Smaller than milliseconds?

[Dar Scott]

On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Ken Ray wrote:

>> What wimpy OS are you using?  ;-)
>
> You're right! It's OS-dependent. The "wimpy" OS was Windows XP; I
> checked it on my Mac (same config as yours) and I get the extra
> microseconds. Cool!

It might not be XP's fault.  I have used NT and Win2K system calls that 
had nanosecond resolution.  This does not mean the OS or the hardware 
can handle that, but it does hint at greater time resolution (smaller 
than ms).

The same engine is used for all supported Windows platforms, whether 
95/98/NT/2000/Me/XP, whether home, pro or server.  I imagine parts of 
the engine might use the reduced common capability and parts might make 
runtime decisions based on the OS.  Perhaps the long seconds is in the 
first part.

I, personally, wouldn't mind if the Windows engine split into two if 
the 2K and XP Pro got some improvement or features.

BTW, the microseconds in OS X (and, it seems from Ray's comments, Mac 
OS 9.2) are handy for timing operations when using a repeat loop is 
awkward or otherwise inappropriate.

Dar Scott