Talk:Non-volatile memory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-volatile memory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Computing Low‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Table

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.

Inaccuracies Section

Stating that the organic ferroelectrics provide characteristics anything remotely comparable to nonvolatile FeRAM is incorrect on many levels. I don't believe anyone is seriously contemplating this. It also hasn't been proven for anything approaching the far less stringent requirements of "flash" memory either. 4.35.70.203 (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Wikibearwithme (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these claims. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Non-volatile memory. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the links work although I'm not sure what's with the one from eetimes.com. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

The Source for the introduction to this article refutes the introduction to this article.

Non-volatile memory (NVM) devices, such as Flash, phase change RAM, spin transfer torque RAM, and resistive RAM,
offer several advantages and challenges when compared to
conventional memory technologies, such as DRAM and magnetic hard disk drives (HDDs).

-http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7120149/?arnumber=7120149
Please remove mechanical "storage devices" from "Non-volatile memory". They are two very different things. --Ne0 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article does cover both non-volatile memory and non-volatile storage so we don't need to make these distinctions. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications section

Is this specification list appropriate for the article? I am confused that the article talks about non-volatile memory in a general sense only to find specific model information, outdated for 11 years (March 2007). FOR EXAMPLE: (Correct me if this is the incorrect interpretation) Aren't SSDs today of a significant higher capacity density than HDDs? Nuvigil (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is more of a comparison than a specification. I think the idea is that the listed products are representative of their class. I think it is, in principle, appropriate content. I don't know if 11 year-old information is valuable in this field. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]