Xref: utzoo news.groups:3265 comp.sys.mac:14955 comp.sys.mac.hypercard:593
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!dtw
From: dtw@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Duane Williams)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Do we *really* need comp.binaries.hypercard?
Message-ID: <1370@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 10 Apr 88 07:17:57 GMT
References: <6600@dhw68k.cts.com>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 20


In <6600@dhw68k.cts.com>, Roger L. Long writes:
| For those of you unaware, HyperCard stacks can be quite large, especially if
| they are at all complex, which many of the recent ones that I've seen are.
| A small stack might be 150K in size, while others, even if compressed by one
| of the Macintosh compression utilities, might be 400K or larger.

The remark that a small stack might be 150K is extremely deceptive, at best,
because it suggests that this is a typical size for "small" stacks, i.e.,
that they don't usually get much smaller.  This is false.

The smallest possible (empty) HyperCard stack is about 5K.  Useful stacks
can be created that are well under 50K.  My Home stack is only 24K, my
Address stack 10K, Phone 12K, Datebook 41K, and Area Codes 31K.  Most of the
useful stacks I have collected are under 100K.

Duane Williams
-- 
uucp: ...!seismo!cmucspt!me.ri.cmu.edu!dtw
arpa: dtw@cs.cmu.edu