lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (01/10/88)
One potential cost to Hypercard for the GS though is that it will force users to buy a harddisk. Right now, I can live with 2 3.5" drives and a 1.5 meg ram card. Hypercard on the GS will probably require a minimum of 1 meg memory and a 10 meg or more hard disk. And it needs to be very fast; I have seen hypercard on a SE using Apple's internal 20 meg - is it slow! -- Larry W. Virden 75046,606 (CIS) 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 cbosgd!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) cbosgd!n8emr!lwv@PSUVAX1 (BITNET) We haven't inherited the world from our parents, but borrowed it from our children.
CS656@OUACCVMB.BITNET (01/10/88)
Would Hypercard be considered more of an Operating system, programming language, or both/neither. I don't own a Mac, and from what I've heard Hypercard is now my only impetus to buy one. However, everything that I have heard about it comes from people who either have never used an Apple //, sell Macs, or both. That's why I'd like some input from people who have tried both. Is stackware written by Hypercard or for it with Assembly, C, etc? And back to the original point that was brought up, about Hypercard being ported to the //G S, is it the way in which Hypercard itself works, or the way in which it uses Mac technology. That is, would it be as unique if it was running on a IIGS? I should point out that I have never had the chance to use Hypercard. These are not rhetorical questions. Bob Church CS656@OUACCVMB
AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (01/10/88)
>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 88 19:07:29 EDT >From: CS656%OUACCVMB.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Bob Church) >Subject: Hypercard >Would Hypercard be considered more of an Operating system, programming >language, or both/neither. Well, it's not *just* a programming language, and it's not *the* Operating System (since the real Mac OS is still there). I consider it a very large piece of application software. Apple considers it "system software," I think, so they can bundle it with the system. Also, Apple is no longer in the Application software business; Claris is doing the application software. >I don't own a Mac, and from what I've heard >Hypercard is now my only impetus to buy one. >[...] I'm not sure I understand; previously you had *no* impetus to buy a Mac, or you someone convinced you that your previous reasons for wanting a Mac were bad? >Is stackware written by Hypercard or for it with Assembly, C, etc? Yes. All of the above. Generally it's written just by using Hypercard--you move things around, choose options from dialog boxes, etc, and have a simple piece of stackware. You can write in their script language (called HyperText) to attach special actions to different actions on things. If you need to, you can write external commands (XCMDs) and external functions (XFCNs) in other languages (Assembly, C, Pascal, etc.) and call them by name from your HyperText scripts. >And back to the original point that was brought up, about Hypercard >being ported to the //GS, is it the way in which Hypercard itself works, >or the way in which it uses Mac technology. That is, would it be as unique >if it was running on a IIGS? I'm not sure if this is what you're asking, but the biggest problems with porting HC to the IIgs are speed (it might be hard to make the IIgs version work fast enough) and differing screen resolution. It would/will be tricky to port existing Stackware to IIgs HyperCard. >I should point out that I have never had the chance to use Hypercard. [...] You should *definitely* go play with it for a couple of hours at an Apple dealer sometime. --David A. Lyons a.k.a. DAL Systems PO Box 287 | North Liberty, IA 52317 BITNET: AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS CI$: 72177,3233
CS656@OUACCVMB.BITNET (01/10/88)
RE: Hypercard as impetus to buy a MAC. I want/intend to learn programming on a MAC someday. However, in many ways there is no hurry. I am still using Assembly on my //C and hope to start on C this quarter. If I wait, say, a year, the prices will be lower the memory expanded, etc. However, this may have changed. If Hypercard is half as significant as the dealers tell me( and judging by notes on this server it is) then it may be worthwile to get the MAC now. As a relative newcomer to programming it seems that it would be advantageous to be in on the "beginnings" of a new system. What do people who have been programming for a wh ile think? Would it be better to go ahead and get the second machine now, or to stick to what I have for a while and then get Hypercard/MAC later?
rich@pro-exchange.cts.COM (Rich Sims) (01/11/88)
There have been a couple of messages on the subject of Hypercard and the GS, Since I have, and use, both a GS and a Mac with Hypercard, I thought I'd throw in my $0.02. Until the GS runs _much_ faster, I don't think Hypercard will be viable. Another consideration is that Hypercard is visually (graphics) oriented, and the GS graphics just can not, at present, match those of the Mac. Hypercard is also a memory hog. My Mac, (a Plus with only 1 meg of RAM) is severely underpowered for running an application like that. Lastly, Hypercard (for all practical purposes) requires a fast mass storage device, since the stacks are not kept in memory, but accessed as data files. I get the feeling that most GS users want to think of their machine as some kind of "mini-Macintosh". I use them both, and the result of having both of them is that I don't even _try_ to use the GS with a mouse-driven, "Mac-like" interface. It's just not up to the task...yet!! UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pnet01!pro-lumen!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-lumen!pro-exchange!rich@nosc INET: pro-exchange!rich@pro-lumen.cts.com pro-exchange: 305-431-3203 : 300-1200-2400-9600/ARQ : login as 'register'
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (01/11/88)
In article <8801091908.aa23127@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> CS656@OUACCVMB.BITNET writes: >Would Hypercard be considered more of an Operating system, programming >language, or both/neither. It's hard to categorize, since it's unique. It forms an environment for both the end-user and the stack developer, but the two "hats" are blurred since anyone can tweak a non-password protected stack to better fit their own goals. I suppose one wouldn't go too far wrong in labeling it a "graphically-interfaced data management system with embedded programming language" (the language is HyperTalk). If you know about Ted Nelson's "hypertext" ideas, they formed part of the inspiration for HyperCard, especially its information linking facilities. >Is stackware written by Hypercard or for it with Assembly, C, etc? HyperCard can be switched into an authoring/scripting mode that is used to create or modify stacks (as opposed to a reading/browsing mode). The graphical interface takes care of much of the work, although for really fancy stuff one ends up providing some instructions in HyperTalk language. >That is, would it be as unique if it was running on a IIGS? HyperCard's uniqueness lies in its concepts, not the Mac as such. The IIGS desktop environment (toolkit ROM) should provide most of what the Mac contributes to HyperCard.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (01/11/88)
In article <408@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >Hypercard on the GS will probably require a minimum of 1 meg memory >and a 10 meg or more hard disk. This is about the minimum anyone with serious uses for a IIGS will need (eventually) anyway. Some of us have already decided that the 32MB ProDOS volume size limit is getting in the way! However, I don't think HyperCard would necessarily require a hard disk; within a year or two, I expect to see CD-ROM HyperCard browse-only stacks showing up on store shelves. >And it needs to be very fast; I have seen hypercard on a SE using >Apple's internal 20 meg - is it slow! I don't know why; it may have been dependent on the particular stack.