Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 23:28:01 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@sarnoff.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Microsoft dies after 47 days (was: Moving on and check out my .sig) Message-ID: <36E0CAF1.3192DDB3@softweyr.com> References: <36DDB131.630AF7F1@newsguy.com> <Pine.HPP.3.96.990304135414.3628D-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> <19990306130741.N490@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > > [moving from -hackers to -chat] > > On Thursday, 4 March 1999 at 13:54:43 -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > >>> Note my .sig. 49.7 days is how long it takes a 32-bit millisecond counter > >>> to roll over to zero. It's kind of hilarious that nobody seems to have had > >>> windows up that long until now. > >> > >> What's worse is that this problem looks obvious. I wonder if whoever > >> was responsible for this part of the code did not simply think along > >> the line "Windows running for 49 days straight? Get real!" > > > > A mentioned this to a few of my co-workers who responded, "what part of > > Windows". Is there a page that has the gory details somewhere? > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q216/6/41.asp What's the likelihood of keeping a Win95/Win98 machine up for 49.7 days in the first place? One of my co-workers opined that this is rather like warning people if they manage to flap their arms fast enough to leave the atomosphere they will suffocate. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36E0CAF1.3192DDB3>