Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/05/02/09:58:50
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Endlisnis wrote:
> I used uclock() to check. This worked fine on my machine (Win95,
> 333MHz), but when i ran it on a machine at School (Win3.1 ~40MHz) about half
> the time it would give irratic answers and half the time the correct answer.
Windows 3.X is much worse with `uclock' than Windows 9X. In fact,
`uclock' is completely useless on Windows 3.X.
It should be possible to rewrite `uclock' so it doesn't reprogram the
timer, but instead uses the timer status byte to decide whether you
are in the first or the second part of the count-down. I didn't try
to do that, and I don't know if it would solve the problems with
Windows 3.X. Volunters are welcome, as always.
- Raw text -