# Re: Microsoft Timestamp (Active Directory)

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65477>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [August 18, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65477 "2006-08-18T15:50:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/BergerS_Daniel)\
**Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65477/1 "2006-08-18T15:50:31Z")

</div>

> What could possibly be _less_ convoluted than keeping time as  
> a high resolution (in this case, 100ns) integer since some  
> epoch? It’s actually the _perfect_ way to handle time, and I  
> thought that (and implemented it) long before I knew MS had done it.

I guess I don’t understand why you would need that level of granularity  
since the return value isn’t guaranteed to be 100% accurate (according  
to the article I linked to, anyway). Why not just use seconds since  
epoch?

Ok, maybe “convoluted” wasn’t the proper word here. It just struck me  
as strange that they would use Jan. 1, 1601 as the base date, and use  
nanosecond resolution to boot.

Regards,

Dan

This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential  
or  
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is  
strictly  
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication  
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and  
destroy  
all copies of the communication and any attachments.