On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:41:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
I agree that for most a minute per month is reasonable but I would
expect the same accuracy as my $29.99 Timex wris****ch which is more
like a second a month.

So that kinda begs the question of why computer mfrs. can't (or won't)
include clocks that are at *least* as accurate as a Timex, no? Wouldn't
a computah be a more compelling reason for a more accurate clock? (I
know, $$$ bottom line, right?)

Wonder if it's because a wrist watch is kept at a pretty constant
temperature via the skin?

Do you really expect people to wear a watch when they sleep just to
maintain accuracy? There's quite a difference in temperature between
skin temp (about 37C) and room temperature (about 25C). The same for
a computah. When turned off or in standby, the clock is slightly
above room temperature. When running, it might be as warm as 75C.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558