Whatever you do, don't equate 'doing something frequently' with
'inefficient'.
Computers are designed to handle 'doing something frequently'. In fact
various parts of your computer are doing things 100's and even 1000's of
times every second.
Efficiency is more likely to be affected by what happens rather that how
often it happens.
The first thing you have to determine is the criticality of a task starting
on time.
By that I mean, is it critical that a task start precisely at a point in
time or is it acceptable that a task start within, say, 10 seconds of a
point in time.
If it is the latter than you can decrease the granularity of your timer to,
say, 10 seconds (10000 ms), instead of 1 second (1000 ms).
Hi Steph,
what I mean is that my current approach is actually a form of polling.
It doesn't matter for one second timer or a ten second timer. For
example, a weekly event requires the program to run the event
repeatedly for a week before the computer actually does something
useful. Although modern computer can afford to waste these cycles,
it's still poor programming technique. Imagine what happens if I want
my program to handle 1000 weekly events with a precision of 1
millisecond?
what I am looking for is a way to wait on a date/time event based on
the concept of interrupt or blocking. So the program can better handle
large number of events.
I'm just hoping vb.net has something built in that I can use.
Eric