Talk:USB flash drive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming?

As noted below, "UFD" or "USB Flash Drive" seems to be becoming the de facto standard name, as reflected by the title. As evidence, all the UFD manufacturers/sellers that I checked use the UFD terminology:

Considering the title change and the above evidence, I'll change the naming section. Discuss here if you don't like it.

Name?

Many months and no objections to the change. I suppose I'll be bold and change it. That'll either respark discussion or fix things depending on the reaction. --Sketchee 21:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The title of this article is definetly misleading and somewhat inaccurate. Kail Ceannai 19:57, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

I agree - the name should be USB Flash Drive. It's succinct enough, yet it describes what the devices are - flash memory drives that plug into usb ports. And this name seems to be starting to be adopted as a standard...--Blackcats 08:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[1] is an nytimes.com vote from 2004-09-23 for USB Flash Drive, I quote: "these slender solid-state memory chips -- known by many names, but officially U.S.B. flash drives". (I link you thru Google because otherwise the nytimes.com copy protection kicks in to force you to register directly with nytimes.com). 23 Jan 2005


Would this article be better named "USB flash memory drive". To me "Keydrive" seems to fail the test of precision, particularly with the advent of "keydrives" that are disk-based (eg the Digitalway MPIOHS100) rather than flash-memory-based. Nurg 06:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's my feeling as well. Deh 15:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Isn't keydrive a thumb drive double as a keychain? :P wshun 11:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it would fit better with Wikipedia conventions to be called USB flash drive. --65.185.15.125 23:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

phew! that was double redirect hell. if someone comes along and says Flash is a proper noun or something, they can do the work to change it back... - Omegatron 02:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


We call it here in bahrain

USB Flash Memory sometime just Flash Memory or just USB Memory no one here use the word drive,key or thumb --Zayani 18:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Max speed

I just added a note about the max speed of USB2.0 devices being around 100Mbit/s - the current fastest (that I can find) is a bit faster than this, but most are a fair amount slower. Here's a reasonable survey of the current state of the art: [2]. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

There are currently 2 USB standard as defined in www.usb.org. The maximum transfer speed for USB1.1 is 12Mbit/sec (or 1.5MB/s) and for USB2.0 is 480Mbit/sec (or 60MB/s). However, no usb drives can achieve the theoretical speed due to constraints in hardware and software limitations. That is why "depending on system configuration" is the small fine print behind the speed claim.
Many suppliers boost of high speed transfer referring only to reading speed. The catch is "slow" speed write that is important when you wish to transfer data from PC/notebook to usb drive.
The fastest usb disk is Onlydisk offered by www.netac.com. The reading speed is 160Mbit/sec (20MB/s) and writing speed is 128Mbit/sec (or 16MB/s). The company claimed that they have a patented technology (aka Ultra Stable Technology) that prevent disk or data corruption which is a prevailing problem found in most usb drives. When a disk is disk corrupted, user can only throw and buy a new one. But valuable data will be lost forever with the death of the disk.


On January 12, 2006 I found the following self-published specifications for usb disks:

  • Transcend JetFlash 2.0 - 20/18 (read/write in MB/s)
  • Gizmo! overdrive - 25/13
  • Corsair Flash Voyager - 33/16
  • Lexar Jumpdrive Lightning 120X - 24/18

Also, a review from 2005 indicates that write speed varies with file size. Some brands do better with small files, some only achieve this speed with very large files. —Długosz

Resource

This Ars Technica article has some excellent info about what's in the box, and gives concrete numbers for speed. When I have time I'll mention some of the stuff it does (or links to) into wikipedia's article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That link is bad. Do you mean this article? - John Fader


Lexar Jump Drive

Please, somebody could tell me, What is the difference between usb flash memory and usb jump drive?, this two are a keydrive, but what is the difference?

As far as I can tell, Jumpdrive is a brand name of Lexar, for their top-of-the-range keydrives. If that's what you mean, then a jumpdrive is just a keydrive. -- John Fader 17:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lexar for whatever reason luvvvvs to make you install a custom driver set for their products rather than the generic drivers. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's right. If you have an updated version of Win XP, ME or 2000, most Lexar flash devices should work fine without custom drivers. The only ones that explicitly require custom drivers are the devices with special DRM encryption. -- FP 02:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
This is the truth. I don't remember if my Lexar drive even came with a driver CD. I remember it recommending letting the native OS drivers handle it, but I remember that you had to download or install drivers from CD if you wanted to use it on Windows 9X machines, as with all flash drives.
The fact is USB drive cannot work in Win95, NT and Win 98 (1st edition). The reason being Microsoft has not catered for USB software driver for such devices before 1999. With the introduction of OnlyDisk (just another name of USB drive) patented in 1999, Microsoft added the driver in Win98 (2nd edition) and other later versions (Win2000, WinME, Win XP). The USB drive can also work in Linux 2.4.x and Mac 9.x above.
Hmm i run a number of 98 second edition systems and i've always had to use manufacturers drivers to use usb flash sticks with them. There is an unofficial service pack that claims to include a generic driver for theese sticks but i haven't had any luck with that driver either. Plugwash 19:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Read/Write Cycles?

"flash drives wear out after 1,000,000 read/write cycles"

and

"In normal use, mid-range flash drives currently on the market will support several million cycles, although write operations will gradually slow as the device ages"

Are these referring to different things or ... what is the difference between these two statements? --Sketchee 21:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is simply incorrect.
Googling for the second phrase (in quotes) turns up several wikipedia quotes, and one article that appears to be original? (at least they don't mention wikipedia, and the article is significantly different than the current article).
Single Layer Cell flash memory has 100,000 read/write cycles and Multi Level Cell flash memory has 10,000. I don't know where this "millions" number is coming from. Could it be a different measurement of the same limit? - 71.103.83.28 18:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
About eight or nine years ago (near the beginning of the mass use of flash) I worked on an embedded product which used flash for data (not just application) storage. I had occasion to discuss flash wear characteristics with field engineers from both AMD and Intel. The issue of how many erase cycles a given part could sustain wasn't nearly so cut and dried. At the time they guaranteed only 1000 cycles (clearly technologies have improved greatly since) but very informally the said you could expect an order of magnitude better than that in reasonable use. Factors which affected this included operating and storage temperatures (and microdamage caused by thermal changes, particularly during shipping), variation in erase voltage (the parts used a 5v erase voltage, against the 3.3v used for reading and writing) and variation due to manufacturing issues both at the fab and at our assembly (SMT) facility. Usage patterns also affect the real-world mtbf of a multisectored flash part - block size, the pattern with which you wrote stuff, and the characteristics of the block erase and block wear leveling algorithms you use. So I'd be willing to accept that the 100,000 is the chip manufacturer's guaranteed number (they're a conservative bunch) and that in most cases, with sensible use and handling, you'd get a million or two cycles from them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The term "read/write cycles" is inherently confusing because it doesn't clarify whether reading or writing wears out the memory, or both -- and if both, which wears it faster. Reading only senses the state of floating-gate charges, but writing requires erasing (discharging) and re-writing (recharging). Some applications might read the memory many times between writes, so the difference between read cycle wear and write cycle wear will be significant in this case.--69.141.120.204 02:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Concur; "read cycles" and "write cycles" should be separated; writing wears out the memory drastically faster than reading. Does anyone have any information on Data Retention? Best I've been able to find this morning suggests between 10 to 20 years... -- User:loser0 14:47, January 12, 2006

Failures: I have two 512MB USB flash drives. The latest one is about half the size and weight of the first and it was noticeably hotter to the touch during operation. After about two months of light use, it died (under guarantee). Another point, under Windows you can check these drives for bad sectors and compact them. This might provide advance warning of impending failure. Colin, March 5th 2006.

Of course, running those checks will use up "read cycles", increasing wear on the device... ;) -- User:Nuwewsco April 4, 2006

Foreign names

In the list of differing names for these devices, why are other languages listed? There is not confusion just because different languages use different names for things. 4.242.147.147 02:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kikinou ??

Can anyone tell where they heard the word Kikinou ? I never heard that in France !

mini usb

"Most flash drives feature the larger type-A USB connection, although some feature the smaller "miniUSB" connection."

Unless a source is given for the use of miniUSB I'm removing it. It seems very unlikely to be true, given that the whole point of these devices is to plug straight into a USB port.

edit: It is in fact true that there are devices with reduced size connectors. It is also true that some mainboards now have the mini connectors as additional USB connector ports. You can google or use Wikipedia, RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#Mini_USB_signaling

I have never seen or heard of one used for USB flash drive but it is entirely possible so the reference should remain, possibly with alteration of the word may added to it. E.g., ...some may feature the smaller "miniUSB" connection."

Note that the "Mini USB Flash Drives" sold by SanDisk, Crucial, etc. are not referencing the connector size at this time. Rather the 'mini' refers to the small size of the entire device. As the market moves, that may change to imply a mini USB connector is used.

Strengths and weaknesses

This section lists several strengths but no weaknesses (apart from saying that like all means of data storage it will eventually fail). Maybe something could be mentioned about the problems of non-compatability (I realise this is discussed elsewhere in the article) and memory corruption which, although I'm not an expert on the subject, I think can on occasion occur.

I added some comments on form factor which has been the biggest gotcha for me with various manufacturers products. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
how about how it is fairly weak to power failures, rendering the pen drive completely useless (thats at least 40 bucks wasted just because of bad luck).

Edit:

The only problem I see in the "Strengths and weaknesses" is that it might not be clear which are the weaknesses because they are not stipulated specifically as a weakness. Some emphasis could be added to state the word "disavantage" or "weakness" in each sentence that is implying a weakness.
The fact is that USB Flash Drives have only one *major* weakness: limited use.

One can write to the flash memory only so many times and then it is *poof* ... That is complicated by the fact that many programs pay no attention to how many times and ways they write to a drive. The end user thinks one copy of a jpeg is one write but that is not true. Several to many writes occur on the copy of just one file and that is multiplied, in a reduced manner, by the number of files copied. In fairness, all recordable media have limited use but flash is one of the most limited(except for the floppies I have purchased in the last five years which got about two writes before going bad).

One can add that losing the drive is a weakness because it can easily disappear into a car seat or a couch so care has to be taken to keep that from happening. Losing the cap on the connector is a problem too.
Weakness to power failure is not the device as much as the USB technology, mainboard and end-user lack of proper protection against such events. Claiming that as a weakness for a flash drive is way out on a small limb. Perhaps a reference to USB technology' weaknesses would be more appropos.
Depending upon the comparison used, the limited speed could be considered a weakness. Hard disk drives have faster transfer rates. In comparison to other so-called "portable" media USB flash drives win, especially compared to any floppy. Both sides should be clearly mentioned.
For use as a replacement for a floppy drive, the following is a huge weakness. These flash drives are still in their infancy and many computer and peripheral device makers simply do not support them and mandate that a floppy disk drive is present to perform such critical tasks as updating the BIOS. In particular, it is extremely difficult to make a USB flash drive bootable across the range of platforms in use today. Even if the platform can boot DOS, it might not boot to USB or only boots to a subset of one of the three types: large floppy, zip drive or hard disk. Virtually all manufacturers require a clean boot to some DOS before a BIOS can be flashed. If the device cannot boot, it is useless as a replacement for a floppy drive. ( To make matters worse, some manufacturers sell computers without floppy drives or the onboard controller but make updates to the system require booting from DOS on a floppy drive. )

Some years back Microsoft identified this problem as it related to MS OS and set forth some guidelines it believed should be implemented to make booting to USB a relatively simple task. To the best of my knowledge, little to nothing has been done to accomplish those objectives. ( RE: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usb-boot.mspx ) I just finished a week long effort to get boot on a 128MB Corsair Flash Voyager and get it so that my vendors' flash programs will run properly. It cannot be done with tools that normal computer users can access and use. I can boot but the result is "So what?" since the vendor's phlash.exe program will not run properly, etc... In the research effort I found that is a very common problem. I also found that there is no major manufacturer actively working on a *unified* solution. Hence, the removal of floppy drives from computer systems is not going to happen for a long time. ( a very depressing reality, IMO.)

Could lack of understanding by users be considered a weakness? I, for example, do not understand why some USB flash drives work on some computers and not on others. I am beginning to understand that one reason for not working is application or utility software on the flash drive, especially if it set to autorun. I have come across U3 software in particular as causing problems by autorunning (or by trying to and failing). Is there such a thing as a "standard" USB flash drive - or do ones from different manufacturers, or different models from the same manufacturer - differ in terms of how they behave, and what drivers are needed for them? Also - does anyone have an understanding of this that they could put in a way suitable for Wikipedia? FrankSier 14:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing text

"Most flash drives feature the standard type-A USB connection allowing them to be connected directly to the port. Some small drives have been made with a thin plug designed to mate with a standard usb port[1] but these are very rare."

These two sentences seem to describe the same thing. A drive that connects to a standard USB port, and a drive that connects to a standard USB port. The only difference seems to be in the wording - "connect" vs "mate", etc. This is very confusing as it's clearly intended to describe two different things.

one describes a standard USB type A plug, the other describes a plug that still mates with a standard socket but looks nothing like a standard plug. Plugwash 09:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Names

I removed one of the references to the memory stick name under the Naming Confusion section, as it was listed twice.Ynos 17:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of "that flash-card USB thingy" because seriously, no one calls it that, and it's very un-encyclopidic, if thats even a word.

Largest capacity pen drive available?

What's the USB flash drive (a pen shaped one) with the most capacity currently available? On Amazon UK the highest I found was 1gb. I'm considering a purchase. --bodnotbod 15:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dabs sells several 2Gb ones - http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/productView.htm?quicklinx=3KQG http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/hardware/storage/products.htm?catid=216 -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for such a quick reply. Still no match in storage terms for a DVD then, though I appreciate the differing merits (well, a bit). -- (bodnotbod, not logged in).
Jetflash has a 4GB model, as do several other manufacturers. Bloodshedder 03:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
dabs is now listing several 4GB drives http://www.dabs.com/productlist.aspx?&NavigationKey=11152&NavigationKey=40096&CategorySelectedId=11152&PageMode=1 nothing above that yet though (well unless you count that 5 gig sony device but thats not flash. the 4 gig ones are bloody expensive though. Plugwash 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Now up to 8 GB from Pretec. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Now up to 16 GB from Cell Disk. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a 64gb flash drive [3]--203.214.83.110 10:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
From BusLink. This is a better link [4]. Insane capacity! Garglebutt / (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ThinkGeek exlink

I'm not quite sure which product the ThinkGeek link is supposed to reference (I see a list). If it's the Pocketec one, this is a more direct and informative link, I think. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

When i added the link it went straight to a product very similar to the one i have now linked (though i belive a different brand). It seems thinkgeek have now dropped the product and made the link for it take you to the section menu. Plugwash 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit

In my humble opinion, ALL links to products should be removed from the text. It is never appropriate on the web to expect the link to be there at some later time. Product links are the worst of all. Also, Wikipedia is not an advertising mechanism and external links to product(s) is an implied endorsement.

Clarification needed

The flash drive was first invented in 1998 at IBM as a floppy drive replacement for the ThinkPad line of products. Although there is an IBM disclosure, they did not patent it. IBM later contracted M-Systems to develop and manufacture it non-exclusively. M-Systems holds the patent to this device, as well as a few other related patents.

If IBM had publically disclosed this idea and contracted someone to make it non-exclusively how exactly can that other company have a patent on it? Plugwash 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A "disclosure" is a legal submission which says "I/we have or may have some intellectual property in this or that field"; it doesn't actually mean to disclose anything substantive about that invention (doing that, publically, would invalidate any unfiled patent applications). Disclosures are most commonly filed with standards bodies (although they're found in all kinds of inter-company agreements). Say, for example, you're on the ANSI Exploding Weasel subcommitee. ANSI will require you to disclose that you have some pending intellectual property in the field of mustela detonation, but you don't have to disclose what it is. In this case it's likely that IBM tranferred (sold/gave/swapped) the revelant IP to M-Systems, having previously disclosed that they were working on something sorta kinda link that, in some public agreement or filing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
ok so if there is a patent what number is is it? what exactly does it cover? is it likely to stand up in court? and are other manufacturers generally licenseing it or ignoring it? Plugwash 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like patent # 6,148,354. Bloodshedder 05:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A company called Trek won the lawsuit regarding this patent. Hence, I've changed the "first maker" to Trek - as is proper - until the courts rule otherwise. http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=70859 Clockword 12:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Autostart?

Does anyone know how to activate autostart with a usb drive? (not a boot drive)

Like you might with any other drive, such as a CD drive: autorun.inf. Unfortunately, no Windows OS has autorunning for removable disk drives enabled by default. There's this, but it has to be installed on any PC you want it to work with. Bloodshedder 06:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
For Windows XP: Phase 1: Download the latest version of "TweakUI" (see Google), open it and use the tree to the left to get to "Types" nested under "Autoplay" (which is nested under "My Computer"), click "Enable Autoplay for removable devices." Phase 2: (Safely) Remove your USB Flash Drive, put it in again and you should be prompted with the autoplay menu, choose your pleasure ("Open folder to view files using Internet Explorer") and check "Always do the selected action." Arbitrary arbiter 14:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Suicide drive?

Never heard of it and no matches on google. I've reverted the first addition in the intro and may revert it from naming confusion if noone comes forward to concur with its use. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

POVness

It seems like this article's point seems to be that "Flash storage devices are best compared to other common, portable, swappable data storage devices." In fact, this is a direct quote. This could probably be reworded. 8.8.201.199 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit:

I agree that the impression is to use a USB flash drive rather than something else. While I agree with it, I do not think the article should imply such. Other mechanisms for media transport might be more appropriate under certain circumstances. A rewording of, e.g.,

"Flash storage devices provide some exceptional benefits compared to other common, portable, swappable data storage devices. They also provide some specific problems not inherent in other media."

I read "Flash storage devices are best compared to" to mean "It is useful to compare flash storage devices with...". So the sentence seems to be ambiguous - which is another reason for replacing it. I have made a change based on suggestion above. FrankSier 14:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then adding a link to the "Strengths and Weaknesses" section would be of benefit to the reader.
The statement in the text that many mainboards and computers do not have floppy controllers is just plain wrong. What is true is that "some" do not. If someone buys a complete system that does not have a floppy drive in it, it does not mean that one cannot be added to it because there may be an onboard floppy controller. Also, there are USB controlled floppy drives.

Also Note, the use of the word "never" in that paragraph is negative.Jrowle 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "never" is (technically) negative word. In the case of "never reached the point of ubiquity" I think it is also factual and therefore NPOV. The case of "never feasible" is I think more tending to POV - costs might have come down for example.FrankSier 14:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

++ "Best" is definately not neutral here. Best would apply to CF's compactness or reliability. Best wouldn't apply to it's limited write cycles or data permanence where HD's or CD-R's outperform. I'd probably say:

"Flash storage devices have some advantages when compared to other common, portable, and swappable data storage devices including compactness and reliability due to their lack of mechanical hardware. However, they currently have disadvantages in the areas of cost, long-term data permanence, and limited write cycles when compared to other mediums such as hard drives and writable compact disks."

This would serve as a summary/intro to the section and then the section can go into more specific detail. 68.60.59.250 08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility with Windows

The article says that USB flash drives are incompatible with Windows 2000, but on my box it works.. 82.92.116.122 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Bloodshedder 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Names?

Has enyone else heard the name 'twig' or 'memory twig'? I've heard it from a few people around Oxford (the city in England, not in the US), and i tihnk it came from them being called memory sticks.

Removal of external link

I removed *AppOnKey.com - The Portable Environments Applications Freeware because the site has no software on it, looks like you would have to pay. However if later it has the software it is talking about and has it free it should be put back --Adam1213 Talk + 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

This article needs wikifying. A lot of the words are abbreviated before having their expanded form. People that are not computer savvy will be confused. 71.250.15.252 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I don't think this meets the WP:WIAGA criteria in its current state, mainly due to the quality of the prose. The enormous list under etymology adds very little to the article, and the bullet pointed lists under components should be made into prose. In addition, trivia sections are bad - if a fact is notable in the context of the article it should be included in the text rather than isolated in a section whose title implies it's not really very interesting or relevant. Worldtraveller 10:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention horrid syntax like this (from the lead para): Microsoft Windows XP (not some early versions though), 2000 and ME shipped with native support for USB Mass Storage devices, but any previous Windows version requires a driver that is usually available from the manufacturer. 207.69.137.22 05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is mostly ok, except that the lead section is quite bad. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

U3

Can anyone add something about U3 technology?--Mutley 10:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is mentioned about half-way down the page, in the 'Common uses' > 'Flash drive for applications' section. The text contains a link to the full U3 article. Never heard it called 'U3' before, so thanks for drawing my attention! --Mark76uk 00:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Windows 95/98 in the past tense?

Reads: "in order to use a USB flash drive in these versions of Windows, a driver from the manufacturer had to be installed."

Windows 95/98 are not 'gone', merely less popular. It should read: "a driver from the manufacturer **has** to be installed" (plus other minor edits to pull that paragraph into the present tense.)

UPDATE: No objections, article was altered as above. Mark76uk 22:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bootable drives

Information elsewhere on the 'net (say, [[5]]) suggests that only some drives are bootable. The article seems to assume all drives are. Could anyone confirm which is correct?

Edit:

I wrote some information under the "Strengths and Weaknesses" section. Please refer to that.
In summary, one can say that in theory the USB Flash Drive is as bootable as any other media such as CDROM/DVD, floppy, hard disk, etc. In practice, not so easy.(actually quite hard in some cases)
It is not as clear as just getting boot because once boot is achieved, what is one going to do with it? In order to make the device usable applications have to be installed and applications have their own set of requirements. One has two basic choices, DOS or Linux, with flavors for each choice such as DR-DOS, FreeDOS, IBMDOS(PC DOS), MS DOS(pick one...) and linux OS applications such as DSL, and knoppix. Those are just a few of the flavors and each can have pecularities that make running a bootable USB drive an unpleasant, time-consuming experience.
The major problem is the BIOS implementation. If the BIOS implements USB boot, it can do it in several ways and, unfortunately, not make any of them work in a generic manner, meaning that, e.g., one might get Win98 DOS to boot but cannot get IBMDOS(PC DOS) to boot. In addition, as strange as it sounds, the manufacturers/vendors ask the end user to use a floppy and floppy disk drive to obtain needed boot files= to make the device bootable. At this juncture one must ask, "If I already have a floppy drive, why do I need a USB boot drive?" The answer to that is still unclear, IMO.
In short, implying that all USB flash drives, or counterparts such as CF or MMC cards, are all bootable is a bad idea at this time. At the very least a clear statement that flash drives can boot under certain pre-defined( and mostly uncontrollable conditions ) should be made. Hopefully, that will require an update very soon(but it ain't likely...).

Article rewrite/move suggestion

Roughly half of the information in this article is generic. It would apply to flash or hard drive based media players, usb hard drives, and any other mass storage device that utilizes the USB bus. What parts would be best to move into USB Mass Storage Device, to provide more generic coverage of the topic? MrZaiustalk 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mini-edit to the article

I just wanted to mention that i edited some minor typos. This is not exactly exiting news, but as the article is undergoing rework, i thought i would play save and mention it :) RichiH 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliability?

I've never (knock on wood) had a pen drive fail on me. In 20+ years of data processing, I've seen plenty o' floppies, tapes, HD, optical media, etc. go bad. Does anyone know what type of failure rate these devices have?

I had one fail on me already. All it takes is a couple of drops on concrete or asphault and it was gone. Luckily mine was still under warranty (I bought it at Walmart from Lexar) and they took forever to send me a replacement. izcool 10:28, 07 July 2006 (UTC)
I've had one fail on me (corrupted all the files) but it was after going through the wash twice, and a few years. --The Human Spellchecker 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up

What do you all think? By the way, the reason I removed all the stuff in parenthsees is that it's not encyclopedia-ish. It's fine for writing with a voice (it's one of my favorite things to do. See?) but it doesn't work in articles.--69.145.123.171 06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Common uses

--Jeansilva 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) One thing I'd like to add up on the section "Common uses" is that Windows Vista introduces "ReadyBoost", which allows the user to use his/her USB Flash drive as additional memory to the system.

" Windows Vista introduces a new concept in adding memory to a system. Windows ReadyBoost lets users use a removable flash memory device, such as a USB thumb drive, to improve system performance without opening the box. Windows ReadyBoost can improve system performance because it can retrieve data kept on the flash memory more quickly than it can retrieve data kept on the hard disk, decreasing the time you need to wait for your PC to respond. " by Microsoft

Should that be added to the article?

The language sounds like an advert. Perhaps something a little more lower key, especially since Vista isn't quite shipped - SimonLyall 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... And I wouldn't exactly call it "improving performance" either; the way the above (and Microsoft) phrase it, sticking a USB flash drive in your Vista PC will make it go faster - exactly as though you'd added more memory. The reality (AIUI) is that you're just moving virtual memory (swap space) from a 3.5" HDD to a USB flash device...
Well as suggested by microsoft, the system can retrive data from a USB Flash device faster than from a Hard Disk. So if that's is true, we'll have additional memory ram a faster virtual memory. and anyways all I want is to add this information so people will know what's coming up. Technology moves pretty fast, and they might come up with a specific Flash device just for this particular porpose...

Mini cleanup

I'm in process of cleaning the article a little. so far I am mainly getting rid of stuff the is an aside to the main point of the article and also cleaning up the reference formatting. One thing I notice though is the bit listing the internal bits seems to duplicate itself a little and also says there is only one memory chip and later that there can be two. It could probably use a little tidy. - SimonLyall 09:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Removing brand names was needed, however it would be good if they are put onto another page with a link. [6]

However "512s are almost the same price as smaller models" needs citation, does not appear to be factual, 2-4 gigs are pretty common, is not true. [7]. The edits before this were all good. --Adam1213 Talk + 12:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was more a case that drives smaller than 512 MB are not significantly cheaper. But didn't seem to really work out. I think the next stages needed are:
  • Split off the alternative names, perhaps something like Mobile phone terms across the world
  • Change the style and packaging section to talk about funny packages and the like and not to bash lexar.
  • combine the "stength and weaknesses" and "Comparison to other portable memory forms" sections
- SimonLyall 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
2gb drives are becoming more common now (but not 4s)--203.214.41.85 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to agree on "not bashing Lexar." The current article seems to be strongly against Lexar for some reason. —Jared Hunt August 27, 2006, 11:09 (UTC)

msystems article gone?

A few weeks ago I was reading about Flash, including, I think, the msystems (previously M-Systems) article. Now it is gone, assuming I remember correctly and it really was there. Is there a way to search for deleted articles? No article about msystems seems strange and unlikely. 88.155.54.167 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unintentional disconnections from the USB port

I think this section is getting to close to computer help. Next we'll be suggesting using duct tape on the end of drives to stop the blinking light for bothing people or perhaps a carefully placed pile of paper to prevent "drive droop". Seriously though I can't really see this being a the sort of thing that really belongs in this section, it is more a general USB problem to the extent that it exists. Perhaps a two line bit about how ports can wear out with repeated removals and insertions? - SimonLyall 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this problem is unique to flash drives, as they are heavier than the unsupported portion of a USB cable. USB ports are designed for USB cables, not for flash drives, and this leads to a basic incompatibility. This is a definite flaw in the design of flash drives, and deserves to be mentioned in this article. StuRat 12:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Section is too long. Should be collapsed to one line comment or an addition to existing comment on over sized packaging procluding insertion in some cases. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's not what you did, you just deleted the entire section with a misleading comment: "(→Strengths and weaknesses - summarised weight issue into packaging section)". I will put the section back in and reduce the size, as you suggested above. StuRat 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing misleading. I added a sentence to the packaging section. The readded paragraph is far too long for this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewording of the "Naming" Section

I just re-worded the Naming section, I believe it to be more informative. If you have an objection, be sure to tell me ;)

Rewording didn't seem to work. As soon as you list any names then everyone will want their own favorate. "of course" and "quite" are a little informal and "see link below" isn't really good language either. - SimonLyall 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Definition of Flash Drives

I thought I'd place that in here because I think it's important on the USB Flash Drives. If you don't agree, just say!

I've reverted it for now. link to flash drive is a link back to here. Size discussion duplicates other pieces of the article, whole section duplicates the leading paragraph of the article. "They are flash drives because they have no moving components inside." is completely wrong (see flash memory and the bit about mp3 players didn't fit in a definition section. - SimonLyall 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Longevity?

How long do flash drives retain their memory if not connected to a USB port?

Whether or not they are connected to a USB port does not matter. Only the amount of read-write cycles determines their longevity, and that information should already be in the article. Bloodshedder 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The memory should survive at least 10-100 years of non-use... Does anyone really know? Anyone have any real data? Storing in moderate, stable environment would certainly be safer than handling/using it, if you want the data to last as long as possible! 69.87.200.241 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of advert and cleanup tags.

Any objections to these being removed? - SimonLyall 03:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Seperate Sections for OS Specific Links

In the External Links section, we can add a variety of links for Linux & MS that may provide additional information that the reader is looking for.

Like so:

Howtos

MS Windows Howtos and Documents

Linux Howtos and Documents

  • AltHack.com: How to Run Linux on a USB Drive
  • Feraga.com: Creating a privacy optimized GNU/Linux installation for USB Flash drives and other removable media.
  • Finix.org: Debian testing on an encrypted root partition
  • Flash Linux: A 256Mb Linux distribution for USB keys (based on Gentoo).
  • Gentoo Forums: Booting Linux from a USB-Pendrive
  • Linux on a Stick!: Simple, easy screenshot walkthroughs showing how to put Linux distributions onto USB sticks
  • Live Distro: A collection of articles about running Linux from USB Flash Drives and other removable Media.
  • Pen Drive Linux: How to install boot and run Live Linux on a USB flash pen drive.
  • Your Pocket OS On A Stick Simple steps to run a Linux desktop on a flash drive

Disclaimer: I am the webmaster and wrote most of the content on Feraga.com.

-- Dvehrs 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cost, or History of the Cost of flash drives

There is little information on actual cost of the various-size devices in the article. I suspect a section on this would be quite useful in an encyclopedic article like Wikipedia aims for, especially with some amount of historical data for how the prices have declined over time. As of today's Black Friday (shopping) sales in the US, (November 24, 2006), 1 GB flash drives are selling widely (on sale) for under US$13 (last year, same sales, 1 GB drives were selling for $33 to $45). 256 MB drives have been under US$10, even when not on sale, for several months now. Does anyone else think such verifiable info would be a beneficial section in this article? N2e 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

trouble is its both unverifiable (how do you know the suppliers you pick are representitive of the genral world market) and rapidly changing. (btw i don't think i've ever seen them that cheap over here in the uk) Plugwash 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is possible to survey/verify price data on shopping sites etc. And it would be a valuable addition to the article. But I think a median-real-retail price history vs. size is more useful than lowest-possible-super-sale price. 69.87.200.241 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FireWire Flash Drive?

Can anyone tell me whether they exist, and are they picking up steam in terms of adaptation by the industry? Arbiteroftruth 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They exist, but they don't seem to be too viable/practical. Bloodshedder 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it merits a mention in the article? Arbiteroftruth 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
IIRC they do have the advantage that they can be used to sucessfully boot OSX on a powerPC mac whereas USB ones can't. Plugwash 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of USB flash drive companies

It makes sense to be able to document the great variety of USB flash drives. A first step is to have a list of the companies. I started a list. Someone removed it. If you don't think it belongs here, please put it in a separate article. I don't understand the objection to having such information, as an anchor for adding much more information about USB flash drives. (Yes, there probably are dozens of such companies -- that is why we need a list of them!) 69.87.200.138 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this list wouldn't really benifit wikipedia. The actual size could be hundreds of companies rather than just dozens (depending on what exact definition you use). It would have to be maintained as companies joined and left the industry etc. I really don't think it is a big priority for an article. Certainly it will just clutter up this one. - SimonLyall 09:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It would like having a list of companies which produce (for example) PC cases or mice - pretty pointless, and hardly something of value to an encyclopedia. If you 'have' to create such a list, it certainly shouldn't be part of this article Nuwewsco 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. If folk don't want to get into the details of the various USB flash drives here, are there any good links to places that do have a pretty complete list of the different drives? It is particularly frustrating that most UFD are not labelled/marketed with realistic data transfer throughputs, and the information is not readily available anywhere. 69.87.193.21 18:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from JumpDrive ?

This really is just a brand name and synonym for a USB flash drive. This article already mentions the brand, and does a much better job of covering the generic realm of disk-on-key thingies. The page JumpDrive used to be a redirect, but somehow is now a distinct article notwithstanding the Alternative names for USB flash drive article. Comments? --Brownsteve 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a merge to me. The only extra info on that page is listing the make. Probably just a redirect. - SimonLyall 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thought this was pretty obvious, so I went ahead and merged the two. Ping me back if you disagree... Brownsteve 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Transfer speed on virgin units

I discovered that new sticks have lower read speed on yet unwritten sectors. This can make new owners think that they have been conned if they do a speed test and find lower than expected values. I think this phenomenon should be mentioned.

For example see before-and-after pictures here. It is a SanDisk Cruzer Titanium U3 1GB stick, with about 50 MB of preloaded software on the first picture and additional 250 MB of newly copied files on the second picture.

xerces8 --195.3.81.25 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Flash_drive redirecting here, probably misleading

Since there are several kinds of flash-based media as well as internal flash harddrives, redirecting Flash Drive here seems to me to be an error. All of the memory card types of devices can be considered flash drives and are treated as such by most operating systems. (with the exception of the IBM MicroDrive and derivatives). Flash memory-based Hard Drives were/are simply called flash drives. This is how I discovered the redirect.

A better, temporary solution is a disambiguation page for Flash Drive with a redirect from Flash_drive. I'll get to it soon if no one else does.

dygituljunky

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USB_flash_drive/Archive_1&oldid=1137278542"