Many times, the CPU information is accurate but I see no indication of whether it is 2 CPU (Dual Core), 4 CPU (Quad Core), 6 CPU (Hex Core) etc...
I would love for CCleaner to show 2 more pieces of info on the bar at top:
- # of processor cores
- Model of PC (Start/Run/type DXDiag + hit enter key. This shows PC model + installed ram + CPU speed etc).
But it would really help people like me to be able to see at a glance, hey, this machine has more than 1 core, so maybe it can do without another hardware update, or perhaps I need to know the model # of the PC but sometimes you get units missing stickers that detail whether they are something like a DC 7600 Convertible Minitower PC for example... This would greatly simplify getting drivers for such a machine! You can get all this info from DXDiag, but wouldn't it be simpler to implement it into CCleaner itself? I have long wanted to be able to see this info at a glance, rather than have to do it manually!
If you like this idea, feel free to + it up.
Thanks!
Edit: I did notice that when running CCleaner in Windows 98 or ME, that it fails to show rated processor speed. You cannot right click my computer/properties in W98 or WME to get the rated speed. If you go to start/run/dxdiag, yes, that does show the rated processor speed. Would be very nice if CCleaner can correct this bug as it is very annoying not to know how fast a system is. Some people run a decent speed system with W98 or WME installed, so by having the ability to show the speed, a more accurate discernment can be made so far as what to recommend they do to a computer.
Also, I recognize Nergal's concern that it may raise CCleaner load time, but what would that add, perhaps 0.002 seconds or so to do a DX check & call up the single/dual/quad/hex etc core of the computer + the computer speed + the computer model + ram?
What I am thinking, is there must be a more reliable way of calling up the system information since it obviously is not working properly with an older OS, & since DXDIAG works across ALL Windows based platforms.
With this in mind, why not just call up the info using a DX checker? It seems this could solve all of the problems & perhaps call it up faster too?
Thanks!