Little New Features For Autoit (Discussion)

Xenobiologist · January 21, 2008

Hi,

GaryFrost openend a thread how to submit udfs. I searched through my snippets and found some pieces of code which I'd like to discuss whether they can become a macro/udf ... before submitting them btw. somebody creates a nice piece of code for achieving the goal.

Before flaming me, YES I know they are not perfect. The code is just as examples, because it is better to understand what I mean when providing some code instead of just asking for something.

1. Macro for type of OS like (XP home or Professional)

2. _getDNS()

3. Macro for loggedInUser

4. StringInsertLF

1.

Global $objWMIService = objget("winmgmts:{impersonationLevel=impersonate}!\\.\root\cimv2")


  Global $colSettings = $objWMIService.ExecQuery("Select * from Win32_OperatingSystem")
For $objOperatingSystem in $colSettings
    $Type = StringMid($objOperatingSystem.Caption, 19)
    MsgBox(64, 'Ouput of Windows Type', "Type   : "& $Type)
NextoÝ÷ Ûc,1Ò«¨¶«¨¶ÔºÚ"µÍ[ÈÙÙ]Ê
BØØ[  ÌÍÙ×ÐHHÝ[ÔYÑ^
ÝÝ]XY
[ÛÛTÜXÈ [È ][ÝÈØÈÛÛÚÝ  ][ÝË  ][ÝÉ][ÝËÕ×ÒQKJK  ÌÎNÊÜÊJÚJÙÉÌLËÊJÛNÌÍß    ÌLÜIÌÎNËJBYÐ^J    ÌÍÙ×ÐJH[]  ÌÍÙ×ÐVÌB]Ù]ÜJB[[oÝ÷ ÛyÉö¢è¶«§!w¬¶§óÑ9#öjëh×6  Global $loggegInUser = RegRead("HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\", "AltDefaultUserName")
Msgbox(64, "Value", $loggegInUser)oÝ÷ Û®¶sc·â&V7VÇFWBföâ·W&ÃÒgV÷C¶GG¢òöFRçv¶VFæ÷&r÷v¶ôWFôBgV÷CµÖGG¢òöFRçv¶VFæ÷&r÷v¶ôWFôE²÷W&ÅÐ  ¢ ¢b33cµ7G&ærÒgV÷C´FR6·&FRW&ßfvÆ6Vâ¢â"âF2W6oÆ&Vâföâ&öw&ÖÖVâÂF26×VÆW&VâföâF7FGW&ç66ÎFvVâ'§râÖW6¶Æ6·2âW2¿fææVâVæf6RFWFgVæ·FöæVâFW"§v66Væ&ÆvRöFW"V6væF÷w6gVæ·FöæVâvR¢â"âÖæÖW&VâÂfW'7FV6¶VâÂv'FVâVbô·FfW&VâföâfVç7FW&âVfvW'VfVâvW&FVââ6VBfW'6öâ2¿fææVâ§VFVÒw&66R&VçWG¦W&ö&W&fÎF6VâÖB¦Ç&V6Vâ6öçG&öÇ2VçGv÷&fVâvW&FVââ6öÆÂW2VÒ&Vv7G'ÖæVÆFöæVâöFW"¶ö×ÆWW&R66ÆVfVâvVVâÂ7BWFôB2ç§v66VâÖB6VæW"fW&&W76W'FVâ7çFFWWFÆ6Væf6W"§RæF&VâÇ2g/ÆW&RfW'6öæVââW27BßfvÆ6ÂWFôBÖBæFW&Vâ67&G7&6VâvRu4öFW"¶F'B§R¶öÖ&æW&VâWFôEâgV÷C° ¤×6t&÷ÂgV÷C²gV÷C²Âb33cµ7G&ær²÷&væÂÕFW@¤×6t&÷ÂgV÷C²gV÷C²Âõ7G&ætç6W'DÄbb33cµ7G&ærÂS²6ögF'&V²gFW"S¤×6t&÷ÂgV÷C²gV÷C²Âõ7G&ætç6W'DÄbb33cµ7G&ærÂSÂ²&F'&V²gFW"S ¤gVæ2õ7G&ætç6W'DÄbb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶ä6÷VçBÂb33c¶4'&V¶ærÒ¢Æö6Âb33c·7G%&WE7G&ærÒgV÷C²gV÷C²Âb33c¶å÷0¢Fð¢b7G&ætÆVâb33c·7G%7G&ærfwC²b33c¶ä6÷VçBFVà¢b33c¶å÷2Ò7G&ætå7G"7G&ætÆVgBb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶ä6÷VçB²ÂgV÷C²gV÷C²ÂÂÓ¢bb33c¶å÷2æBb33c¶4'&V¶ærÒFVà¢b33c·7G%&WE7G&ærf×³Ò7G&ætÆVgBb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶å÷2Òf×²Ä`¢b33c·7G%7G&ærÒ7G&ætÖBb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶å÷2²¢VÇ6P¢b33c·7G%&WE7G&ærf×³Ò7G&ætÆVgBb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶ä6÷VçBf×²Ä`¢b33c·7G%7G&ærÒ7G&ætÖBb33c·7G%7G&ærÂb33c¶ä6÷VçB²¢VæD`¢VæD`¢VçFÂ7G&ætÆVâb33c·7G%7G&ærfÇC²b33c¶ä6÷Vç@¢b33c·7G%&WE7G&ærf×³Òb33c·7G%7G&æp¢&WGW&âb33c·7G%&WE7G&æp¤VæDgVæ2³ÓÒfwCµõ7G&ætç6W'DÄ

Mega Edited January 21, 2008 by Xenobiologist

Xenobiologist · January 21, 2008

Hi,

nobody an opinion? IMO it would be nice to have a macro for the OS type like XP HOME or Proffesionell and so on, cause there are some systemtools only available on the higher class installation.

Same for script starting user differs to loggedinUser.

Mega

nikink · January 22, 2008

What does your OS_Type solution do that the existing OS Macros can't? (I'm just curious, by the way, not criticising)

GEOSoft · January 22, 2008

What does your OS_Type solution do that the existing OS Macros can't? (I'm just curious, by the way, not criticising)

Returns whether it's Home or Pro

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

Returns whether it's Home or Pro

Hi,

exactly. And Vista has I believe 6 different variants. And Win 98 has a second edition and so on. Maybe a macro can show this.

Mega

FreeFry · January 22, 2008

A macro for such could probably be usefull, but I suspect that it's still possible to get what type of windows the user is running(Home/Pro/Server, etc.) by using com objects.

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

A macro for such could probably be usefull, but I suspect that it's still possible to get what type of windows the user is running(Home/Pro/Server, etc.) by using com objects.

Sure I guess there is more than one way to get that information. All I wanted to say is, that I'd like to have a macro for that buildin in Autoit.

A dev like Jos or Valik have to say whether they like the idea and whether the got a solution which they can implement with no worries.

Mega

Edited January 22, 2008 by Xenobiologist

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

Thanks,

@mods/devs : any comment? One sentence is enough.

Like: all crab will not be considered | or | I'll have a look and need to think about it.

Mega

GEOSoft · January 22, 2008

Thanks,
@mods/devs : any comment? One sentence is enough.
Like: all crab will not be considered | or | I'll have a look and need to think about it.
Mega

I don't think you will see the devs jumping in right away. Something like returning the Version type, while perhaps a nice concept, may not be of a lot of benefit to the majority of users. It can be obtained through the use of WMI which is easily scripted in AutoIt. And how many times is there a need to know whether it is XP Home or XP Pro | 98 or 98SE? We already have the important info, for example Service pack info. Btw; for 98 that info can be returned from the build information. It's been pointed out many times that the days of asking for a feature and having it included (if possible) are long past. Some of these "simple" functions are just not worth the effort that it takes to implement them. Right now I believe the emphasis is on cleaning up the AutoIt code and not on adding to it. That's not to say we won't see more features added but they will definitly be priorized.

JMHO

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

I don't think you will see the devs jumping in right away. Something like returning the Version type, while perhaps a nice concept, may not be of a lot of benefit to the majority of users. It can be obtained through the use of WMI which is easily scripted in AutoIt. And how many times is there a need to know whether it is XP Home or XP Pro | 98 or 98SE? We already have the important info, for example Service pack info. Btw; for 98 that info can be returned from the build information. It's been pointed out many times that the days of asking for a feature and having it included (if possible) are long past. Some of these "simple" functions are just not worth the effort that it takes to implement them. Right now I believe the emphasis is on cleaning up the AutoIt code and not on adding to it. That's not to say we won't see more features added but they will definitly be priorized.
JMHO

Hi,

I understand what you said, but I cannot agree with the solution. Even when the suggestions are bullshit, they are still worth a reasonable comment. How else should somebody contribute anything, if he doesn't get a clear answer. As I pointed out before, I won't be disappointed if somebody says: Thanks, but I think we do not need that. That's all!

Mega

GEOSoft · January 22, 2008

Hi,
I understand what you said, but I cannot agree with the solution. Even when the suggestions are bullshit, they are still worth a reasonable comment. How else should somebody contribute anything, if he doesn't get a clear answer. As I pointed out before, I won't be disappointed if somebody says: Thanks, but I think we do not need that. That's all!
Mega

I'm sure you will get several reasonable comments yet.

BTW: Doesn't this thread belong in Chat or Dev Chat? It's not a Help and Support issue.

Edited January 22, 2008 by GEOSoft

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

I'm sure you will get several reasonable comments yet.
BTW: Doesn't this thread belong in Chat or Dev Chat? It's not a Help and Support issue.

Well , I put it in Feature request system and it was closed without reasonable comment, only with comment it was misplaced. Then I had a discussion whether I sent a PM to somebody or post in forum. I decided to put it here, cause chat is mostly for non-autoit stuff. S&S is also not for features and I'm sure it were already closed if I put it into Devs chat.

So, where to put it? I don't know? Move it ....

Mega

GEOSoft · January 22, 2008

I put it in Feature request system and it was closed

I can see why that would happen. The feature request system is for requesting features, not discussing them. I still think Chat would have been the better place but it's not up to me

EDIT: Perhaps the Feature Requests forum needs another Sub >>>> Feature Discussion.

Edited January 22, 2008 by GEOSoft

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

I can see why that would happen. The feature request system is for requesting features, not discussing them. I still think Chat would have been the better place but it's not up to me
EDIT: Perhaps the Feature Requests forum needs another Sub >>>> Feature Discussion.

okay, next time I put it again in feature request without any line of code and without the word discussion. Feature request : MAKE ... !!! ASAP!!!

Mega

GaryFrost · January 22, 2008

Ought to be happy I said as much as I did.

Xenobiologist · January 22, 2008

Ought to be happy I said as much as I did.

Okay, thanks! I give up.

Little New Features For Autoit (Discussion)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members