VisInfo, Visual and Resource Light System Information Utility.

[AddSub]

I noticed that many are still using ancient Speccy that has outdated hardware database in order to dump/share their sysinfos, or worse an unholy combination of overly verbose cacophony of open windows of AIDA64/HwInfo/CPUZ+GPUZ stacked upon each other, all in a single screenshot in order to share their sysinfo in semi-coherent visual way. I've been playing around with building a quick and visually succinct sysinfo utility (screenshot below), VisInfo. Right now it is pretty rudimentary (by design) with basic screenshot taking and few other semi completed features, and many bugs (I do not have any EVGA or WD hardware for instance on the test machine!).

It seems building a comprehensive hardware database will be the most daunting task. I intend to scrape TPU's own GPU database (with permission naturally) to "fatten" up the pretty thin and somewhat lacking database I have now. The details panes I'm working on (not pictured below) will sort of have both of GPU-Z's and CPU-Z's way of info dumping, minus sensor monitoring data.

I'm open to any ideas and suggestions. I want to keep it very resource light, WinOS and WinOS legacy compatible (9x through Win10), and most importantly visually succinct.



...
..
.

 

[W1zzard]

How do you read all that info? If you plan on using a database with info, be aware that AIDA64 has a database of 200,000 hardware components. Estimate 1 minute to add each, do the math

 

[AddSub]

How do you read all that info? If you plan on using a database with info, be aware that AIDA64 has a database of 200,000 hardware components. Estimate 1 minute to add each, do the math

Right now I'm pulling HardwareID's from registry and matching it to my more verbose database. And yes, it. is. a. pain... Very slow.

...
..
.

 

[Toothless]

At least you have a massive test base right? I've got a good five machines minimum that can be checked with.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I noticed that many are still using ancient Speccy that has outdated hardware database in order to dump/share their sysinfos, or worse an unholy combination of overly verbose cacophony of open windows of AIDA64/HwInfo/CPUZ+GPUZ stacked upon each other, all in a single screenshot in order to share their sysinfo in semi-coherent visual way.

IDK. It just seems to me that your program will simply add to that "overly verbose cacophony" of system information programs.

Frankly, I would just like to see posters fill out their "System Specs". If we need more information, we can go from there.

Don't get me wrong - I think your endeavor is great and your initial product looks great too. I am just not seeing the need for yet another similar program.

I will make one specific comment about your "light on resources" requirements. Not sure what you mean here. Who cares how much RAM or CPU resources the program uses? Such scans take a few scant seconds and then those resources are freed (or better be freed). So that leaves disk resources. Just looking on my system, I see CPU-z, CrystalDiskInfo, GPU-z, HWiNFO64, HWMonitor and Speccy and none take up more than 15MB of disk space - for their entire folders. Less than 40MB for all of them together. The worst is Speccy but I note that folder includes both the 32-bit (5.2MB) and 64-bit (7MB) versions of the program. So I don't see hogging disk spacing being a problem either.

 

[AddSub]

Idea is to have something compact, portable, and resource friendly, yet compatible with say a single core P100MHz 440BX Win95 machine and all the way up to whatever is sitting on Walmart shelves, circa right now. Something that can fit on a 1.44MB storage envelope.

That said, Win9x support for instance, is proving to be difficult to shoehorn. Querying hardware info via WMI is no-go and using bizarre or poorly documented Win32 API functions and you end up with very little usable information. Or no information. I've already had to drop a simple CPU activity monitor that would sit in the status bar since it was not fluid or CPU cycles friendly on say a 430VX/P166MHz based test bed. Also, trying to replicate exact and visually identical functionality on Windows 98 SE and say Windows Vista SP2 is a little bit of a nightmare.

As for the test base, I have bins of motherboards, plural, divided by AGP 3.3V and 1.5V, among other things. Hardware I am not lacking.



...
..
.

 

[trparky]

I'd say that chasing Windows 9x support would be nothing short of a hair pulling experience. For the sake of your hairline, forget about it.

Unless, of course, you're already bald.

 

[Solaris17]

This is a fantastic project! I agree on all accounts! It will be difficult though.