Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!biostr.biostr.washington.edu!kraig From: kraig@biostr.biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard Subject: Re: SuperCard vs HyperCard Message-ID: <12593@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: 8 Dec 90 02:13:27 GMT References: Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu Organization: University of Washington Lines: 31 >a discussion of the merits of HyperCard vs SuperCard. I use SuperCard for courseware development as well. The three things I absolutely needed that HC didn't have were: (1) large windows (2) PICT graphics (3) polygon buttons I've since found out that I could have done a lot with XCMD's, but I was a scripting neophyte when I started the whole project. Having the support built-in made a lot of things possible early on. The biggest cons I see in SuperCard are (1) it is slow, (2) it is a memory hog. In my mind, what I am doing should not take more than about 2MB, but SC insists on requiring at least 4. The thing I like is that you get the benefits of HyperCard (easily changed scripts, sort-of-object-oriented development, easy interfaces to videodisc players, etc.) but you have more control over the user interface. Pop-up menus, windows, complete control over the menu bar, etc. Therein lies my question for the c.s.m.h crowd: does HyperCard 2.0 let you make anything that could pass for an application? Or does it still look like HyperCard in the end? Like, can I make my own "About..." menu option, and take out HyperCard's FILE menu entirely? You may be able to tell that I haven't looked into it too much, as SC makes it all very easy. Perhaps it's just that HyperCard never did come with a good scripting manual and I'm too cheap to buy things like that after the fact. Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu "Problems generate new knowledge." -- M. Usui