Joseph: I'm a Flow novice, a Flower child, but I was wondering about your factor of 4 myself. However, now that I have read your answer below, I thought I would add that I am presently running a FAScan with an HP and Lysis II and the file sizes are just a 2 fold difference in this system too. Did you get the factor of 4 by dividing 1024 by 256? As they say, my two peaks worth. Sincerely, Dan Rosson Dan Rosson Ph.D. Lankenau Institute of Medical Research 100 Lancaster Ave. Wynnewood, PA 19096 www.limr.org. -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Webster [mailto:J.Webster@centenary.usyd.edu.AU] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:37 PM To: cyto-inbox Subject: Re: 256 vs. 1024 channels Hmmmmmm 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 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:59:29 EST