> I defer to your greater knowledge, obviously. It's just that messing
> with the PIT can conflict with other things, so you have to be
> careful (or so I thought).
There are issues with the PIT if you reprogram it, but you don't have to do
that to use it. You can simply access the PIT countdown
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>
>> 1). I wouldn't use the PIT, sounds unreliable,
> using the PIT can be made reliable; has worked flawless for over 20
> years since some 80286
I defer to your greater knowledge, obviously. It's just that messing
with the PIT can conflict
> 1). I wouldn't use the PIT, sounds unreliable,
using the PIT can be made reliable; has worked flawless for over 20
years since some 80286
> but then again, I don't know how anyways. ;-)
> 3). RDTSC (586+) is probably not what you want, esp. due to early
> 586-686 time duration limitations an
> 1). I wouldn't use the PIT, sounds unreliable, but then again, I
> don't know how anyways. ;-)
Strictly in terms of reliability, it's probably the best choice of all. It
exists and provides consistent timing on all computers, even those with lowly
8088 CPU's. You don't need to worry about a
Hi,
I really hate to be somebody replying to this, esp. due to my
inexperience, but since I've already (briefly) mentioned such in
private email today, what's one more? ;-) So corrections heavily
welcome.
1). I wouldn't use the PIT, sounds unreliable, but then again, I don't
know how anyways.
Nanosecond resolution is a little tough, but microsecond is pretty easy just
using the PIT. Is microsecond good enough for your purposes?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/hardware-timer-QueryPerformanceCounter-tp33536190p33544671.html
Sent from the FreeDOS - User mailing l
