My QPC clock seems to be fine in my case. Just the cursor occasionally running at reasonable speed and then at times taking off super fast flashing.
I remember when we were playing around with the power saver and I don't see much difference if any when things are enabled when it is idle mode versus not. And my processors are very, very fast. Even with QPC using the polled interrupt, I can't imagine it using 100% of a CPUs band width unless it is running code without any pauses. Still think that there is something funky about the method you are using to 'sleep' QPC in between activity (funky on the Windows side, not yours :) ). Or perhaps there is something about the polled interrupts in different cases. jim On Jan 9, 2008, at 7:04 AM, Marcel Kilgus wrote: > James Hunkins wrote: >> The problem is that the CPU meter is pegging and it kills my laptop >> battery. On my office computer I don't care. > > That is not a bug, it's a feature. Previously QPC used 100% all the > time, only when I introduced the power saving option it throttles the > CPU emulations when SMSQ/E is idle. > >> Looking at this test code I am guessing that Marcel is verifying that >> the time clock function in QPC is reporting as expected, which I am >> guessing that it is. > > The code times the 50hz polled interrupt. However it uses the SMSQ/E > clock to do so. Can you all check whether the SMSQ/E clock runs at a > normal speed? > > Marcel > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
