>
>Paul, try this and let me know what you get. Then change to sleep(0).
>
>I wonder if the resolution of sleep depends on the OS I am using Win2k.
>

For Sleep(1) I'm seeing 1.9810 ms, for (0) I'm seeing 0.0030 ms. I'm running XP. The first # (1.9810) doesn't surprise me, I'd expect some additional overhead in the loop and calling the DLL.