Talk:Write-only memory (joke)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Also known as /dev/null :)

Also known as NLA0:

Transwikied[edit]

Found the original link[edit]

I found a better link for reference [1] but I'm not sure how to properly cite it.

Can someone update the link to Best of Bob Pease, "The Origin of the WOM"?

-- Resuna (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

blackbox = WOM !?[edit]

If ROM means read-only-memory and if we see this in a strict sense(no initial "writing"), there would also be no application for ROM. But actually there is. And that's because the value is initialized before going into regular use. Therefore ROM means "initialize once and read only in regular use". Isnt in that sense a voice recorder ("black box") in an airplane something like a WOM ? In regular use(during flight) you would always write to it and never read, however, once the plane crashed you would disassemble it and read it out using different techniques ... Kevin 89.53.3.68 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact we must look at this R/WOM as part of a system. We could stay something like:
"From a systems engineering point of view, a Write Only Memory is a part of the system architecture, where the system can only write data but has now way of reading it..".
This does not exclude the fact, thet the data could be recovered after breakup of the system or as part of a larger system. -- Petri Krohn 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Systems can be said to have an event horizon; what ever happens or does not happen beyond the horizon is outside the system. For a ship, whatever happens in the bottom of the sea, after sinking, is definitely beyound the the event horizon. -- Petri Krohn 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points, accept I would not say, R/WOM but rather:

  • ROM really means: W/ROM
  • WOM really means: WOM/R

so I incorporated this in the article

Nope, a FDR isn´t "WOM", it´s just a normal memory being accessed for writing respectively reading at different times ! -That a "playback" button isn´t fitted at the FD doesn´t mean that the function doesn´t exist. So, the above is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.146.148 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


AQL vs. selling price[edit]

Does anybody know what AQL stands for? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Done !!! Martin

Acceptable Quality Level - a term used in quality control in manufacturing Liam1564 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WOM in Literature[edit]

David Brin used WOM in his Uplift Universe, as a monitoring device present on all ships, similar to a black box, except they were designed to be very difficult to read without waiting many thousands of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.82.162 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Practical uses[edit]

The 'quantum computing' bit being under 'practical uses' made me laugh out loud. (Not that there's anything wrong with it!) ChaosFish (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Time reversal? Entropy of the universe? This all sounds like a load of nonsense some scifi writer made up. Are there any sources? 75.159.101.125 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No practical real-life uses[edit]

In my opinion the "practical uses" refer not to write-only memory but to read-write memory with write-only and read-only interfaces.

The quantum section refers to the deletion of the losing chess positions, leaving the winning one remaining. While there is a practical use for "deleting", I see no reason to claim that it is instead, written to write-only memory.

I define write-only memory to be similar to a bank that accepts only deposits, no withdrawals, no use of the funds in any way. Information goes in. It never comes out in any way, shape, or form. This, of course, has no practical use. Grax32 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Am sure many old computer graphics cards had write only registers, and even chunks of WOM for the frame buffer. Done to simplify/speed up the electronics. Data could be written, and signals outputed to a monitor, but data couldn't be returned to the PC 82.47.140.47 (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Atomic[edit]

A section of the article "Overlaid complementary register pairs (or memory locations) which are mapped to the same physical address, such that one register is always read-only while the other register is always write-only. This was common practice in early I/O controllers and microprocessor memory mapping schemes, in order to save hardware and memory address space. The obvious problem with such a mapping scheme, is that the data-writer cannot verify, modify nor reuse the written data in any way, unless he keeps a backup copy of the register's contents within R/W memory. When two copies of the data are required for normal operation, hardware and memory address space are no longer saved. More importantly, the consequent data write event duplication means that register writes are no longer atomic, which can lead to major headaches and status synchronization problems within interrupt driven applications." Has a link to atomicity. This is a disambiguation page. This needs to be changed, but I am not sure what it should be changed to. There are 2 seemingly valid options. The first is Atomicity_(database_systems) and the second is Atomicity_(programming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.52.228 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bug?[edit]

Why when you use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_Only_Memory (redirect), you see the October 7, 2011 version and regularly you see then November 3, 2011 version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.193.125 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless you log in to Wikipedia, you are probably seeing a cached copy. Caching occurs by your local browser's cache and Wikipedia's servers. See WP:PURGE and WP:BYPASS. —EncMstr (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Section "Virtual Bit Buckets"[edit]

This section bemoans problems encountered by some device driver writers when they encounter write-only registers or registers that don't read back what was previously written. Such registers were the norm in days when register space was scarce (limited number of I/O ports or memory mapped addresses). The solution is to simply keep a copy of the information that one wants to retain and to put the device in a known state before doing anything with it. 79.227.165.207 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual Device[edit]

WOM-16 National Semiconductor.png

I recall Jim giving me this in the mid nineteen eighties. I've treasured it since, it still sits on my desk. My gut feeling is that he had these made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfelsenthal (talkcontribs) 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this amusing piece with us. Unfortunately it cannot be added to the article, because we cannot verify your claims in compliance with wikipedia rules WP:CITE, WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Curtis says here that a fake device was handed out to the winner of a contest (Jeff Leibermann) - so we know that at least one such device was made. It wouldn't surprise me if they made several of them - and that certainly makes it plausible that this is the real McCoy. But without some WP:RS showing such a device, it's hard to know for sure. I'm quite sure User:Dfelsentha recalls the origin of this thing correctly - but Wikipedia standards are that there be some kind of independent verification. SteveBaker (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The chip pictured here has National Semiconductor markings while the joke device described in the article is a Signetics product. It's a completely different device. You'd have to research its background and describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3146:7600:CABC:C8FF:FED8:482D (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The true story?[edit]

Jack Curtis says the Wikipedia-article is faulty here. --Marco Roepers (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

...and give the "true" story here: http://www.sigwom.com/?page_id=17
His version certainly seems more credible. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt the real story might be different, but as you know Wikipedia requires external verifiable proof, instead of an unproven new account dropping a personal statement in the article. Go ahead and update the article, but make sure you have reputable references to prove the changes. • SbmeirowTalk • 17:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think both versions of the story should be told in the article to clarify it. • SbmeirowTalk • 17:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Write-only memory (joke). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WOL = Printer?[edit]

What's being described in the article is essentially a printer, voice, actuator or the like -- any device that employs an output channel with no corresponding input channel. In the case of printers (more so than with voice or actuators) it counts as memory since the output goes to a storage medium. OCR hasn't reached a point where you can treat a printer as bona fide 2-way storage; though it is still the case that you get megabytes worth of storage for mere pennies (in US$) with the typical analogue medium employed with typical printer devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.235.10 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the important distinction between a write-only device—which is reasonably common such as printers, card punches, plotters, etc.—and write-only memory which, at the extreme, is useless. —EncMstr (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)