Hello Karen,
I will try to keep it on topic.
On 20/03/2020 06:03, Karen Lewellen wrote:
DJGPP is a complete 32-bit C/C++ development system for Intel
80386 (and higher) PCs running DOS.
I am saying that DOS is a 16-bit, real-time operating system. You say
that DJGPP is more powerful. Yes, but DJGPP is not DOS. Then of course,
one could imagine a 32-bit DOS-like system with 386 memory management,
protected mode etc but it simply would not be called DOS. It would be
called reactOS, Windows, Linux, or anything else.
unrealistic to expect performing any kind of native voice synthesis in
such configuration.
According to whom?
it is one thing to claim, that you do not know how something is done,
quite another to state something is unrealistic.
Proper speech synthesis through a SoundBlaster card in real mode DOS,
within a TSR or driver that takes no more than a couple of KB or RAM
while keeping compatibility with existing software? Yes, I am sorry to
insist, but this is technically unrealistic and no amount of
motivational talk will change that. Now of course speech synthesis in
some limited way is possible on poor hardware, efforts were done even on
machines like the ATARI 800XL, but the resulting quality was disputable,
at best. Years ago I even played with some DOS tool that was attempting
synth speech over PC Speaker, but to be honest I was unable to
understand a word of it.
I'd be glad if you proved me wrong, though.
I realize you mean no dishonor, but have you any idea how often I am
told it is unrealistic technically for me to use a computer...at all?
That is a feat I am most amazed about, but that's not the point. Human
limitations are often misunderstood. It is much easier to understand
limitations of machines and software designs, that is why the example
you cite is not exactly relevant.
Mateusz, there are screen readers that talk to internal cards. to
soundblaster adapters, to USB devices
Under real mode DOS? Could you share some links or names of commercial
products that achieved that? I'd be keen to know more about them.
after all scientists have been solving this problem since the 60's.
DOS has been designed in the 80's, and it is condemned to stay there for
the sake of retro compatibility.
Your personal effort, while certainly appreciated does not make you an
expert.
I am definitely not an expert in the field of blind-related activities
indeed. That is a field that I find highly interesting, but my practical
knowledge is non-existent. That being said, I like to think that I know
a thing or two about DOS and x86 architectures, including a more or less
accurate idea of what can or cannot be done.
Individuals pay thousands for the ability to read write and
communicate, buying synthesizers, and software practically daily, even
if their ultimate goal is not achieved.
I am not disputing that. I am only saying that I find it unlikely that
one would invest any amount of money for the only sake of playing an old
game on an ancient system, while free ways exist to achieve the same.
Now of course if one wants to buy an external synth and setup an old PC
dedicated to DOS - more power to them. But there is a choice, and I
believe choice is essential.
You mean the way Joseph integrated ASAP which has several prospects
for speech, including a generic driver created to work in case one
has none of the synthesizers listed?
Yes. That's the very same way I found to be optimal after my own
research, and that I implemented in the solution I presented in another
message on this list about "Talking DOS", with the difference that I
used a synth emulator that I wrote myself. I also relied on open source
QEMU instead of using the non-free VMWare Player.
Incorporated after Joseph asked permission, which sort of skips past
the licensing factor?
While I am happy it fulfills Joseph's need, it does not skip past the
licensing factor as far as FreeDOS is concerned, sorry.
But, if permission is obtained, which Joseph did, one can use another
tool. meaning licensing compatibility is no reason to limit options.
True from the point of view of an individual, yes. But that won't work
for FreeDOS, as the license exception obtained by Joseph does not
include the 3 liberties that are at heart of the FreeDOS project.
Actually, it works fine when used as designed. My guess from your
efforts is you were not using it as designed.
PROVOX works very well indeed, yes. Turns out the problem I had was not
related to PROVOX at all, but to a wonky RS 232 support within
VirtualBox. This is the reason why I dropped VirtualBox and switched to
QEMU.
Why use Jaws when joseph has proven you can get permission to use asap?
As far as I understand, this permission does not include permission for
repackaging, unlimited distribution, access to source code and
publication of own changes to the software.
clearly it works as joseph illustrated.
Yes, ASAP works, no doubts about that. As does JAWS and PROVOX.
Mateusz
_______________________________________________
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
