Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 5 April 2019

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronics High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Invention Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

The contents of the Disk on module page were merged into Solid-state drive on July 21, 2014‎. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see Error: Invalid time. its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the History of solid state drives page were merged into Solid-state drive on August 5, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

See old talk page here

This page has archives. Sections older than 99 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Susceptibility to magnetic fields

This section is bad. The cited reference includes some talk on the subject, but lacks any expert statements. At best it includes a few people who claim hard drives were damaged by magnets, but I doubt many of the individuals are experts. The magnetic fields required for writing to a modern hard drive are very intense. My understanding is you could put a rare earth magnet directly onto a modern disk platter and the magnetic field of the magnet would fail to damage any data (instead dust and tiny scratches from the contact might well damage the platter). 207.172.210.101 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! You're right, thank you for pointing it out! The reference was a low-quality one, so I went ahead and made the changes that provided accurate information and much better references. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are decent, but this these mean that portion of the article needs fixing. Ideally I'd link to sections 4 and the epilogues of the first link (Peter Gutmann paper), which effectively say modern disks (>1GB) are essentially immune to external magnetic fields. The kjmagnetics reads like an amateur experiment (not necessarily bad, but be careful of conclusions!) and says the same thing, their report of mechanical scrapping could well have been due to distorting the case of the drive rather than anything having to do with properties of the magnetic field. "Very old hard drives (less than a gigabyte) may have been at some risk from external magnetic fields, but any drive larger than a gigabyte is essentially immune to external magnetic fields"? 207.172.210.101 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure that 1 GB is specified in references as a clear capacity-based division between susceptible and resistant drives... Am I missing something? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, 'tis not. The reference was stating post-1990 hard drives were pretty well immune. Bit more recollection, I think 100MB drives were coming out around then, so that may be a better rough guide. The real issue is larger drives have to be less susceptible otherwise the write process would corrupt nearby bits (therefore storage size is a better guide than manufacture date). I don't have any references other than my memory. 207.172.210.101 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Soppprt versi.9.0 Samsungalaxy (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SLC, MLC and TLC NAND

Should this not be included in the article? http://www.speedguide.net/faq/slc-mlc-or-tlc-nand-for-solid-state-drives-406 BP OMowe (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

TBW

I have seen the term TBW used in SSD specifications and came here to try to find out what it meant. I was disappointed. I eventually discovered that it stood for Terabytes Written in reference to an SSD's expected lifetime. Please can one of the article's main editors add this. Viewfinder (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Graphics

The most intuitive dysfunction refers to the moving parts in an HDD. Some people are unclear on that through influence only. As a matter of fact, it IS known that there are no moving parts in an SDD, like the disk found in the HDD, which IS slower than an SSD. For future reference try checking out how an SSD IS like a disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:140f:74da:270a:b1df (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alignment in Wikitables

I think the data looks better in the section I edited (30/12/2017), but would look better still if the colon's were aligned instead of simply centering the text.

In MathJax this is `\begin{align} ... &: ... &: ... \end{align}`, with the ampersand aligning the next character, in this case the colons, but is it possible with Wiki markup?

Darcourse (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This article confuses the M.2 form factor (family of form factors) with the NVMe protocol

There are statements regarding, e.g., the speed of M.2 drives, which are only true when the M.2 drive uses the NVMe protocol, while overlooking the fact that other M.2 drives use the SATA protocol. (I believe the term "protocol" is more appropriate than "interface" here, and form factor is something else again.)

I'm having a first pass at correcting the issue, but someone else who's more informed on the subject should improve the article further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.F.Galway (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

64GB SATA SSD from 1978; 41 years ago?!?

SATA was created in the year 2000 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/Serial_ATA ). And in 1978 the best hard disks were in the megabyte range... So please consider the following image caption in the article as maybe not fully correct:

A Super Talent Technology 2.5" Serial ATA solid-state drive Date invented 1978; 41 years ago Invented by Storage Technology Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.243.131 (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It was correct but misleading, better now. Tom94022 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mtron SSD.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede image

I restored the image of Sandisk's 2.5 and 3.5-inch SSDs to the lede replacing a rather undistiguished image of a minor participant. As noted in the LEDE, SanDisk was the first to promulgate Flash based storage. It was also first to introduce in 2.5 and 3.5-inch form factor SSDs which continue to be the major market segment. If other editors think the current image is inappropriate then it should be replaced by a state-of the art SSD from one of the top three vendors. Tom94022 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE and MOS:LEADELEMENTS state that the lead image should be technically well-produced and representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. The current lead image is neither well-produced nor does it serve the main purpose of a lead image.

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think most people can see the huge difference in quality between the current image and the image I replaced it with. One is not only technically higher quality but also has better composition, lighting, color balance, and is focused clearly on a single subject, making it easy to recognise what is being depicted even from a 250px thumbnail. As for the subjects depicted, I think it's rather obvious that a picture of a 20-year-old piece of technology that differs quite a bit from the average SSD of today doesn't help most readers recognise what the article is about. Which manufacturer did what and at what time is completely irrelevant.

Brands are also not relevant for the aforementioned reasons, and therefore the notion that the lead image needs to be from a specific brand or one of an arbitrary number of financially succesful brands can be dismissed out of hand. The large majority of modern SSDs come in the same form factor, that being the 2.5-inch HDD size with minor differences in height, and choosing an image that depicts such an SSD will help the reader to recognise the subject.

If there is a problem with the image I added, then this one could be used as a replacement. While it's not quite as a high quality as my first choice, it does clearly show the SATA and power pins, which in that regard is more illustrative than either of the previous images.

Also note that MOS:LEAD explicitly states in the opening paragraph that lead sections of Misplaced Pages articles are lead paragraphs, not lede paragraphs.

Regarding the other images that were in the lead section and not in the body for no apparent benefit. While I've not seen it explicitly stated that the lead should only have one image, the fact that the Manual of Style and all the help pages I've found talk about a lead image, singular, implies that there should only be a single image in the lead. Unless specifically placed inside an infobox, the lead is supposed to have only one image. I've never seen a Good or Featured article with multiple lead images in the manner of this article. However, I'm going to ask for clarification to this at the MoS/Lead section talk page and leave the other images in the lead intact while I replace the clearly inferior main lead image with a more illustrative one.

I'm not quite sure what you were referring to with the words "minor participant", so I'll just ignore it and assume good faith from you. --Veikk0.ma 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Only five companies actually manufacture the NAND Flash devices." SanDisk now a WD brand is one of the five so I suggest a representative image would be from one of the five current vendors of SSDs who also make Flash. The other vendors proposed are not representative.

Your admission that "While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think ..." is just another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT:I don't like it which is not a valid reason for the change or for the subsequent re-revert. Same thing for one image having multiple objects in the lede; it's one image which BTW might be more representative since it shows the two predominant form factors rather than just the one you propose

The subsequent re-revert is a violation of WP:BRD which clearly states, "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." For this reason I am reverting and we shall see what other editors have to say. If you again revert I suggest that is approaching edit warring - why don't you wait and see what others have to say. Tom94022 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored the last stable infobox (It has been there since at least January 1) from before the current edit war. Please discuss on talk page instead of engaging in further edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• C-Class Computer hardware articles
• Top-importance Computer hardware articles
• C-Class Computer hardware articles of Top-importance
• All Computing articles
• C-Class electronic articles
• High-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles
• C-Class Engineering articles
• Mid-importance Engineering articles
• WikiProject Engineering articles
• C-Class Invention articles
• Mid-importance Invention articles
• WikiProject Invention articles
• C-Class Systems articles
• Mid-importance Systems articles
• Unassessed field Systems articles
• WikiProject Systems articles
• C-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles