From: Thomas Delohery (vze29v32@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Mar 24 2002 - 02:02:51 EST
Joseph, I looked at this about 10 years ago with Lysis. Same result - the 1024 data was only twice the size of the 256 channel in terms of bytes. tomd Joseph Webster wrote: > Many thanks to all those who showed me the bullet hole in my shoe... > > A few days ago I wrote: > > > .... but remember that a 1024-channel data file is four times > > > bigger than the same data in 256 channels. > > After a prompt from Mario, I checked this morning and that statement > is wrong! > I remember a factor of four in the (good old?) days of HP computer > and LYSYS II, but had never bothered to check that change in newer > computers. > > Testing this morning, my 256-channel file was 72078 bytes while the > same data (test pulses) in 1024-channel was 142078 bytes, or about > double the file size. > Just to confuse matters though, the Mac file system uses 130Kb and > 195Kb respectively for the same two files on a 2Gb disk.... > > Now the accuracy of my memory is quite a different matter... ;~) > Anyone still running a FACScan with LYSIS? > > Joseph.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:41:33 EST
