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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8da181ade72859cf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: timeouts
References: <sa47jrib9t7.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <NcoYc.80447$Fg5.40549@attbi_s53>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.132.82
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s53 1093799853 24.6.132.82 (Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:17:33 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:17:33 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:17:33 GMT
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3148
Date: 2004-08-29T17:17:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Sorry if I am thick, but what significance does 2**24/(3*1_193_182) hold?
  It isn't obvious? ;)
The original IBM PC had a timer running at 1.193182 MHz (they used cheap
timers built for TV sets).  These days PC descendants often use a small
multiple of that rate, eg, 3*1193182 ticks/sec, so 2**24 ticks takes
4.686968 seconds.  The chipset problem had to do with a 24 bit overflow,
and 4.6 seemed suspiciously close.  Of course the chipset problem ought to
have been fixed in any reasonably new hardware, so that may be a red herring...