Talk:Jiffy (time)

message: I removed this:
The origin of the word is unknown, but it is believed to have first appeared in 1779.
how do you know it appeared in 1779, if the origin is unknown? Hotdogger 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about the first attestation. The first appearance of a word in writing (usually) tells you nothing about its origin per se, it only provides a terminus ante quem for its coinage. I've changed the phrasing in the article to make this point clearer. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1779?

message: * KernelAnalysis-HOWTO-6 (Be aware that HZ has gone from 100 to 1000 since that article was written.)
----
Simply seeking clarification over the length of a Jiffy offered in the text, as defined in 1981 by Edward Harrison.  According to Rudy Rucker's book, "Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite," copyright 1982, a Jiffy, in quantum mechanics, is roughly equal to 10 to the negative 44 or negative 43rd power.  (Paperback, page 320).  The author goes on to state that a further discussion of this is also found in Paul Davies, "Other Worlds", (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1980).
Omnivata 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Someone wrote "DUH!!" on the first part of the article. I have deleted it. Can anyone tell me if this was intentional? --Ztobor 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUH!!?!? 

message: if the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s and if a fermi is 1E-15 then  shouldn't a jiffy be about 3.34E-24.  I never went to college and haven't been in a classroom in 12years, so if I am wrong let me know.  Now that is if a fermi is actually 1E-15, I have no way to really confirm this definition. Mantion (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Jɪmp 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  calculation 

message: These sections should be broken up into different articles.  They have little to do with each other except that they go by the same name. ~ Booya Bazooka 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig 

message: References #2 and #3 appear to point at irrelevant chunks of linux configuration declarations/directory listings.
Could someone provide more relevant references? (unsigned entry)
:I think you refer to #3 and #4. They are references for statements on Linux (Within the Linux 2.6 operating system kernel, since release 2.6.13, [...]  and The jiffy values for other Linux versions [...]) so it's not surprising those references are linux minded. In general the article states "[...] is not an absolute time interval unit [...]" and describes why that is so. What kind of reference are you thinking of in that context? Richard 08:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a reference which actually mentions the word "jiffie" or "jiffy"? How about that, wouldn't that make sense? I, too, only get directory listings, but not what you quote. You need to link to a specific file, not a directory. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's dawning on me what the links are trying to show. Note, however, that first, primary sources are discouraged on Wikipedia, and not everyone reading this article will be a Linux (or UNIX) connoisseur and thus able to make sense of the code. Documentation in natural language would be much preferrable. Won't somebody please think of the lay readers?! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TODO: Use in Computing - References 

message: Could someone explain how citation #5 supports the sentence
"Within the Linux operating system kernel, since release 2.6.13, on the Intel i386 platform a jiffy is by default 4 ms, or 1/250 of a second.[5]"?
When I clicked the link I was redirected to http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig 
(blob 619e7f7426c6d2cf5416cd7179ed5c37c5d0340e)
I didn't see "jiffy", "jiffies", "seconds", etc. in the file. However, I did notice that CONFIG_NO_HZ was set (=y), which seems related to the 'tickless operation' being discussed above. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that the reference is either wrong or the statement is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.249.54 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that link and the next one were not helpful (anymore?). Sind they were first added in 2008, someone else came to the same conclusion and added "clarify". I have taken it a step further and removed the entire sentence, which was about an antique Linux version anyhow. Richard 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with fixing the dead reference link, and updating the info per above. Removing seems drastic, and the incoming redirect I added still doesn't inform on landing, as it did in the undone version discussed above. Widefox; talk 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of reference #5? 

message: Femtometre is the standard (and clear) way to refer to the length also known as "Fermi". I feel like it would be better practice to use that here. JoDu987 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fermi 

message: In the article is this: 1980s 8-bit Commodore computers, such as the C64 and C128, had a jiffy of 1/60 second, which was not dependent on the mains AC or video vertical refresh rate.
While that is true for the C-64, it is not true for the C-128 when running in C-128 (“native”) mode.  In native mode, the C-128’s jiffy IRQ is generated by the VIC-II raster interrupt, which occurred at the NTSC or PAL video frame rate, depending on which version of the VIC-II is installed.  In the C-64 or in the C-128 running in C-64 mode, the jiffy IRQ is generated by timer-A in CIA #1.
216.152.18.132 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --- thanks for the info, so I temporarily removed C128 until references are found. I need references for PET / VIC-20 / C128 / other commodore 6502-based computers.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jiffy IRQ in Commodore 128