This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
edit: fixed Anthiety ( talk) 18:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
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:
Anthiety ( talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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"
[1]. 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)
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)
: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)
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)
Regarding moving: Moving it to a section retitled "Markets" makes sense, otherwise I don't think moving it puts it under a more appropriate heading. I found a media source (heise but 2013) confirming indicating the problem is still common, so let's add it: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/mobil/meldung/Smartphones-waehlerisch-bei-microSDHC-Karten-1825259.html If you shop around for the best deal, pricewise, on what you're looking for in an SD card, you'll probably get a fake. There's plenty of evidence of it being a big problem in sources with OR and RS issues, so I think saying that it's 'common', as heise reports, avoids the appearance of whitewashing. -- Elvey ( talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This section has become de-organized since my rewrite of last year:
I've changed this section to correct these problems, intending not to change any of the substance. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PS--I would hate to reopen the previous can of worms, but such information as we elect to have on Fakes does not belong at the end of the section on History. A better location would be at the end of the section on Market penetration or at the end of the section on Types of cards. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PPS--Elvey's "boldly tightening wording" of my edit was elegant. Based on his concurrence in a preceding section, I've moved Fakes to underneath Market penetration. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Android machines appear to have some reserved storage they call 'sdcard' but is internal and visible to users. I THINK it's part of ordinary internal storage, but I'm not an expert. For example, the earlyNexis, which has no external SDcard capability at all, refers to items in sdcard. It appears to be a subdirectory of user storage, or rather the top level subdirectory visible to users.
If you add a real SDcard, then it's usually referred to as extsd or something similar. This might be worth a paragraph because I came here looking for answers and didn't find one. -- 71.1.200.230 ( talk) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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 ( T @ C ) 07:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Reatlas in reverting Luigiacruz today. The new paragraph went from informative to normative (using "should" to give advice to the SD user). The section describes in detail the possible problems in using a newer family of SD card in an older device, and there is a preview of it in the Introduction. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Back when we migrated from SD to SDHC, I found many devices would not read or write SDHC cards.
I presumed the move from SDHC to SDXC would introduce the same incompatibilities. However, my tests so far suggest that SDHC host controllers typically DO support SDXC. On inserting the Kingston 64GB Micro SDXC card to Android, it recognises the card as unformatted. Accept format (which writes a FAT32 file system). Tested with two MTK6589 based Android phones, Allwinner A31 based Android tablet, RK3066 based Android TV, February 2010 HTC Desire G7 A8181. I have not yet found an incompatible SDHC controller if formatted with Fat32. I'm not suggesting that there aren't incompatible controllers, but my tests suggest a good level of compatibility at least on devices with firmware capable of handling Fat32 file systems of over 32Gb. Nick Hill ( talk) 22:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Discusion about official capacity of SDXC cards. I feel the article should follow the official description of SDXC from sdcard.org instead of what some SD card maker does.
These sdcard.org webpages state >32GB:
Pretec says they are selling 32GB SDXC (which I say is unofficial):
If you drill down through all the current Pretec products, you won't see any SDXC cards smaller than 64GB. I'll bet that sdcard.org put a thumb down on them, per SD license agreements.
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know the thinking behind SDHC? It's maximum capacity of 32GB doesn't seem like that big of a leap from the previous 2GB limitation. And SDXC was introduced just three years later. -- 209.203.125.162 ( talk) 01:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion closed: consensus is clearly against splitting. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Added this section per article split request that someone else requested. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled SDHC and SDXC, accessible from a disambiguation page. (February 2014)"
No split. It's always a red flag for me when an editor flags an article for a major change like a split, merge, neutrality disputed, whatever, and then doesn't care enough to start the required discussion on the talk page to explain the action. I agree with editors Spike-from-NH and Sbmeirow, and Guy Macon. Keep the current main article intact with its useful comparison charts, and like Guy Macon says, anyone can try to write a separate article if they want and then provide a "main article" link in the appropriate section here. 5Q5 ( talk) 16:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I am closing this discussion. Consensus is clearly against splitting. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
Having not heard back from editor Metareview in a week, I have removed the photo of a counterfeit SD card that he added. Apart from documenting his personal experience, it doesn't add anything to the article. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 09:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sir: Parroting my words back to me is not a rebuttal, and it would be fascinating to know what your personal testimonial adds. (There are slightly more details in my post to Metareview's talk page, which he deleted.) Spike-from-NH ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Separately, now, Landroo asserts on the page that some fake SD chips mimic correct operation using the owner's hard disk "until after the feedback reporting period expires for some online buying sites." This is entirely anecdotal, is offered without citation, and would be outrageously complicated engineering for a retail scam. Landroo leaves the three citations (two in German), but the one I can read doesn't disclose anything this sinister. Presumably his fakes have detected that he has posted to Wikipedia and will now install pop-ups in his browser? Spike-from-NH ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the introduction of SDXC in Overview to move all references to the problems with exFAT into the subsection (currently 1.3.1) and delete the conclusion of the "unsuitability" of SDXC. I retained the statement that SDXC is not a universal exchange medium to SDXC readers (though this is unremarkable, as no SD card is a universal exchange medium to readers designed for an earlier generation of SD card).
Now, someone has moved Ultra High Speed bus into the Overview. While UHS may be a big engineering feature, this reorganization conflicts with our consensus last year that the article burdened the user with technical details early on. I think that this section belongs inside Speeds, and that all of Speeds belongs lower in the article. The Overview properly describes the major device types, and it would be followed by Features, things that are also highly visible to the user. The discussion of whether a given card can deliver acceptable throughput is important to the article but it is really a technical detail, like the interface and compatibility issues we discuss later in the article. Would like discussion before doing this gut-and-paste. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I just listed a 32MB SD card (as part of a bundle of SD cards) on eBay. Looking at the back, I have noticed that it has a lot more pins than you show in your diagrams. I think it has about 14 or 15 pins depending on how you count them.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've had a quick google, but found nothing that will actually take real advantage of UHS cards. They will work in SDHC, but not at their best. Is it a dead non-adopted standard ? Seems odd !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 15:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is stated repeatedly throughout the article that host controllers can access SD cards through the SPI mode without needing to obtain a license. I am curious if there is any reputable source we can supply, which confirms that the SD Organization actually permits royalty-free use of their intellectual property with respect to hosts accessing SD cards via SPI.
I am aware that the simplified specification is supplied without requiring developers to sign a license agreement, and I am also aware that various reverse-engineering efforts succeeded in determining most of the SPI command set even before the simplified specification was released. However, if you visit the SD Association's web page, they clearly state that their decision to publish the simplified specification does not constitute a grant of any license to implement patented methods described by the specification. Reverse-engineering has never conveyed permission to implement patented methods.
If the SD Association really has made a promise to permit royalty-free host implementations over SPI, then it would be very useful to provide a link to confirm this fact. 24.222.2.222 ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
How would these be ranked in terms of best and worst? Would it be SSD (solid state drive) > SD card (secure digital) > eMMC (embedded MultiMedia card/controller) or some other order? Is SD better than HDD (hard disk drive)? Is eMMC better than HDD? -- 64.228.88.135 ( talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sdxu has just globally changed "An SD" (pronounced "an ess dee," I think) to "A SD" (pronounced "a SecureDigital"? I think not), change summary "corrected grammars." I've reverted; I brought up this question, without response, so long ago it's now archived. If there is a policy on this, I don't insist; but after Sdxu's change, it just looks wrong. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 14:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just made a modest merger of three short paragraphs on SanDisk announcements of successively higher-capacity devices, but it strikes me that the section has become a long catalog of company product announcements with declining relevance to the reader. In fact, some of the earlier announcements will lead no one to read the citation in the footnote because some of these products must have been retired by now. Someone with better understanding of the technology's real milestones (and dead ends) should pare this down. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Came across this article in my regular course of reading and think it deserves to be nominated for a Good Article. Thoughts regular editors? Sam.hill7 ( talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) comment added by Sam.hill7 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I am in a revert tussle with Be..anyone. I presume (though do not know for sure) that the two successive list items seek to distinguish between an SD using FAT32 and an SD using FAT32X. I post-edited him with a piped redirect, to make the link he edited continue to appear as "FAT32X" but he said this was a BAD bypass redirect. FAT32X redirects to FAT32, but is nevertheless what this article should have in this position, which doesn't depend on whether a unique page exists. More knowledgeable editors need to give opinions at this point. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they appear to be "exactly the same file system," but the article on
FAT32 says that "FAT32X...indicate[s] usage of LBA disk access instead of CHS." I assume the previous editor meant something by writing [[FAT32X]]
in this one case, and that is why I corrected your correction to say [[FAT32|FAT32X]]
.
Spike-from-NH (
talk)
10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
80.1.145.168 reports/asks in the text of the article:
I am not sure a list of software tools should be in the text of the article, but am sure a broadcast to other editors should not be. On the query itself: In general, the existence of pirate software does not imply that piracy is now acceptable. Two of the tools refer in their names to FAT32, which makes no assertion about exFAT. If these tools are mentioned on a sandisk.com page and if they support exFAT, it may mean that the conditions for use of exFAT have changed, but I don't know that. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how the copy protection can work. When the card sends out the data, it can neither tell nor control if the data is just displayed / played or copied to another card or drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 ( talk) 03:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is said in this article:
> Compliance with a higher speed rating is a guarantee that the card limits its use of the "busy" indication.
That doesn't seem to make any sense. Limits its use of the busy indication to what? 91.2.78.8 ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The SDIO section might need a separate article, it doesn't exactly fit here (see last row in the compatibility table). – Be..anyone ( talk) 23:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit changed MB to GB, but has no source, so I'm not sure which is right. I tried reading more, but Flash_memory#Capacity made me even more confused in some ways. Also, it seems like capacity has not improved much since then if 128GB was available back in 2005? I realize maybe they're talking about different things, but I'm not sure. I feel it's unclear or hard to follow which products are being discussed when capacities are being discussed in general when numbers pop up all over in paragraph form. Thanks for any reply:) Zeniff ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Secure Digital. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
(INAL) In table "Comparison of technical features of MMC and SD card variants", the row "Open-source compatible" DO NOT make any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepdhaka ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Upon reading this, I find that these values are idealized and gathered from specification documents. In practice, however, I have found it extremely rare for a device to actually adhere to the stated writing speeds. I recently bought a card from a prominent global brand and by using the Linux application dd (Unix) to pipe massive amounts random data sourced from a file to the card, I have only seen one card that actually delivered as promised (using a 4GiB card back in 2007). I think a detailed and reproducible description of the evaluation and certification procedure would also be a valuable addition. Timothy D Legg, 87.138.223.233 ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
that the maximum capacity of an SDSC card is 2GB? Because if it does i can't see it. And it should. Flagpolewiki ( talk) 16:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the term "SD card" is arguably more used and easily more recognizable than "Secure Digital". I think the article's title should change to reflect this.~ Arkhandar ( message me) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Secure Digital →
SD card – Per
WP:COMMONNAME, the term "SD card" is arguably more used and easily more recognizable than "Secure Digital". On
Google Trends, for example, it's clear that Secure Digital is far from the common name; it's beyond residual compared to SD card. ~
Arkhandar (
message me)
17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent."
Article name examples:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Implemented @
Old Naval Rooftops,
Lazz R,
Rreagan007, and
Calidum: please update the article's lead and infobox accordingly. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Concerning organization vs organisation spelling change on edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=SD_card&type=revision&diff=946645178&oldid=943430460
It should continue to be spelled with "z" because of " MOS:RETAIN". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The $35 credit card sized Raspberry Pi computer by default uses a micro SD card as its primary disk. Novice Raspberry Pi users are likely to turn to Wikipedia to find out more about SD and Micro SD cards. It would be helpful if they saw a reference to the recommended software: Etcher.
"Mac and Linux users typically use the dd command in the terminal, while Windows users require a program such as Win32DiskImager.
So we were pleased to come across Etcher. Etcher turns the whole process of flashing an OS image file into three simple steps: Select Image, Select Drive, and Flash Image.
More importantly, the same program, with the same interface, is available on all three types of computer – Windows, Mac, and Linux – which makes it easy for everybody to understand." [1]
"Etcher has completed over one million writes, collected nearly 3,000 stars on GitHub, and made its way into many official installation and getting started guides. It’s become one of the most reliable and, we think, pleasant ways to burn SD cards.
Etcher has also proven to be really valuable for image publishers like the Raspberry Pi Foundation. As Matt Richardson says, "Since its initial beta release, Etcher has quickly become an indispensable tool for our community. It runs beautifully on multiple platforms, has a user-friendly design, and is extremely reliable. Etcher is an excellent choice for our users to get up and running with Raspberry Pi. Etcher's ease-of-use is especially helpful to achieve the aims of our charitable mission and makes an educational impact because it removes barriers for new users who are just getting started." [2]
So, if anyone can boil this marketing hype down to concise information for Wikipedia readers that would be helpful. Jim.Callahan,Orlando ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I really need to such information but don't know what phrase I should enter for search, please someone do search and provide several sources about it or suggest several phrase for searching. I just know 1GB microSD and 2GB microSD are discontinued/ceased and are no longer in production, but what about 4GB? and 8GB? is there any website or primary source to provide information about the discontinued capacity of microSD cards and the year of its discontinuation?. Such information can also be added to the article. -- THANX. Editor-1 ( talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Such information can be added to the article and it would be very useful, so please help if you can, thanks.-- Editor-1 ( talk) 13:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
§ exFAT filesystem says that some SDXC host devices reject FAT32 file systems larger than 32 GB. That's been marked as needing a citation since September 2017 and although it's certainly possible (software may be arbitrarily perverse), it seems remarkably unlikely. Any objection to replacing it with a weaker statement that since such a file system violates the specification, it's not guaranteed to work? 209.209.238.189 ( talk) 08:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FAT32 on sdxc is not "endorsed" by the sd organization, but any sensible host should be able to read it. Wiekendraak ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are the capacities in the thumbnail descriptions given in powers of 1000 (or 10x where x is an int), e.g MB, GB, TB, while elsewhere they are in powers of 1024 (or 2x where x % 10 = 0), e.g MiB, GiB, TiB? I'm concerned because as the capacities increase, esp for TB vs TiB and PB vs PiB, the difference in bytes is huge.
Fezzy1347 ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Fezzy1347: @ Locke Cole: This thread has been transferred to WT:MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 09:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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:
edit: fixed Anthiety ( talk) 18:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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)
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:
Anthiety ( talk) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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"
[1]. 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)
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)
: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)
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)
Regarding moving: Moving it to a section retitled "Markets" makes sense, otherwise I don't think moving it puts it under a more appropriate heading. I found a media source (heise but 2013) confirming indicating the problem is still common, so let's add it: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/mobil/meldung/Smartphones-waehlerisch-bei-microSDHC-Karten-1825259.html If you shop around for the best deal, pricewise, on what you're looking for in an SD card, you'll probably get a fake. There's plenty of evidence of it being a big problem in sources with OR and RS issues, so I think saying that it's 'common', as heise reports, avoids the appearance of whitewashing. -- Elvey ( talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This section has become de-organized since my rewrite of last year:
I've changed this section to correct these problems, intending not to change any of the substance. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PS--I would hate to reopen the previous can of worms, but such information as we elect to have on Fakes does not belong at the end of the section on History. A better location would be at the end of the section on Market penetration or at the end of the section on Types of cards. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
PPS--Elvey's "boldly tightening wording" of my edit was elegant. Based on his concurrence in a preceding section, I've moved Fakes to underneath Market penetration. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Android machines appear to have some reserved storage they call 'sdcard' but is internal and visible to users. I THINK it's part of ordinary internal storage, but I'm not an expert. For example, the earlyNexis, which has no external SDcard capability at all, refers to items in sdcard. It appears to be a subdirectory of user storage, or rather the top level subdirectory visible to users.
If you add a real SDcard, then it's usually referred to as extsd or something similar. This might be worth a paragraph because I came here looking for answers and didn't find one. -- 71.1.200.230 ( talk) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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 ( T @ C ) 07:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Reatlas in reverting Luigiacruz today. The new paragraph went from informative to normative (using "should" to give advice to the SD user). The section describes in detail the possible problems in using a newer family of SD card in an older device, and there is a preview of it in the Introduction. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 13:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Back when we migrated from SD to SDHC, I found many devices would not read or write SDHC cards.
I presumed the move from SDHC to SDXC would introduce the same incompatibilities. However, my tests so far suggest that SDHC host controllers typically DO support SDXC. On inserting the Kingston 64GB Micro SDXC card to Android, it recognises the card as unformatted. Accept format (which writes a FAT32 file system). Tested with two MTK6589 based Android phones, Allwinner A31 based Android tablet, RK3066 based Android TV, February 2010 HTC Desire G7 A8181. I have not yet found an incompatible SDHC controller if formatted with Fat32. I'm not suggesting that there aren't incompatible controllers, but my tests suggest a good level of compatibility at least on devices with firmware capable of handling Fat32 file systems of over 32Gb. Nick Hill ( talk) 22:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Discusion about official capacity of SDXC cards. I feel the article should follow the official description of SDXC from sdcard.org instead of what some SD card maker does.
These sdcard.org webpages state >32GB:
Pretec says they are selling 32GB SDXC (which I say is unofficial):
If you drill down through all the current Pretec products, you won't see any SDXC cards smaller than 64GB. I'll bet that sdcard.org put a thumb down on them, per SD license agreements.
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know the thinking behind SDHC? It's maximum capacity of 32GB doesn't seem like that big of a leap from the previous 2GB limitation. And SDXC was introduced just three years later. -- 209.203.125.162 ( talk) 01:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion closed: consensus is clearly against splitting. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Added this section per article split request that someone else requested. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled SDHC and SDXC, accessible from a disambiguation page. (February 2014)"
No split. It's always a red flag for me when an editor flags an article for a major change like a split, merge, neutrality disputed, whatever, and then doesn't care enough to start the required discussion on the talk page to explain the action. I agree with editors Spike-from-NH and Sbmeirow, and Guy Macon. Keep the current main article intact with its useful comparison charts, and like Guy Macon says, anyone can try to write a separate article if they want and then provide a "main article" link in the appropriate section here. 5Q5 ( talk) 16:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I am closing this discussion. Consensus is clearly against splitting. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC) |
Having not heard back from editor Metareview in a week, I have removed the photo of a counterfeit SD card that he added. Apart from documenting his personal experience, it doesn't add anything to the article. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 09:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sir: Parroting my words back to me is not a rebuttal, and it would be fascinating to know what your personal testimonial adds. (There are slightly more details in my post to Metareview's talk page, which he deleted.) Spike-from-NH ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Separately, now, Landroo asserts on the page that some fake SD chips mimic correct operation using the owner's hard disk "until after the feedback reporting period expires for some online buying sites." This is entirely anecdotal, is offered without citation, and would be outrageously complicated engineering for a retail scam. Landroo leaves the three citations (two in German), but the one I can read doesn't disclose anything this sinister. Presumably his fakes have detected that he has posted to Wikipedia and will now install pop-ups in his browser? Spike-from-NH ( talk) 11:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the introduction of SDXC in Overview to move all references to the problems with exFAT into the subsection (currently 1.3.1) and delete the conclusion of the "unsuitability" of SDXC. I retained the statement that SDXC is not a universal exchange medium to SDXC readers (though this is unremarkable, as no SD card is a universal exchange medium to readers designed for an earlier generation of SD card).
Now, someone has moved Ultra High Speed bus into the Overview. While UHS may be a big engineering feature, this reorganization conflicts with our consensus last year that the article burdened the user with technical details early on. I think that this section belongs inside Speeds, and that all of Speeds belongs lower in the article. The Overview properly describes the major device types, and it would be followed by Features, things that are also highly visible to the user. The discussion of whether a given card can deliver acceptable throughput is important to the article but it is really a technical detail, like the interface and compatibility issues we discuss later in the article. Would like discussion before doing this gut-and-paste. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I just listed a 32MB SD card (as part of a bundle of SD cards) on eBay. Looking at the back, I have noticed that it has a lot more pins than you show in your diagrams. I think it has about 14 or 15 pins depending on how you count them.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've had a quick google, but found nothing that will actually take real advantage of UHS cards. They will work in SDHC, but not at their best. Is it a dead non-adopted standard ? Seems odd !
-- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 15:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is stated repeatedly throughout the article that host controllers can access SD cards through the SPI mode without needing to obtain a license. I am curious if there is any reputable source we can supply, which confirms that the SD Organization actually permits royalty-free use of their intellectual property with respect to hosts accessing SD cards via SPI.
I am aware that the simplified specification is supplied without requiring developers to sign a license agreement, and I am also aware that various reverse-engineering efforts succeeded in determining most of the SPI command set even before the simplified specification was released. However, if you visit the SD Association's web page, they clearly state that their decision to publish the simplified specification does not constitute a grant of any license to implement patented methods described by the specification. Reverse-engineering has never conveyed permission to implement patented methods.
If the SD Association really has made a promise to permit royalty-free host implementations over SPI, then it would be very useful to provide a link to confirm this fact. 24.222.2.222 ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
How would these be ranked in terms of best and worst? Would it be SSD (solid state drive) > SD card (secure digital) > eMMC (embedded MultiMedia card/controller) or some other order? Is SD better than HDD (hard disk drive)? Is eMMC better than HDD? -- 64.228.88.135 ( talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sdxu has just globally changed "An SD" (pronounced "an ess dee," I think) to "A SD" (pronounced "a SecureDigital"? I think not), change summary "corrected grammars." I've reverted; I brought up this question, without response, so long ago it's now archived. If there is a policy on this, I don't insist; but after Sdxu's change, it just looks wrong. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 14:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I just made a modest merger of three short paragraphs on SanDisk announcements of successively higher-capacity devices, but it strikes me that the section has become a long catalog of company product announcements with declining relevance to the reader. In fact, some of the earlier announcements will lead no one to read the citation in the footnote because some of these products must have been retired by now. Someone with better understanding of the technology's real milestones (and dead ends) should pare this down. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Came across this article in my regular course of reading and think it deserves to be nominated for a Good Article. Thoughts regular editors? Sam.hill7 ( talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) comment added by Sam.hill7 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I am in a revert tussle with Be..anyone. I presume (though do not know for sure) that the two successive list items seek to distinguish between an SD using FAT32 and an SD using FAT32X. I post-edited him with a piped redirect, to make the link he edited continue to appear as "FAT32X" but he said this was a BAD bypass redirect. FAT32X redirects to FAT32, but is nevertheless what this article should have in this position, which doesn't depend on whether a unique page exists. More knowledgeable editors need to give opinions at this point. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they appear to be "exactly the same file system," but the article on
FAT32 says that "FAT32X...indicate[s] usage of LBA disk access instead of CHS." I assume the previous editor meant something by writing [[FAT32X]]
in this one case, and that is why I corrected your correction to say [[FAT32|FAT32X]]
.
Spike-from-NH (
talk)
10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
80.1.145.168 reports/asks in the text of the article:
I am not sure a list of software tools should be in the text of the article, but am sure a broadcast to other editors should not be. On the query itself: In general, the existence of pirate software does not imply that piracy is now acceptable. Two of the tools refer in their names to FAT32, which makes no assertion about exFAT. If these tools are mentioned on a sandisk.com page and if they support exFAT, it may mean that the conditions for use of exFAT have changed, but I don't know that. Spike-from-NH ( talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how the copy protection can work. When the card sends out the data, it can neither tell nor control if the data is just displayed / played or copied to another card or drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 ( talk) 03:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It is said in this article:
> Compliance with a higher speed rating is a guarantee that the card limits its use of the "busy" indication.
That doesn't seem to make any sense. Limits its use of the busy indication to what? 91.2.78.8 ( talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The SDIO section might need a separate article, it doesn't exactly fit here (see last row in the compatibility table). – Be..anyone ( talk) 23:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit changed MB to GB, but has no source, so I'm not sure which is right. I tried reading more, but Flash_memory#Capacity made me even more confused in some ways. Also, it seems like capacity has not improved much since then if 128GB was available back in 2005? I realize maybe they're talking about different things, but I'm not sure. I feel it's unclear or hard to follow which products are being discussed when capacities are being discussed in general when numbers pop up all over in paragraph form. Thanks for any reply:) Zeniff ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Secure Digital. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
(INAL) In table "Comparison of technical features of MMC and SD card variants", the row "Open-source compatible" DO NOT make any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuldeepdhaka ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Upon reading this, I find that these values are idealized and gathered from specification documents. In practice, however, I have found it extremely rare for a device to actually adhere to the stated writing speeds. I recently bought a card from a prominent global brand and by using the Linux application dd (Unix) to pipe massive amounts random data sourced from a file to the card, I have only seen one card that actually delivered as promised (using a 4GiB card back in 2007). I think a detailed and reproducible description of the evaluation and certification procedure would also be a valuable addition. Timothy D Legg, 87.138.223.233 ( talk) 08:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
that the maximum capacity of an SDSC card is 2GB? Because if it does i can't see it. And it should. Flagpolewiki ( talk) 16:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the term "SD card" is arguably more used and easily more recognizable than "Secure Digital". I think the article's title should change to reflect this.~ Arkhandar ( message me) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Secure Digital →
SD card – Per
WP:COMMONNAME, the term "SD card" is arguably more used and easily more recognizable than "Secure Digital". On
Google Trends, for example, it's clear that Secure Digital is far from the common name; it's beyond residual compared to SD card. ~
Arkhandar (
message me)
17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent."
Article name examples:
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Implemented @
Old Naval Rooftops,
Lazz R,
Rreagan007, and
Calidum: please update the article's lead and infobox accordingly. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Concerning organization vs organisation spelling change on edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=SD_card&type=revision&diff=946645178&oldid=943430460
It should continue to be spelled with "z" because of " MOS:RETAIN". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The $35 credit card sized Raspberry Pi computer by default uses a micro SD card as its primary disk. Novice Raspberry Pi users are likely to turn to Wikipedia to find out more about SD and Micro SD cards. It would be helpful if they saw a reference to the recommended software: Etcher.
"Mac and Linux users typically use the dd command in the terminal, while Windows users require a program such as Win32DiskImager.
So we were pleased to come across Etcher. Etcher turns the whole process of flashing an OS image file into three simple steps: Select Image, Select Drive, and Flash Image.
More importantly, the same program, with the same interface, is available on all three types of computer – Windows, Mac, and Linux – which makes it easy for everybody to understand." [1]
"Etcher has completed over one million writes, collected nearly 3,000 stars on GitHub, and made its way into many official installation and getting started guides. It’s become one of the most reliable and, we think, pleasant ways to burn SD cards.
Etcher has also proven to be really valuable for image publishers like the Raspberry Pi Foundation. As Matt Richardson says, "Since its initial beta release, Etcher has quickly become an indispensable tool for our community. It runs beautifully on multiple platforms, has a user-friendly design, and is extremely reliable. Etcher is an excellent choice for our users to get up and running with Raspberry Pi. Etcher's ease-of-use is especially helpful to achieve the aims of our charitable mission and makes an educational impact because it removes barriers for new users who are just getting started." [2]
So, if anyone can boil this marketing hype down to concise information for Wikipedia readers that would be helpful. Jim.Callahan,Orlando ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I really need to such information but don't know what phrase I should enter for search, please someone do search and provide several sources about it or suggest several phrase for searching. I just know 1GB microSD and 2GB microSD are discontinued/ceased and are no longer in production, but what about 4GB? and 8GB? is there any website or primary source to provide information about the discontinued capacity of microSD cards and the year of its discontinuation?. Such information can also be added to the article. -- THANX. Editor-1 ( talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Such information can be added to the article and it would be very useful, so please help if you can, thanks.-- Editor-1 ( talk) 13:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
§ exFAT filesystem says that some SDXC host devices reject FAT32 file systems larger than 32 GB. That's been marked as needing a citation since September 2017 and although it's certainly possible (software may be arbitrarily perverse), it seems remarkably unlikely. Any objection to replacing it with a weaker statement that since such a file system violates the specification, it's not guaranteed to work? 209.209.238.189 ( talk) 08:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FAT32 on sdxc is not "endorsed" by the sd organization, but any sensible host should be able to read it. Wiekendraak ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are the capacities in the thumbnail descriptions given in powers of 1000 (or 10x where x is an int), e.g MB, GB, TB, while elsewhere they are in powers of 1024 (or 2x where x % 10 = 0), e.g MiB, GiB, TiB? I'm concerned because as the capacities increase, esp for TB vs TiB and PB vs PiB, the difference in bytes is huge.
Fezzy1347 ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Fezzy1347: @ Locke Cole: This thread has been transferred to WT:MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 09:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)