Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!gatech!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ba0k+
From: ba0k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brian Patrick Arnold)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: HyperCard Vs System Versions Anyone?
Message-ID: <MbJip0G00UhW04UMJS@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 90 23:37:36 GMT
References: <1180@wcc.oz> <46787@apple.Apple.COM> <1990Nov24.235328.10009@sics.se>,
	<2801@polari.UUCP>
Organization: Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 21
In-Reply-To: <2801@polari.UUCP>


Howdy,

On 28-Nov-90 in Re: HyperCard Vs System Ver..
user Tom Benedict@polari.UUCP writes:
> The upgrade situation is a real thorn for system administrators
> who would like to stick with HC1.2x for performance reasons yet
> must run HC2 on some machines.

No offense to the wonderful HyperCard team and users striving for a
stronger, better, faster HyperCard, but experience tells me you
shouldn't even be using HC if (script) performance is an issue.  The
relative tradeoff of upgrading is nothing compared to your decision to
use HC over something else.  "Hmm, abysmal performance or
worse-than-abysmal performance, hmm...I'll pick abysmal performance..." 
HyperCard is great for some tasks, but if you can use an analog watch to
time the performance of a script, it's time to consider the alternatives.

Perhaps I have overstated the understatable.

- Brian