Re: A86: Batt Checker

To: Mailing list -Assembly-86 <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A86: Batt Checker
From: Nuno Joao <nmasj@camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 21:22:09 +0100
Delivered-To: assembly-86-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org

Dux Gregis wrote:
> ...
> interrupts to occur.  Interestingly, in order for this to work, the clock
> controlling the interrupt must be independent of the clock controlling the
> rest of the cpu and not as adversly affected by battery power as the rest of
> the overall performance is ... maybe an accurate clock is possible after
> all. 

  Or maybe it's the other way around, the processor clock is fix and
  the interrupt clock may vary. Would you like to see your calc getting
  slower as the batterys get weaker? On the other way, is that bad if
  the keyboard is read 50 times a second (just example) instead of
  100 times a second?
  What is it that the routine considers a 'bad BC value', high values
  or low values? If a bad value is a low count, that means the processor
  is getting slower, if a bad value is a high value, that the interrupt
  frequency is getting slower. I guess it's all said.

  NSJ aka Viriato
  l41324@alfa.ist.utl.pt
  nmasj@camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt