nobody_ wrote:
>> Do you *absolutely* need 1000 updates per second?  What are you doing that requires such precise timing?
> 
> Yep, eyetracking :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've gathered about timing you can't have any such guarantees about getting 1ms updates on a non-realtime OS (such as windows xp), with or without threading.

>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've gathered about timing you can't have any such guarantees about getting 1ms updates on a non-realtime OS (such as windows xp), with or without threading.

There are alot of microseconds in a millisecond ;)
If you do countperiod/microseconds and get lucky you even get your cpuspeed.

Remove as many services as possible and its possible to get really close to realtime at a millisecond level.

Well, there's only one company I know that HAS a 1k/hz eyetracker ;-)
BUT 50/60 hz are pretty common...

--
Paolo Invernizzi

nobody_ wrote:
> Lol, I would rather have a discussion about the threading...
> 
> The position on the screen isn't the only interesting part ;)
> Think for instance about acceleration and microsaccades.
> Plus you need at least twice the frequency af the actual wave you are trying to measure.
> 
> Well I think thats enough about the eye.

http://www.fourward.com/