Hi Stephen,

You asked:

SS>-> int 0x2f, ax=0x1680
SS>-> and may be int 0x28 ?

SS>        Speaking of this idle interrupt, is it valid for OS/2 Warp 4?  I ask
SS>because I've compiled a short DOS program using Borland's
SS>Turbo C++ that simply
SS>waits for the creation of a disk file and then exits.  I have it looping thi
SS>interrupt for about 3 seconds between checks.

SS>        But processor usage while my program is running is reported as 100%.
SS>But under Win95, the time slice is given up properly (processor usage report
SS>as 7-8% on an otherwise idle system).

SS>        Every reference I can come across gives 0x2f as the interrupt to use
SS>for Windows and OS/2, but it doesn't seem to work on my
SS>OS/2 box.  Any ideas or
SS>suggestions?

The best place to ask is over in OS2PROG (it gets rather off topic
here). It depends on the version and fix level of OS/2, and what you are
using to monitor processor usage. If it's the "pulse" applet, that can
give rather misleading results because of the way it works. If you
repeat the test with a processor/display intensive OS/2 application
running, does your DOS program cause any slowdown to it? If not, the
time slices are being given up and what you are seeing is just an
artifact of the way the "pulse" applet works.

George

 * SLMR 2.1a * KEYBOARD - Used to enter errors int a computer.

--- Maximus/2 3.01