| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watch |
|
|
Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Bruder
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
In article <1130364184.236610.90350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
Dunno if it's still true in PC-land - I've been living in a Mac world
for a LONG time now - but when I was playing with them years ago, the
battery-backed real-time clock was read once at startup to set the
computer's software clock, which then kept time by counting clock
interrupts generated by the motherboard timing circuitry. That
interrupt, like any other "not non-maskable" interrupt, can be blocked
out for various reasons by various things, causing the software clock to
lose time. Usually, the amount of "lost" time isn't really noticable
except on "continuously on" machines. But with long periods between
restarts, heavy use of software (or firmware... The blame may not be in
your clock, but in your ROM code) that disables interrupts often or for
extended periods, and/or no intervention (be it human or software)
happening, it can grow to substantial amounts of time surprisingly quick.
Immediately after startup, the clock SHOULD be reasonably close to
right, since it will have been freshly set from the battery powered
clock, but after a while, it *WILL* go wonky unless steps are taken to
correct the drift - It's just the nature of the beast.
--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Sweet
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
I have one PC that will lose or gain hours at a time if the machine goes
into standby, another that does ok but still drifts enough that I have
to use a utility to keep it in sync with the atomic clock. On the other
hand a Sun workstation that I fire up occasionally to play with keeps
excellent time, even after sitting unplugged for 6 months it's usually
within a few seconds but then it was originally $25K.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Fremont
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
somebody wrote
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
|
Who is the manufacturer? I only use Gigabyte(mostly) or MSI (sometimes)
motherboards. I find the clocks to be reasonably accurate. My guess
would be that the OEM didn't ground the crystal case or use the proper
guard ring techniques for noise reduction. Do you find that they run
fast or slow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Impmon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 15:03:04 -0700, do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
That question have been around for more than 20 years and probably
longer. Even one PC magazine reported a major branded PC that used to
cost $2,000 couldn't keep time as well as a $5 watch from Kmart (not
exact quote but similiar to that)
The OS could check via internet at regular intrevials to make
correction to the clock but that is if the PC does have internet
connection at all.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
Supply and demand.
If your watch kept bad time, you'd send it back.
If your computer keeps bad time, you'll reset the clock
and bitch about it on the internet.
Vendors care if you send it back. They don't care if you
bitch on the internet.
mike
--
Wanted, Serial cable for Dell Axim X5 PDA.
Return address is VALID but some sites block emails
with links. Delete this sig when replying.
FS 500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 Make Offer
Bunch of stuff For Sale and Wanted at the link below.
MAKE THE OBVIOUS CHANGES TO THE LINK
ht<removethis>tp://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/4710/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakdedert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
I've often wondered the same thing...also why a $9 alarm clock will have |
provision for battery backup, but $200 VCR (back when VCRs were $200)
needed to be rweset with each blip in the mains voltage.
FWIW, there are utilities which will update your computer clock from the
National Bureau of Standards over the web.....
jak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Doe
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:35 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
Maybe the same reason we didn't have built-in clocks until after there
were five dollar LCD wristwatches. I don't know.
My current clock is very accurate (MSI mainboard).
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
The computer batteries measure fine, at least 3.15V.
I thought that the problem was temperature swings in the computers
(25-38C), but a couple of cheapo watches taped inside the computers
kept better time.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:46 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
mike wrote:
| Quote: |
Supply and demand.
If your watch kept bad time, you'd send it back.
If your computer keeps bad time, you'll reset the clock
and bitch about it on the internet.
|
I'm looking for a techical explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:01 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
James Sweet wrote:
| Quote: | I have one PC that will lose or gain hours at a time if the machine goes
into standby, another that does ok but still drifts enough that I have
to use a utility to keep it in sync with the atomic clock. On the other
hand a Sun workstation that I fire up occasionally to play with keeps
excellent time, even after sitting unplugged for 6 months it's usually
within a few seconds but then it was originally $25K.
|
The only PC motherboards I've seen that consistently kept accurate time
all had Dallas clock chips in them, and some of those chips were still
running properly from their internal lithium cells (permanently
encapsulated) 10 years later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stickyfox@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:03 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
Most older motherboards used the Dallas real-time clock chip, which had
a cheapo oscillator built in, and could use an external crystal for
precision timekeeping. A good crystal will add a couple of dollars to
the price of the motherboard, but the clock ic itself was over ten
bucks. I use these chips in some other pieces of equipment and they are
very accurate when given a good crystal for a timebase.
I don't know what they put on modern motherboards. I throw computers
out when they stop working now.
However, the datasheet for the Dallas chip gives some hints that may be
useful here. If the chip is put in an electrically noisy device like a
computer, it can be accelerated by stray signals picked up by the clock
circuit. I believe that NTP machines (usually) set the RTC on shutdown,
as the cpu is more likely to be on time if it's been syncing itself
with an atomic standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James Sweet
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:22 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | James Sweet wrote:
I have one PC that will lose or gain hours at a time if the machine goes
into standby, another that does ok but still drifts enough that I have
to use a utility to keep it in sync with the atomic clock. On the other
hand a Sun workstation that I fire up occasionally to play with keeps
excellent time, even after sitting unplugged for 6 months it's usually
within a few seconds but then it was originally $25K.
The only PC motherboards I've seen that consistently kept accurate time
all had Dallas clock chips in them, and some of those chips were still
running properly from their internal lithium cells (permanently
encapsulated) 10 years later.
|
Yeah the Sun has a Dallas in it, in fact I had to hack in a new battery
in one of them as the original went dead and modern chips won't work in
it. Come to think of it I had a 486 PC with a Dallas, I think that was
the most recent though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
Watches have an internal capacitor to adjust for each
crystal. I have never seen that capacitor on motherboards
since (I believe it was) the IBM AT. Furthermore, the PC
clock operates at two significantly different voltages that
will change crystal frequency. Battery voltage and voltage
when PC is powered will cause additional fluctuation. Which
voltage should they adjust the capacitor to? Just easier to
not install and adjust the capacitor.
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> I'm looking for a techical explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Adney
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:54 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:46:28 -0500 jakdedert <jakdedert@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
I've often wondered the same thing...also why a $9 alarm clock will have
provision for battery backup, but $200 VCR (back when VCRs were $200)
needed to be rweset with each blip in the mains voltage.
|
I recently discovered that early Sony Beta VCRs (at least) actually
had back-up NiCad batteries which would keep the clock going for
seveeral minutes of blackout. I just replaced one today, with a NiMH,
and will replace a couple more in the next few days.
I'm sure I knew about these at one time, but I just forgot about them
until other things got me lnside that VCR again.
-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
----------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Adney
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:01 am Post subject:
Re: Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz w |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 15:03:04 -0700 do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
| Quote: | Why do the battery powered clocks in personal computers tend to keep
worse time than quartz watches, even the $1 ones?
|
There are 2 causes.
The first cause is that the internal clock (real time clock) on the
motherboard is a device which the motherboard manufacturer much buy
from someone else. They can buy this item in various degrees of
precision, but the cost goes up as you request more precision. Since
there is lots of pressure to keep cost down, but not so much pressure
to keep good time, the motherboard manufacturers don't press for
highly accurate real time clocks.
The second reason was explained by someone else. It's the fact that
the OS clock can fall behind the real time clock due to the way the OS
is written. This error is minimal when your computer is first booted
up, but it can become significant if it is left running for days. This
error is reset to zero each time you reboot.
-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney jadney@vwtype3.org
Madison, WI 53711 USA
----------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in