Patrick Nolan wrote: > On 2007-10-20, Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>The hardware clock in a PC is made of exceedingly cheap components. A >>common quartz wristwatch is a better clock. >> > > I have noticed this. Until WWV-controlled clocks came out, my most > accurate timepiece was a $20 Casio wristwatch. When the first one > broke I got another which was just as accurate. It really bugs me > that clocks in computers and cars are not as good. I'm amazed that > clock radios, plugged into the 60 Hz supply, aren't as good. > Sometimes I wish I had an old-fashioned motorized electric clock > powered by AC.
Learn to suffer!! Manufacturers will do almost anything to avoid adding $20 to the cost of their product! People will not buy a watch that does not keep time. The same cannot be said of computers (or cars)! The most important considerations, to most people, are "How many GHz?" and "How much does it cost?" Possibly, some people consider how much disk space, or the choice of CDRW vs. DVD+/-RW. The clock is seldom considered at all. There are something like 300,000,000 people in the US. I doubt if there are 300 people who contribute to this newsgroup regularly. Consider also the large number of people who only want to synchronize the clocks of their computers and simply do not care what time it is. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
