Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:50, 30 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SD card 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electronics Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Template:Copied multi

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

X Speed Ratings: SLC vs MLC,?

Propably, a thing related to speed ratings of SD cards is the SLC vs MLC issue. Although it is almost never mentioned by SD cards distributors, it seems the critical factor impacting access times, write and read speed, as well as the media durability. I'm absolutely not any kind of expert here, I just wanted to give a hint, hoping it's usefull for soemone more knowledgable. I can't say what is the link between 60, 133, 150x etc. ratings and the SLC/MLC, but there is something on here it seems. Or are the MLC not present on the market anymore?

Searching for "slc mlc sd" gives eg. this document: http://www.pamiec.com.pl/pub/Samsung_SLC_NAND_Flash_Advantage.pdf.

Compatibility section

I think there should be a separate section on compatibility, e.g. between SD and MMC cards, the issue with 2GB and larger SD cards, etc.

A device that's SDHC compatible, though manufacturer claims not

The GPX MW3836 (with SUFFIX NO: E1 label) MP3 player is able to read/write up to at least 4GB SDHC even though GPX claims is can only use up to 1GB standard SD cards. That gives this cheap $20 player 5GB of storage. :) I've a Lexar 4GB SDHC in mine. It'd be nice to see a site off-Misplaced Pages with a list of specific devices that support SDHC though they officially don't.

It's not that the manufacturer has claimed anything. It is often the case that the manufacturer has not been able to test his product with the larger cards simply because they were not available prior to the product's release. For example the Panasonic HDC-SD1 camcorder Operating Instructions lists the cards that can be used. Although, the reader might infer from the text that 4GB is the largest SDHC card that can be used, it doesn't actually say so. 4GB was certainly the largest card available when the camera was released. In fact the camera operates perfectly with 8GB, 16GB and 32GB SDHC cards. 86.173.174.62 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the specifications on a manufacturers website / user manual / software might not all be in sync with each other. I've noticed numerous websites and online user manuals not matching the latest revision of software. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tested that GPX player with an 8 gig card, works fine. Too bad it's a discontinued model. The cheap players GPX makes now have no card slot. Bizzybody (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It quite often happens that devices support things that their manufacturers don't claim (including things available at the time). The claim is basically "we have tried this and pretty much guarantee that it works. If you try anything else, great, but don't come whining to us". I have plenty of devices that accept larger SD or Micro SD cards than claimed, larger laptop and desktop computer RAM than claimed, and so on. Lots of Windows XP computers that "don't" support Windows 7, do. Asus motherboards for AMD processors generally support and make use of ECC memory, though memory manufacturers don't list this. Of course, you may run into trouble when 8GB model xyz works and you buy 8GB model zyx, which doesn't. I've found a Google search like <Inspiron 1501 4GB> to be useful. Pol098 (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "Secure" about Secure Digital?

Could someone please explain the meaning of "secure" in the name? Gwideman (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is to make you feel as though the device is keeping your work "secure" while in practice the device is keeping authors' works "secure" from you. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There are special secure commands to access optional encrypted data. This is a new feature compared to the MMC cards, which SD was derived. The commands are not publically documented, thus you have to pay to get the documentation. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the basis of the claim in the article that you can password protect an SD card? If so, this really should be spelled out clearly. At the moment, it comes across as though the ability to password-protect an SD card is a purchaser-level operation. Additionally, I've just spent several fruitless minutes on the SD official website and could find no mention of any password-protection feature. If what you are referring to is different, then what _is_ the section on password-protection basing its claim on? Edrarsoric (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The ability to password-protect a card and to render it read-only are indeed user options that are described in the referenced 3.0 specification. I am not surprised that this feature is not touted on the SDA website. The Digital Rights Management protection is completely separate and is not described anywhere in the specification. Spike-from-NH (talk)

Incomplete/Inconsistent/Confusing?

The article refers to four types of SD card: SDSC, SDHC, SDXC and SDIO However:

• there is no section regarding SDSC, only the other three
• while it states early on that SDHC are pre-formatted it is not clear whether they have to be formatted in FAT32 or what limitations apply to the other formats
• later, in the middle of a highly technical section, the file systems on the cards are detailed.

May I suggest that

• a section is added to detail the SDSC format
• the basic information eg regarding partitioning and file type, be consolidated into the main headings describing each format
• historical information is extracted to a separate section dealing with the development of the series as a whole
• detailed electronic etc information is consolidated into the technical sections as currently

fwiw LookingGlass (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that a "SD (SDSC)" section should be added above the SDHC section. I need to come back later and examine the article more closely and further comment. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory

From the article:

Conversely, SDHC host devices will accept SDXC cards that follow Version 3.0, since the interface is identical, but the following issues may affect usability:

Following the reference leads to a page which says this:

Only Use SDXC Memory Cards in SDXC Devices

The article seems to be saying the opposite of the source. However, I got here because of a discussion on a web forum where someone was able to use a SDXC card in a SDHC device, so I don't think this is just a case of misquoting the source. What's going on here? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We debated this section at length. (The debate is above, especially at #File system for SDXC.) The operative phrase is, "that follow Version 3.0" (that is: "that are formatted with FAT32"). My understanding is that you can plug an SDXC into an SDHC and it is perfectly usable as a block device. However, all SDXCs out-of-the-box come with exFAT and a typical SDHC host device will not be able to navigate it. The bullets set out under the statement you quote summarize this, as well as one other thing that could go wrong: You might not be able to use the SDXC in such a device at its highest speed because of the way new capabilities are encoded in the card. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But the source doesn't say that you can use it when it's formatted with FAT32. The source just says flat out that you can't use it. Whether the statement is true is beside the point when the source that is quoted doesn't actually support the statement. Shouldn't the source that is used support the statement? Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It should. In my opinion, this was a good-faith effort to improve the article that strayed into WP:OR territory. There is a use for Original Research, but it is not to be used this way. What should happen is that someone who knows that you can use SDXC as SDHC if it is formatted with FAT32 uses that knowledge to try to find reliable sources that support that view, but not to put it into the article until those sources are found. It works the other way as well; if I as an engineer see something in an article that I know is wrong, I can't just use my expertise to edit the article, but I can take a close look at whether the statement is supported by the sources. Usually it isn't, and can be removed for that reason. --Guy Macon (talk)

All flavors of SD cards can be reformatted to any file system. Just because a SDSC / SDHC / SDXC ships with a default file system doesn't mean you have to stick with it. Likely the primary reason they make that statement is for electrical and protocol compatibility reasons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If only we could find a reliable source that says that so we could put it in the article... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Though you can format it differently, some host devices may expect the default file system to match the SD type, so we should probably skip telling people. The most flexible operating systems let ya do what ya want. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

“×” rating

The table listing “×” ratings (which, remember, is an old metric) is getting out of hand and I have pared it back. A previous contributor created separate columns for read speed and write speed, though the text makes it clear that various vendors vary in their selection of speeds as a basis of measurement. Today Anon has expanded the table further, to go from "common ratings" apparently to all conceivable ratings. He has also inserted question marks after most of the measurements, which seem to call into question their usefulness and express an opinion of disapproval--but we already knew both things.

The table ought not be to tell the reader how fast their 120× card can perform, because we can't do that, but to give a small, representative list of old-style ratings, and relate them to the newer Speed Class, with the cautionary notes set out in the text.

Anon has also asserted measurement error in the table and the text, which I am not an expert on, and I did not post-edit him there. Spike-from-NH (talk)

Good job. You made a nice improvement to the article. The IP editor's measurement error correction looks OK. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What sort of memory is it?

Nowhere in this article could I find the most fundamental information about SD cards: what memory they actually contain. The summary simply says they contain "Non-volatile memory" without any details at all, this seems like a massive omission! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.146.163 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OS handling of read-only media

I removed this from the article:

Using a read-only device in Microsoft Windows may produce errors because, even when merely reading a file, Windows tries to write a timestamp to the device. (Comparable behavior by Linux can be disabled, and doing so reduces the number of writes to the SD card.)

This is incorrect information and was flagged by a citation needed template for over a year. Windows drivers do not exhibit this behavior; they know not to attempt a metadata write on a read-only device. Linux drivers behave the same way. And, although the advice about disabling update of the last-referenced date information is valid, this article is not a Linux how-to. Discussing the prevention of write operations seems confusing (and a bit odd) in a section on read-only devices. — UncleBubba  07:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As you are correct even back to WinXP, I concur. I seem to recall the Blue Screen of Death under Win95 and maybe Win98, but this error in OS's from two decades ago certainly says nothing about the SD card. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this was an issue with 95 or 98 either. I used a switch in the IDE cable to write protect my secondary hard drive on DOS, 95, and 98 (you can't protect the windows boot drive, of course). I don't remember whether I switched to SATA before or after switching to XP (I tend to be a late adopter of Windows versions). Microsoft has a KB on this at . Also see which is used by police departments to read hard drives without any chance of erasure. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

UDF formatting?

The article says "Any recent version of the above can format SD cards using the UDF file system." I just tried Windows 7 HP SP1 and it does not offer UDF when formatting an SD card. I guess it is a case of "citation needed" ? --Xerces8 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

nanoSD

Sbmeirow and Anon are having a revert war over dimensions for a form factor called "nanoSD." My Google search turns up matches that, on the first page, cease to have anything to do with data storage, including an offer on alibaba.com for something alternately called "nano SD" and "nano SIM"--but also a blog at craptastic.net "to collect and share funny (but fake) products that parody or satire real ones" . I conclude that there may be a SIM card with this name and with an adaptor to SD form factors, but (especially as it is not in the SD specification), it is not properly in this article, any more than SD should be in the CompactFlash article because you can buy an adaptor to make it look like a CompactFlash. Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.com/3316000/3316302_6c93_1024x2000.jpg ;P

It appears to me that some Chinese manufacturers did a web search for "nano SD", "nano SDHC", etc. found multiple sites that mention "iPod nano SD" or "iPod nano SDHC", and assumed that the "nano" was a prefix for the card, not part of the Apple product name. It is common for vendors on alibaba.com to list products for sale that they don't actually have. The theory is that you list hundreds of product names, and when you get a big order you start looking for a source.

I see no convincing evidence that a nano SD card exists.

http://www.google.com/search?q=NanoSD

http://www.google.com/search?q=NanoSD+FemtoSD

http://www.google.com/search?q=NanoSD+FemtoSD+AttoSD

http://www.google.com/search?q=NanoSD+FemtoSD+AttoSD+ZeptoSD

http://www.google.com/search?q=NanoSD+FemtoSD+AttoSD+ZeptoSD+YoctoSD

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Then we would both agree with Sbmeirow in keeping nano's dimensions out of the article. Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the IP editor tries to re-insert it, revert on sight with an edit comment that invites him to discuss it here. If he reverts again, give him a user warning with Template:Uw-3rr, and if he hits 4RR, report him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please note that such reports are rejected if the user was not warned before the 4th revert, and multiple warnings are better. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for each of your investigations. I did the same thing before I reverted the first time, including searching for official SD documents and rumors. The nanoSD is some bastardized concept that is stealing the SD name to promote itself. I also wonder if it was SIM related, but in the end I don't care because it's not official and didn't belong in this article. Even if SD Card Association is working on a new spec or concept, we can't include it until we have some type of official proof. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your guess about the source being the Apple iPhone sounds like an even better reason. Good job! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speed in practice

I added text:

The speed class rating does not totally characterize card performance. Different cards of the same class may vary considerably while meeting class specifications. In addition, speed may vary markedly between writing a large amount of data to a single file (sequential access, as when a digital camera records large photographs or videos) and writing a large number of small files (a random-access use common in smartphones). One study found that, in this random-access use, some Class 2 cards achieved a write speed of 1.38Mb/sec, while all cards tested of Class 6 or greater, including those from major manufacturers, were over 100 times slower.

Some Original Research: I tested two 8GB Micro SDHC cards, including one from a manufacturer supporting small files well, and another (which had been my preferred choice before checking sources) from a manufacturer with a good reputation. The first card with CrystalDiskMark got a 4kB file writing speed of well over 1MB/s (I didn't write it down unfortunately), the other 0.007MB/s (decimal point, 2 zeros, 7, no typo). While photographs and video recordings are a different matter, for general-purpose mobile phone and similar use, handling small files well is important, particularly if running programs off the card. Pol098 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you also gave us a very nice citation for the text you entered. Good work! I do the same thing, BTW; I do original research in my lab, and once I find out what the reality is, I start looking for reliable sources that found the same thing. OR is no good for writing the article, but very good for guiding me as to where to look.

I tried to calculate the ratio of the write speed of a SD card to the write speed of a CD-ROM, but my darn calculator keeps giving me a divide by zero error... <smile> --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you should be using googol instead of Google? Pol098 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Power Drain

Lots of subtleties here concerning how different SD cards are designed and whether the devices they plug into keep them powered up, let them go to sleep automatically, put them in sleep mode, up pull the plug and shut off the power to the card. for example:

http://harizanov.com/2012/05/tinysensors-sd-card-power-consumption-worries-and-solution/

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/micro-sd-power-consumption-t191597.html

I think that the best we can do is to simply say that power consumption varies widely between different cards and between different devices the cards plug into. Either that or give power consumption of SD cards a separate article and try to cover all the variables. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the variations. I'd always assumed that, whether actually put to sleep or not, the power drawn by an SD card was much less when no data transfer was taking place (the basic idea behind non-volatile memory); the references above essentially support this. Reading the article text as it was a few days ago gave the impression that some SD cards could be drawing a steady 100mA, which seems badly wrong. The essential practical point is that putting an SD card in a telephone waiting for calls shouldn't significantly decrease battery life if the card isn't transferring much data. That's my understanding, but I don't have the breadth of knowledge to say and source much more than I have in the article. My intention in quoting the figure of 200μA was simply to say that quiescent current of an SD card is small, negligibly so for many purposes. Pol098 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We know there isn't a big problem with SD cards and phones, because if there were we would see a thousand websites talking about which cards to avoid. Whether this is because the cards have a low drain while sleeping or because the phone powers them down except when storing a new number (reading from a copy in RAM) I don't know, but the engineers who design the phones are not stupid.

I also know from a bit of original research that at least one brand of AC-mains operated industrial equipment constantly reads from the SD card, and thus in that application it draws a lot more current -- for a SD card. The same equipment was driving a 5HP electric motor and a 1500 watt heater, so it's all relative. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect pinouts for microSD

The SPI pinouts listed in table format seem to be for SD and incorrect for microSD (even though it claims it applies to all 3 standards, it doesn't seem that way). Please refer to:

• http://elasticsheep.com/2010/01/reading-an-sd-card-with-an-atmega168/
• http://www.interfacebus.com/MicroSD_Card_Pinout.html
• http://www.digitalspirit.org/file/index.php/obj-download/docs/sd/Kingmax_microsd.pdf
• http://downloads.amilda.org/MODs/SDCard/SD.pdf

edit: fixed Anthiety (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was the one that created the tables in this article and originally wrote the electrical section per what I dug out of the official specs. I think the problem is those other web sites have a different pin numbering scheme compared to the photos in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Micro_SD_card_pinning.jpg I don't have time at this exact second to validate, but wanted to quickly drop my initial thoughts here. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create the photos with the numbers in this article. They were added after I created the tables. I just now sent off a email to sdcard.org to ask for a reference. I was in contact with them with I wrote the electrical section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to determine the correct answer (with proof), then correct the TEXT and/or PHOTO to match it. Don't get in a big rush....discuss....then do it right. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It does seem like that is the case, and that the 9-pin configuration for mini- and micro-SD may no longer be used or standard. All of the diagrams from the reference links and general schematic & image searches seem to indicate mini- and micro-SD have only pins 1-8, sitting flush (no offset 9th pin). When you get time can you double-check if this is indeed the case and if so update the mini and micro SD images so they reflect the current standard? Anthiety (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the internals of some microSD/miniSD to SD adapters, which shows how the pins are connected to each other: • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.camerahacker.com/Digital/Inside_miniSD_Adapter.shtml

http://club.dx.com/forums/forums.dx/threadid.412614

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:SD-microSD_adaptor.jpg

Indeed, all of them are of the 8-pin variety. I'm not going to re-edit it, I'll let you do that to maintain page consistency, but I think we have the facts now. edit: I see the current image does have 8 pins, the first of which is labelled 9 (#3 missing). Again, in all of the references I've encountered they've never numbered the pins like that. Usually numbering the pins from 1 to 8 starting on the left. For example, page 4: http://www.digitalspirit.org/file/index.php/obj-download/docs/sd/Kingmax_microsd.pdf Anthiety (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to give a quick picture of what's going on, this is an example of the overwhelming consensus of the microSD (transflash?) pins:

• https://engineering.purdue.edu/ece477/Webs/F08-Grp02/nb/img/SDPinout.jpg
• http://cache.ourdev.cn/bbs_upload782111/files_19/ourdev_487743.JPG
• http://elasticsheep.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sd-card-pinout.png
• http://www.chlazza.net/imgs/microsdcard.png
• http://www.planetmobile.it/jumpjack/adattatore/pinout-tflash.jpg
• http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8JZhVVmpICU/TH_S9bNW_UI/AAAAAAAAApo/Fr0Oar6HEnY/s1600/microsd+pinout.jpg
• http://www.mikrocontroller.net/attachment/45369/sd-pin.PNG
• http://www.hobbytronics.co.uk/image/data/microsd_pinout.jpg
• http://i.imgur.com/b9CAx.jpg
• http://www.camerahacker.com/Digital/Inside_microSD_Adapter_Pins.jpg

I am hard-pressed to find anything which disagrees with this or supports the pin assignment of the current images. Anthiety (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For Misplaced Pages, what matters is...does it match the official SD Card specification? If we can't get SD Card specs, then we'll step back to SD card makers and SD socket makers for their numbering scheme...which likely matches the official specification. The lowest reliability is blogs and various other non-official website....they might be a good source but they aren't official. SD card makers and SD socket makers have to pay a license to SD Card Association, so they are likely the closest non-official source for pin numbering. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Going over the official SD association standards, they make several references to DAT pins but never seem to actually mention physically where these pins must be:

• https://www.sdcard.org/developers/overview/sdio/
• https://www.sdcard.org/developers/overview/sdio/sdio_spec/Simplified_SDIO_Card_Spec.pdf

I assume it's either not standard - the physical layout of the pins - or it's not in the freely available specifications. As you said I'm inclined to believe the actual card makers since they pay the licensing and in any case set the de-facto standard. All the manufacturer published specs seem to agree on the commonly found pin layout (1-8 starting from left), another example:

• http://www.dtt8.com/images/micro-sd%20specification.pdf

Anthiety (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I sent an email to my last contact at sdcard.org requesting a reference for us to link on their website (for proof). Hopefully they will help us out, but they also might not. I'll respond HERE after I get a response from them. Also, I'll do more investigation tonight and hope other people join this discusion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What does matter for Misplaced Pages though is that it report not "what-ought", but rather what-is. Very likely all signs point to the standard agreeing with the manufacturers, but in any case, the article should properly explain how SD is actually used and implemented. Towards that, I'm inclined to favor WP:BOLD here and push for an immediate change (i.e. not wait for a standard which is likely not to come for free or in any short order). I'd say update the page to reflect the overwhelming consensus among manufacturers, implementers, schematic diagrams and users. If and when you're able to obtain the full standard we can update the page with any new information, but in the meantime the current state of the article does not represent the current state of the industry's implementation of microSD.Anthiety (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the full specification, because I'm very aware that it costs money. We need to ensure BOTH the microSD and miniSD are correct. It does seem the numbering in the photo doesn't match the microSD card vendors, but at the same time the article is technically correct between the numbers in the photos VS the numbers in the tables, so it's not like everything is out of whack. That part of the article has been in its current state for a long time, thus 1 or 2 day delay is no big deal in comparison. I have invited a couple of other editors to comment. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added some TEMPORARY text under each photo to buy us some time to get this fixed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sbmeirow, thanks for asking me to join this discussion. But I have no information with which to disagree with Anthiety. My role in this material was only clerical reformatting. Good luck in finding out what the right answers are. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out the urgency here since it's more of a disservice to pass off wholly inaccurate information as accurate rather than having some (stated) inaccuracies. If at least we should put a disclaimer stating that the current information is highly discrepant with what's out there, then others can find this information easily. However since this article is currently easier to reference than any other (even the standards themselves) I think the longer we wait the more people (such as myself) are going to be burned by misinformation (literally, in this context inaccuracies can result in burning). I didn't focus too much on miniSD so I agree that it presents a less clear picture (I think 1 or 2 references seem to indicate the current pin mapping, a few others the microSD mapping). But I think with some searching around it should be as easy to clear up as microSD. However I think we have an overwhelming amount of information pointing to the correct microSD pin layout. I think we should get that information presented as hastily as possible, even if it's accompanied by a disclaimerAnthiety (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What disservice or urgency? I've already added a TEMPORARY note under the photo to TEMPORARILY address this issue, which is good enough until it gets fixed. This is NOT an end-of-the-world issue, so PLEASE don't treat it in such a manor! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Second that. The only problem here that needs to be fixed at once is someone trusting Misplaced Pages. For all you know, everyone who has edited this page is being paid by the Bubble Memory Cartel (Slogan: "We'll be back!") to spread false information about SD cards.

When you read something on Misplaced Pages, you should think "that's interesting. I wonder if it's true. Time to check the citations!" While Misplaced Pages is usually quite reliable, there is a reason why people get flunked or fired for relying on it. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages if you have any doubts. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I got a reply from SD Card Association. They don't have any public drawings on their site for us to reference. It cost zero for me to ask, so no loss. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently working on 3 new drawings to replace the current 3 photos. I need a couple more evenings to finish them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I made these changes to this section: add 2 new columms, add 2 new rows, center items in table, change from tables on 1 row to 2 rows (because tables are too wide now). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I added my new drawing and removed the previous 3 photos. It took longer to complete because I was experimenting with colors / fonts / various ways to present the cards. I added a MMC column to the tables too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Envision wording

To pick a nit on a separate editing issue: "envisage" is the British rendition of "envision". As this article uses American grammar, the latter is appropriate and the recent edits are good. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In the USA, I've never used the word "envisage", but I have used "envision". You are more elegant wordsmith than me, so I can't comment. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

4 Gb SDSC bis

Noq today correctly reverts Anon as "unsourced," but it was more than unsourced, it was overt advocacy based on personal anecdote. The article already documented the potential problems with using SDSC cards above 1 Gb and even gave the technical reasons; we should not go further into recommendations, either that they are "most worthwhile" or about their availability "despite rumors to the contrary." Regarding Anon's material about the behavior under Win9x, we recently correctly deleted text I had added about write-protected SDs under those old operating systems. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Write Protect Switch

A word about the purely mechanic write protect switch might be practical. Knowing its function (just for a switch in the reader; lower part of cutout only to hold switch, otherwise not needed) allows you to easily fix a broken off and missing write protect switch by scotch tape with a little piece of solid cardboard, wood or paper clip underneath. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we have enough of a word now (at Section 2.2.1) that a reader would see how to work around a broken switch as you describe. Spike-from-NH (talk)

PS--On 16-May, Zedtwitz added text that SD readers detect this tab optically and not mechanically, achieving higher reliability through the absence of moving parts in the reader. I deleted this contribution, asking in the Change Summary whether the SD spec mandates this implementation of a card reader, and even so, whether the article wants to start describing the rationales behind engineering decisions. "What they specified" is easier for us to document than "what they were thinking," as there are sometimes good arguments for and against engineering decisions. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Fakes

Elvey, in the section on Fakes, has reinserted wording that is tighter than his original (13-Apr) that the SD "marketplace is rife with defective, counterfeit products." I have no doubt that fraud exists, but do doubt that we can quantify its magnitude (in numbers or in words) compared to the market at large. And surely fake cards fail in all the ways he has listed. But his sources are all blogs--he now cites three now rather than just one. I can blog anything I like, then quote my personal opinion. He asserts in the Change Summary that "Some blogs meet RS. Cited one does."--which to me is yet another personal opinion.

It is unremarkable to me that, if you buy a branded product and someone defrauds you, the product will not perform as you expect from that brand. Is there anything authoritative we can say about it besides, "Beware!"? Elvey accuses me in the History of being a seller of fakes. (Anyone who pages through the History sees that my edits are not merely to make the world safe for fraudsters.) It is he who seems to be on a campaign. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being a seller of fakes; I asked a question which you've answered, but I'm sorry if you took offense, Spike.--Elvey (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is original research, and thus not a suitable source for editing the article, but a while back I was running compatibility tests on SD cards. I bought well over two hundred different cards from a wide variety of manufacturers and from different sources (buying the same model from Amazon, eBay and Newegg is a good way to get different lot numbers). I don't believe I got any fakes, and I certainly did not get any cards with mislabeled capacity (my tests would definitely have found that). Rife with defective, counterfeit products? Not really. Now I do buy from reliable vendors; if I had picked new eBay sellers with bad reputations and too-good-to-be-true prices, or bought from Craigslist, a local swap meet or the back of a truck somewhere, I might very well have ended up with a pile of fakes.

As for the accusation, I have placed a friendly warning on his talk page. If the behavior continues, please drop me a line on my talk page and I will escalate it to the proper venue. --Guy Macon (talk)

I have nothing to do with the sources I referenced; the list of ebay fake flash sellers is crowdsourced; certainly the claims are readily verifiable by looking up all or a sampling of the >1600 the ebay sellers. 'Some blogs meet RS' is fact, not personal opinion. Whether the cited one does is a separate question. Guy, bunnie fount the marketplace was rife with fake microSD cards when he went looking for 'em. (And if you want to insist that even bunnie's blog isn't a RS, http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/even-kingston-knocks-off-kingston-microsd-cards/ or boingboing have roughly the same story. And, "rife" is long since gone from the article; didn't bother to read what I'd actually written, clearly.) --Elvey (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, some blogs and forum posts can meet our criteria for RS, but most of them don't. For example, anything posted anonymously or under a pseudonym does not qualify. And for a forum or blog to qualify, the site and the author should have built up a reputation for quality over years. Also, the links should be static and the likelihood, that the site will continue to exist (without changing the link structure) in a number of years, should be high. Ideally, the site should be non-commercial and free of ads. Finally, if the information can be found elsewhere in RS, we should use these sources instead.

I'm sure the problem has been discussed in reliable sources like printed computer or photo magazines already, so we should use them. (I could certainly provide some RS, but they are not English and therefore I leave it to others to find English RS). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Elvey has decided to respond to my warning with defiance. As I said before, if he repeats the behavior, let me know and I will see to it that is is addressed appropriately. ( "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other." --Benjamin Franklin ). I also see that Elvey has decided to use reverts in an attempt to get his way. I undid his revert and encourage him to seek consensus on the talk page. Given his previous violations of Misplaced Pages policy, we may have to deal with edit warring or sockpuppetry, but so far he has not crossed that line. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you have responded to my warning with defiance, Guy. If you're going to threaten me here, then you need to respond to my warning on your talk page.--Elvey (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a specific problem with the heise, gizmodo or boingboing references, state them. Guy keeps removing even these refs. If he continues to refuse to discuss the specific references, reverting, e.g. simply restoring "Such fakes have been around since at least 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.heise.de/mobil/meldung/Gefaelschte-SD-Karten-151283.html}}</ref>" (What's wrong with that???) doesn't constitute edit warring. --Elvey (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't you love the way these POV-pushing edit warriors call a single edit "Guy keeps removing..."? It's as if they can't wrap their minds around the concept of an editor who actually follows WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, please stop making false accusations.

Accusing other editors?

You wrote on my talk page:

These two edits are unacceptable behavior. Please stop accusing other editors of selling fake products or engaging in paid editing. I am really hoping that this behavior stops now with this friendly warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, please stop making false accusations; it's unacceptable behavior. I am really hoping that this behavior stops now with this warning.

The diffs you link to do NOT show me "accusing other editors of selling fake products or engaging in paid editing".

I claim that there's a significant difference between a question and a statement; if you disagree then I propose we agree to disagree, I'm certainly not going to change my mind about that.

If you meant to say that it is unacceptable for me to imply that other editors might be selling fake products or engaging in paid editing, then well, that's not what you said. If you are warning someone, it is foolish to make false accusations while doing so. A false accusation isn't a friendly warning, even if you say it is a friendly warning. Agreed?

If you wish to demand that editors not mention the possibility that other editors might be selling fake products or engaging in paid editing, period, then I suggest you take that demand to ANI.

If you meant to suggest I word my concerns regarding the possibility that other editors might be selling fake products or engaging in paid editing differently, then if you want me to understand, you should provide alternate wording that expresses the concerns, and a direct quote of policy that my wording violates but yours doesn't, or a retraction of the false accusation and warning.

Besides, there's no policy against being a paid editor - but there should be.--Elvey (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class electronic articles
• Mid-importance electronic articles
• WikiProject Electronics articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• B-Class Computer hardware articles
• High-importance Computer hardware articles
• B-Class Computer hardware articles of High-importance
• All Computing articles