Talk:Ultra Density Optical

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Just one little niggle it seams like it was written by people at Sony or worse Sony fanboys. So your that article is trying to tell me is that UDO have NO drawbcks what so ever, pull the the other one. Everthing has a down side. Pobodys Nerfect?! 82.38.62.122 08:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. I see one section has been tagged for unencyclopedic tone. Also the article reads too much like a product announcement, and is missing information I was expecting, such as:

when was the first UDO player and media commercially available?
what are example costs of players and media?

Can anyone improve this? -Wikianon (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved this article by mentioning the price of UDO according to plasmon itsself. (information comes from udo.com which links directly to the plasmon site when typed in the adress bar.) This article badly needed to have disadvantages of UDO talked about. I know that for a professionnal or hobbyist the price may not seem steep, but I find the article made people think UDO was going to be an everyday consumer's product that could challenge the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.73.6 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything said by everyone who's commented (with the exception of the since-corrected lack of pricing). I did a LITTLE bit of grammatical clean-up, but this article clearly needs MAJOR work. It's stated at the top that this technology *currently* offers 60 GB capacity - and notes AT THE VERY END the 60 GB models haven't yet reached the market (if, indeed, any have even been built). It DOES read like it was written by a salesman. The lack of factual references and repeated, needless lack of clarification definitely leaves this article WAY below Wiki standards. Further, and highly important, IMO: the last time I checked, 2.5M, 8KB sectors is approximately *20 GB* in storage, NOT 30 GB. Going on the claims made in the article, this technology is slower and holds *less* storage per volume than HD/BD DVD's, at a MUCH lower cost, both for the drives, AND the media. Lastly, parroting a comment by the first poster, *sure* this media is indestructible - and when they came out, we were told CD's could be 'used as Frisbees, without harm.' LOL. --Grndrush (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is UDO much more scalable, and what is it more scalable than? This article seems more like a press release than a factual overview of the technology.Zalnas (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Udo.png

Image:Udo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Plasmon speak. A good outline of the technology although the discussion about cost or ROI is pure Plasmon marketing. 206.53.65.249 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)CDRSAM[reply]

Unsourced Content Removal

Claim that there is no implemented UDO shred feature in any program is readily contradicted with a quick google search: http://www.dataarchivecorp.com/pdf/plasmon/UDO%20Compliant%20Write-Once%20Media%20-%20Technical%20Overview.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalnas (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]