Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!blkcat!f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org!Ken.Knight From: Ken.Knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Knight) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard Subject: Hypercard 2.0 Message-ID: <3012.278AF7CE@blkcat.fidonet.org> Date: 9 Jan 91 02:46:20 GMT Sender: ufgate@blkcat.fidonet.org (newsout1.26) Organization: FidoNet node 1:109/421 - The Twilight Clone, Paul Heller Lines: 33 I've found HC 2.0 to be faster than 1.2.x for many things. There has been discussion of this before here and the informal quicky tests I've run show HC 2.0 to be quite a bit quicker. The environment you run HC 2.0 in does have a fiar affect on the speed of the stack. If you are running under MultiFinder with lots of background tasks running HC 2.0 will slow down a good deal. But, that is acceptable cause now HC at least lets those processess run. Here is a quicky summary of some crude tests I did a while back the times are in ticks (1/60 sec = 1 tick) these were done running MultiFinder on a Mac II all the tests were done with the screen locked: 1.2.x 2.0x* 2.0 Flip 100 lines in a field 870 1118 260 Flip 100 lines in a container 266 111 114 Add 100 lines in a field (partial sums) 1002 1433 218 Add 100 lines in a field (just total) 311 326 94 Add 100 lines in container (partial sum) 194 159 152 File to Field (tab-delimited 3-column) 1778 1124 1362 * HC 2.0 running unconverted stacks. HC 2.0 is consistently faster than 1.2.5 running converted stack. It is almost always signifigantly faster running unconverted stack,too. While there is no downward compatability that is nothing really new. You could write stacks for HC 1.2 that WOULD NOT run on older version of HyperCard and many people did write such stacks. 2.0 provides so much more than 1.2.x that it is well worth the switch. -- Ken Knight, Ken.Knight@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org via The Black Cat's Shack's FidoNet<->Usenet Gateway blkcat.fidonet.org and Fidonet 1:109/401