Any way to upgrade CMOS clock??

As the starting point, assume a PC with Intel Core-2 6300
at 1.86GHz, 32-bit Vista

The CMOS clock (is it still called CMOS clock?) drifts about
2 secs/day on my machine. Is there any way to replace it
with a much more precise clock? Are there any expansion
cards available with high quality clocks to replace
the default CMOS clock. I do not want the drift to
exceed 1 second/week.

Please do not bring up the synchronization issue with
Internet servers. I want to synchronize only once/week
at the most and not every day.

Hi!

> The CMOS clock (is it still called CMOS clock?)

It can be. This particular part of the system hasn't changed that much over
the years.

> drifts about 2 secs/day on my machine. Is there any way
> to replace it with a much more precise clock?

Offhand, I'd say that 2 seconds gain or loss per day is fairly good for a
computer clock. This is due to a variety of reasons, some of which I will
get into later.

You might try looking for one of those Y2K "patch" hardware cards. Nearly
all of them had a clock module and a battery on board. The only problem with
this approach is that I'm not sure how these cards went about "patching"
their clock/calendar into the system. I did see some cards that came with
DOS device drivers, but that's about it. The cards that I saw used a Dallas
DS12887/12C887 module. These Dallas modules do seem to keep very good time.

Another thing to check is your system's clock battery. Your computer may be
"new" but that doesn't mean the motherboard and battery haven't been sitting
unpowered for a few months. I've had some systems with inaccurate clocks
(much more than two seconds loss or gain per day, however) that improved
dramatically upon replacement of the battery.

Keeping accurate time over the years can be a tall order. The clock circuit
has to compensate for a battery that drops in voltage as time goes by--and a
lot of time at that. It is not unusual to find a 10 year old computer still
keeping time on the battery that was installed at the factory! Said circuit
also has to be calibrated, and--quite simply put--some are much more
accurately adjusted than others. I've had cheap systems that kept excellent
time and expensive ones that were lousy timekeepers. Some systems have a
trimmer or other adjustment device, but be careful if you tweak this! You
may make things much worse.

Finally, there exist two clocks in your computer. There is the software RTC,
which is advanced every time Interrupt 0 is hit. The clock that keeps time
when you've turned off the system (which with many new machines means
pulling the power cord in order to truly turn the unit off) is the hardware
RTC. If interrupt 0 isn't being hit often enough, the clock will lose time.
Check your application software, drivers and hardware to see if something is
hogging the processor.

All factors considered, the best solution to your problem is to synchronize
with a time server on a daily basis. Whether you want to hear that or not,
it is probably true. If you really can't or do not want to be online that
often, look for a radio station in your area that broadcasts the time.WWV
does this in the US. You can find such a station on a radio (usually
shortwave) and set your computer clock to that.

William

That's a pretty big drift. Don't think any of mine do. It's a current
machine, so the battery should be fine.


Haven't heard of an add-in card, as most people don't need that
accuracy.

What's wrong with syncing regularly?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [private.php?do=newpm&u=]
> Posted At: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:50 PM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: Any way to upgrade CMOS clock??
> Subject: Any way to upgrade CMOS clock??
>
> As the starting point, assume a PC with Intel Core-2 6300
> at 1.86GHz, 32-bit Vista
>
> The CMOS clock (is it still called CMOS clock?) drifts about
> 2 secs/day on my machine. Is there any way to replace it
> with a much more precise clock? Are there any expansion
> cards available with high quality clocks to replace
> the default CMOS clock. I do not want the drift to
> exceed 1 second/week.
>
> Please do not bring up the synchronization issue with
> Internet servers. I want to synchronize only once/week
> at the most and not every day.

On May 14, 8:40 pm, "Tom Scales" <tjsca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a pretty big drift. Don't think any of mine do. It's a current
> machine, so the battery should be fine.
>
> Haven't heard of an add-in card, as most people don't need that
> accuracy.
>
> What's wrong with syncing regularly?
>
>

Some people responded with add-on cards and external boxes.
They are a start.

Syncing regularly is a problem for applications that save timestamps
that have to be consecutive. If a sync program resets the
time BACK then some of the timestamps will be out of order.
Then a special error handling is required that leads to more
error handling, etc.

The best solution is to ensure that the clock
does not lose more than 1 second/week and sync it when
the traffic for the affected applications is the least, late Sat/Sun
in my case.

On May 14, 8:19 pm, "William R. Walsh"
<newsgrou...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.co m> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > The CMOS clock (is it still called CMOS clock?)
>
> It can be. This particular part of the system hasn't changed that much over
> the years.
>
> > drifts about 2 secs/day on my machine. Is there any way
> > to replace it with a much more precise clock?
>
> Offhand, I'd say that 2 seconds gain or loss per day is fairly good for a
> computer clock. This is due to a variety of reasons, some of which I will
> get into later.
>
> You might try looking for one of those Y2K "patch" hardware cards. Nearly
> all of them had a clock module and a battery on board. The only problem with
> this approach is that I'm not sure how these cards went about "patching"
> their clock/calendar into the system. I did see some cards that came with
> DOS device drivers, but that's about it. The cards that I saw used a Dallas
> DS12887/12C887 module. These Dallas modules do seem to keep very good time.
>
> Another thing to check is your system's clock battery. Your computer may be
> "new" but that doesn't mean the motherboard and battery haven't been sitting
> unpowered for a few months. I've had some systems with inaccurate clocks
> (much more than two seconds loss or gain per day, however) that improved
> dramatically upon replacement of the battery.
>
> Keeping accurate time over the years can be a tall order. The clock circuit
> has to compensate for a battery that drops in voltage as time goes by--and a
> lot of time at that. It is not unusual to find a 10 year old computer still
> keeping time on the battery that was installed at the factory! Said circuit
> also has to be calibrated, and--quite simply put--some are much more
> accurately adjusted than others. I've had cheap systems that kept excellent
> time and expensive ones that were lousy timekeepers. Some systems have a
> trimmer or other adjustment device, but be careful if you tweak this! You
> may make things much worse.
>
> Finally, there exist two clocks in your computer. There is the software RTC,
> which is advanced every time Interrupt 0 is hit. The clock that keeps time
> when you've turned off the system (which with many new machines means
> pulling the power cord in order to truly turn the unit off) is the hardware
> RTC. If interrupt 0 isn't being hit often enough, the clock will lose time.
> Check your application software, drivers and hardware to see if something is
> hogging the processor.
>
> All factors considered, the best solution to your problem is to synchronize
> with a time server on a daily basis. Whether you want to hear that or not,
> it is probably true. If you really can't or do not want to be online that
> often, look for a radio station in your area that broadcasts the time.WWV
> does this in the US. You can find such a station on a radio (usually
> shortwave) and set your computer clock to that.
>
> William

Thanks for your reply. Daily syncing is out of the question
for the reason I stated in another reply in this thread.
It has nothing to do with Internet access.

If I needed very accurate time on a PC in the UK I'd use something like
this: http://www.sonifex.co.uk/technical/handbooks/mentor.pdf

Presumably there's a US equivilent.

PDR

Two seconds per day is not a big drift. When Bulova introduced the
"Accutron" tuning-fork watch in th 1960's, I think that they guaranteed
it accurate to 2 minutes per month, and your PC clock is twice that
accurate. Windows XP normally automatically resets it's time over the
internet from an internet time server once a week .... you would, at
that point, be 15 seconds off.

SOME motherboards have an adjustable trimmer for the onboard clock.

However, the answer to your question is that no, you can't upgrade the
onboard clock.


wrote:
> As the starting point, assume a PC with Intel Core-2 6300
> at 1.86GHz, 32-bit Vista
>
> The CMOS clock (is it still called CMOS clock?) drifts about
> 2 secs/day on my machine. Is there any way to replace it
> with a much more precise clock? Are there any expansion
> cards available with high quality clocks to replace
> the default CMOS clock. I do not want the drift to
> exceed 1 second/week.
>
> Please do not bring up the synchronization issue with
> Internet servers. I want to synchronize only once/week
> at the most and not every day.
>

On 15 May 2007 08:18:26 -0700, ""
<> wrote:
>
>The best solution is to ensure that the clock
>does not lose more than 1 second/week and sync it when
>the traffic for the affected applications is the least, late Sat/Sun
> in my case.
>

I don't think it would be hard to make it sync only on the weekend but
ensuring your pc will not lose more than 1 sec between syncs is beyond
my knowledge. My guess is you will need an independent card with it's
OWN processor. That said, maybe you can help me and others; when you
get the answer, can you post back here? thanks.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:53:23 -0400, Barry Watzman
<> wrote:

>Two seconds per day is not a big drift. When Bulova introduced the
>"Accutron" tuning-fork watch in th 1960's, I think that they guaranteed
>it accurate to 2 minutes per month, and your PC clock is twice that

Funny you mention this as my neighbor was a watch maker who worked for
them and I got one as a gift. I still have it but it doesn't work
(battery??).

Furthermore, Windows has long been ponderous enough that it loses clock tick
interrupts. Way back before Windows became popular, I had some software that
time-stamped data reading the system clock at the hardware level (not using the
system routines that had FAR more overhead). Even lengthy DOS interrupt
processing. So no matter what you do, the system will still lose clock ticks,
more than you want..

My suggestion is to change your software to do the data reduction of the time
stamps AND take into account the lost ticks. I did that way back when and it
worked very well.

As others have suggested, a hardware clock board that never skips a beat is the
other answer. I do not know where to find one. This solution was also
suggested to me many years ago, but it was not feasible to install a hardware
clock board in hundreds of computers. Anyway, correcting for lost ticks really
proved to be accurate enough... Ben Myers

On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:14:35 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On 15 May 2007 08:18:26 -0700, ""
><> wrote:
>>
>>The best solution is to ensure that the clock
>>does not lose more than 1 second/week and sync it when
>>the traffic for the affected applications is the least, late Sat/Sun
>> in my case.
>>
>
>I don't think it would be hard to make it sync only on the weekend but
>ensuring your pc will not lose more than 1 sec between syncs is beyond
>my knowledge. My guess is you will need an independent card with it's
>OWN processor. That said, maybe you can help me and others; when you
>get the answer, can you post back here? thanks.