Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site harvard.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!olson
From: olson@harvard.UUCP (Eric Olson)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.mac,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Bad Devices (was Re: timing loops)
Message-ID: <748@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 23:34:36 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.748
Posted: Sat Mar  1 23:34:36 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Mar-86 00:32:07 EST
References: <156@motatl.UUCP> <530@hoptoad.uucp> <6780@boring.UUCP>
Reply-To: olson@harvard.UUCP (Eric olson)
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.arch:2683 net.micro.mac:4940 net.micro.68k:1539

>common place electronics (like telephones) that are now 1/3 the cost once the
>repairability and service life requirements have been reduced by other vendor
>Not that I especially like some of the CHEAP phones-- but a good trend overall
>
>Timing loops are FAIR GAME for any lowcost design -- and can be VERY general
>with the aid of a subroutine that takes as it's argument the min number of
>time units to spin out.
>
>John Bass

I hate using other than AT&T phones.  I can never believe how poor they are.
The manufacturers seem to totally disregard functionality.

I would have agreed before someone suggested that the timing constant be
determined when the program is run via looping while watching a clock (or
waiting for an interrupt, or anything else not processor speed dependent).
I really like that solution.  It is very clean.  And very little extra work.

-Eric