# Re: Microsoft Timestamp (Active Directory) **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [August 18, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65487 "2006-08-18T16:59:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65487/1 "2006-08-18T16:59:43Z")
> -----Original Message----- > From: Francis C. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 8:51 AM > To: ruby-talk ML > Subject: Re: Microsoft Timestamp (Active Directory) > > On 8/18/06, Clifford H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Berger, Daniel wrote: > > > > > Leave it to Microsoft to come up with something this convoluted: > Check the NTP protocol. This sounds like the format used by > NTP servers. Leave it to me not to do any research before mouthing off. šŸ˜› 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. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65487/2 "2006-08-18T17:14:45Z")
On 8/18/06, Berger, Daniel [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Leave it to me not to do any research before mouthing off. šŸ˜› Heh. If it does turn out to be NTP, then the only reason I recognized it is because I had to write an NTP client in C recently (the standard ones have more security holes than DNS). I thought it was bizarre too. ---
**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 24, 2006, 11:51am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65487/3 "2006-08-24T11:51:40Z")
Hal F. wrote: > I can see some value to it. I use an unsigned 64-bit count of 10-ns intervals since the (non-existent) year 0 of the Gregorian calendar. Since itā€™s non-existent, I double up any value in year zero as meaning ā€œtime only, no dateā€ up to one year duration. The Windows SystemTime() API returns 100ns units, and I might have done that instead to avoid the multiplication by ten (multiplication and division or 64-bit qtys can be pretty horrendous on Intel machines), but I can still construct a new C++ ā€œcurrent timeā€ object in 100ns on a P4, so thatā€™s fast enough to use in calculating my timings, which sometimes schedule things down below 1ms, which is the resolution of Sleep(). ---
**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 19, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-microsoft-timestamp-active-directory/65487/4 "2006-08-19T00:24:34Z")
Francis C. wrote: > On 8/18/06, Berger, Daniel [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Leave it to me not to do any research before mouthing off. šŸ˜› > > Heh. If it does turn out to be NTP, then the only reason I recognized > it is because I had to write an NTP client in C recently (the standard > ones have more security holes than DNS). I thought it was bizarre too. I can see some value to it. A high-res time is a good idea in general, and dates that far precede the epoch are good, too. (Half the people on this list canā€™t represent their birthdates with a Time object.) Going back to 1601, you could at least represent Shakespeareā€™s death date to sub-microsecond precision šŸ˜‰ and who among us has never longed for that? (Still canā€™t represent his birthdate, though, and da Vinci is Right Out.) Cheers, Hal