Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Sun Jun 27 21:20:03 2010
Next: double exposure
From: za kAT on 27 Jun 2010 19:50
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:43:01 +0200, rotfl wrote:

> za kAT wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:58:55 +0200, rotfl wrote:
>>>
>>> Most problems people have using it are due to them not understanding
>>> how it works, how to set it up and correctly set the various parms;
>>> there is a learning curve.
>>
>>Interesting. Can you publish your research data. I would be interested
>>in seeing your findings.
>>
>>Unless you are bullshitting, and just made that up?
>
>
> "research data"? "findings"?
>
> What are you blathering on about Mr Allmouth & Knickers?
>
> I have used SF for maybe 5 years and know how it works, many don't and
> give up; it's not easy to setup/fine tune to get it working at its
> best. Nevertheless, once a user does understand, it works flawlessly at
> controlling multiple fan speeds, mobo permitting.
>
> IF you can read, I suggest you take a trip over and read the SF forum
> going back several years. All the "research data" and "findings" you
> could ever wish for is there.

Wow! You correlated all that just for us <sigh>

How do you find the time...

--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416.
Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: rotfl on 28 Jun 2010 00:16
Yrrah wrote:

>rotfl <email.frank...(a)yahoo.com.sg>:
>
>> Speedfan is the gold standard for this task.
>
>A silly comparison. SpeedFan can do a lot more than Core Temp

Yes, that was explained to you earlier :-)

>...and really is a different type of program altogether.

No it's not. Both handle fan speed control. How can they be
"a different type of program altogether"?

>Besides, there is no "gold standard or this task".

Yes there is. "gold standard" = best in class.
In this case it's Speedfan. But as I said, it has a learning curve.


>> Most problems people have using it are due to them not understanding
>> how it works, how to set it up and correctly set the various parms;
>> there is a learning curve.

>Don't worry, the world knows that you are a brilliant computer
>scientist.

Wrong, but seemingly I know more than you :-)


>Most people (average PC users) don't need SpeedFan and/or don't want
>to bother calibrating and configuring it, perhaps because they have a
>life and have more important or more interesting things to do.
>However, people may want to use a small and simple utility for keeping
>an eye on the CPU temperature.

Maybe. Myself and the other poster were just appraising you of
Speedfan. I've no idea why you became so hot and bothered about it and
got so nasty. Are you feeling alright? Take a lie down.

<shrug>


rotfl

From: email.franklin on 28 Jun 2010 04:15
za kAT uttered:

>"Wow! You correlated all that just for us"

"correlated"?

You're still blathering Mr Allmouth & Knickers.
Your latest big words and buzz phrases don't impress me.

This is not a comparative test for two new op/sys. It's a simple matter
of using Speedfan over a period of time and learning how to set it up
and use it effectively. If you didn't have a reading and comprehension
problem, you could do the same. <sigh>


HTH


rotfl
"You have been found guilty of denigration"

From: rotfl on 28 Jun 2010 13:10
Franklin wrote:
>"Speedfan needs almost no setting up."


Complete and utter bollix.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.



rotfl.

From: rotfl on 28 Jun 2010 23:29
Bear Bottoms wrote:

>Out of the box, little setting is required. If you wish to go farther
>there are setting options for that. Like many good programs, it is
>suitable for novices yet has enough tweak/setting options to satisfy
>the geeks.

Franklin is wrong.

Out of the box Speedfan picks up all the mobo sensors but is unable to
identify which sensor is for which fan, only where it sits on the buses.

Essential:
The user has to identify which sensor is for which fan (some people
have a problem doing this because it often requires taking the system
side cover off and disconnecting each fan in turn to see which one goes
dead in SF). Then each sensor ID has to be renamed accordingly. Without
doing this the temp/fan speed settings for each fan are useless and the
user will never know what fan he is controlling. This is unavoidable
if a user's system has multiple fans as many do nowadays -- and these
are the people who most often use SF.

Less essential for some:
One has to determine what the *normal* idle and working temps are for
the CPU (and each core) and other areas where 4-wire fans are installed
to cool things down to set the fans to achieve whatever temps are
desired. Setting any fan to run at full speed all the time is defeating
the object of using SF. This process is often subject to fine tuning
over a week or two to get SF running at its best. The objective here is
to get the fans running as slow as possible _consistent_ with achieving
the desired temps.

Then one has to decide which fan(s) to rev up when any particular
temp rises above the limit you've set, and set SF accordingly. eg: you
wouldn't want the CPU cooler fan to rev up if your HDD temp rose and
vice-versa, but you might want your case fan to rev up if the internal
system box temp rose. etc etc. All this is available to set in SF.

Anybody who has a system with only one controllable fan or cannot tune
SF to actually control their fan speed is better advised to use the
fan control facility often supplied nowadays in mobo BIOS.

rgds
rotfl

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Sun Jun 27 21:20:03 2010
Next: double exposure