Message-ID: <00a701c2e73b$1a3569b0$0600000a@broadpark.no>
From: "Gisle Vanem" <giva AT bgnett DOT no>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <10303101722 DOT AA20067 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: Example uclock() code
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:27:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1123
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1123
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

"Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> said:

> > BTW. the accuracy will depend on DOS-box setting of
> > "Program | Advanced | Emulation of timekeeper" (or what
> > ever it's called in English Windows). Reading the PIT is 
> > not very accurate even when set on.
> 
> I can't find such a setting on Windows 2000.  The PIT is
> completely unreliable and uncoordinated with the timer 
> tic (usually... that's a long story) so I'm calibrating
> using the timer tic alone (which is also flakey ...).

Depends on how you execute DOS programs (from cmd or
command.com) I usually run them from a 4DOS box created 
as a .PIF-file on my desktop. Right-click the .pif, select Properties,
Program, click on "Advanced" box, check/uncheck the 
"Emulation of timekeeper" checkbox. I'm sure this was in
Win-NT4 also, so it should be in Win2K (I'm using Win-XP now).

--gv