Hardware Enumerator [pre-release]

[Raistlin]

@LiaoMi - THANX

-> Possibly: all I could find on the Internet for this exception is that the receive buffer might have been too small,
    causing the overwrite of the ICMP handle
-> Solution: updated the receive buffer size in ver 0.6, so we'll see if resolved - posting soon
-> Other: perhaps you have an ultra large or small MTU configured or windows is fire-walling "Ping /ICMP" traffic

[Raistlin]

UPDATED TO VER 0.6 & SAMPLE 

- ADDED : Now a DLL that you can include in your own project
- ADDED : Sample code to implement

@LiaoMi
- BUG-FIX HOPEFULLY: MTU Detect causes kernel panic with too small return buffer

@Jokaste - Please give it a try now and PM me please with result
- BUG-FIX HOPEFULLY: New CPU speed approximation algorithm - should now be more generic
- BUG-FIX HOPEFULLY: Revisited cache detection and package/core/thread calculation
- BUG-FIX HOPEFULLY: Larger Display Card strings that may have caused truncation previously

[jj2007]

UPDATED TO VER 0.6 & SAMPLE 

:t

[Raistlin]

@LiaoMi - Attached PING Test APP / Source code - to try an isolate Firewall or Other Issue

[felipe]

 

[Raistlin]

@Jokaste : Please try the test piece / source attached and email me result please

[Jokaste]

Oui CHEF

[Raistlin]

Updated to Ver 0.7 - please see first post in this thread for information and the attachment.

[aw27]

I am afraid you need to review it because it does not produce correct results in many instances.
I attach also, results obtained with CPU-Z.

PS: Disk is also wrong. I have 2 disks: 1 SSD of 500 GB and another of 3 TB.

[Raistlin]

Thanks AW, hmmm - seems to corrupt the data someplace around the core detects
and then skews all other results. Can I bug you via PM to try and isolate the error ?
Seems like some sort of buffer overflow....  :(

Here's my results... and Zedd151's :redface:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LWP_Fo-PYEC81ItRTI2zGz4hWLO8aO28
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DPwFbmMIxaK0Fq9JgCMQZWzV08ocVXH3

But please see if you can assist AW...

[zedd151]

Here's my results... and Zedd151's :redface:

 :P

Were there any significant changes since I tested it for you last? Should I run it again and post screenshot?

[aw27]

Thanks AW, hmmm - seems to corrupt the data someplace around the core detects
and then skews all other results. Can I bug you via PM to try and isolate the error ?
Seems like some sort of buffer overflow....  :(

Here's my results... and Zedd151's :redface:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LWP_Fo-PYEC81ItRTI2zGz4hWLO8aO28
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DPwFbmMIxaK0Fq9JgCMQZWzV08ocVXH3

But please see if you can assist AW...

Sure, I will assist you via PM although you never acknowledge my answers via PM - probably you don't read them  :(.

[Raistlin]

Sure, I will assist you via PM although you never acknowledge my answers via PM - probably you don't read them  :(.

Thanx AW, I will definitely reply ! - promise 

I need to get this thing bulletproof - which is REALLY hard if you don't have access to a WIDE variety of platforms.
SO thank you all so much for your feedback & input.

PS: Disk is also wrong. I have 2 disks: 1 SSD of 500 GB and another of 3 TB.

Actually the disk size is as intended - the output shows your 3 TB - the idea was to detect the size and available
disk space of the "process" instance's storage. Was thinking of scenarios like network drives and quota rules that
could influence what a process could access. It's more a system profiler for programmers versus an asset register
of all hardware.

[aw27]

Actually the disk size is as intended - the output shows your 3 TB - the idea was to detect the size and available
disk space of the "process" instance's storage. Was thinking of scenarios like network drives and quota rules that
could influence what a process could access. It's more a system profiler for programmers versus an asset register
of all hardware.

Impressive explanation, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I am just a guy willing to know my hard disks capacity. 

[Raistlin]

@AW -  - Let me try again.....hope it helps.

The idea is that a program/process/application always runs within a user security context. The user being the one that executed it.
Some users might have restrictions applied to storage - for example a quota (max limit) on amount of logical free disk-space accessible.
Because the process/application shares the user security context - the application is also restricted by this amount of logical storage.
It would be of more interest for an application when trying to discover its environment, rather than physical storage.

PPS: Is anyone else getting data corruption as well for feature values etc. ?