and Mark Barton. Apple contacted >> us back in late 1983 to write a speech synthesizer for the yet to >> be released Mac. > >It is a pity you have not pursued macintalk as an independent product. >It seems plausible that you could update and/or improve macintalk and >market it yourselves, in many different ways. > <IDEAS DELETED> > >Why haven't you pursued these options with macintalk? > Actually they have improved MacinTalk a great deal for the various other 680x0 platforms they support. They couldn't to anyting for the Mac because of licensing restrictions in the contract they signed with Apple. Apple bought the binary and prevented them from marketing MacinTalk themselves. >Don Gillies | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >gillies@cs.uiuc.edu | Digital Computer Lab, 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana IL > >--
james@uts.EDU.AU (J Boswell) (06/05/91)
jkatz@netcom.COM (Joseph Katz) writes: >As you may have gathered from the above, there was a falling out between Apple >and us. The basic problem was that when the Mac II was under development, we >went to Apple and tried to create a working relationship with them. At that >time, totally out of the blue, Apple demanded source code to MacinTalk, and >flatly stated that they would not consider any form of compensation. When we >balked at that, they told us that unless we agreed to their terms, Apple would >no longer support MacinTalk. We did not agree to their terms, feeling that to >do so would be to support the all too common practice of big companies >unilaterally and retroactively rewritting already agreed upon contracts. My hearty congratulations. I believe you acted responsibly and with integrity. It is good to see people striking a blow for contractors otherwise trodden on by the big guys. In my opinion Apple blew it. Having called their bluff I'd say that you've made them look pretty silly. MACINTALK was GREAT !!! I don't think they know what a winner it was for them. REALLY REALLY DUMB APPLE <:-) > ... It's been >so long that I don't remember if Rick was actually present in any of our >negotiations, or if he is simply repeating what he has heard. In either case, >my intention is not to castigate him personally or to start a "you did this/ >you did that" sort of flame war, but to answer some of the comments that have >come out of Apple regarding MacinTalk. Very honourable BUT in my opinion Apple owes it to its customers (you remember us Apple - we're your source of income !) to explain why they would deliberately cause the obsolesence of LOTS of software, remove functionality from our machines and remove yet another distinction between the mac and those other boxes sold by people in blue suits. Perhaps we should be "upgrading" to 4.1 or 5.3 to get speech synthesis instead of moving to SSW7.0. I know this sounds over the top Apple, but there is only so much Mac you can erode away and I'm tired [:-O<-==dd of losing functionality with every "upgrade" of the SSW unless I buy the latest platform to run it on, and in this case that won't even help. James. ----------------- Of course these are my opinions, my employer does'nt even know what a Mac is !