On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 22:48 +0100, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote: > Tue, 04 Dec 2007, by [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Somewhere in the past I read that computers are wonderful machines. > > Capable of great things. BUT, they are horrible clocks. > > > > The way it was explained was that when system use was high and resources > > were strained the clock was the last thing to get updated. Thus, it > > looses time. I'm sure it isn't near the problem it was many years ago > > but if your a power user it still could be a problem. > > don't know where you got that from, but ever since the IBM AT, PC's have > had a hardware clock on the mainboard, independent of the OS or user > programs. > The only thing that can make those thing fail is an empty battery or > broken crystal.
Certain OS made in Seattle had (have? I don't know, hopefully not) a problem with missing clock interrupts, as billie describes. It's not a question of hardware reliability but of software correctness. Cheers, Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
