Re: cpu-x

On 5/6/2024 6:00 PM, Joel wrote:

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

On 5/6/2024 2:43 PM, vallor wrote:

On Mon, 06 May 2024 14:29:47 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
<ib8i3jpsn8qgcsl4l3a5lin9lan9men5t1@4ax.com>:
>

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>

https://imgur.com/tpY1als

>
I got that easily with Mint Software Manager.  Works very well.  DFS
is easily impressed.

>
I don't think there was anything in his pretty gui that couldn't
be sussed-out through the Linux command line -- either by examining
/proc or /sys; or running tools like dmidecode, cpuid, lscpu, or lsmem
(to name a few).

>
Hours if not days of combing thru command-line output to assemble what
HWiNFO for Windows shows in 2 seconds, in a perfect and easily navigated
layout.
>
Have you checked out the 6,646-line hobbyware mess that 'hwinfo' gives you?
>
* the CPU info is printed twice (in v21.72 anyway), lines 128 and 1169.
>
* the tty devices in udevinfo are listed like so:
>
   tty49
   tty5
   tty50
>
* not one mention of motherboards?  wtf?
>
* it says I have a 3.5" floppy installed
>
>
That's what happens when 18 contributors aren't reined in, and the hobby
project has no defined goals.  And it long ago should've been made into
an ncurses or gtk app with a minimal GUI.
>
The entire GuhNoo/Linux bizarro world can't compete with the one
Slovakian commercial developer that created HWiNFO for Windows.

  CPU-X does what your utility does, probably better.

You're still confused.
CPU-X (Linux) is an inferior clone of CPU-Z (Windows).
HWiNFO (Windows only) is far superior to both, and to EVERY Linux app of its kind that I've seen.
I don't know why Bloaty even brought up CPU-X; it's not in the same league as HWiNFO.