|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-volatile memory article.|
I think there is a need for a table describing properties of memory types such as reading speed, writing speed, number of writes before getting worn out, advantages, disadvantages, produced unit densities, price per MB or GB etc.
- Disagree with proposed merge to NVRAM; many non volatile memories are not NVRAM -- hard drives and other magnetic media, for example. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the merge. There are notable differences between the two. Non-volatile memory isn't RAM it's something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermishis (talk • contribs) 29 April, 2007
I disagree that non-volatile memory includes hard disk space. There is a difference between memory and storage.
Does anyone know what kind of memory storage devices provide best longevity? ...I mean, how to eliminate the risk of losing data archieved for more than 20/40 years? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Memory storage devices (at least non-volatile memory) is usually qualified and characterized for longevity - among other attributes. These are industry-based HTOL (high temperature operating life) and HTS (high temperature storage). Their lifespans are accelerated and then longevity calculated statistically from the results.Quixote1024 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge tag restored.
I note that in spite of the clear concensus not to merge the articles, Wtshymanski has restored the merge proposal tag to the article Non-volatile random-access memory. Is he a bad loser or something? No one supported the merger - no one. Even the one note of support that was made seems to have changed his or her mind (presumably due to the very valid points that were made). Let's just remove the tag and move on. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct: I did change my mind. It was the arguments over the older technology that swung it. Wikipedia is often the only place to find information on the way things used to be done. There was a time when magnetic tape and discs were the only viable non-volatile memory when (what is now called) random access memory was a rack of thermionic valves (vacuum tubes), or something even more exotic such as a cathode ray tube or mercury delay line. I have used a computer system decades ago where punched cards or punched tape was the only way of retaining your program or data after the machine was switched off.
- I am intruiged that User:Wtshymanski has declared that the discussion is not closed. It was he himself who (effectively) declared it closed by proceeding with the merger just seven days after first proposing it. He can't have it both ways. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I tag an article for merging, wait about a week, if I see no comments, I merge. Then everybody weighs in with their carefully reasoned and dispassionate reasons to undo the merge, then there's an edit war, I get threats and bluster from various quarters, and the unmerged articles carry on as before. Isn't collaboration great? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I take your point. Technically, you don't even need to propose the merger, or initiate a discussion. The merge help page (See H:M) does state that articles can be merged without any proposal or discussion. It does warn that if the merger is controversial, then it should be proposed and a discussion initiated (which to be fair, you did). I'm not convinced that 7 days is sufficient time though. The last time I proposed a merger, I left it for a couple of months or so. After a week, there was not a single comment. But during the rest of the time several objections did appear, and so I abandoned the attempt. Allowing too short a time for discussion and then carrying out the merge may well precipitate comments more quickly, but I'm not convinced it actually achieves much in the long term. Some editors, such as yourself do seem to spend their entire waking time editing articles. Others, such as myself are much more sporadic. It can be weeks between even looking at Wikipedia sometimes. Of course, if you leave the discussion too long, much water flows under the bridge and you move on yourself and forget that you ever proposed a merge and 2 articles sit there with almost permanently attached merge tags. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Memory that never forgets: non-volatile DIMMs hit the market, Apr 4 2013, Sean Gallagher, Ars Technica