The truth is, I could care less about what you think about what I say. You
are in no position to tell me what I should or what I should not do or have
done. If you where a man worth listening to, you would simply post your
opinion with no need to tell others how they should or should not have
written there post. Truth is, you get off on taking jabs at other rather
than simply posting what you think, (typical of a NG twit who cannot be
aggressive in the real world for fear of getting bones crushed) Oh, and by
the way, What you think it not, nessiccarily the only opinion that counts or
matters. So, like I said before, **** you! And I'll post answers in what
ever fashion I wish and I will be the judge whether what I post is relevant
to the conversation. I don't need you to tell me that either.

Who the **** do you really think you are? Cause you aint **** to me....

And by the way, your little game of taking bits and pieces of previous
threads is as annoying as the five second sound bite that removes the true
context of the conversation and twists the words to suit your own purpose.
It is quite transparent as we can all go back and read the thread as it was
originally posted. Idiot.

Truth of the matter is that the program, "D4" is relevant to this
conversation as somebody else may come along and read this thread who never
knew the situation could be correct with a small transparent bit of
software. That person may appreciate the fact that I brought that subject
to the table. Oh, and By the way, the OP might as too. You see, the world
doesn't revolve around you and what you think..

Oh, and here is my complete response to Rick Yeager

sinip

So what? I had offered an answer to that as well as offering a solution.
Perhaps you didn't read that part of the thread.

Now, Had I said your pc's clock will run slow because magic trolls and
ferries sneak in make adjustments to the master oscillator. That might
warrant an attack. But the rest of this crap is just that, crap!

you see my mind is not one dimensional, I might take a question and expound
on the answer to not only give a reason why this happen but also offer a way
to correct it.

And by the way, my last comment was prefaced, "Just in case anybody is
interested". Obviously you are not so the post was not intended for you.
In other words, Bug Off, pedal on and get a life!


/snip

You took 8 word out 4 paragraphs... Who do you really think you are?

I'll ask you again to kindly **** off.......








"w_tom" wrote in message
...
The battery backup circuit in a PC is a circuit originally
in IBM AT - a legacy of that well established 1984 design
using a Motorola MC146818.

To have posted as DBLEXPOSURE has, he should have first
known about that circuit. A majority of posts in this thread
are total speculation based upon no relevant technical
knowledge. That is shameful if not irresponsible. One even
claims the OS clock causes changes in a completely different
oscillator - the CMOS date time clock. Again, one who did not
first learn basic facts. Unfortunately too many people (often
who are only programmers) somehow become experts on how
hardware works. Had he even learned a PC's BIOS, then this
would have been obvious.

DBLEXPOSURE demonstrates that many just know; cannot bother
to first learn how hardware works. It is the difference
between one who is product oriented (deals in reality) and the
antonym of a product person - the MBA. DBLEXPOSURE posted
wild speculation - even worse doing so without first reading
a previously posted and technical answer. Two problems in his
response are cited. But then he adds a third problem: learns
only half of how a CMOS date time clock works; speculates that
timing changes in the OS changes a date time clock.

First what he (and others) originally posted in response to
do_not_spam_me's original question has nothing to do with the
question asked by do_not_spam_me. Second, many of those posts
all but admit they don't know - based in wild speculation.

At least, in a later post, DBLEXPOSURE attempts to learn how
the CMOS date time clock works. But he still got it wrong.
Those applications - "Likely culprits" - will not affect the
battery backup CMOS date time clock. He should have known
that even from facts that an inquisitive user observes.

BTW, Rick Yerger also criticizes DBLEXPOSURE for not
answering the question. Rather than act product oriented,
DBLEXPOSURE replies as an MBA:
Bug Off, pedal on and get a life!
Again he demonstrates no grasp of facts - instead using
feelings as if his feelings were facts. I don't have anything
to apologize for when I criticize what DBLEXPOSURE and others
have posted. Wild speculation was misrepresented as fact -
and did not even answer do_not_spam_me's question.

Two factors cause significant variation of the CMOS date
time clock. No trimmer capacitor and a timer that varies due
to different voltages.

James Sweet wrote:
Why is speculation useless? Nobody can give one solid answer because
the problem is not identical across all computers, nor is it always
caused by one simple factor. I've learned a fair amount of
interesting things from this thread, I guess you missed all that.