Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'paulg'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• What is a long-term strategy to deal with CPU fan dust in my home office?

  - by PaulG

  There are numerous discussions of CPU overheating and how sometimes this can be corrected by removing the dust from the CPU fan. I have read many of these, but I can't find anyone expressing a long-term strategy to deal with this problem. There are some suggestions here, for example, about how often the inside of the computer should be dusted. But I find this generally unsatisfactory. As it stands, in my rather dusty house (heated by a wood stove, with no central air circulation), I need to vacuum out the CPU fan every 3 to 4 months. At high CPU load, this can make a difference between 65C and 100C. I'm tired of hauling out the vacuum every time I anticipate high CPU load. What steps can I take to deal with this systematically in the long-term? Moving my high CPU load computing to the cloud is not a realistic option. Neither is vacuuming my home office more than once a week! (Details: my computer is on the floor in a Cooler Master HAF922 case, and uses an Intel CPU fan on an i7 chip) EDIT: While this would definitely solve the problem (submerging motherboard in mineral oil), it is a bit of an expensive solution.

  Read the article

• Checking lazy loaded properties have been instantiated

  - by PaulG

  In a class which has a lazy loaded property, such as: private Collection<int> someInts; public Collection<int> SomeInts { get { if (this.someInts == null) this.someInts = new Collection<int>(); return this.someInts; } } Is it worth also having a property such as: public bool SomeIntsExist { get { return (this.someInts != null && this.someInts.Count > 0); } } And then using that property.. eg: if (thatClass.SomeIntsExist) { // do something with thatClass.SomeInts collection } or is this premature optimisation. Its certainly easier to roll with something like below, but it will instantiate the collection needlessly: if (thatClass.SomeInts.Count > 0) { // do something with thatClass.SomeInts collection } Is the compiler smart enough to figure things like this out? Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Pointers to a typed variable in C#: Interfase, Generic, object or Class? (Boxing/Unboxing)

  - by PaulG

  First of all, I apologize if this has been asked a thousand times. I read my C# book, I googled it, but I can't seem to find the answer I am looking for, or I am missing the point big time. I am very confused with the whole boxing/unboxing issue. Say I have fields of different classes, all returning typed variables (e.g. 'double') and I would like to have a variable point to any of these fields. In plain old C I would do something like: double * newVar; newVar = &oldVar; newVar = &anotherVar; ... In C#, it seems I could do an interfase, but would require that all fields be properties and named the same. Breaks apart when one of the properties doesn't have the same name or is not a property. I could also create a generic class returning double, but seems a bit absurd to create a class to represent a 'double', when a 'double' class already exists. If I am not mistaken, it doesn't even need to be generic, could be a simple class returning double. I could create an object and box the typed variable to the newly created object, but then I would have to cast every time I use it. Of course, I always have the unsafe option... but afraid of getting to unknown memory space, divide by zero and bring an end to this world. None of these seem to be the same as the old simple 'double * variable'. Am I missing something here?

  Read the article

1