Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!sri-unix!quintus!pds From: pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: priorities (was Re: (none)) Message-ID: <128@quintus.UUCP> Date: 20 Jun 88 23:34:17 GMT References: <1814@van-bc.UUCP> Sender: news@quintus.UUCP Reply-To: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 14 In article <1814@van-bc.UUCP> lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <3043@louie.udel.EDU>, CRONEJP%UREGINA1.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu (Jonathan Crone) writes: > >ACtually the problem with RSL Clock was that the twit who wrote it > >had the program set itself up with a prioiryt of 20. >Nice attitude Jonathan. Someone writes you a nice clock and you call him a >twit for making a mistake. Maybe this is a naive question, but why is it a mistake to make a clock program run at priority 20? If you really want the clock kept up-to-date, and it runs pretty fast, why not run at priority 20? Isn't that what priorities are for? Who misses a couple of milliseconds every second? -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ..!sun!quintus!pds