Re: [m_list_b] [DQSD-Users] RE: Clock updating bug

[Alec Burgess]

I've got no idea about the details of 
what you're trying, but I'll bet the ":08" means August:-)

Somewhere you've probably got a 
date_time spec that says HH:MM that should be HH:mm or vice-versa.
Regards ... Alec-- 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom Corcoran 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 
  06:03
  Subject: [m_list_b] [DQSD-Users] RE: 
  Clock updating bug
  
  Thanks Shawn,
  
  Maybe. There's really no telling. It could be 
  working correctly, andthe jscript parser might have incorrectly parsed 
  the"clockupdate=1000;" line in your prefs file. Try deleting the line 
  andretyping the characters explicitly, just to make sure they're 
  accurate.
  
  Unfortunately that did not help. I've been 
  watching the clock the past while and it mostly seems to show the current hour 
  followed by 08. It was just showing 10:08 and the time changed to 11:00 and 
  the clock changed to 11:08. 
  
  Does that give anyone any clues to track 
  thisbug?
  
  Thanks, 
Tom.

[DQSD-Users] RE: Clock updating bug

[Tom Corcoran]

Hey Alec,

Great eye, thank you man :-)

 From: "Alec Burgess" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've got no idea about the details of what you're trying, 
but I'll bet = the ":08" means August:-) Somewhere you've 
probably got a date_time spec that says HH:MM that = should be HH:mm or 
vice-versa. Regards ... Alec
Never spotted that, I had :

clocklongform="EEE d MMM 
HH:MM";clockshortform="HH:MM";

When I think how long this has been annoying 
me!

Cheers, Tom.

[DQSD-Users] RE: Clock updating bug

[Tom Corcoran]

 From: "Shawn K. Hall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 I have reported the problem with my clock not updating  before 
but have never got it resolved.  clockupdate=1000;  
IIRC this is due to XP treating the milliseconds (1000 = 1 second) 
incorrectly as seconds (1000 = 16 minutes, 40 seconds). Try changing 
this line to: clockupdate=1;

Thanks for the post Shawn. I tried this and my 
system ground to a halt the cpu being totally tied up with the updating I guess. 
Which sounds like XP is not treating it incorrectly?

Cheers, Tom.