I've read three other posts without a solution suggested, and this will probably be the fourth, but hopefully not. This has nothing to do with evading software expiration.

I'm trying to find out if there is a way with either software or Windows XP itself, to temporarily stop the system clock. Such as keeping it at 12:00 PM, 2:50 AM or anything else, until I want. Basically, making all files moved, edited and created to display a nice clean time under their Properties. Small phobia / disorder problem.

well, dunno if you can halt the sustem time ...

my suggestion:

get a little program called total commander at www.ghisler.com (fully functional shareware)

select all files on your c drive (ctrl + a) ... in the menu bar under 'files' the first command is 'change attributes'

check the box that reads 'recurse subdirectories' ... do NOT touch the 'change attributes' section ... now set date and time ... and all files and folders on local disk c; will have the same time/date/ stamp

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

icq 10183575

Well...

That "small" program is 1.6MB.

If you want a SMALL program, use touch.com; 5KB.

M2

If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

Total Commander only changes the modification date.

The above programs don't work... thay only allow you to avoid changing the attribute date... they do not stop the clock.

The entire computer is a clock, hence the terms like MEGAHERTZ or KILOHERTZ. HERTZ is frequency wave length, which is the same as the inverse of TIME. (ie: 60Hz = .6 seconds)

It's kind of like tring to stop someones heart and expecting them live at the same time.

You can change the time, turn off the clock display, but you can't stop it.

However, you can in a sense revisit the past. With a shareware program for example. Do a disk image prior to installing the program. Then after the time has expired, re-install the image, then the program... you can keep doing this forever.

A disc image is a mark in time... at time PRIOR to the installation of the shareware program to begin with.

Which comes first the cheicken or the egg? If he makes a backup of the system PRIOR to install he will have to reinstall the programme every time he restores. This will mean that he loses everything he has done elswhere in the meantime. He is going to have to a darn good memeory!

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

Hi blackbill,

Well...

Sort of.

The OP stated purpose was not to "cheat" expireware, but to have "neat" timestamps.

[self-confessed "Small phobia / disorder problem."]

===
Wave length, commonly represented by "lamda" is the reciprocal of frequency.

So the wavelength of 60 cycle is 2500 nautical miles. [roughly]

M2

If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

First, who said anything about cheating? I used EXAMPLES

Second: 2500 nautical miles?? We're talking ELECTRONICS here not greek or latin history.

Open up any basic electronics book you will find that the inverse of frequency is TIME. In North America our electrical grid functions at 60Hz... this means that the sine wave created by our generators changes directions 60 TIMES PER SECOND or in other words the wavelength is .6 SECONDS LONG

Therefore: frequency = 1/time

Don't beleieve... then look it up... Try using an electronics book instead of a history book though.

Here, I've even done the google for ya:

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/investor/dsp/glossary.htm

Scoll down and look at the def for FREQUENCY

Sorry, just read my above post (response 7). The last example should read A CYCLE OF .6 SECONDS LONG.

That needs to be clarified because wavelength is a measure of distance not time... 2 different things.

"Frequency is the number of cycles per unit of time, denoted by Hertz (Hz). One Hz equals one cycle per second."

Hi Blacbill,

Not trying to debate; just clarify.

Maybe these will help:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/glossaryw.html#wavelength
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgloss.htm#q32B
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Wavelength.html
http://www.twysted-pair.com/dictw.htm

A couple of these mention that the speed of propogation in a conductor or in free air is assumed to be equal c [~ 3 X 10^8 M/s]

M2

If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

You did a better job then I did with the Google! Your third link proves the point I'm trying to make.

Try to look at it this way:

Wavelentgh is a measurement of DISTANCE usually measured in nanometers

Frequency is a measure of TIME or to be more precise, how often a wave will repeat itself in a one second period...absolutely nothing to do with distance.

They are 2 completely different measures. What you are trying to say is that (example) 2 miles = the inverse of 30 pounds....doesn't compute.

I know it's easy to confuse the 2 measures but they are in no way the same. It's kind of like VOLTS ans AMPS; it's hard to talk about one without considering the other but still they are 2 completely different measures.

It's physically impossible for a measure of distance to be the inverse of the measure of time.

OK,

Let me put it the simplest terms I know how.

wavlength = [speed of light] / frequncy

speed is measured in units of length [distance] per unit of time, usually 1 second.

frequancy is measured in cycles per secopnd.

so when you divide distance per time by cycles per time, the seconds "divide out" and you're left with a number and the units for distance [length]

Trust me on this. I've spent a lifetime in radar, EW, IFF etc.

Practical applocation. I want to make a "folded dipole" for FM radio reception. I take the center freq of the FM band, 98MC, do the math and find out my antenna needs to be about 6 feet long.

Another clue, not so close to home. A C-band waveguide is about half the size of S-band waveguide.

This link pretty much says it:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Wavelength.html

M2

If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

Believe me, I do understand what you are saying, I am an electronics engineer and have been for the last 12 or so years.

In your wavelength example you are saying that

meters per time (speed of light)

divided by 1/time (or frequency)

and the time cancels out and you are left with:

Meters (or distance)

I have no argument with this statement at all but:
wavlength = [speed of light] / frequncy

IS NOT THE SAME EQUATION AS:
wavelentgh = inverse of Hz (or 1/time)

which was your original statement. You are instead taking additional steps (adding speed of light to the equation) in order to cancel out the time factor.