Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!keith
From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: TicksCount
Message-ID: <54082@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 17 Jun 91 18:55:23 GMT
References: <0B01FFFB.hrywuc@outpost.UUCP> <1991Jun17.193130.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 35

In article <1991Jun17.193130.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au> lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au (James Hale) writes:
>In article <0B01FFFB.hrywuc@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes:
>> In article <5721@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi>, aku@tik.vtt.fi (Arto Kujala) writes:
>>> 
>>> Is there a way to get more accurate time than function TickCount
>>> gives?
>>> 
>>> 1/100 sec precision would be appropriate.
>> 
>> Check out the latest Time Manager (known as the extended Time Manager
>> and documented in Inside Mac VI).  It provides for accuracy of up
>> to 20 milliseconds drift free.
>> 
>> -- michael peirce
>
>One tick is 1/60 of a second or 16.67 msec. 
>a 20 msec accuracy is not an improvement.
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>James Hale     			Lincoln School of Health Sciences

I think this is a rare case in which Michael misspoke. The original Time
Manager was rated at 1 millisecond, but there was no provision for
drift-free alarms. The current Time Manager (as provided in System
6.0.3 or later, and documented in technotes and IM VI) is documented as
providing 250 microsecond drift-free timing, but you can push that down
to 20 microseconds if you want to try getting away with it.

These numbers are off the top of my head, so I may be off a little.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin  ---  Apple Computer, Inc. 
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
    UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"But where the senses fail us, reason must step in."  - Galileo