# Computer clock problem.



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm not sure why, but my computer seems to have problems keeping the clock accurate. It keeps running fast, and I have to constantly readjust it to get it back in sync. Any way to fix this annoying problem?


----------



## CyberFoxx (Sep 17, 2008)

Depends on the OS, but your best bet is to sync with a NTP server. Head over to http://www.pool.ntp.org/ and find the closest server to you, and set your OS to sync with it. I'm taking a shot in the dark, but I'm betting you might be running Windows. If it's a recent version of Windows (2K or higher) you can double-click the clock by the systray and there should be a tab where you can enter the address for the NTP server. It should stay in sync from then on.

It could also be that your BIOS/CMOS battery is dying. The battery may or may not be replaceable, depends on the motherboard manufacturer and model. If the battery is dying, you might also be getting other warnings/errors on boot as well.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 17, 2008)

Not sure, since I don't know much about computers. I just click on the sync link to time.NIST.gov...


----------



## Neybulot (Sep 18, 2008)

CyberFoxx said:


> It could also be that your BIOS/CMOS battery is dying. The battery may or may not be replaceable, depends on the motherboard manufacturer and model. If the battery is dying, you might also be getting other warnings/errors on boot as well.



Sounds about right. I personally sync to time-a.nist.gov. time.nist.gov seems to be broken every time I try it for some reason.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 18, 2008)

This was a problem especially on older computers. Depending on how badly it gets out of sync, you might want to download a separate program to do your clock syncing instead of letting Windows do it (which takes place every day or so). I think this app should help if you need more frequent syncs.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 18, 2008)

Runefox said:


> This was a problem especially on older computers. Depending on how badly it gets out of sync, you might want to download a separate program to do your clock syncing instead of letting Windows do it (which takes place every day or so). I think this app should help if you need more frequent syncs.



Mine is a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I bought it in Jan 2006, so it's probably less than 4 years old (may having been sitting on the shelf at Best Buy for a while before I bought it).


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 18, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Mine is a Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I bought it in Jan 2006, so it's probably less than 4 years old (may having been sitting on the shelf at Best Buy for a while before I bought it).



he doesn't mean your OS but your computer, the computer keeps track of the time and when powered off there is a battery that keeps track of time, but every day windows syncs it, only if you are online at the time for it to be synced.

His program allows it to be sync not through windows means. So it should work fine.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> he doesn't mean your OS but your computer,



That's what I meant.  I was saying the model year. I thought a battery would last longer than 3-4 years on a computer.


----------



## Pi (Sep 19, 2008)

If the battery is dead the computer will go back to 1980 every time it's booted. If it just can't keep time while it's on, well, your clock crystal sucks and you either have to live with it or get a new motherboard.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

What brand/model of computer is it?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Runefox said:


> What brand/model of computer is it?



HP Media Center.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

Shouldn't be having those issues. It's possible there is a BIOS update available from HP to help with the issue, but for now, your best bet is to use Timesync.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

I've been thinking of just getting a new hard drive anyway, as soon as I have the money and can figure out how to transfer the stuff on the current hard drive onto a new one (get an external hard drive first, maybe?). I have a lot of stuff on here that I want to take onto the new one.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

Well, a new hard drive won't fix the problem, because it lies in an actual digital clock (obviously without display) on the circuit board inside the computer, kept powered by a rather large watch battery (CR2032) that should be good for several years. A BIOS update, which is an updated version of the firmware that starts before Windows and controls pretty much everything on your computer (the big HP logo), might help alleviate any known defects in the clock. To find out if there's a BIOS update for your computer, head over to HP's Download section, put the model number for your computer into the search box (something along the lines of HP Pavilion xxxx), and see if there's anything in the BIOS section. It can be a little tricky to do, though, and I've never done it with HP's before, so I'm not sure what their utility is like. You may be better off using Timesync.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Well, a new hard drive won't fix the problem, because it lies in an actual digital clock (obviously without display) on the circuit board inside the computer, kept powered by a rather large watch battery (CR2032) that should be good for several years. A BIOS update, which is an updated version of the software that starts before Windows and controls pretty much everything on your computer, might help alleviate any known defects in the clock. To find out if there's a BIOS update for your computer, head over to HP's Download section, put the model number for your computer into the search box (something along the lines of HP Pavilion xxxx), and see if there's anything in the BIOS section. It can be a little tricky to do, though, and I've never done it with HP's before, so I'm not sure what their utility is like. You may be better off using Timesync.



By "hard drive", I meant the large box with the motherboard/memory sticks/etc, (so yeah, "the computer") I already have the monitor and a keyboard/mouse.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Went to HP's site, didn't see what I wanted, so I sent them an email about it.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

Ah, yeah, I thought for sure you meant hard drive (as in one of these) since you were talking about an external hard drive. Not to be a prick, but to avoid confusion, it's usually called the tower, sometimes box, or more generally (like you said), just computer.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Ah, yeah, I thought for sure you meant hard drive (as in one of these) since you were talking about an external hard drive. Not to be a prick, but to avoid confusion, it's usually called the tower, sometimes box, or more generally (like you said), just computer.



Okay  To me, "computer" means everything (the monitor, keyboard, mouse, "box"), and hard drive just means the "box".


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

Well, if you're getting a new computer, I'd suggest steering clear of eMachines and Acer (except for higher-end Acers). The best solution would be to build one from scratch, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the thought of putting all that stuff together. Ma and Pa computer shops can usually lend a hand there, though, but if anything went wrong, you'd need to look at the parts, not the computer as a whole, which is another headache again.

If you're going for a PC and you end up with Vista, don't worry too much about it. It's not that bad once you A) get used to it and B) set it up to act a little more politely. You just need to make sure that you're getting a computer with at minimum 2GB of RAM and decent integrated graphics by ATI or NVidia (or better yet, a graphics card). If you're going to be doing any gaming, make sure that whatever you buy has at least one PCI-Express x16 slot so that you can add a video card later. You probably don't need a triple or quad core processor, but if you can find a system with one in it for a decent price, go for it. You won't notice a huge difference right away, but things will be slightly more responsive out of the box. Also, the difference between AMD and Intel for the processor is mostly just price if you're looking at a computer for under $1000. In most cases, AMD processors will get you more for less than an Intel equivalent, but when you get into higher end computers, Intel takes the lead.

I would definitely recommend not using Norton, though, as I recall you do use it. It will slow your system immensely (in my experience, by up to 50% on modern systems, more than 200% on slow systems) without actually protecting against much. Better would be something like NOD32, Kaspersky, or AVG, if you want to go with a paid product. To save a little money, AVG Free, Avira, or Avast are all very good antivirus products that won't cost you a dime. You should also be aware that Windows comes with a firewall built-in as of Windows XP. For what most people use their computers for, this firewall will protect against every external threat, and firewalls from other companies tend to lock down the computer more than they should (which causes problems, especially with Norton Internet Security). Also note that if you have a router, you don't actually need a firewall unless you want to protect yourself from other computers in your home. Turning it off in this case can speed up your PC and make things go much more smoothly.

... Er, yeah.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

I wouldn't know where to start, putting a "box" together myself, and I wouldn't buy an eMachine or Acer even if you paid me  My computer currently has 1.43 GB of RAM, a dual processor, graphics card I think AMD 64, has Windows XP (don't care for "upgrading" to Vista). I don't use the computer for much except surfing the web and chatting, so don't need many extras (and don't play many games on it either).


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

In that case, anything with 2GB of RAM or more, a dual core processor and decent integrated graphics will do you just fine, even if you're forced into Vista. For build quality, HP is actually pretty good. I wouldn't recommend a Compaq at the moment (they ARE HP, more or less, but the build quality isn't as good), and Gateway is hit or miss. Dell is the same as Acer - Buy a mid-to-high end PC and you're pretty well off, but get a low-end and it'll probably be a paperweight this time next year.

In your case, it probably wouldn't matter which processor manufacturer you go with, but AMD would likely bring better results for less money if you don't care about extreme performance.


----------



## Pi (Sep 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> By "hard drive", I meant the large box with t


aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Pi said:


> aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHA



You just never learn, do you? You never learn what the term "leave me alone" means, do you? I'm tired of you coming around and flamebaiting me for no reason. *LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!* As in, *don't reply to my posts, don't even be in the same thread as me.* I'm fucking sick and tired of your harassment and unnecessary posts.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Huh, you're reporting *ME* after YOU just tried to start something?!


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

Pi said:


> aaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHA



You officially have no business handling PC support of any kind.


----------



## Pi (Sep 19, 2008)

Runefox said:


> You officially have no business handling PC support of any kind.



oh ok


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 19, 2008)

The magnet in your computer clock isn't configured properly. If you take a magnet and rub it around the processor (and other parts of your computer just to be sure), it should fix itself up just fine.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Kimmerset said:


> The magnet in your computer clock isn't configured properly. If you take a magnet and rub it around the processor (and other parts just to be sure), it should fix itself up just fine.



LOL you think I'm that dumb? That'll wreck the computer.


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 19, 2008)

Aw nuts, you were too clever for me.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> LOL you think I'm that dumb? That'll wreck the computer.


don't worry, regular magnets don't affect the hard drive at all!


----------



## Runefox (Sep 19, 2008)

> don't worry, magnets don't affect the hard drive at all


Truthfully, that's not as big a problem as it once was. As long as you're not slapping magnets right on the hard drive or are running a degaussing tool along the side of your PC, you really shouldn't have to worry about that.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Eevee said:


> don't worry, regular magnets don't affect the hard drive at all!



Yeah, sure. And I'm a fairy princess in a pink tutu. I know magnets destroy computer hard drives.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Sep 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Yeah, sure. And I'm a fairy princess in a pink tutu. I know magnets destroy computer hard drives.



Whoever told you that?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

nameless_ermine said:


> Whoever told you that?



Well, ya figure magnets can erase floppy disks, and it demagnetizes computer hardware.


----------



## Pi (Sep 19, 2008)

Considering that hard drives *have* magnets more powerful than most, actually INSIDE them, yeah, you're wrong.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Pi said:


> Considering that hard drives *have* magnets more powerful than most, actually INSIDE them, yeah, you're wrong.



Go away and LEAVE ME ALONE. For pete's sake, how many times do I have to ask/tell you to stop replying to me? I don't want *nor* need your help. But I guess if you want to end up getting banned for constant harassing and refusal to abide by another person's request to leave them alone, then by all means, keep going. You're only giving yourself enough rope to be hung with.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Yeah, sure. And I'm a fairy princess in a pink tutu. I know magnets destroy computer hard drives.


actually

no

they don't

you missed the joke _and_ made it funnier

I applaud you good sir


----------



## Pi (Sep 19, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Go away and LEAVE ME ALONE. For pete's sake, how many times do I have to ask/tell you to stop replying to me? I don't want *nor* need your help. But I guess if you want to end up getting banned for constant harassing and refusal to abide by another person's request to leave them alone, then by all means, keep going. You're only giving yourself enough rope to be hung with.



dddd bbq bq bdbdb dbdb qbd d bq bd qbbpdbpbd bpqb dbdbpq db dbpqbd pqbd d bdpqq d dbpqpqbqpqpqppdbdbdbdp

ddddddddddddddddddddddd


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Pi said:


> dddd bbq bq bdbdb dbdb qbd d bq bd qbbpdbpbd bpqb dbdbpq db dbpqbd pqbd d bdpqq d dbpqpqbqpqpqppdbdbdbdp
> 
> ddddddddddddddddddddddd



Oh, yeah. Real mature. I'm just waiting for a Mod to come, and I pray you'll be banned, and then you'll wish you had listened and stopped the harassment when I first asked you to. If you seriously want to be banned from the forums, I'm not going to stop you.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 19, 2008)

hello I'm a mod

what's up


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 19, 2008)

Eevee said:


> hello I'm a mod
> 
> what's up



A Mod that can't ban, unfortunately <.< He's gone from harassing to spamming and trolling. And flat-out ignored my requests/demands that he leave me alone, plus he's already gotten in trouble for this very thing before, and apparently, he doesn't care since he's right back at it.


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 19, 2008)

Why don't you try syncing to another clock?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

Kimmerset said:


> Why don't you try syncing to another clock?



I sync to Time.NIST.gov and/or time.windows.com, but it doesn't last long. Within 2 hours, the clock is about 2 minutes fast.


----------



## Pi (Sep 20, 2008)

Pi said:


> If the battery is dead the computer will go back to 1980 every time it's booted. If it just can't keep time while it's on, well, your clock crystal sucks and you either have to live with it or get a new motherboard.



oh


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

Pi said:


> oh



Quit spamming the thread. Unless you actually have something useful (never have yet!), just go away.


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 20, 2008)

You're likely to provoke response that way. You know that, right?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

Kimmerset said:


> You're likely to provoke response that way. You know that, right?



If he does, he's just hanging himself even more. I've lost track how many times I've asked/told him to leave me alone. Every time he refuses/ignores it, it just makes it worse on himself. (Leave me alone as in don't come to the same thread I'm in and post some nonsense BS or post a flamebait or whatever)


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2008)

I STILL say use Timesync.


----------



## Pi (Sep 20, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I STILL say use Timesync.





			
				ntpdate manual said:
			
		

> However, it is important to note that ntpdate with contrived cron scripts is no substitute for the NTP daemon, which uses sophisticated algorithms to maximize accuracy and reliability while minimizing resource use. Finally, since ntpdate does not discipline the host clock frequency as does ntpd, the accuracy using ntpdate is limited.



Ie, that'll end up causing more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Eevee (Sep 20, 2008)

man look what I found

http://www.meinberg.de/english/sw/ntp.htm

windows port of ntpd, the network time protocol daemon

cool


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2008)

Pi said:


> Ie, that'll end up causing more trouble than it's worth.


That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Pi (Sep 20, 2008)

Runefox said:


> That doesn't even make sense.



The NTP documentation says "don't do that" as regards Timesync or running ntpdate out of a cronjob.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2008)

Pi said:


> The NTP documentation says "don't do that" as regards Timesync or running ntpdate out of a cronjob.


No it doesn't. It says the accuracy isn't as good as running ntpd, which is overkill here.


----------



## nrr (Sep 20, 2008)

A clock is a clock is a clock is a clock.

If you want a really accurate clock, go get a GPS handset and the requisite cable to interface it with a PC.  There, accurate clock.  No joke.

If you want a clock that's accurate enough not to annoy you, just sync with ntpdate every couple of days.

If your system clock keeps getting way off, well, trust your technolust and buy a new motherboard.  It's probably time for a fucking upgrade anyway.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

nrr said:


> If your system clock keeps getting way off, well, trust your technolust and buy a new motherboard.  It's probably time for a fucking upgrade anyway.



Stupid question: That won't cause me to lose anything, will it? (Saved pics, documents, etc)


----------



## Kimmerset (Sep 20, 2008)

Nope. All that shit's on your HD.


----------



## Pi (Sep 20, 2008)

Runefox said:


> No it doesn't. It says the accuracy isn't as good as running ntpd, which is overkill here.



The concern with running ntpdate-in-cron on a machine with a lousy clock is that your time will never be slewed, only stepped, and thus become totally, appallingly, jumpy, which will throw off things that require the time to never go backwards.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

Kimmerset said:


> Nope. All that shit's on your HD.



That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. Thanks ^^


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2008)

> The concern with running ntpdate-in-cron on a machine with a lousy clock is that your time will never be slewed, only stepped, and thus become totally, appallingly, jumpy, which will throw off things that require the time to never go backwards.


Which is why a BIOS update would be preferable, but TimeSync on a very short interval (5 minutes?) might do the job OK. For that matter, Windows XP's built-in time synchronization suite would also be stepping the time, and at much larger amounts, which would likely break things even more.

Again, I recommend Timesync on a low interval. Seconds are better than minutes if you have to step the clock back in time, and most times if an application is so poorly-coded to not realize that time synchronization is something that is built-in to every modern OS (most Linux distros included), it's either old or won't care about a second.

Also, Ty, if you buy a new computer and need to transfer your files, you can actually install your old computer's hard drive into the new one and access your files that way, without needing an external hard drive. Once you get your files off it, you can even use it for storage.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Sep 20, 2008)

I think I see.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 22, 2008)

you could try this clock.reg. It should change the interval between synchronizations to once an hour. Not really a "fix" but it might help keep your clock more accurate.


----------

