Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: "Maarten Wiltink" <maarten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:32:52 +0100
"Dirk Claessens" <No@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mn.b4e07d6b5d91697e.59994@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2006-11-22, Jamie () wrote in
message <fPM8h.225$MY7.41@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Just think of trying to read a serial port RX pin signal and try to
time that using that method in software under windows.
That's exactly what I could do under DOS 10 years ago to dsample
synchronous bitstreams from a shortwave receiver. I could simply point
the interrupt vector to my own handler , do my thing, and _then_ let
DOS do it's thing. 200 accurately timed interrupts/sec? No problem on
a..... 16 (sixteen) MHz system.
Even Windows Vista on a quad CPU 3GHz system can't do this today.
Of course it can. You just have to write a driver to get your code in
the place Windows requires. That's progress, and I say that with less
irony than usual. Windows does endlessly more for you than DOS ever
did. That coin has a flip side, and this is it. More bureaucracy is
involved in subverting the system.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Dirk Claessens
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- References:
- More accurate Timerevent
- From: Gert Baars
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Gert Baars
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Dirk Claessens
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Peter Ingham
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Jamie
- Re: More accurate Timerevent
- From: Dirk Claessens
- More accurate Timerevent
- Prev by Date: Re: Can't use TComponent in thread object?
- Next by Date: Re: Can't use TComponent in thread object?
- Previous by thread: Re: More accurate Timerevent
- Next by thread: Re: More accurate Timerevent
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|