[donut]

Love this:

> Always look at the date when you read a hardware article. Some of the content in this article is most likely out of date, as it was written on September 19, 2011.

Not only do they have a date on the article (and many posts in recent years simply don't), but they draw your attention to it because it's long ago.

It's such a small but important detail. Instantly increases my trust for the company.

[reaperducer]

many posts in recent years simply don't

Blame Google. It favors the newest content, regardless of quality.

Lots of valuable information on the web is just not searchable on Google, even with exact phrasing.

Shakespeare is next.

[SilasX]

Okay, but also keep proper perspective. 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design.

Reminds me of the time some Rust advocates insisted 2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109418

[duskwuff]

> 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design.

But it is for most of the other articles this site publishes about consumer computer hardware, like the two that were published surrounding this one ([1], [2]). This article just happens to be an exception.

[1]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica...

[2]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica...

[411111111111111]

I don't think linking to that comment favours your point, honestly.

> Rust 1.0 was just released and the ecosystem was mostly maturing at that point. You're talking about version 0.2.36 of a library that had been in development for less than two years during a quite tempestuous time in Rust.

[SilasX]

And like I said at the time, that would excuse failure on some edge case. It wouldn't excuse the thing I was actually criticizing, that "the calls for common functions require you to specify low-level implementation details that don't matter to you". That's the kind of thing the typical software dev gets right when designing the function, because abstraction was very well understood in 2016.

It's not something they would only figure out after fixing the thousandth bug.

[anamexis]

The link seems to be you just constructing that straw man, with no one insisting on those things at all.

[SilasX]

I said the problem was that the function calls didn't obey well-understood practices for abstraction.[1]

Responses defend it on the grounds that it was a long time ago, i.e. 2016.

Where's the straw man?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093

[anamexis]

Where does anyone insist that "2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns"?

[SilasX]

Like I just said, the part where they insist my expectations of that library where too high because it was 2016, and my expectation was that it obeyed proper abstraction.

[anamexis]

I don't see anyone insisting on that, either.

[NavinF]

Linked thread shows you getting schooled. You used a crappy library that died before it ever made it to version 1.0, a mistake that everyone makes at least once.

On topic: This article was written by an SI (system integrator). 2011 is ancient history as far as PC hardware goes. Eg today's fans are a lot more efficient at the same price point and most enthusiasts need a lot more static pressure for radiators.

[AaronFriel]

Is Rust on topic here?

[jeffbee]

I actually came to complain about that warning. Why does it exist? These are just experimental observations. They are valid forever. Many of the thermodynamics texts I needed at university traced their first editions to the 19th century. They didn’t come with weird disclaimers.

[TehCorwiz]

While this is broadly true it does ignore some interesting developments in CPU fans. Ten years ago fan sizes were smaller and blade designs less differentiated. Now, there are fans optimized for air flow for air cooled systems and fans optimized for static pressure for cooling radiators in water cooled systems. This opens up a whole bunch of questions which may obsolete these results.

Does the change and differentiation in fan blade design have implications for grill interference noise with regards to this data? Do fans that are optimized for flow versus those for pressure behave the same? Do 80mm, 120mm, and 140mm all have the same grill noise characteristics?

[whyoh]

Anecdotal, but even with the new fans, stamped out grills still perform poorly in terms of noise. They're popular because they're cheap.

I'd gladly pay $10 more for a PC case with a less noisy grill, but I can't find any that has this, not even ones that are advertised as "silent".

[rtkwe]

It's a pretty easy mod if you really want to swap to wire grills. 10 minutes with a dremel and 10 more to make it look ok again and you can have a completely open fan mount.

[fomine3]

I did it for honeycomb grill with metal scissors, and replaced to cheap metal wire ring grille. It significantly reduces noise.

[rtkwe]

You're comparing fundamental laws of physics to consumer product interactions. PC fan design is not static on the quiet end and neither are grill designs though they're less fluid. The interaction between them matters though for the kinds of changes and noise they're trying to measure.

[hedora]

Well, for one thing, the once-excellent model of fan they picked aged as well as an avocado green Chevy Nova with a rusted out coffee can muffler:

https://graphicscardhub.com/best-silent-pc-fans/

[elabajaba]

That list is terrible. They clearly didn't do any testing and just copied off the spec sheet, and ignored what enthusiasts actually recommend as good fans in 2022 (Corsair fans are terrible, Arctic F12 instead of P12, etc).

[afterburner]

Weird, I remember Noctua fans being really good ten years ago too. Choosing Antec feels like a deliberately mid-range choice, but I don't remember how they were thought of back then.

[npteljes]

I suspect it's the feature of the website engine. I have seen it on other websites as well - it just appends this disclaimer, after a preset amount of time.

[Karliss]

Yes few clicks looking at other articles on that website confirm that they show that warning for all posts older than ~1 year. Makes sense for a blog focusing mostly on latest computer hardware and software benchmarks which can get outdated quit quickly.

[robertlagrant]

It's not weird, and it's not a disclaimer! Many articles I come across online don't have a date on them.