Oh, okay. I thought timers set up some sort of interrupt routine (based on some sort of hardware sync signal like the vertical blanking, or a 1-ms hardware timer) or some such. I didn't know it already examined the system clock.
On Mar 31, 2007, at 9:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Apr 01, 2007, at 02:03 UTC, William Squires wrote: > >> There's nothing to prevent you from using two (or more) timers on >> a window. Just keep in mind that timers YIELD time, they don't >> measure it. The more processor resources you use up (i.e. by not >> releasing time back to the OS's event loop - and that includes the >> processing time taken to execute the timer's Action() event!), the >> more likely it is that your timers will fire later than you think, so >> if time accuracy is important, you may want to use a thread, or >> decrease the period of the timers and check the actual system clock >> (somehow) more often. > > This is a fair point, but note that decreasing the period of the > timers > will probably not help accuracy. A timer actually does watch the > system clock; it's scheduled to fire at the correct time relative to > whenever it fired last, and it'll do so unless your main thread is > tied > up doing something else at the time. And when that's the case, it'll > fire as soon as your main thread finishes whatever it's doing and > returns to the event loop. So as you can see, a shorter period > doesn't > make it any more accurate. > > Best, > - Joe > > -- > Joe Strout -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a Better Place" > http://www.verex.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
