Text edited by author on May 21, 2007 @ 12:20PM

Text edited by author on Dec 3, 2006 @ 9:41PM

Text edited by author on Dec 3, 2006 @ 9:34PM

Text edited by author on Jun 15, 2006 @ 8:49PM

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 4:36PM

quote:

---

WMI works on Windows ME too, which is below Windows 2000, very few people use Windows 98 SE or below these days due to Microsoft's lifecycle policy.

---

quote:

---

I could use tokenize, however some of these methods are taken from the very first moo script.

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 4:56PM

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

quote:

---

WMI works on Windows ME too, which is below Windows 2000, very few people use Windows 98 SE or below these days due to Microsoft's lifecycle policy.

---

You are cleary a novice at WMI or COM scripting in general. You think that because WMI works on ME too that all the functions you are using will work on that OS?

Like I pointed out to you, that cpuload (and most of the rest that you are using) do not work on ME, they require atleast Windows 2000 Professional.

Just like mIRC has several versions that each time include new features, this is the same for WMI. $regsubex only works on mIRC 6.17 not on lower versions, but according to you that should work on any computer that has mIRC installed, right? Even if it's just mIRC 5.1

The properties that you are using in your moo script are no different. They require certain versions of WMI, and therefore the minimum requirement is not the OS that started shipping WMI (Windows ME), the minimum requirement depends on when the function was added to WMI, which varies greatly.

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

quote:

---

I could use tokenize, however some of these methods are taken from the very first moo script.

---

You completely missed the point on this one o.O

No one is telling you to use tokenize, but don't you understand that for my example to work (the concatenation of tokens) I need to tokenize first? :) The point is in how I'm creating the dynamic variable with $+() and no use of any evaluation brackets.

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 4:48PM

quote:

---

WMI DOES work on windows ME

---

quote:

---

you need to be specific if you're going to pick at my code.

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 5:06PM

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

Are you dense or something?

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

The Mac/Linux argument is irrelevant: mIRC is a Windows program, its scripts need not support other OS'es.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you're angry that you didn't come up with this first?

---

quote:

---

Are you dense or something?

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 5:26PM

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

Do you really think I would be able to give you such detailed information about everything in your snippet if I didn't already know how to make something like that ?

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

I have been giving people WMI related snippets for a long time now, don't worry

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

I'm more than qualified to comment on your code.

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

If you are running mIRC in Wine, then the platform that mIRC is running on isn't Linux or Mac anymore isn't it? Why else would you be running it on an emulator then? ;)

---

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

Indeed, name calling is usually something I would refrain from, but common, you didn't get that $regsubex example, whilst it is so obvious!

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 5:34PM

quote:

---

HM2K said:

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

Your "information" is seriously lacking detail, its just "flame", not detailed information. There is no constructive criticism, just negative comments. Need I say more?

---

Actually if you look at my first post, I give detailed information, for example what the real requirements are for the cpuload function of your snippet. I tell you exactly where you can improve the error checking (your wmi get alias, after each com call). I tell you that there is a memory leak in mIRC 6.16. I tell you that a lot of your functions are relying on Windows 2k pro or higher.

Maybe your interpretation of what is detailed or not differs from mine, which is possible, but you surely can agree that it is of a degree higher than your average comments you would get on any code.

---

I know you KNOW how to make something like this, which is why you might be angry that you didn't come up with it first, it now seems more of a reasonable assumption.

---

Dude, I wasn't even the first to come out with WMI related snippets, in fact I learnt a lot from looking at Shredplayer's tutorial "understanding COM objects". There are already multiple snippets out there that do exactly what you are doing in your code in moo script, so what on earth is there for me to be jealous about? I didn't invent WMI ya know, and I wasn't the first to use it, so why you would think that is beyond me. And even Shredplayer wasn't the first, most things you see done with COM in mIRC have already been done multiple times in other scripting languages like VBScript that supported COM way before mIRC ever did. tidy_trax also made a snippet that retrieves system info (it's on mirc.net somewhere). I'm not jealous of that, I'm fine with it, because I know a person like tidy_trax (hixxy) knows what he is doing, and knows about the restraints, you do not. I'm sure Nodred also made somethign very similar a long time ago, so neither of us is the first to think about this, all this "being first" stuff is completely irrelevant.

quote:

---

FiberOPtics said:

I'm more than qualified to comment on your code.

---

The sort of qualification that I'm talking about, is not the formal one about who may post a comment or who may not. Indeed, any registered user can comment on submissions here. I hope you are clever enough to understand that the sort of qualification means where a person makes a comment based on certain expertise in a field. I can comment on your code, because it is the sort of code I have worked a lot with. Do you understand how that qualifies me more to make certain arguments than someone who doesn't have a clue about WMI or COM? And still, even people who don't have a clue about it may comment, that's not my point, just that I'm not talking out of my ass, I know this stuff, thus it makes me qualified.

I'm not flaming you in the things I've said so far in this post, so please take a minute to read through them calmly, forgetting prior posts.

quote:

---

So you're saying that my script WILL work on emulators?

---

I can honestly say that I don't know if it would work on emulators. I didn't state that it would either, notice how I said "maybe if your emulator supports it". What I was pointing out is that your Linux/Mac example is irrelevant, as mIRC doesn't run on those OS"es. If it runs on emulators like Wine, then it's not Linux/Mac so you need not worry about compatibility with those OS'es, and I never said you should. It's clear that my gripes are related to Windows compatibility, nothing else.

Again I'm not flaming, take a while to think about what I'm saying here.

quote:

---

Clearly you didn't follow, your example was irrelevant.

---

I did follow. I am in disbelief about this sentence, and I suspect you are only saying this as flame bait, which is ok of course. I challenge anyone that is reading these comments to tell me they did not understand the $regsubex example, and see how it was making a point about version compatibility. I've said it two times before, and this is the last time: WMI comes installed on Windows ME and higher but it doesnt mean you can use all of its functionality on Windows ME. Just like mIRC has multiple versoins, functions introduced in later versions do not work in lower versions, that is crystal clear.

Similarly <enter function that was only introduced in mIRC 6.17> will not work on earlier mIRC versions, so saying someone has mIRC installed (or WMI installed) doesn't mean they can use that function (doesn't mean they can use the functions in your snippet). Also, I'm not saying that none of your functions work in Windows ME, I am certain some do, but which is hard to say, you will have to go to www.msdn.com and see what compatibility each function has. They vary a lot, believe me, it's something I always check when making WMI related code.

Honestly, I am not flaming you here, I'm trying to make you understand.

quote:

---

Okay, so after the now 4th post, i'm still trying to work out what your point is, so here's a hint towards what your next reply should be based around: Constructive Criticism.

---

Ok, I will tell you what my point is:

- When you release code, you should mention with what it is compatible.
- You should not proclaim something (this snippet) as a replacement for something (moo.dll) if you are not aware of important differences as version compatibility.

I know that constructive criticism is better than negative critisism, but I believe that even in all the things I mentioned (even if they sound negative), that you can find some useful information in it.

Anyway, at this point, it is clear that our discussion isn't going to lead anywhere anymore, I certainly had fun but at the end I was starting to feel embarrassed even, it's not pretty anymore.

You notice in this post I've tried to state my arguments in a more "friendly" way. If you reply to me with other flamebait, it's fine, but I won't respond anymore, I think I've made myself clear on anything I had to say.

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 6:14PM

quote:

---

My gripe with your snippet is that you are making this out to be "the" replacement for moo.dll, whilst you don't even realise how much compatibility your snippet is lacking compared to a moo.dll snippet. COM objects also use DLLs, the difference is that most scripts (including yours) depends on DLLs that are already there on the system. There's nothing wrong with bundling moo.dll in your snippet/addon, sure it adds a little bit to the filesize, but atleast you know the script will be 100% compatible as the DLL is already there. With WMI you have to be "lucky" that the person's OS has an update version of WMI or they can't use it.

---

Text edited by author on Jun 19, 2006 @ 5:54PM

quote:

---

HM2K said:

PS. This script will not work on Mac or Linux either :p

---

Text edited by author on Jun 15, 2006 @ 11:11PM

Text edited by author on Jun 15, 2006 @ 7:02PM