Zephyrus Automatic System Controller

5 Nov, 2004 at 11:36pm ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   6 Nov 2004 ~ 12:27am Komete Thanks for the honest review
2. 
   6 Nov 2004 ~ 1:27am EMT There's a typo in that mini-summary you've got here and at least twice in the review... should read "it failed" eh?
3. 
   23 Nov 2004 ~ 1:26pm Unregistered Right on!! Pretty much similar (not so good) experiences I had with Zephyrus about a month ago. Finally have to take it out of my system and put a manual fan control in instead.
   
   Their website just posted an updated version of software (v.2.0.0.8)few days ago - which I'm not quite sure I want to try it now due to many sleepless nights encountered the last time. Anyone care to try?
4. 
   7 Dec 2004 ~ 6:44pm Unregistered Burning the thermistor was YOUR fault - on the back of the PCB was clearly pointed where to plug the thermistor. You have to be american not having noticed it...
5. 
   7 Dec 2004 ~ 6:53pm primesuspect Actually he's not american at all! Thanks for your intelligent opinion though, as it can only serve to make us all better people
6. 
   7 Dec 2004 ~ 7:20pm MediaMan

   Unregistered wrote:

   Burning the thermistor was YOUR fault - on the back of the PCB was clearly pointed where to plug the thermistor. You have to be american not having noticed it...

   
   
   The faulty thermistor was noticed as it came out of the package before anything was plugged in. Also...the manual should have had a warning to specifiy potential for damage if the thermistor were to be plugged into the wrong connection.
   
   If you assumed that it was plugged into the wrong connection then chances are good that someone else may do the same exact thing.
   
   There is also no need for or acceptance of slurs against country of origin in this forum.
   
   Thank you.
7. 
   6 Apr 2005 ~ 6:19pm Unregistered Thank you for the evaluation. Wish I had read it prior to my purchase. Although it was a difficult install, I purchased it for the automatic fan control and shutdown features, both of which function fine. I have had problems loading it during the startup but starting it with a delay script has solved that problem.
8. 
   19 Apr 2005 ~ 7:52pm Unregistered "Failed?" Why? A thermistor was burnt, a fan header didn't work (who here has *never* done an RMA?), and version 1.0 (!) of the software didn't work perfectly throughout? Is this this guy's first review?
9. 
   19 Apr 2005 ~ 7:58pm Thrax

   Unregistered wrote:

   "Failed?" Why? A thermistor was burnt, a fan header didn't work (who here has *never* done an RMA?), and version 1.0 (!) of the software didn't work perfectly throughout? Is this this guy's first review?

   
   No. Is this your first time posting on a message board?
10. 
    20 Apr 2005 ~ 12:29am Unregistered "No. Is this your first time posting on a message board?"
    
    No. Would you like to try writing something cogent -- or, at least, of substance, now?
11. 
    20 Apr 2005 ~ 2:24am MediaMan My dear guest.
    
    It is expected, when a product is purchased, that it will work as advertised. The review simply reported what was at hand. It would be a failing of mine to RMA the product, receive a new sample and not report was was problematic with the first.
    
    The majority of consumers do not want a product that is complicated, difficult to configure nor have features that do not work. Those that simply use a computer having no idea how it works, let alone be able to set one up, heavily outnumber the enthusiast.
    
    The Zephyrus ASC, while a good idea that has promise, failed to meet the aforementioned standards. That is more or less what is written in the review in that area between the first paragraph and the last.
    
    
    
    BTW...over 150 reviews for this site alone. I've dabbled in communications...30 or so training/corporate videos, a few infomercials, 1000 or so commercials...I've learned to keep an open mind about people and products. It helps me learn new things, appreciate knowledge and gain valuable perspective. There's always someone here who knows more than I and I certainly enjoy their wisdom and good company. Even you may be appreciative of what you'd learn when you read past the first paragraph.
    
    Please enjoy the rest of Short-Media.com
12. 
    23 Apr 2005 ~ 3:54pm The-Uninvited-Guest Our dear reviewer:
    
    It is heartening to note that the reviewer stays apprised of updates to the "comments" section, and it is my hope that I may once again hear from you rather than from a sycophantic jackanapes. I see also you have a penchant for sarcasm. Good.
    
    "It would be a failing of mine [sic] to RMA the product, receive a new sample and not report was was [sic] problematic with the first."
    
    Is that a greater or lesser "failing" than never performing the RMA, reviewing an obviously faulty unit, and then dwelling on faults that would be easily solved with a replacement unit (and others that could have been solved with an update to the device's software)? You have failed to make "100% clear" whether you did indeed get an RMA for the unit and reviewed the working replacement; there is only an oblique reference to how you usually do RMA's.
    
    Also, despite your earlier post in this "comments" section, it seems possible that you burned the thermistor yourself: "This could have arrived as is or it could have been burnt out by mistakenly plugging the thermistor lead into the 12 Volt "extended" header." (Emphasis added.) Later you state in the comments section that it did arrive burnt (please tell us; who else could have "mistakenly" plugged it in to a live feed), thus obviously failing to make "100% clear" which -- if either -- of these two apparently contradicting assertions you wish to purport as truth.
    
    Further, on page 4 it states, "Version 1.0.3.4 was also utilized in testing as VL System recommended the upgrade" though one can clearly see from the screenshots that version 1.0.2.2 is being installed. Either you're lying (which is unforgivable), or you failed to explain the obvious discrepancy and are instead merely criminally remiss in your duties as a reviewer (or, at least, again not "100% clear").
    
    "The majority of consumers do not want a product that is complicated, difficult to configure nor [sic] have [sic] features that do not work."
    
    Agreed! However, "the majority of consumers" do not want a temperature-sensitive fan speed control system (witness how many are available), much less know what one is or what benefits arise from the employment thereof. One of your reasons for saying this product "failed" is that "It took very careful study of the manual and trial and error to understand all of the features" though it takes both to torque the heads on a small-block Chevy. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'd say you're of the majority of car consumers -- and as such should not be trying to squeeze a few extra HP out of your vehicle by adding after-factory parts which are inevitably "complicated, [and] difficult to configure." Indeed, in your bulleted list which attempts (I imagine) to explain your decision that the device failed, you state both "Only one 3-pin extended 4-pin Molex lead was included" and "No 2-pin extended header lead was included." Pray tell, what does this mean to "the majority of consumers," and what is one such person to make of the cryptic phrase "It isn't even worth going into too much detail about the inverse voltage readings off the fan controller when measured by a voltmeter?" As for the features that did not work, perhaps that problem was solved in what was actually version 1.0.3.4 of their software.
    
    "The majority of consumers," as it seems, might just end up buying the device for what it's intended (instead of the enchanting process of installing and configuring it), as demonstrated by one of the previous comments: "Although it was a difficult install, I purchased it for the automatic fan control and shutdown features, both of which function fine." There you have it; this individual, who purchased the product for its intended use, tells us that it "function fine." Did I miss a similar comment somewhere in your review?
    
    Indeed, since and if I "read past the first paragraph," I find (after wading through several pages that are little if anything more than a tedious litany of feature explanations that would more appropriately be placed in documentation rather than a review) your conclusion, in which you list nothing but problems. Therein, there is not even one admission that *anything* worked! At best, there's the "Highs" section which may as well have been copied and pasted from the manufacturer's list of features.
    
    Should the product have been easier to install and configure? Certainly! Were you right to mention the difficulties in installation and configuration? Absolutely! However, installation and configuration, though necessary, are merely a prelude to the true function of the device and should not be dwelled on as the sole criteria for its rating. To state broadly that "it failed" and later "It would not be fair to write the Zephyrus Automatic System Controller off. To give this product a poor rating would be to condemn a good idea" is confusing; is saying "it failed" (twice, and once in the one-line product summary, no less!) neither giving the product a poor rating nor "writing it off?" It certainly seems "failed" is a "poor rating," but maybe I haven't been in enough info-mercials to know -- after all, I'm also having a hard time connecting the implication that you haven't "written it off" with the fact that there doesn't appear to be a "new and improved" Zephyrus review. Looks "written off" by a "poor rating" indeed.
    
    " I've dabbled in communications...30 or so training/corporate videos, a few infomercials, 1000 or so commercials."
    
    ...and I've dabbled in automotive mechanics, writing, scripting, bail bonds, and amateur pornography. My point? See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?non+sequitur , definition 2.
    
    At least, given your info-mercial experience, you'll know what I mean when I say that this is a true "set it and forget it" item; configuration is much less than 1% of usage. I wanted to know how well the thing worked, not just how hard it was to configure. I do hope your "open mind" has benefited from my "valuable perspective."
    
    Your review was what I was looking for... but it failed. If you "read past the first paragraph" doubtless you'll discover -- "more or less" -- why.
    
    Good day, Sir.
13. 
    23 Apr 2005 ~ 6:29pm Thrax I never thought it possible, but here's Thrax at 16 posting under a new name on this very forum! Complete with haughty italicized commentary, dictionary definitions, and an abundance of referential quotes, we behold a legacy rearing its ugly little head. Aaah, but who am I to judge? I'm nothing more than a sycophantic jacknape.
    
    But I suppose I should be less sarcastic and carefully tune myself to complex of arrogance; indeed why make a friendly point when I can prattle on in cavalier and labyrinthine diatribe of the finest sort?
    
    It's not what you say, rather how you say it. Despite your intention to make a point, and I dare say it was lost somewhere in the middle of your extravagantly over-quoted paragraphs, your resulting impression leaves a sour taste. I don't claim speak for everyone, however your affectations seem nothing more than a crass attempt at derisive imperiousness.
    
    Annoying, isn't it?
14. 
    26 Apr 2005 ~ 3:32am Linc Personally, I often find that pointing out typos in forum quotes by obnoxiously typing [sic] after them really helps people respect my opinions more.
15. 
    26 Apr 2005 ~ 3:38am profdlp

    General Keebler wrote:

    Personaly [sic], I oftun [sic] find that pointeng [sic] out tipos [sic] in forum quotes by obnockshusly [sic] tiping [sic] after them realily [sic] helps peeple [sic] respect my opinuns [sic] moar [sic].

    Mee, two.
16. 
    6 Jun 2005 ~ 3:02am The-Uninvited-Guest In the month since I have written my response, the best that the forum offers is a trio who can only either (rather mindlessly) point out the fact that I use "[sic]" to indicate that I am quoting an individual verbatim (rather than making, myself, the puerile spelling / grammar errors so quoted), and/or (at best) place thesaurus firmly in lap, search for The One Elusive Synonym to the word "red," and consequently subject me to a fusillade of ineptly employed vocabulary words ("derisive imperiousness" indeed!) while in the same breath hypocritically damning me for using those which exceed four syllables. Par for the course; go to sleep calmly tonight knowing that you're "special" -- not "Carl Sagan" special but rather "Short Bus" special -- and trouble yourselves no longer with the workings of minds whose depths you will never have the capability to plumb. Here's a dum-dum, you... well, you get it.
    
    I hope.
    
    Does anyone actually want to address ANY of the points I made -- or are you all here to play "burn the heretic" or "you disagree with me, therefore you must be destroyed?" Am I only to find comments -- worthy of even a cursory examination -- from those who quite literally espouse, in defiance of logic and even a modicum of intelligence, such regurgitated and patently stupid maxims as "It's not what you say, rather how you say it?" One plus one is two, no matter how it's said -- it's up to you to cope with it if its exhibition offends your delicate metrosexual sensibilities. It *IS* what I say. How I say it is something you should discuss with your shrink, your pillow, your hand puppet, or whatever / whomever consoles you when the Real World intrudes upon your drooling utopia.
17. 
    6 Jun 2005 ~ 3:47am Thrax Oh, he's back. And he thinks we haven't responded to him because we're incapable. How quaint.
    
    Welcome back.
18. 
    10 Aug 2005 ~ 10:06pm Xylo Do you still have the item? I'd really be interested in hearing an updated review w/ the latest software...
19. 
    21 Dec 2008 ~ 12:35am The Uninvited Guest OWNED.
20. 
    21 Dec 2008 ~ 12:45am Leonardo Please, get back on your meds. You're replying with a THREE AND A HALF YEAR OLD THREAD. For your convenience, you will notice the post dates at the top left margin of each post.
    
    If you have anything intelligent to contribute, you are certainly invited to register and join our community.
    

    OWNED

    I don't care if you are making payments on your bicycle or if you own it 'outright.' It's irrelevant to a dead, obsolete thread.
21. 
    21 Dec 2008 ~ 3:24am primesuspect lol
22. 
    21 Dec 2008 ~ 4:12pm Your-Amish-Daddy So...Why's this guy even here?
23. 
    21 Dec 2008 ~ 4:35pm primesuspect entertainment, I guess.
24. 
    22 Dec 2008 ~ 3:04am DrLiam He made a good point about the review and I'm disappointed there was no rebuttal. Even if he was a complete ass about it.
25. 
    22 Dec 2008 ~ 12:29pm Your-Amish-Daddy I make good points about all kinds of stuff, but nobody tells me anything. I guess that means weather he liked it or not, no one cared.
26. 
    6 Nov 2010 ~ 3:56am the uninvited guest Where's the update? I thought this product wasn't being "written off?"
27. 
    10 Nov 2010 ~ 3:07pm Tushon

    the uninvited guest wrote:

    Where's the update? I thought this product wasn't being "written off?"

    Where's the necromancy?