On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Philippe Hupé wrote: > Andrew C. Ward a écrit : > > >Dear Philippe, > > > >Perhaps you could try a different graphics device (maybe > >postscript). On my machine, the time differences were all 1 > >second rather than the 3 you reported.If 300s is really > >too long for you, you could get a new computer or run your > >script on a faster one. > > > > I have a computer with 3GHz processor (Pentium IV) and 2 Go of RAM so I > don't think this is a matter of computer performance :).
My lowly 1.4GHz P4M laptop does it in 2.5 secs, so there does seem to be a performance problem with your computer. BTW, the way to time a command is to use system.time() > > > > >Andrew C. Ward > > > >CAPE Centre > >Department of Chemical Engineering > >The University of Queensland > >Brisbane Qld 4072 Australia > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >Quoting Philippe Hupé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > >>hello, > >> > >>I use R1.7.1 under winXP and I am running the following > >>script example : > >> > >> > >>for (i in 1:10) > >>{ > >> x <- rnorm(100) > >> png( paste("D:/essai",i,".png",sep="")) > >> plot(x) > >> t1 <- Sys.time() > >> dev.off() > >> t2 <- Sys.time() > >> print(t2-t1) > >> > >>} > >> > >>at each step, it takes about 3 seconds to shut down the > >>graphic device. > >>I want to generate about one hundred of image and of > >>course it takes too > >>much time. Is there any trick ? > >> > >>Philippe > >> > >>______________________________________________ > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > >>https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help