Talk:SpeedFan

"Current" Alternatives

Under "Reception", it mentions that "Current alternatives to SpeedFan include Open Hardware Monitor, Motherboard Monitor and RealTemp". The page for Motherboard Monitor says it hasn't been updated since 2006, and as best I can recall, I was forced to stop using it completely after upgrading from XP to Win 7 due to incompatibility (unlike Speedfan which, despite being essentially abandoned a few years ago, is still compatible with modern systems). This hardly makes it sound like a viable alternative, much less a current one. The MBM page itself mentions Argus Monitor (hopefully I didn't just link to the lizard) as an alternative, which - being a paid, commercial package - is only sort of in the same category as Speedfan & Open Hardware Monitor, but it appears to cover a lot of the same functionality and is apparently still being actively developed, so, if replacing rather than dropping the metion of MBM, it might make a better candidate. 71.234.116.22 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

drive-by tagging

This article received a drive-by tag of advert, npov, and cleanup, with no discussion in the talk page. I'm not disputing any of it, but removed the tags until someone can discuss the relevant points. wraith808 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SpeedFan crashed my computer

I edited this article after SpeedFan crashed my computer & corrupted the registry. I chose to reinstall XP rather than take my chances, since registry corruption was obvious; my computer is for professional multi-track audio recording, and I can't have any instability. I found so many references to this happening to others that I had to warn people about this, hence my added "Dangers" section.

I'm not a regular wiki contributor, and I don't have an account, but if you want to contact me you can do this via d0s4d1@yahoo.com.

dosadi (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.87.247 (talk)

This is correct. Any kind of power failure, unclosed files, and so on, can cause corruption. BTW: If you had a system restore point from before installing SpeedFan, this could have been fixed in 5 minutes. 71.196.246.113 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Some n00b undid my edits with no talk page

User 109.154.160.28 undid the edits I made in SpeedFan's article. This user has made no other Wikipedia contributions.

My edits were appropriate, pointing out the risk of installing Ring 0 software (software that can do *anything* to your computer). I documented links to discussion forums & web pages that showed evidence of the software causing computers to crash, which carries the risk of data corruption.

So who is this 109.154.160.28 who changed it? Can we have a discussion first? I'm going to restore that section for now, and if I did something wrong, can someone tell me rather than just change things with no conversation? D0s4d1 (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Keila

Crashes attribution

The entire section of crashing is attributed to one unverified forum post. This hardly seems accurate. D0s4d1 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Keila

Actually, it even says in the manuals of these types of programs that they can crash the PC... It warns you in SpeedFan specifically that disabling fans or tweaking CPU speeds can 'lead to system instability'. On some chipsets, just 'probing' them with the wrong method will crash some chip on the bus, possibly even including the bridges. That's why there's a big warning on the chipset tweaker in pretty much ALL such programs. SpeedFan, i8k, etc. Go look them up.  ;) Calling it a rootkit is partially correct, in the same way that a parallel-port bit-banging driver or antivirus is. The actually correct technical terms are pointer or reflection or redirect or vector depending on the technology (Intel used the term interrupt vector and DOS programmers kept the term, for example). It's essentially like a software interrupt but patches the pointers instead of instructions. 71.196.246.113 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Crashes attribution

To 71.196.246.113 and to the attention of a real Wiki editor:

1) You failed to provide a rationale for deleting my text, but deleted it anyway.

2) You have not registered an account, so I don't really know you or your editing history. This makes it difficult to evaluate your response to me because after reading your comments above, I feel like I was talked down to or dismissed by someone who expects to have a final say on the matter.

3) One example I added was presented as an eye-witness account, which was my own personal experience with the software. If you dispute the accuracy of that eye-witness account, say why. Or was that an implied ad-hominim?

4) If SpeedFan's manual states that this type of program can crash a PC, that information is valid for inclusion in this Wiki article. Since you deleted my text, why don't you add that instead, with a citation. The statement should be sufficient for the casual computer user to understand the risk, which is an ordinary but tangible risk.

5) Many of the statements you made in your arguments here are true but irrelevant. The comments do not seem to constitute evidence pertinent to the main point at issue, which is that my section contained a useful caution to the casual user of this computer software. Please argue on the point, not around it.

6) Is someone from SpeedFan company changing this page? This is the second time someone anonymous has just deleted something without a useful discussion here.

The point is that it is Ring 0 software and hooks deep into the OS--which is risky, but necessary for this type of program to function since it monitors low-level hardware attributes. I don't care if it is called a hook, an interrupt vector, a redirect, or whatever, but that activity carries inherent risks any time it is used by any program. My edit illustrated that risk in general, specifically to this software, and specifically in one particular case. The researcher of that case study can draw their own conclusions because it is backed up with data and observations. Your argument here is not.

D0s4d1 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing instead of re-adding again (which will ultimately be edit warring, even if it's very slow, over many months). To your points above: 1) see my #2 below. 2) We encourage discussion of controversial additions and deletions, but can't force editors to do it. WP:BRD applies: you were bold, another editor deleted, and should have discussed, but that doesn't invalidate the deletion in this case (see below). 2) You can wonder about an editor, nobody here is really required to reveal anything about themselves. 71.196.246.113 does have an WP:Edit history[1]. Anyways, we're all just editors, in a mostly flat heirarchy. 3) Eyewitness accounts and "data and observations" are what we call WP:Original research. Wikipedia only paraphrases or quotes published reliable sources. 4) There is a WP:BURDEN on the adding editor to add reliable sources. SpeedFan's manual, if linkable, would count as a primary source which can be reliable about SpeedFan but not about anything else. 5) It's better to discuss in thread, rather than start over with a new section - the 71.196 IP editor was reasoning about the relevance of the section, but did not cite policy. I would have. 6) 71.196.246.113 geolocates to Colorado Springs, CO, not Italy. I'm not seeing evidence of WP:Conflict of interest editing which slants the article against what reliable sources say about the software.

About the edits themselves

1. Your addition of the ==Dangers== section in 2010 [2] cited 4 forums, and a 2005 SpeedFan Bugtrack entry. The forums are not allowed as sources, and the 2005 Bugtrack entry was quite out of date, and marked fixed as of 2006. Please see Wikipedia's sourcing policy Verifiability, the firm guideline WP:Identifying reliable sources, and the related examples essay. The extraordinary claim "this software damages computers" requires citations of very reliable sources. On the other hand, the unremarkable statement that in general, "software crashes", is not required to be stated here, nor in every other software article.
2. 71.196.246.113 correctly deleted the section eight hours later [3] per RS, but indeed should have left an WP:Edit summary to that effect.
3. Your re-addition of the ==Risks== section in 2011 [4] used two forums and the 2005 Speedfan bugtrack. See #1.
4. The 2013 deletion [5] by another IP editor was also correct based on the sourcing; although the edit summary argued phrasing based on opinion, but failed to cite WP:RS or WP:V. As a result, it was an unhelpful summary.

So basically the deletions were correct. As you gain experience editing, familiarity with the key policies will grow naturally. You're welcome to propose something for the article, based solely on what SpeedFan states in its documentation, but I recommend proposing it here first. --Lexein (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)