[ntp:questions] Re: drifting on crystal
Richard B. Gilbert
rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Thu Jan 13 15:11:53 UTC 2005
Marc Brett wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:58:22 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
><rgilbert88 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>A well designed quartz frequency
>>standard is capable of outperforming the hardware of a computer clock
>>which, typically, represents an investment of about $2 US on the part of
>>the computer manufacturer!!
>That's the hardware cost. How many watts does it consume? Cooling a PC is hard
>enough nowadays; why would an engineer include a component with "oven" in its
>name if he didn't have to? Also, how many people really need that level of
>accuracy? If hundreds of millions of PCs are consuming watts they don't need,
>that's wasteful on a pretty grand scale.
Computer clocks could be much better than they are if anybody was
willing to pay for them. Most people won't because they don't need the
computer to keep time accurately.
I was not suggesting that computers include an OCXO for timekeeping. I
was suggesting that people who needed good time and greater reliability
than that offered by network servers and couldn't afford the initial
expense and upkeep of cesium or rubidium standards might find a good
(external) quartz standard both affordable and adequate to their needs.
There are many ways to solve timekeeping problems and the choice depends
on both your needs and your resources.
More information about the questions