Hi Bruce,

Thanks a lot for looking into this.  at least i know I'm not going crazy. But yes, if it might be relevant i'm on a machine running windows 7.

I appreciate your feedback regarding my fitting model, I was playing around with the fit and trying to minimize the amount of variables, and this was the best I got.  I'll take into account your suggestions and revisit my fit (i had set it aside after difficulties of trying to import it into the newer version of Artemis).

Look forward to hearing what causes the differences between versions and even operating systems!

thanks,
georges


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Bruce Ravel <bravel@bnl.gov> wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2013 04:19:05 PM Bruce Ravel wrote:
> I agree that the fits are being evaluated slightly differently in the
> old and new versions of the code.  As you say, best fit values and
> statistical parameters are somewhat different.  I am not sure I agree
> that they are "nowhere near similar", but the disrepancy is much
> larger than a mere numerical difference.  I am not yet clear what is
> going on, but I am looking into it.

More info: the behavior on my linux machine is differnt from Windows.
The difference in the fit result is subtle on Linux and quite enormous
on Windows.  I am not sure which part of that confuses me more.

I'll keep looking into it.

B


--

 Bruce Ravel  ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov

 National Institute of Standards and Technology
 Synchrotron Methods Group at NSLS --- Beamlines U7A, X24A, X23A2
 Building 535A
 Upton NY, 11973

 Homepage:    http://xafs.org/BruceRavel
 Software:    https://github.com/bruceravel
_______________________________________________
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit