Message-Id: <m0xFdgN-000S1mC@inti.gov.ar>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:14:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Clipboard timing, strange results, Rhide (Was: DJGPP, 
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Eli wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> 
> > In plain DOS the effect is the reverse. RHIDE slows down the programs, or at 
> > list the timing routines seems to indicate that. My plasmas run slower from 
> > RHIDE and the meassured time is less stable than trying from
> > DOS. Why? I don't know.
> 
> I have asked this before on this thread, but didn't see any answers,
> so I will ask again: doesn't RHIDE hook the timer inetrrupt?  If it
> does, and if it doesn't unhook it when running child programs, then
> this might explain the behavior on DOS (an extra level of interrupt
> handling).  And Windows might change its scheduling of a program that
> has hooked the timer.
Robert must ask it, but I never saw RHIDE hooking the timer. Perhaps Robert 
added it to show the free memory.
And another thing: The timing differences aren't under Windows but DOS. I never 
time things under Windows.

SET 
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013