ergo@netcom.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) (06/27/90)
In <923@gistdev.gist.com> flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: >The sound quality is lousy because the speakers are lousy. It amazes me >that PCs costing thousands of dollars still have $2 speakers in them. >No new invention is necessary, people just need to start demanding that >they get decent speakers. Don't hold your breath! While we're on the subject, I gotta bitch about AT "real time clocks". Why are we stuck with clocks that are less accurate than a $10 wristwatch? And who dreamed up the stupid term "real time clock"? That's like saying "picture television"!
bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) (06/28/90)
> While we're on the subject, I gotta bitch about AT "real time clocks". > Why are we stuck with clocks that are less accurate than a $10 > wristwatch? And who dreamed up the stupid term "real time clock"? > That's like saying "picture television"! If you realize that it came from IBM and that the clocks on the 'big' machines can return either 'vitrual time' or 'real/wall clock time' it makes a little more sense. ----------
Dan_Bloch@TRANSARC.COM (06/29/90)
In message ??? ergo@netcom.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes > And who dreamed up the stupid term "real time clock"? > That's like saying "picture television"! "Real time clock" is a valid term. PCs have two clocks, the real time clock, which is has a battery backup and should always have the correct time, and the system clock, which is set from the real time clock at bootup and only keeps time while the machine is on. Original PCs and XTs didn't have a real time clock, so you had to tell the machine what time it was when you turned them on.