From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_092C_01C75F3E.0F876110
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   You said that the want not to use the standard for the PC CMOS clock =
(i.e. localtime).  Your statement is highlighted below in red.

Rich

  "mike"  wrote in message =
news:v78pu2tnkj7fjdk2mrr2u6gbu5h2lnqkf8{at}4ax.com...

  I didn't say the Linux's and BSDs couldn't use the non-standard =
hardware
  clock.

   /m

  On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:02:20 -0500, "Geo."  wrote:

  >When I boot knoppix, I don't need to do anything, it comes up with =
the right=20
  >time.
  >
  >Geo.
  >
  >"mike"  wrote in message=20
  >news:bb2mu29p0p4eutgmhtns3dcgsnno3pecr0{at}4ax.com...
  >>
  >> Linux and the BSDs want to use UTC for the hardware clock.
  >>
  >> In fact, there is a program that allows Linux and the BSDs to
  >> accommodate a Windows-based hardware clock that is set to local =
time.
  >> =
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=3Dadjkerntz&apropos=3D0&sektion=3D=
0&manpath=3DFreeBSD+6.2-RELEASE&format=3Dhtml
  >>
  >>
  >> So the question remains, why does Windows insist on setting the =
hardware
  >> clock to local time?
  >>
  >>
  >> /m
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:08:12 -0500, "Geo."
 wrote:
  >>
  >>>So that when you dual boot into Linux the time is correct.
  >>>
  >>>Geo.
  >>>
  >>>"mike"  wrote in message
  >>>news:2aklu2pfe4oecu7fv4tiaorup0j1vfjb3u{at}4ax.com...
  >>>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:16:58 -0500, Mike N. =

  >>>> wrote:
  >>>>
  >>>>>  NT uses UTC internally
  >>>>
  >>>> Then why does Windows insist on setting the hardware clock to =
local
  >>>> time?
  >>>>
  >>>> /m
------=_NextPart_000_092C_01C75F3E.0F876110
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You said
that the want not =
to use the=20
standard for the PC CMOS clock (i.e. localtime).  Your statement is =

highlighted below in red.
 
Rich
 

  "mike" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote=20
  in message news:v78pu2tnkj7=
fjdk2mrr2u6gbu5h2lnqkf8{at}4ax.com...I=20
  didn't say the Linux's and BSDs couldn't use the non-standard=20
 
hardwareclock. /mOn
Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:02:20 =
-0500,=20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
  wrote:>When I boot knoppix, I don't need to do
anything, it =
comes=20
  up with the right =
>time.>>Geo.>>"mike"=20
  <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in message=20
  =
>news:bb2mu29p0p4eutgmhtns3dcgsnno3pecr0{at}4ax.com...>>>>=20
  Linux and the BSDs want to use UTC for =
the=20
  hardware
clock.>>>>
In fact, there =
is a=20
  program that allows Linux and the BSDs to>>
accommodate a=20
  Windows-based hardware clock that is set to local
time.>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=3Dadjkerntz&apropos=3D=
0&sektion=3D0&manpath=3DFreeBSD+6.2-RELEASE&format=3Dhtml">ht=
tp://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=3Dadjkerntz&apropos=3D0&se=
ktion=3D0&manpath=3DFreeBSD+6.2-RELEASE&format=3Dhtml>=
>>>>>=20
  So the question remains, why does Windows insist on setting the=20
  hardware>> clock to local =
time?>>>>>>=20
 
/m>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 =
11:08:12=20
  -0500, "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
  wrote:>>>>>So that
when you dual boot into =
Linux the=20
  time is=20
  =
correct.>>>>>>Geo.>>>>>&=
gt;"mike"=20
  <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote =
in=20
  =
message>>>news:2aklu2pfe4oecu7fv4tiaorup0j1vfjb3u{at}4ax.com...=
>>>>=20
  On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:16:58 -0500, Mike N. <mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>&g=">mailto:mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net">mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>&g=
t;>>>=20
 
wrote:>>>>>>>>> 
NT uses UTC=20
 
internally>>>>>>>>
Then why does =
Windows=20
  insist on setting the hardware clock to
local>>>>=20
 
time?>>>>>>>>
=
/m

------=_NextPart_000_092C_01C75F3E.0F876110--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5