Talk:Physical memory

This should definitely NOT be merged... -- 213.122.51.52 13:20, 22 January 2006

They should not be merged. On the other hand, the entry for Physical memory should lose some details that really belong to Primary memory. DHR 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles should be merged. Physical memory is a tiny, vague, stub that offers nothing next to Primary storage. Physical memory should immediately be made a redirect to Primary storage. --G0zer 07:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(My opinion is pro-merge) In my experience I have always seen physical memory, and primary storage used interchangably. Additionally, I know of no difference between these forms of memory. If there IS a difference, they should probably remain separate. If there is NO difference, they should be merged. I think the question is how different these terms actually are. --Pyrofysh 13:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should first discuss the difference of the two, then decide whether the articles should be merged. 0612 05:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is PRO-MERGE. As a person of limited computer knowledge, who is using Wikipedia as an excellent source for learning, my vote is to merge. If there is a difference in these terms, it should be specified, but in any event, a person such as myself, seeking to learn, needs to see both terms presented together, either to learn the distinctions, or simply to learn the shared meaning. Bridgefinder 8/20/06 It should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgefinder (talk • contribs) 08:25, August 20, 2006

Merge as long as primary storage is always physical memory. (I've also added the merge tag to Primary storage to get more opinions.) Tocharianne 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed: Merging I agree, the stub lacks anything well sourced. If someone was trying to define something different they should have written more about it.  As a computer professional I don't see the uniqueness of physical memory. Alan.ca 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)