Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig5!wayneck From: wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: How 'Bout HyperCard! Message-ID: <2755@tekig5.TEK.COM> Date: 13 May 88 19:00:44 GMT References: <15372@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <31411@linus.UUCP> <5324@cup.portal.com> Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 104 In article <5324@cup.portal.com>, doug-merritt@cup.portal.com writes: > I must differ with Steven about "Hypercard is not hypertext, nor > hypermedia. Can you do animation with it?" > > Yes, you can do animation with it. Yes, it supports text, graphics, > animation, sounds, music, control of external devices, etc. > That qualifies it as hypertext and as hypermedia. > > It may not have the features you want, but don't underestimate what it > is. Which, by the way, is "a phenomenon". You wouldn't believe the amount > of activity in this area. Exponential curve. Yes, you can do animation with pencil and paper too. I'm sure Hypercard is better than pencil and paper, but it is still going to be a lot of work. What is a better and more likey solution is to build the Hypercard program so that it can access animation done by animation programs. Then you could use the Hypercard program as sort of an editor. Hypercard, hypertext, hypermedia are not programs designed to produce data, rather they are programs and tools that allow the user to readily access the data in a way that is useful. So if you had a CD full of frames of animation, hypermedia may be a great way of playing with how the frames are displayed, but if you wanted to change a frame other tools are better. One way to think about it is maybe calling Hypercard a toolbox and other programs as tools. You don't build a house with a toolbox, but rather with the tools in the toolbox. Without the toolbox the other tools are harder to use. Hyperstuff programs just give you means to access information in useful ways. They don't give the information. I'm please to see that Amiga people are really looking at something Apple has brought to the general market. Hypertext has been around for a long time but Apple seems to be the first to really get the micro market excited about it. Sometimes it really seems that Amiga fans are living with real blinders on. I own an Amiga, in some ways it is good, in other areas it really isn't as good as it could be. I also own an Atari ST, same story as Amiga. I've read so many studip blind things in Amiga mags. and Amiga usenet postings that I was really beginning to wonder about Amiga fans. I take heart that some people at least realize that the Amiga is just a machine and not a god. Wayne Knapp PS. In case people are wondering here is my own personal score card. But first my baises. 1. Simple is better, specail hardware can give great results but often makes programs hard to write/modify/create. I prefer simple hardware that is flexible and fast. As an example, instead of a cooper/blitter/whatever I would rather have a simple bitmap with lots of bits per/pixel. Fix the resolution give me a powerful processor that I can program in C or whatever I like. I believe simple fast hardware really opens the door for ideas. True power is in ideas not hardware. 2. I hate to wait for computers. 3. I hate to have to guess at why something isn't working. Here goes: Amiga Apple Mac Atari ST IBM PC ----------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL STUFF price C+ D B (not Mega) A (clones) speed B- A (Mac II) B (faster uP) B disk drives D C B- A+(best yet) file system B A D (11 chars) D (same as ST) os B+ B C C- package B B C C expansion B (2000) B+ (Mac II) C- A PROGRAMMING avil. lang. C A B A complete tools C A B- A debugging D (improving) A B (improving) B cost of system C B B C ease of prog. D A C A GRAPHICS raw power B A (Mac II) B- B (no stardard) ease of use C A B+ C flexiblity A- A+ A A (many cards) resolution B A (Mac II) C B (depends on colors avil. B A (Mac II) C B card used) speed A A- B+ C SOUND General A+ B D F MIDI C C A C quaulity A A- B F ease of use A A C F SOFTWARE public A+ (great) B C A com. C A B A+ Pick what you want. All machines have good points and bad points. The above is form my own experience form working with and programming the above computers. The one thing that is hard for me to believe is that there are some many great programs on Amiga where the Amiga is not easy to program. It shows that many Amiga programmers have great telent. Remember the machine is useless with out the programmers. No machine can stand on it's own, it is mainly what people have done with the machine. So I suggest people should respect the effort of other people instead of respecting the machine.