From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10303102058.AA25515@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Example uclock() code
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:58:28 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <00a701c2e73b$1a3569b0$0600000a@broadpark.no> from "Gisle Vanem" at Mar 10, 2003 08:27:34 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> 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).

Okay, creating a command.com PIF is what is required, then I
can see the timer box.  It doesn't seem to make much difference.  
Right now my laptop is feeling accurate and always providing good
calibrations.

I usually run from cmd.exe or shortcuts and avoid all PIFs completely. 
_DEFAULT.PIF was the only one on my system.

I'll try this on the desktop this evening to see if it makes a
difference.