That is interesting. I was always under the impression that a tick was always 1/60 of a second. It never occurred to me that this was the standard vertical refresh of the monitors in use at the time.
So are you sating that if I had a monitor that refreshed at say 120/sec, that there would then be (roughly) 120 ticks in a second? Also, since processor load can influence real time statistics, but cannot influence the vertical refresh rate, wouldn't ticks then be the more accurate unit of measure? Bob S On Oct 12, 2015, at 10:41 , Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com<mailto:ambassa...@fourthworld.com>> wrote: The choice of tying the ticks to retrace was perhaps a necessity in early Mac OS systems, relying as they did on preemptive multitasking. But that reliance also made it an inexact quantity: by default the vertical retrace would happen 60 times a second, but it was possible to have some processes run long enough to stall it a bit now and then. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
