| Revision as of 23:41, 1 November 2017 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,143 edits I vas only followink orders....zeig heil, mein Furher!← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:08, 2 November 2017 edit undoDavey2010 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers142,573 edits →Time wasting article: fuck itNext edit → | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
| ::Acording to ] at Prose size (including all HTML code)= 63 kB (as measured by ]) this article "Probably should be divided." I agree with ] that the article needs to be trimmed and suggest he be allowed to proceed. ] (]) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | ::Acording to ] at Prose size (including all HTML code)= 63 kB (as measured by ]) this article "Probably should be divided." I agree with ] that the article needs to be trimmed and suggest he be allowed to proceed. ] (]) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::I'm being commanded to go to the talk page, and yet I don't see here any reason to retain all the commented-out text. --] (]) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | :::I'm being commanded to go to the talk page, and yet I don't see here any reason to retain all the commented-out text. --] (]) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::So we're not following ] no ? ... Fuck it done. –]<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:08, 2 November 2017
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hard disk drive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Computing B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Hard disk drive is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Spindle (computer) was copied or moved into Hard disk drive with this edit on July 15, 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hard disk drive. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hard disk drive at the Reference desk. |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Form factors?
Any feelings about stripping out the form factors section and making it into a separate List of hard disk drive form factors or something like that? The list of floppy disk formats got removed from its article. My concern is that we have a lot of text and footnotes, and it seems to me to make this article awkwardly large and excessively detailed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- A good idea particularly since these specific form factors started in FDD and promulgated into optical so one article linked to from the several makes sense. Note there are already several form factor articles so the article title needs some thought, perhaps Form Factor (disk drives)? There may be a problem in avoiding OR since I am not aware of any RS on the evolution of FF. Tom94022 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree it's a good idea, but why not just List of disk drive form factors?--agr (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The section as it stands has a lot of material much of which is very HDD specific, especially in the table. A list of just "disk drive" form factors would be a very small article and leave behind much of what is in the current section, to the point where such a list might not be worthy of an article. A comprehensive article on 'Form Factor (disk drives) would have to be less HDD specific especially in the table. Tom94022 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've always thought that an encyclopedia article on "bolt" should talk in general about thread forms, strength, materials, history,theory of bolted joints, standards - but the exhaustive listing of all the possible dimensions is for a parts catalog, not an encyclopedia. When we start listing the spacing of the mounting holes, we've gone beyond the level of detail appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, a simple list especially with mounting hosles is level of detail inappropriate to an encyclopedia. The main problems with just making the current section an article is that the history is inverted (FF history started in the FD world) and the table, while interesting is too HDD specific - maybe we could leave the HDD details behind and have the table show which FFs existed on which disk drives? Tom94022 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've always thought that an encyclopedia article on "bolt" should talk in general about thread forms, strength, materials, history,theory of bolted joints, standards - but the exhaustive listing of all the possible dimensions is for a parts catalog, not an encyclopedia. When we start listing the spacing of the mounting holes, we've gone beyond the level of detail appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The section as it stands has a lot of material much of which is very HDD specific, especially in the table. A list of just "disk drive" form factors would be a very small article and leave behind much of what is in the current section, to the point where such a list might not be worthy of an article. A comprehensive article on 'Form Factor (disk drives) would have to be less HDD specific especially in the table. Tom94022 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree it's a good idea, but why not just List of disk drive form factors?--agr (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Include SSD to compare in form factor section?
I added SSD info, that was reverted by Tom94022.
I'm not saying an SSD is a disk/HDD/"spinning round disc of rust", just adding so that people can compare. However to most people, they don't care (but do on cost..) if it's a disk/disc or not, but want to know if it fits in and has compatible interface.
I not there hatnote at the top (and SSD compared to HDD in the lead):
"Hard drive" redirects here. For other uses, see Hard drive (disambiguation).with that page saying:
Hard drive may also refer to:
- Solid-state drive, a computer storage device that has no moving parts
comp.arch (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hard drive can be ambiguous particularly when viewed thru an OS an HDD and an SSD are supported by the same software, see also Section 2 above. HDD is much less ambiguous. This is an HDD article so including SDD is inconsistent with the articles subject. Furthermore "Form factor" applies to many devices including floppy disk, tape, optical disk and others so just adding SSDs to the table is an inconsistancy. comp.arch perhaps displays some bias and age when he refers to HDDs as "spinning round disc of rust" - the industry stopped using gamma iron oxide in the early 1990s :-). The place to note compatiblity to SATA interface and various Form Factors is in the SDD article not the HDD article (which BTW was not accomplished by including it in the table). Tom94022 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
real-time transaction processing computer?
The IBM 305 RAMAC, with the IBM 350 disk drive, was not a real-time transaction processing computer; it was marketed as an accounting machine. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- So what do you see as the difference? AIUI, the 305 RAMAC was marketed specifically for its real-time abilities (owing to the HDD), particularly for ERP, factory control etc. This is both transaction processing and accountancy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- What is the basis for the assertion that the 305 was not a real-time transaction processing computer? The 305 manual compares its method of accounting with prior methods as follows,
- "This single ability - being able to handle transactions to the ultimate conclusion without presequencing - is a powerful tool for the use of management in the operation and control of a business." (RAMAC 305 General Information Manual, IBM, (c) 1960, p.9)
- which sounds like real time transaction processing to me. BTW, isn't that what Professor RAMAC demonstrated at the 1958 Brussells World's Fair? Tom94022 (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- What is the basis for the assertion that the 305 was not a real-time transaction processing computer? The 305 manual compares its method of accounting with prior methods as follows,
- He demonstrated a single inquiry station, which was all that the 305 supported. A transaction processing computer supports a large number of terminals. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's not a necessary requirement for transaction processing though. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- He demonstrated a single inquiry station, which was all that the 305 supported. A transaction processing computer supports a large number of terminals. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- The difference is that the 305 processed batches of cards rather than responding to external transactions with time constraints. It was not a process control computer. 305 RAMAC Random Access Method of Accounting and Control Manual of Operation, April 1957, 22-6264-1 shows that it was limited to a single console typewriter, with its primary input from punched card s. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Of course Wiki cites are not determinative but the first cite sounds like the objectives for the RAMAC 305 - transaction previously performed by humans with a tub file of cards and a batch processing system were handled in the 305 as a transaction, albeit it slowly when compared to modern systems. The folks who worked on the 305, mostly now dead, felt strongly it was the first "transaction processing computer," predating SAGE. FWIW I once tried to contact Jim Gray author of "Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques" to point him to the 305 but unfortunately he had also died. I probably can find some material from those pioneeers characterizing the 305 as a transaction processor. Tom94022 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- How about:
"The Disk Drive Story, Chapter 1: IBM's RAMAC," IBM, November 20,2001, p.16-17Jack (Harker): You're skipping over something. To me it's significant that this is the group that defined the RAMAC. Came up with the idea that we should have a transaction-processing machine. I don't think that had really been thought through before.
Lou (Stevens): No it hadn't.
Jack: Instead of running things in batches, you would update all the records affected by a transaction. The 305 was designed as a Transaction Processor. That was quite a step and very different. A different idea.
Lou: Different idea.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hard disk drive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122075109/http://sdd.toshiba.com/techdocs/MKxx33GSG_MK1235GSL_r1.pdf to http://sdd.toshiba.com/techdocs/MKxx33GSG_MK1235GSL_r1.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105162632/http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=140 to http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=140
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226053423/http://www.recover.co.il/SA-cover/SA-cover.pdf to http://www.recover.co.il/SA-cover/SA-cover.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Time wasting article
Even Misplaced Pages editors can't be so colossally vain as to think the readers are too stupid to get the idea an external drive can be more than one color, without a picture. There is no point to including commented-out contents in the article, the readers don't see it and it makes editing more clumsy. I don't know why the multiple reverts, this article is grossly over long and needs to be trimmed down and less of a collection of press release clippings. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- The other image I assumed was meant to show it as a variety but I do agree 2 images is pointless, The commented-out refs are fine and can be used - I've tried to insert these in to the article and each time it's adding more errors, I disagree the article isn't long at all and as I said on your talkpage the length is fine. Thanks, –Davey2010 13:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Acording to WP:TOOBIG at Prose size (including all HTML code)= 63 kB (as measured by Prosesize) this article "Probably should be divided." I agree with Wtshymanski that the article needs to be trimmed and suggest he be allowed to proceed. Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm being commanded to go to the talk page, and yet I don't see here any reason to retain all the commented-out text. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- So we're not following WP:PRESERVE no ? ... Fuck it done. –Davey2010 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm being commanded to go to the talk page, and yet I don't see here any reason to retain all the commented-out text. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Acording to WP:TOOBIG at Prose size (including all HTML code)= 63 kB (as measured by Prosesize) this article "Probably should be divided." I agree with Wtshymanski that the article needs to be trimmed and suggest he be allowed to proceed. Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)