From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,89d65c5ea403ba58
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: System Clock update rate of 0.055 milliseconds in DOS/Win95 and
 Ada.Calendar
Date: 1999/01/11
Message-ID: <77da41$rl8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 431265094
References: <01be3c40$f93dc120$3804fbd1@longslide>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 11 16:50:10 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1999-01-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <01be3c40$f93dc120$3804fbd1@longslide>,
  "Craig Garrett" <cgarrett@siscom.net> wrote:
> frequently or on demand?  I am sick of having such low resolution.  How do
> real-time games such as Quake and flight-sims on PCs running Dos/Win95 get
> around this problem?

My understanding is that such games continually render as fast as they can.
That's why system performance is often measured in Quake or Turok frames
displayed per second.

But then if your system hiccups and a whole second passes between two
displayed Quake frames, nothing horrible will happen (unless you count
getting fraggged as horrible :-)  ). If you actually have *hard* performance
deadlines, Windoze is not the OS for you.

T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own