Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
From: hmarvel@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Howard P. Marvel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: PC HyperCard clones
Message-ID: <4581@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 11 Sep 90 14:21:19 GMT
Sender: news@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)
Lines: 19


I have seen a number of remarks about PC HyperCard versions, but
little that suggests that the remark is based on hands-on experience.
I got to try ToolBook yesterday running on a 33mhz PC.  It was not
optimized as per the ToolBook manual, but I was not supposed to fool
with CONFIG.SYS on the machine.  ToolBook suggests FILES=40,
BUFFERS=40, and my settings appeared to be BUFFERS=10, FILES=30.  With
this caveat, the performance was simply atrocious.  Has anyone had
experience with running ToolBook with varying settings for these
parameters? Does it make a big difference?  ToolBook looks great, but
with this sort of performance, those who compare it to HyperCard on a
Plus are being unfair to Apple.

My second query regards PLUS, the HyperCard clone that supposedly
makes translation to both Windows and the Presentation Manager
relatively painless.  Can anyone offer some impressions about
performance?

Thanks in advance.