Talk:Read-only memory

Game emulation ROMs not really ROMs

The paragraph about game emulation ROMs probably shouldn't be in this article; they aren't actually read-only memory. --Dinojerm

Hmm, I suppose you're right, but also consider that the emulation ROMs is extracted/copied from the actual ROMs in the case of cartridge games -- this should be mentioned in the article. --Wernher 09:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lower-case article title Wikipedia 'policy'

Just regarding my recent revert from Read-Only Memory to Read-only memory in the article's emphasised title phrase: that is the WKP policy, actually. Cf. also a very large amount of similar articles. --Wernher 02:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And in August 08 someone moved it to the even worse Read Only Memory, so I brought it back to Read-only memory as is most common in literate sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Writeable ROM

The article currently contains the following statement:

With ROM, the entire chip must be written at the entire chip must be written at once. Changing just one bit requires the whole chip to be erased and re-written with the new data.

Generally, speaking, this is wrong. Most programmable ROM designs (that is, not factory-programmed masked ROMs) allow you to blow bits individually, it's just that you can only blow them in one direction. For example, a certain technology xPROM may be erased to all zeroes or come from the factor as all zeroes, and you can blow ones into it, but you can't individually convert those bits back to zeroes and it for non-erasible PROMs it isn't possible to convert them back to zeroes at all. (Once the fuse or antifuse is blowm its blown.) And a few ROMs allow bidirectional blowing, but the writing process is much slower than the reading process, unlike RAM.

We should work on making the statement more-accurate. I'll do it if I get the time, but please feel free to beat me to it. ;-)

Atlant 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The small quartz window admits ultraviolet light during erasure."

Shouldn't this be "emits"?

No. Wizzy…☎ 06:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, light doesn't come out of (isn't "emitted" by) the window during erasure, it is let in ("admitted"). The light comes from an external germicidal lamp) which is emitting UV-C light.

Atlant 12:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

how bout yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.122.24.71 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead assumes familiarity?

I think that if a reader was completely unfamiliar with the concept of ROM, the current lead would be jarring. It somehow seems to assume a greater familiarity with the concept of ROM than an article on ROM should. I'm not sure how to fix it. --Steven Fisher 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sprite based graphics?

Can someone confirm to me whether 2D sprite based graphics are better suited towards ROM boards(games like Street Fighter III for example)? (UTC)

Extensive rewrite

I've rewritten most of the article, and added a history section. Would love to have some eyeballs look at this stuff, and hopefully improved! MOXFYRE (contrib) 21:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good! But shouldn't we say something about NOR-Flash to go with all the words about NAND-Flash?

Atlant 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! AFAIK, NOR flash doesn't differ greatly from "normal" EEPROM except in that it must be erased in large blocks (which led to the name "flash"). If anyone knows more technical details I'd love to add 'em! MOXFYRE (contrib) 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P2ROM

"P2ROM" is mentioned in the Sharp Zaurus article. I thought it was a typo, but a brief Google leads me to "Technology Analysis: Oki P2ROM to Replace Mask ROM, Flash EEPROM" by Motoyuki Oishi 2003. which says: "... equipment manufacturers are turning to production-programmed read-only memory (P2ROM) instead of mask ROM or Flash electrically-erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM) for program storage."

What is "production-programmed read-only memory (P2ROM)"? What should we say about it in this Read Only Memory article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

SUGGESTION

i would suggest, that in order to eliminate confusion about the arrangement and inparticular view of computer memory, all memory types, should be created under a "computer memory types" label instead of being represented each one individualy. the differences between memory type acronym's should be noted as the difference between their functionalities & technical structure and not only by "symbolic means"..

there might be a need also,
to view a sketch of any of their technical designs, in order for the viewer to understand their meaning in a profounder way.
☺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.187.203 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Section and schematic

The "Terminology" section is useless since the section "Types of ROMs" already lists the same content. "Terminology" should be eliminated. It would be nice to introduce a sample schematic for a ROM.

ICE77 (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)