I tried wgnuplot, found it loaded and plotted instantly. Rebooted and found no difference.
I tried GRETL again, tested for graphing from console vs right-click on a series. I thought I perceived a faster time from the console -- but if there was, it was marginal. I noticed this graph delay in my class last spring, but after the first few sessions the students ignored it. All the machines in the lab are older PCs, low memory. ~Peter On 7/14/2010 7:38 AM, Allin Cottrell wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, peter wrote: > > >> On Windows XP (AMD 3000+, 2.16Ghz, with 1.5g memory) (through SP2) I >> find this to be the case only after a reboot. >> Open GRETL (1.91cvs) >> Open a data set >> Click on a series >> Ask for a time-series graph >> 10s to display >> Close GRETL and repeat:<1s. >> > Thanks for the info. This narrows the issue down. One more > question: how does the start-up time for gretl itself compare > depending on whether it's the first invocation since booting > Windows, versus closing gretl and restarting it? Is that > difference less extreme than for a gnuplot graph? > > Oh, and another experiment people could try, if they have the > patience: what about the start-up time for wgnuplot.exe (the > executable is in the gretl installation directory), independent of > gretl? I'm thinking that the time to place a gretl/gnuplot graph > on the screen is not all "gnuplot time": gnuplot is called to > generate a PNG file, which gretl then displays using GTK/GDK, and > the load time for the relevant GTK modules may be a factor. > > Allin > _______________________________________________ > Gretl-users mailing list > Gretl-users(a)lists.wfu.edu > http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-users > > >
