LA>
  > Surely there must be some simple method of giving up idle cycles
  > without getting put to sleep ?
LA>

JDBP>   No, because it's a contradiction in terms.  If you don't go to sleep
    >   then you are still using CPU time.  Giving up idle cycles involves *not*
    >   using CPU time (when you don't have any *real* work to do).

   I don't see it that way....what I want to do is relinquish the 
   remainder of a slice, when I don't need *all* of it.....that's 
   different from saying you have *no* usefull work to do...DV could 
   do this, why not OS/2 ?


                                       L.A.


 -- SPEED 2.00 #2720: Finally picking up on subtleties huh?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0GJ