Talk:Memory card

Wear leveling

From an older revision of the page: "(I am not sure here) CompactFlash uses wear levelling while SmartMedia does not have any intelligence built in and presents the raw chip on its external interfaces." Can someone confirm or deny this? -- Schnee 18:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

" some of these cards incorporate..."

WHICH ones?? - Omegatron 02:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

How many times can you write in a memory card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.85.195.133 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

Market prevalence

"in cell-phones and PDA's, the memory card market is highly fragmented"

As far as I can tell, SD/MMC is the format for a strong majority of PDAs, Sony being the most notable exception.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.228.4 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but in amateur cameras, too, the SD/MMC format seems dominant. The stranglehold of CF has been reversed. Some hard figures on this would be nice (e.g., number of cameras sold in a given year according to the memory format they use). This would be useful to know for shopping, due to the network effect. -- Calbaer (talk) 02:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

SD is most likely the predominant format in amateur digital cameras, however in professional cameras, Compact Flash is generally the preferred memory type due to its robustness and integrity. Mtoreilly 14:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a comment from almost a year ago. However, I'd like to know how this 'robustness and integrity' was (is?) compared. Is there a source for this statement? Or is Mtoreilly just providing justification for traditional use (ie: the network effect in a niche market)?

That said, I too have noticed what seems to be a predominance of SD/MMC cards in most small electronic gadgets. But like the Dec 2005 poster, I don't have any hard figures, and don't trust the promoters of the standard to come up with anything other than marketing jazz to try and snow consumers into buying their products, or their manufacturer's products (who use their card format).

~ender 2008-08-11 5:39:AM MST

Replace floppy disks

"Flash cards have been suggested as a possible replacement for the floppy disk, although USB flash memory drives, which work on almost any computer with a USB port, have been filling this role instead." <- that is based on what? --Fs 07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing commercial links

I think is highly questionable that a table, including prices, with direct links to amazon (a commercial entity) is put on the article, it makes me wonder about the true imparciallity of the article's author. In fact, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for online transactions or commercial links. I suggest that column of the table shpuld be removed.

I don't see the reason to mantain that column either, there are alternate columns of more use, like max size available or date of introduction. I'm removing it, revert if you don't agree. --Outlyer 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Links with referral - commercial intentions?

I just noticed that the portuguese translation of this article contains a link that credits someone with referral bonus (credits)...

I have already changed it. 200.153.242.116 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GameCube memory card discrepancy

Here is the section about memory cards in the Nintendo GameCube article:

1. Memory Card 59 (4 Mib), 251 (16 Mib), or 1019 (64 Mib) blocks, with a maximum of 127 files can be stored on a single card (Memory Card 59 bundled with Animal Crossing) - each card requires 5 blocks of system data meaning that the actual size of cards are 64, 256 and 1024 respectively

And here is the same section in this article:

1. Nintendo GameCube Memory Card (59- (512KB), 251- (2MB) and 1019-block (8MB) versions) This memory is simply a modified SD card.

Note that the GameCube article's sizes are larger. I'm also bringing this up in that article's discussion page. HoCkEy PUCK 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have temporarily changed the sizes in this article to the GCN's article. However, I am not certain if this is correct. If someone can verify it, please do so.

Four Megabits is 512 Kilobytes. The only apparent cause for confusion is that one uses Mi and the other uses M as a prefix to mean the same thing. Since both are used in the real world (for better or worse), it isn't clear to me that either should be the preferred form. Forkazoo 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forkazoo (talk • contribs)

MMC card reader write protect problem

Most often you might find that the MMC you are using is showing write protected, after using it in the same card reader for a long time. If everything else fails and your card does read and write in another one, here lies the problem: To solve it you have to open the card reader and then don't connect it to the USB port. Now take the card and insert it in the slot. When inserting it, look at the side of the case of the card reader slot. You can see a small pin moving and trying to touch the pin which is projected a bit from the case. When they touch, you can write to the MMC, so in order to do that, simply bend the outer pin a little bit to the side, and now your card will be simply useful as before. OK, I found it myself...hope someone will find it helpfull! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.18.68 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed of access?

It'd be nice if the article had some information about the different write speeds of different types of cards, and how those are measured / advertised on different cards. Many manufacturers won't say on the cards they sell what they are. Looking at one which is near me, it's called: 'speedy' another is 'x133', and several have nothing at all on any of their packaging. It seems that manufacturers of cards are selling primarily based on form factor and size of memory only.
~ender 2008-08-11 5:42:AM MST

See Comparison of memory cards#Technical details and Flash memory#Transfer rates. There are already too many semi-redundant articles about different types/aspects of flash memory, rather than copying more details to more articles (e.g. putting speed here) I think they should be consolidated, with better navigation tools to help readers find the particular information they are looking for. Zodon (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with links, as long as I can find them from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.149 (talk) at 2008-11-14 2:06:AM MST

"++" Card?

I bought a card reader the other day and noticed a slot for a "++" card. I have no idea what this could be refering to, except possibly a Nintendo DS "TT" card. The manual states it supports "++ and ++ M-series". It shares the SmartMedia slot, which made me think it was an xD slot at first, but it seems to have an extra 19th ground pin. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Wikilackey (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"SRMemory cards" not listed here, even available at 1TB

why arent these described here?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=SRMemory+Card&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/sony-launches-1tb-srmemory-card-12-04-2011/

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-srmemory/cat-memory/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.165.168 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How to unlock memory card without losing data? Please help fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.219.197 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  To unlock a memory card without losing the data I would just follow the following steps: 
  Fix 1. Switch Card Lock 	
  Fix 2. Unlock with Password 	
  Fix 3. Remove Write Protection 	
  Fix 4. Format Memory Card 	
  Bonus Tip. Recover Data

  If you need more information, here is a full description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3aOAfhkSv4
  
  And if you need more background-information about the technology at all: https://www.hyperstone.com/de/Preventing-Data-Loss-3075,12728.html BenediktKlaas (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@BenediktKlaas 5.11.96.111 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fat32 as a hardware format

This article refers to fat32 as a hardware format. That's incorrect isn't it? Also it's missing a citation 2600:1700:8DF7:29F:882E:50B1:C555:BDD2 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)