use-revolution Digest, Vol 18, Issue 30

[Cubist at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/8/05 9:44:35 PM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com 
writes:

>
>Message: 21
>Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:43:42 -0500
>From: Kevin J <kj2005.28 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: What is the difference?
>To: Judy Perry <jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu>
>Cc: How to use Revolution <use-revolution at lists.runrev.com>
>Message-ID: <aaaf5c83050308214338d49c48 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>Ah Ok I see so its better to use revolution then.
>
>Thanks
>
>

>> 
>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Kevin J wrote:
>> 
>> > What is the difference between deamcard and revolution. I was looking
>> > at the screen shots
>> > and they look to be the same thing?
>> 
>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:41:02 -0800 (PST), Judy Perry
><jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu> wrote:
>> No.  AFAIK, Dreamcard doesn't let you compile your stack for any platform.
>> It's like the old HC in which you needed the player to run your stacks.
>> 
>> Depending upon the version of RR, you can compile for one or more
>> platforms.
>
In a message dated 3/8/05 9:44:35 PM, Kevin J wrote:
>Ah Ok I see so its better to use revolution then.
   Maybe -- it depends on what your needs are. A standalone Rev app is, in 
effect, a normal stack with the Rev engine spotwelded onto it; it's one file, 
nothing extra to download or anything. But because it *does* have the engine 
built in, it's going to be about 2 MB larger than if it was *just* a Rev stack. 
So if you have a lot of stacks to distribute to your users, that 2-MB-per-stack 
'overhead' might be a valid argument for going with Dreamcard, because *one* 
engine -- the DC Player -- will take care of *all* the stacks. On the other 
hand, if you're only going to distribute 1 (one) stack, a standalone might be 
better because it's just *one* download rather than two.
   Hope this helps...