Talk:USB flash drive/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Alternative Names
Wanted to add alternative names but at top of article in edition mode saw following comment "please do not add alternative names, see talk archives for long history". I cannot see anything related to "alternative names" on this present talk page. Could someone make it clearer (link, better explanations about location, etc...) where this "long history" about alternative names is? Thanks. 77.186.198.15 (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Have a look though the talk archives Talk:USB flash drive/Archive 3 , also this is what the section used to look like. Roughly speak there are 100 possible names, no obvious priority, lots of trouble gettign proper references for them. Also I'm going to revert you last edit since it just seems to be a link to a page that generates redirects to this page. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the precise pointers to the discussion history, very appreciated. I completely get the point that the listing of alternative names shouldn't be made directly inside the article. But why not simply pointing to it? This is very relevant, valuable, informational and helpful information that without any doubts deserved to be found easily by article readers and, as it is only a link, it prevents the drawbacks listed in the discussion happening. 77.186.198.15 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the list of redirects to this page is not really a currated list. I could for example create something like Monkey drive as a redirect and it unlikely that anyone would question it. There are no references on how correct or incorrect items on the list are. A term like USB is common but not on the list because it has another primary meaning. Overall the list isn't really better thaan a random list somebody has written - SimonLyall (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia redirects can be permanently bullshitted / randomized without anybody questioning and/or correcting them (unlike any other Wikipedia edit), then this is a major flaw in Wikipedia. Is anybody doing anything to solve this problem?!?! 217.186.101.161 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "What links here" can always be used for an article or any other page to show which redirects and other pages point/link to it. It's just a matter of using that feature. At the same time, new pages—including redirects—are regularly checked for obvious problems. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting answer. Does this mean that the list of redirects (or any similarly generated list which could also automatically include disambiguated terms that point to the article to eliminate the "alternative names with another primary meaning are not listed" argument, etc...) can be referred to from within the article to list alternative names as the previous editor did (please argument logically and solidly with clear references to Wikipedia rules, etc...)? 77.77.150.55 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:ELPOINTS, external links "should not normally be used in the body of an article", and such a list would be an external link. Also, articles should not contain links to redirect pages that redirect back to the article itself, per WP:REPEATLINK. With all that in mind, I don't see how—and more importantly why—something like that could or should be done. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- From a pragmatical and utilitarianist point of view, as Wikipedia is a major source of information for most people, it seems it would be better to provide a relevant information (i.e. in this case a list of alternative names which is subject to Wikipedia verifiability and notability criteria) that is around 90% useful for around 90% of people rather than providing no information at all which is around 0% useful for around 100% of people. But the rules are the rules (and trying to change them would probably be a big endeavor), thank you for referring to them in your answer. 77.77.150.55 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Anyway, no matter how usable would it be to provide a list of alternative names, I'd say that only one of the images already available in the article is good enough for 99.9% of readers to figure out what the article describes, regardless of which alternative name they're familiar with. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think what you describe is not the most useful use case indeed ;) In terms of useful use cases, I was more thinking something along (just an example): I'm talking to someone (face-to-face i.e. no time to check anything online, don't want to ask my interlocutor because I'm afraid my interlocutor think I'm lame, etc...) and that someone uses the term Pendrive or Cruzer, etc... (without clear disambiguating contextual information). Then if in the past I read the USB flash drive Wikipedia article and there was a link to a list of alternative names and I read that list as well I would immediately know what my interlocutor is talking about. If there was not such a list in the Wikipedia article then I wouldn't be sure what my interlocutor is exactly talking about (if I didn't already know this term from other sources obviously). Hence the Wikipedia article would have been less useful for me by definition. Another potentially (but more trivial) useful use case: I read the list and I am curious who uses / in which context is used the term Pendrive. I do a web search on this term and now I know. I'm sure there are other (more) useful use cases. The rational way to determine if such a list would be useful to readers would be to make a readers survey. I guess it's not really practical. But my intuition (obviously biased, because I personally find this information very useful) is that most readers would find this information relevant and useful for a number of use cases (and more trivially simply the feel-good effect of knowing this list as reading Wikipedia is not just about finding useful information it's also the pleasure of reading, learning stuff even if it has no immediate direct use) 77.77.150.55 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there's good news – that should be already covered. :) Redirects show up in autocompleted suggestion lists displayed upon entering terms into search boxes around Wikipedia. Once a suggested article/redirect title is selected, it leads either to an article, or to a disambiguation page. Thus, a reader should be at the right place either by being immediately presented with an article, or by selecting one of the meanings listed on the disambiguation page. Sounds usable? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, "what links here" is present in each article's toolbox on the left side of the screen... That could freely be considered as a kind of the alternative names list. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think what you describe is not the most useful use case indeed ;) In terms of useful use cases, I was more thinking something along (just an example): I'm talking to someone (face-to-face i.e. no time to check anything online, don't want to ask my interlocutor because I'm afraid my interlocutor think I'm lame, etc...) and that someone uses the term Pendrive or Cruzer, etc... (without clear disambiguating contextual information). Then if in the past I read the USB flash drive Wikipedia article and there was a link to a list of alternative names and I read that list as well I would immediately know what my interlocutor is talking about. If there was not such a list in the Wikipedia article then I wouldn't be sure what my interlocutor is exactly talking about (if I didn't already know this term from other sources obviously). Hence the Wikipedia article would have been less useful for me by definition. Another potentially (but more trivial) useful use case: I read the list and I am curious who uses / in which context is used the term Pendrive. I do a web search on this term and now I know. I'm sure there are other (more) useful use cases. The rational way to determine if such a list would be useful to readers would be to make a readers survey. I guess it's not really practical. But my intuition (obviously biased, because I personally find this information very useful) is that most readers would find this information relevant and useful for a number of use cases (and more trivially simply the feel-good effect of knowing this list as reading Wikipedia is not just about finding useful information it's also the pleasure of reading, learning stuff even if it has no immediate direct use) 77.77.150.55 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Anyway, no matter how usable would it be to provide a list of alternative names, I'd say that only one of the images already available in the article is good enough for 99.9% of readers to figure out what the article describes, regardless of which alternative name they're familiar with. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- From a pragmatical and utilitarianist point of view, as Wikipedia is a major source of information for most people, it seems it would be better to provide a relevant information (i.e. in this case a list of alternative names which is subject to Wikipedia verifiability and notability criteria) that is around 90% useful for around 90% of people rather than providing no information at all which is around 0% useful for around 100% of people. But the rules are the rules (and trying to change them would probably be a big endeavor), thank you for referring to them in your answer. 77.77.150.55 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, per WP:ELPOINTS, external links "should not normally be used in the body of an article", and such a list would be an external link. Also, articles should not contain links to redirect pages that redirect back to the article itself, per WP:REPEATLINK. With all that in mind, I don't see how—and more importantly why—something like that could or should be done. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting answer. Does this mean that the list of redirects (or any similarly generated list which could also automatically include disambiguated terms that point to the article to eliminate the "alternative names with another primary meaning are not listed" argument, etc...) can be referred to from within the article to list alternative names as the previous editor did (please argument logically and solidly with clear references to Wikipedia rules, etc...)? 77.77.150.55 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- "What links here" can always be used for an article or any other page to show which redirects and other pages point/link to it. It's just a matter of using that feature. At the same time, new pages—including redirects—are regularly checked for obvious problems. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia redirects can be permanently bullshitted / randomized without anybody questioning and/or correcting them (unlike any other Wikipedia edit), then this is a major flaw in Wikipedia. Is anybody doing anything to solve this problem?!?! 217.186.101.161 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the list of redirects to this page is not really a currated list. I could for example create something like Monkey drive as a redirect and it unlikely that anyone would question it. There are no references on how correct or incorrect items on the list are. A term like USB is common but not on the list because it has another primary meaning. Overall the list isn't really better thaan a random list somebody has written - SimonLyall (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the precise pointers to the discussion history, very appreciated. I completely get the point that the listing of alternative names shouldn't be made directly inside the article. But why not simply pointing to it? This is very relevant, valuable, informational and helpful information that without any doubts deserved to be found easily by article readers and, as it is only a link, it prevents the drawbacks listed in the discussion happening. 77.186.198.15 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just before answering you: another use case that came to my mind is: you find that using / saying "U-S-B-flash-drive" is way too long / effortful / didactic and you would like to use another much shorter term, then the list of alternative terms would come very handy. Regarding the autocompletion suggestion : I was not really able to make that work for me and to be honest this kind of dynamic HTML can be very brittle and might not work on all devices, platforms, browsers, configs, etc... So I find this too technologically-based imho. Regarding the "what links here" link, it is a much larger superset of links than simply the list of redirects so not that useful to use as a list of alternative names imho. Most articles in Wikipedia which match several terms begin with "blabla (also known as ..., or ..., ...) is ..." for example "A solid-state drive (SSD) (also known as a solid-state disk or electronic disk, ...) is ...". I understand that there are too many alternative names for USB flash drive to list them directly in the article. But imho this is not a good enough reason to completely sweep them under the carpet. There has to be a more satisfying solution. The list of redirects has drawbacks but at least it is something to begin with and that can be improved upon. I remember when I was a kid, the paper encyclopaedia of my parents was accompanied by a thesaurus, I think this is what is missing in Wikipedia. Actually, talking about that, I've just come across this new project: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Wikisaurus . So a solution might be to link to this http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=USB+flash+drive&ns110=1&fulltext=Search+Wikisaurus (although empty for now) or directly to this for now: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flash_drive#Synonyms . I am not too sure what the best solution is, and it's not up to me to decide anyway, this would require consensus. What I'm pretty sure of is that no matter how long is the list of alternative names, completely sweeping it under the carpet is not the best solution. 77.77.150.55 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, would this be some kind of a compromise to note that a variety of other names also exist? That way we have no lengthy lists as part of the article, while it's clearly noted that alternative names do exist, and readers can easily have a look at them. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you so much :) I think indeed at this point in time this is the best quick win-win compromise indeed :) Another benefit from this compromise is that the list of redirects will come under more eyeballs and hence under stronger scrutiny so more people will have a chance to question and/or prove/disprove the verifiability and notability of the redirects.
- To perfect this list and include the alternative names which also have other primary meanings as rightly noted by SimonLyall (for example UFD, USB, ...) the next step would be to try to automatically generate a list that includes these as well. I've come across this generated page: http://dbpedia.org/page/USB_flash_drive which includes these but much more info as well. I think this very interesting DBpedia project provides some promising tools that could make it possible (at least in theory) to generate a HTTP GET query that extracts precisely the information to build a list of {redirects + disambiguates}. That would be something to investigate / play with (but personally unfortunately I don't have much time to spend on that at the moment). Anyway thank you very much for your great contributions -and SimonLyall as well- :) and talk to you another time. Bye for now. 77.77.150.55 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Why compare it to an optical drive in the first paragraph?
Generally, optical drives or disks are read-only, sometimes write-once or write-rarely. Second, they are much rarer than flash drives, especially these days. Can this comparison be deleted, or replaced? 08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Inventor of the USB flash drive?
Who is in fact the inventor of the USB flash drive?
Another Wikipedia article claims that a Singaporean "Henn Tan" invented the Flash Drive (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henn_Tan). Henn Tan, who owns Trek Technologies, has won a patent suit in Singapore, and lost the patent in UK on grounds that its specification was not specific enough. The latter information is, however, available in this article.
I posit that this article can be improved if it can resolve this issue by citing a source as who who is in fact the inventor rather than by simply asserting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenxj (talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USB flash drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071004175258/http://www.corsairmemory.com/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf to http://www.corsairmemory.com/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305041708/http://www.sandisk.com:80/Products/Item(1219)-SDDR-108-A11M-SanDisk_MobileMate_Memory_Stick_Plus_4in1_Reader.aspx to http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(1219)-SDDR-108-A11M-SanDisk_MobileMate_Memory_Stick_Plus_4in1_Reader.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unerasability
This article completely ignores the serious difficulty of effectively erasing data to make it unrecoverable. The wear leveling feature apparently makes it extremely difficult to overwrite sensitive data. Many sources say it is better to physically destroy the drive if the data is important. An 18-page pdf article on the problem is at https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Wei.pdf agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Usb flash memory longevity approximation
Premise: this is a suggestion that could be highly variable according to the type of memory used (as written in the article itself).
In the case one is going to use a certain type of usb stick (for standardized procedures, like installing vmware esxi host on usb sticks as mentioned in the KB: 2004784 of the vmware knowledge base) could be helpful to test one of the usb sticks just to have a loose reference (since could be that that usb stick will show a performance that is an outlier compared to the others of the same type). One way to test it is the program ChkFlsh mentioned here: http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php?topic=137668.0 . The program could write and verify the writing on a logical partition over the usb stick (testing directly the physical disk does not work properly), writing entire sectors every time, so without stressing the single sector of the usb stick more than needed.
In general if one assumes that each cell has an average lifetime of 10k writes, and the controller of the usb stick is going to distribute the writes over all the cells using wear leveling mechanisms, one can estimate the likely lifetime of a usb stick. Of course the approximation should be conservative to avoid being disappointed but still could be a useful guideline.
For example let's say that a esxi 5.1.x host writes
more or less 100 kilobytes in different files every 10 minutes in terms of configuration files (the /etc/ folder).
In sectors of 512bytes this means 200 sectors written every 10 minutes. With a usb stick of 4 billion bytes (not 4 Gigabytes) one has
around 7'800'000 sectors. With the lifetime for every cell equal to 10'000 writes,
one can expect to accumulate 78'000'000'000 writes before one sector fails (and even in that case
could be that the usb stick has spare sectors or could remap the sector to one of those still working)
With a frequency of 200 sectors written every 10 minutes one has a bit less than
30'000 writes every day. This means that to get an error one should wait 2'600'000 days
before an error occurs, that is quite a time.
In conclusion usb sticks used for not so frequent write usage and high valued data (an entire esxi installation could be quite useful) should be very reliable. Pier4r (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on USB flash drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206095926/http://corsairmemory.com:80/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf to http://www.corsairmemory.com/_faq/FAQ_flash_drive_wear_leveling.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Notability of 512
If the 512 gig and 1 tera drives debuted the same week is it even worth mentioning the 512? I could see the relevance if it had debuted sooner but not when they co-debut. Ranze (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Malicious edits
The edits made at 21.18 on 18 September are malicious. They need to be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.77.6 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Reference 7 is protected from editing. It contains an error of three orders of magnitude (1,000) by stating that 1 billion cycles taken at 100 per day would consume 27 years. That would be a million cycles. A billion cycles would take over 270 centuries. Catenary (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Patent Controversy
The article does not even mention Israels contribution to creating the USB drive let alone that M-systems the Israeli company won the patent right. [1] Please Fix this. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.12.35 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Dov Moran invented the USB flash drive in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.152.46 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Longevity
Wikipedia says flash memory can work for 100 years, this is stupid, is not at all, and the source is a present shop of flash memories....¿??¿? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.210.95 (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Inappropriate source
Source 77 is a list of products for sale - has nothing to do with write cycle count — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.60.240 (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
details of issue
can anyone share me what is the issue with that page..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetika Bhayana (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
weigh
Write that it's normally less than 30 grams and not 28, I know that 1 OZ is 28 grams (who even uses imperial units anymore) but it's an approximated comparaison and not a fixed value so it's better to write 30 grams. 2A01:E35:8A04:9920:1D7C:65C6:1FB1:858A (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Needs correction
The lead claims that a USB flash drive is "typically" smaller than an optical drive. This is outdated and no longer true and hasn't been for years!! Even on a cost per GB basis, (for retail products) USB technology is less expensive than DVD or Blu-Ray. (I suspect mass produced optical disks may be less expensive per GB, but that would require an authoritative source and most likely hard to pin down - although the fact that physical distribution of commercial electronic media (software, music, video,...) uses optical disks is strong evidence for it...)40.142.185.108 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Different image under Flash Memory Cards section?
The picture for the Flash Memory Cards section is pretty low quality and distorted, which makes it pretty hard to compare sizes. Avithemom (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Outdated Source
At the beginning of the article, I found a source about the 2 TB limit for flash drives from 2016. I am pretty sure that I have seen flash drives with higher capacities so I was going to ask for someone to update the beginning of the article. Thanks :) Lucky7Chromebook (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate Picture Caption?
I had that exact same Cruiser drive in like 2006 iirc. Not ever sure whether they were still available in 2011 but if so, they probably wouldn't have been available in sizes as small as 4Gb. In fact I think that model was superseded within a year with a chrome-rimmed version - unless the latter is just from a higher line. Anyway I haven't researched any of this but from experience I find it hard to believe they had this same item on the shelves for like five years. It also had a weird, short-lived gimmick where it was pre-installed with some launch software like a virtual hard disk that would be problematic on some systems or under certain circumstances. But I'd better keep reading the article, ay, because I could be digging a hole here.
NotPedanticReally (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)