Hi Ted,

the two ps files are generated using exactly the same script. For example:

--------------------------
setEPS()
postscript (file="volc.eps",width=5,height=4)
image(volcano)
dev.off()
--------------------------

With R2.10 I get a file with size 182K, while R2.13 gives a file of 186K. I
am sending you the two files privately.

I just want to remark that this is not a hardware issue: I found out the
origin of this problem when I updated the R release on my laptop from 2.10
to 2.13. Before updating, I had no issue.

Thanks

G

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ted Harding <ted.harding@wlandres.net>wrote:

> On 21-Jul-11 07:23:54, pilchat wrote:
> > Dear R users,
> >
> > I have a desktop computer and a laptop, both of them with
> > Ubuntu Lucid. The former has R2.10 installed from Ubuntu
> > repositories (this is the most recent version in the
> > repositories), while the latter has R2.13 from the CRAN
> > repositories.
> >
> > I noticed that postscript files generated with R2.10 are
> > "better"  than files generated with the latest release of R,
> > in particular for plots with colored areas, such as the
> > output of image or persp. The thing is that my ps viewer
> > (e.g. gv or evince) is very slow in opening ps files from
> > R2.13, while it smoothly displays ps files from R2.10,
> > regardless of "encapsulation".
> >
> > I think this is related to differences in the way the ps
> > file is generated by the two versions of R, but I don't
> > know how to go deeper in the matter.
> >
> > Is there anyone experiencing the same issue? Is there any
> > solution?
> >
> > Thank you in advance
> >
> > Cheers
> > Gaetano
>
> Hi Gaetano,
> First, to be sure of the nature of the problem:
> When you compare the speed of display of a graph generated
> by R-2.10 with the speed of display of a graph generated
> by R-2.13, are these two graphs created using identical
> commands in each version of R? I.e. is it the case that
> they should be identical graphs?
>
> If not, then (depending on how you generated them) it might
> be that a graph you have generated on R-2.10 consists of
> "vector" graphics, while another, generated on R-2.13 consists
> of bit-map graphics. Display of a PostScript file consisting
> of bit-maps will always be slower that display of a "vector
> graphics" file.
>
> Have you tried copying the same PS file from your desktop
> to your laptop, or vice versa, in order to compare the speed
> of display of the same file on the two different machines?
>
> If you wish, you can send me privately
> a) A PS file generated on R-2.10 (desktop)
> b) A PS file generated on R-2.13 (laptop) using identical
>   commands (i.e. in principle the same)
>
> where the two files exhibit the difference in display speed
> which you describe. I will then attempt to diagnise the
> problem (please also send the R commands used).
>
> Ted.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.harding@wlandres.net>
> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
> Date: 21-Jul-11                                       Time: 12:39:00
> ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

