Talk:Racetrack memory

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Racetrack Memory or IBM Racetrack Memory?

Someone has gone in and very carefully ensured that "Racetrack Memory" is never mentioned without "IBM" in front. Obviously trying to protect the trademark, but it reads like corporate self-promotion. Either rename the article to "IBM Racetrack Memory" (thus leaving the generic term "Racetrack Memory" available for ANY OTHER USE) or or change the tone to make it more appropriate for wikipedia, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.48.79.55 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal memory

This article alludes to (but never explicitly names) 'a number of new technologies vying to become a "universal memory"' . What are those technologies? Should we list those technologies at computer data storage, or is there a better place for that list? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concern above: This article alludes to (but never explicitly names) 'a number of new technologies vying to become a "universal memory"' . What are those technologies?

Seems to be addressed by: "Racetrack memory is one of a number of new technologies aiming to replace flash memory, and potentially offer a "universal" memory device applicable to a wide variety of roles. Other leading contenders include magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM), phase-change memory (PCRAM) and ferroelectric RAM (FeRAM). Most of these technologies offer densities similar to flash memory, in most cases worse, and their primary advantage is the lack of write-endurance limits like those in flash memory. Field-MRAM offers excellent performance as high as 3 ns access time, but requires a large 25-40 F² cell size. It might see use as an SRAM replacement, but not as a mass storage device." Caspianhiro (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a link to show what an area of (n)F² is, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.200.69 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate reference to twistor memory

There is a mention of twistor memory. This is not correct unless there is some other connection beside the go faster name.

The twistor memory was basically a different packaging system to core memory, no magnetic domains are moved as in bubble memory and racetrack memory.

It should be removed from the history section unless there is some other valid connection that I am not aware of.

Idyllic press (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the "Comparison to other memory devices" section

The Comparison section has some consistency and redundancy issues, and goes off on a tangent regarding other memory technologies. IMO, it could be shortened by a lot or perhaps broken into a new article. Regarding consistency, it claims that SRAM is 140 F^2 in the first paragraph and 120 F^2 in paragraph 3. It also defines F and F^2 twice. The density of racetrack itself isn't described until near the very end, which seems wrong for an article on racetrack. Lastly, HDD density is defined in nm^2/bit vs. all the rest in F^2/bit. It would be useful for comparison to cite an example value of F for a more direct comparison. Chris Dolan (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

RACETRACK MEMORY.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]