Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: ma6djh AT bath DOT ac DOT uk (D J Hampson)
Subject: Re: reliable timer choices
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, UK
Message-ID: <E9xAuB.Jrr.C.amo@bath.ac.uk>
References: <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 32 DOT 19970506133949 DOT 002e355c AT ubeclu DOT unibe DOT ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:51:47 GMT
Lines: 29
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 32 DOT 19970506133949 DOT 002e355c AT ubeclu DOT unibe DOT ch>,
	Roger Noss <noss AT pupk DOT unibe DOT ch> writes:
> In the short time I have been reading in this newsgroup, I have seen many
> posts about timers.  It seems to me that a reliable high-resolution timer is
> as important for programmers as a reliable power supply is for hardware
> projects.
> ...
> Allegro also offers some timer functions, which appear to be fine for "pure
> DOS".  Shawn Hargreaves explained them very nicely in an April 25, 1997,
> posting, which I can send or repost if there is interest.  According to
> Shawn, the best that can be attained under Win95 is 5 ms accuracy...
> 
> Roger Noss
> 

Is everyone sure that Win95 doesn't like Allegro's timers? I tried the 
triple-buffering example program (with the triangles) under Win95. It 
gives a warning at the start ('Windows detected, this program probably 
won't run but press a key to run it anyway' or something) but I couldn't 
see any difference between running it under Win95 and anything else (DOS, 
3.1).

Could it be a newer, nicer version of Win95? (I don't know - I'm just 
guessing, but the computer was quite new.)

-- 
David Hampson
e-mail   : ma6djh AT bath DOT ac DOT uk
Uni Page : http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ma6djh/