On WinXP here I can get as precise as .001 on the wait time. However, it appears that anything less than that storms the cpu back up to 99 percent. I suppose that .001 is the lowest number that the wait function can support. I'm curious why you arrived at .002. Was it the balance point for windows and linux. I would like others to report on what OS they use and report their findings. HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
dec: .001 forever [a: do now/time dec] Please let me know what OS you use and how low your dec number can be set at before your cpu usage goes up. Paul Tretter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maarten Koopmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:13 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: forever loops and cpu usage > > What I found (two years ago) was 2-3 ms. Of course, things may have > changed, both REBOL- and OS-wise. So let me know if you find different > results. > > --Maarten > > Graham Chiu wrote: > > >Maarten Koopmans wrote.. apparently on 8-Feb-2004/8:49:54+1:00 > > > > > >>In a multitasking environment, you take what you can get. So a forever > >>loop tries to eat up the cpu. > >>Inserting a wait 0.002 (I found the number by experiment on Win/Lin two > >>years ago) behaviour is normal. > >> > >> > > > >Good to know. I'm using wait 0.2 for REBOLml when reindexing and it allows other tasks to work well. But I should try this value as well... > > > >-- > >Graham Chiu > >http://www.compkarori.com/cerebrus > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
