Talk:USB flash drive/Archive 5

Ubuntu picture
Seems kind of pointless advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.5.152 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. It should be Universal Serial Bus Flash Drive
But isn't it Universal Serial Bus Flash Drive?

I mean I am all for simple stuff but USB is just not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emo-tional being (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we to take it that the USB-IF and the standards setters are wrong whenever they refer to USB? CrispMuncher (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

M-Systems part in the design
M systems have sold the patent for the first commercial model for 1.6b USA$, in the article however it's only shortly mentioned and only as the manufacture of a model designed elsewhere. I thinkg this a hugh factually mistake. I wonder if somebody can take it and clarify this issue.--Gilisa (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find an article (preferably published outside Tel Aviv) that gives details of their involvement? I found "In the period 2000 to 2006 the company was an innovative evangelist for the use of high capacity fast flash storage drives in markets outside the traditional military and rugged industrial markets which were its roots. It had notable achievements in securing design wins in most tier 1 mobile phone companies for its DiskOnChip products for example." and "M-Systems is a leader and innovator of flash-based data storage products known as flash disks" from here.    D b f i r s   09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Israeli sources are mostly very reliable, at the least for this matter, bur I can understand the neutrality value of an article printed outside TA. As for your request, my time is very short so I will google it in the next few days. For now, here is an additional source (the fourth on simple google search).--Gilisa (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As above a non-Israeli source prefered since local press will tend to be biased towards local companies and all 3 companies in this area are in different countries. For something that happened only 10 years ago in a very public area it is interesting that there is such a dispute. - SimonLyall (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this one? I can provide many more if needed. But I guess that now change in the history section seems very justified- the current narrative mix things up: the part of M-systems is not only shortly mentoined, but any meaningful contribution of it to the design of the Disk On Key is denied while it was the first to design it....--Gilisa (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article here seems to play down the role of M-systems, possibly because of the controversy. The follow is a quote from "eHow": While Dov Moran is widely accepted as the inventor of the USB flash drive, there is controversy surrounding the device. Since the USB flash drive is a combination of older technologies, the development of the technologies that made the USB flash drive possible was distributed across several companies. According to Netac Technology's website, the company invented the first USB flash drive in 1999 and was awarded a patent in Singapore in 2007 regarding the management of data on USB flash drives. Trek Technology also held patents for the device, but according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, Trek Technology's patents were struck down in 2006.  Plug-in EEPROMS were common twenty years ago, so portable memory was invented much earlier than the USB.  Perhaps we could re-write our history section here along the lines of Flash memory.    D b f i r s   09:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently the first paragraph in the history section goes like that "Trek Technology and IBM began selling the first USB flash drives commercially in 2000. The Singaporean Trek Technology sold a model under the brand name "ThumbDrive", and IBM marketed the first such drives in North America with its product named the "DiskOnKey" (which was manufactured by the Israeli company M-Systems). IBM's USB flash drive became available on December 15, 2000,[6] and had a storage capacity of 8 MB, more than five times the capacity of the then-common floppy disks.". Note that source is provided only for the last sentence, according which IBM flash drive was avilable at stores since the end of 2000. We, on the other hand, have sources which indicate that M-Systems version was avilable from 2000 as well (probably earlier than the end of this year). We have no indication that M-Systems was IBM's manufacturer-it's not only to play M-Systems role down, it's absolutely misinformation. In fact, if I'm not mistaken M-Systems was never a manufecturar, not even of its own designs-the production was always outsourced to China. We do know that M-Systems was bought by SunDisk much after 2000 was over. So, any change that would be in line with the facts is welcomed.--Gilisa (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

write protected flash drive
some how i have added this and now i cant change anything but dont know how to un do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.29.105 (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This "USB flash drive" Is wrong. It should be Universal Serial Bus flash drive. Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.193.40 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Microsoft Section
I feel the "Windows Vista and Windows 7 ReadyBoost" is very biased, and only promotes Microsoft Windows instead of informing others about Flash Drives. It is also incomplete as it says "In Windows Vista and Windows 7, the ReadyBoost feature allows use of flash drives (up to 4 GB in the case of Windows Vista) to augment operating system memory"; this is true, but it is only used during boot up.

The whole concept of using a drive as RAM has started with the many of the UNIX based OS as "swap" partitions on Flash drives, and with many versions of windows, the user can change the page file location to a flash drive.

I think that this section should be renamed from "Windows Vista and Windows 7 ReadyBoost" to "As a Supplement to Random Access Memory". The content should be something like the following:

"Flash Drives can be used as Swap/Paging space to supplement RAM in many operating systems. With many Unix-Like Operating systems such as OS X or Linux flash drives can have swap partitions, and in many versions of Microsoft Windows, a page file can be created on the flash drives. Windows Vista and Windows 7 has a feature called ReadyBoost, that allows system files to be cached on a flash drives (up to 4 GB in the case of Windows Vista) to speed up boot time."aminy23 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not edit this for a few days, but I will wait for some feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminy23 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are confusing multiple issues. ReadyBoost is not a page file. ReadyBoost is not SuperFetch. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The article claims that ReadyBoost "augments RAM". I never mentioned Super Fetch. ReadyBoost is pretty much a Cache, and it does not work too differently than Unix Swap, or Windows Paging, as files are copied from the drive to the RAM to increase performance.aminy23 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

USB hard disk redirection
Usb hard disk redirects here. It would be an independent article (and very important, because one uses a lot of USB hard disk). .--Diamondland (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that's a bad redirect, thanks for fixing it to point to External hard disk drive. the wub "?!"  11:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone never actually changed the redirect, so I did it today. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial Invention
The article states that "Phison Electronics Corporation claims to have produced the earliest "USB flash removable disk" dubbed the "Pen Drive" in May 2001.", but this seems highly irrelevant, as the article already stated that "IBM's USB flash drive became available on December 15, 2000".

It seems to me that it is pointless to have mention of the fact that Phison claims to have created the USB flash drive when the article previously said that two different companies (Trek Technology and IBM) were selling them BEFORE the date that Phison claims to have created them. Charwinger21 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If no one has any problems with this I'll go ahead and change it Charwinger21 (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable change unless someone can find a different source than Phison and a date that is before the other sources already listed the product existed in 2000. &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm making the change now. Charwinger21 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious disadvantage
"A drawback to the small size is that they are easily misplaced, left behind, or otherwise lost."

I think it's a little odd to characterise their small size as a disadvantage. Human falability is a disadvantage - not the USB drive! Adam1516 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually think the other disadvantage is a bit dubious as well. USB flash drives can only be written and erased a number of times before becoming unusable? True, but the citation given says that, under a test, the number of rewrites before death was 9.5 million. Is that realistically going to be a problem for anyone? Limited to only 9.5 million rewrites? I guess that it would be a disadvantage for someone so have left it in. The same goes for the small size too. Someone will find it a disadvantage, so it's legitimate to have it up. Wikiditm (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Freeing-up space.
Would this be appropriate information here? Many Mac users are looking for info on how to free up space on their USB flash drives. (Empty the trash.) Perhaps also, various ways to get space without emptying the trash. Zipzip50 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The article is not for technical tips and troubleshooting - SimonLyall (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"USB" as a common name
I have worked at several high schools in Victoria, Australia, in the past few years, and have noticed that in that environment the almost universal common name for these devices is simply "USB". Is such usage common elsewhere? I would love to be able to look it up, and be able to formally confirm my original research, but the term USB is just too common to do any meaningful search. (Unless anyone else has a great idea.) I note that the common names currently listed in the Naming section are not sourced either, but I have no problem with accepting that they are real. Should I /can I add "USB" to the list? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't add alternative names. There are many many names for the devices with some of them popular in different regions, languages or groups. If you add another one then somebody else will want theirs added as well so there is a policy on the page to NOT add alternative names. See the previous discussion on this talk page - SimonLyall (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic in that request. I'll just repeat my point that the existing common names in the article aren't sourced at all. What are they doing there? Where are they "common"? That would be encyclopaedic information. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, others removed. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But now we have a bigger problem. Those folks I know who use one particular common name, and all those who use the names you have just removed, won't be able to find this article. Maybe we need a disambiguation page with every common name we can think of. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the 85 pages that redirect here - SimonLyall (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I still don't know what to do about the people I first spoke of here who simply use the name "USB". That's obviously going to take them to another article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can we make this list user friendly to view the many names for USB Flash Drive? I don't think the link we have here is very user friendly. Do we have to create some kind of List of alternate names for USB Flash Drive? &sect; Music Sorter &sect;  (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We tried that a few years ago but it didn't work very well. We need each name to be referenced so it's a reasonable amount of work (especially since many are informal terms). I think another argument was that wikipedia isn't really a dictionary or thesaurus - SimonLyall (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, but the people I mentioned at the start of this thread aren't going to find what they want if they ever try to look up USB in Wikipedia. A puzzle for us. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if they look up USB and actually read the article or look through the pictures they will find a link here.... Plugwash (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Memory stick" seems to be what they are incorrectly called more than "USB" --194.83.82.3 (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cooking with propane ambiguous
"Channel Five's Gadget Show cooked a flash drive with propane,"

What does that mean? Propane boils at -42°C at 1 atm.
 * Or did they use a propane flame to cook the drive with boiling water at 100°C? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbfirs (talk • contribs)

any chance of a source as to preperation done in cooking/recipe. i am very curious on its texture/taste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File system
The File system section of this article refers to FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 file systems being used on flash drives. This article links to and that article refers to a set of file systems with completely different names. Are these 2 sets of file systems alternatives to each other, or are they at different levels? Could someone put in an explanation please? FrankSier (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Investigating further, I have found that the article Flash memory says: "In practice, flash file systems are only used for memory technology devices (MTDs), which are embedded flash memories that do not have a controller. Removable flash memory cards and USB flash drives have built-in controllers to perform wear leveling and error correction so use of a specific flash file system does not add any benefit.". This implies to me that the FFS type of file system, is an alternative, to the FAT type, not a different level. Also stated is that USB flash drives, which are the topic of this article, do not use the type of file system covered in the linked article. It seems to me therefore that the link from this article to Flash file system is either not useful, or could do with further explanation. I do not have the knowledge to make the changes myself, especially as the above quote includes a 'Citation needed' tag. FrankSier (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Failures when unplugged before writing is complete?
I have heard (and read reports) about incidents in which USB flash drives have failed (somehow) when unplugged before writes are fully complete.

Can anybody cast more light on that, and then add something appropriate to the article. (Well, even if it is a total red herring, I'd think a note to that effect would be appropriate in the article. But, I believe it is a real problem.)

Some of the questions I have:


 * When such a failure occurs, is it a permanent failure or something that can be fixed by some reasonable means?


 * Does the fix usually cause the loss of the existing data?

Rhkramer (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB_flash_drive&diff=522009121&oldid=521697537

Can someone with more skills fix the first part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.35 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sources" are just links to places
They look like reliable sources, but I believe in the contrary. They are merely LINKS to PLACES. It's not a news source or anything of the sort. Longbyte1 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be more specific. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Power Consumption
Can more specific information about power consumption be given? Obviously it isn't significant for a drive connected to a desktop computer but might be significant for a handheld computer. I'd guess a flash drive consumes less power than the display or the audio of a cell phone. Numbers would be interesting. The article on SD cards has such information. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving & Data Shelf Life?
At one time is was not considered a good long-term backup or long-term archiving medium because several bits would go south after perhaps ten(?) years. While WORMs are mentioned as lasting indefinitely, regular flash drives are not. It is implied here that flash drive data will last forever in the Backup section, but not specifically mentioned. It seems this info should be specifically addressed, —perhaps in the backup or the Advantages/Disadvantages sections. (...or even an additional Archiving secion?) --68.127.87.79 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

First USB album in the UK
I would like to propose mentioning Kiss Does... Rave in the Media storage and marketing section of this article, as it was the first album to be released on USB stick in the UK (see here). If the section already contains too many examples, perhaps a solution might be to delete some of the unsourced or badly sourced examples first (e.g. The Beatles, Kanye West, Ayumi Hamasaki, etc.). Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 16:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No thoughts? Very well, I shall just be bold and make the change. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 00:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Write-protection option is a "disadvantage"?
I'm confused as to why the concept that some USB flash drives have write-protection switches is in the "Disadvantages" section. It does compare them to SD which has faulty (host-based) write protection switches, but I don't see that as a "disadvantage" either, of course. The only "disadvantage" I can see possibly related is that it mentions that these switches are becoming less common in most USB flash drives. But that still doesn't explain why the fact that some have write-protection switches is a "disadvantage." JGoggan (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clarify that the disadvantage is the general lack of this feature.--agr (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thousands of uses
We've had a bunch of sections added recently that are makign the article quiet big. I'd like to trim a few. The theory I'm working on is that if something can be done by another storage device (such as a USB connected Hard drive or DVD or a Secure Digital card or a SAAT Hard drive) then it doesn't really belong on this page.

So the sections "Booting operating systems", "Operating system installation media" , "Backup", "Updating motherboard firmware" should really be removed since they could just as easily be slightly reworded an put in the "External Hard Drive" article (which doesn't exist). - SimonLyall (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there! Sorry, but I'm against that; every single usage scenario described under the  section can be performed by other storage devices.  Why can't you transport personal data, or carry applications around, on an external 2.5-inch HDD?  Also, why should storing data securely be reserved for USB flash disks only? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So you are saying we should cut down/out those sections too? This would brign us into line with articles like Optical_disc_drive, Floppy disk, Memory card and Hard disk drive have almost no space given over to uses. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm trying to say that deleting some of the subsections, as not specific to USB flash drives, would in fact require the whole section to be deleted, what probably isn't such a great thing to do. It's true that block devices can do many things in common, but what would we achieve by deleting subsections from this article?  Is there a better place to move the content instead? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What we would achive would be to tidy up the article, having 14 sections dedicated to uses of flash drives doesn't make the article any better. Some of the sections are a little strange ( eg "Booting operating systems" talks mostly about USB Flash drive reliabilty). I'm not sure there is really a space on wikipedia that would be "A list of uses for a removalble file storage device", but I think this article isn't it. - SimonLyall (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed that those 14 subsections with generally applicable content are clogging up the article, adding probably more confusion than actual value. However, the content presented there isn't bad per se.
 * How about creating some kind of an "umbrella" Portable storage devices (or External storage devices) article, which would list their common uses (those 14 subsections would be moved over there and edited to fit), and contain other section(s) with brief summaries and pointers to various articles describing further each category of such portable/external storage devices (external hard disk drives, USB flash drives, disk enclosures etc.)? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Portable storage device article already exists, currently only as a stub, so it seems we already have a place where to move our stuff. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds okay to move the general sections there, anyone else have any thoughts? - SimonLyall (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like the idea – it's much better to preserve content, whenever possible.  Agreed, let's see if other editors have some more suggestions. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

After almost nine days, it seems like nobody else cares, so the silence could be taken as "good to go". :) Agreed? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Go for it, I'm going to be busy for a couple of days but I'll catchup late in the week - SimonLyall (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I'll try to perform the content migration in the next day or two. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)