Why does it matter? Surely the time taken to read the file or send it to the printer is not important, and the actual files compress well for storage (about a factor of 6 with bzip2 on the example I tried).
Which version of S-PLUS, which has had two completely separate postscript drivers? The AT&T S version was written in the 1980s when this did matter and is somewhat optimized for compact code. I've just done a quick comparison on the MASS4 ch05 script using Linux. S-PLUS 6.1 produces 212Kb, R 1.6.2 produces 596Kb. These compressed to 48 and 108Kb respectively. On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Helgi Tomasson wrote: > I have been using R for many years and I am very happy with it. One > thing puzzles me. > Graphic postscript files tend to become quite big, much bigger than > corresponding splus > postscript files. Does anybody have a hint to avoid this? -- 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 http://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
