Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because...

• Previous message: Stephen Fuld: "Re: Relocating application architecture and compiler support"
• In reply to: Paul E. Bennett: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Next in thread: Frank Bemelman: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Reply: Frank Bemelman: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:25:19 -0500

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:01:25 +0000, the renowned "Paul E. Bennett"
<peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>
>> I found if something really obvious doesn't start to happen in 0.1 seconds
>> the operator gets annoyed.
>
>Can the operators really discern the difference between 100 and 500 ms? I
>think that would be fairly hard. However, I said the spec was "no more than
>500ms", a target that I always managed to be ahead of.

Yes, 500ms is forever to respond to a keypress. They'll assume the key
is flakey and press it harder, multiple times and that sort of thing.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

• Previous message: Stephen Fuld: "Re: Relocating application architecture and compiler support"
• In reply to: Paul E. Bennett: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Next in thread: Frank Bemelman: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Reply: Frank Bemelman: "Re: So... What are the alternatives? Was: I don't use an RTOS because..."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]