>>>C# 5! You're killing me! (sigh)
>>>
>>>I guess Bill Wagner gets to write another book.
>>
>>The one I ordered turned up today. Even without reading it all I can see a lot of real meat in there and have already ordered the Net4 version.......
>>>
>>>OK, tech discussion -- asynchronous methods. I know what asynchronous means so have an idea. How is this a good thing?
>>
>>Well (now that I've calmed down) I guess I can see that all that asynchronous methods will do is make the implementation of multi-threading code simpler and more readable. Or as you querying the basic benefits of multi-threading in the first place ?
>>
>
>Many years ago I worked on an application that did almost all updates asynchronously. You and Craig are right that it makes things seem faster to the user. The only downside is the user is left to assume the updates were successful, when that may not be the case.

I see Tracy has given you lots of examples where paralllel processing can provide a more responsive UI but I'd still take issue with the idea that 'updates' are not good candidates for an asynchronous operation. The flaw in your argument is in the ' the user is left to assume the updates were successful' statement. You just have to ensure that they don't make that assumption - and, if they do, that they can't take any non-retractable decisions based on that belief..........