I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a controller
which takes care of wear leveling, the storage technology itself is not >different to that of SD cards.
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>,
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a controller
which takes care of wear leveling, the storage technology itself is not
different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways. That doesn't make them wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of reference, and I accept it. You
should do likewise.
Just for one example:
In some circles, unless it is a 4 footed mammal, it is not an "animal".
I assume Carlo's use of terminology is similar.
This minute, I do not know how to name SSDs. I'm confused.
On 2025-02-03 14:09, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>,
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a controller
which takes care of wear leveling, the storage technology itself is not
different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways. That doesn't make them >> wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of reference, and I accept it. You
should do likewise.
Just for one example:
In some circles, unless it is a 4 footed mammal, it is not an "animal".
I assume Carlo's use of terminology is similar.
This minute, I do not know how to name SSDs. I'm confused.
On 2025-02-03 14:09, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>,
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a controller
which takes care of wear leveling, the storage technology itself is not
different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways. That doesn't make them wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of reference, and I accept it. You should do likewise.
Just for one example:
In some circles, unless it is a 4 footed mammal, it is not an "animal".
I assume Carlo's use of terminology is similar.
This minute, I do not know how to name SSDs. I'm confused.
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>,
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a controller
which takes care of wear leveling, the storage technology itself is not
different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways. That doesn't make them wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of reference, and I accept it. You
should do likewise.
On 2/3/2025 8:34 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
This minute, I do not know how to name SSDs. I'm confused.
Lawrence just spends his days trying to one-up other people,
especially with tech trivia. Why do you let him?
SSD is unambiguous. Like you, I
don't call it a flash drive. I don't call anything flash. There
are USB sticks, SSDs and SD cards. The type of data strorage
they use is not a practical concern. Those terms are specific
in terms of IDing the item.
Well - it was not about not calling SSD "flash media". The origin of
this discussion was this sentence by Carlos:
"Also I *never* edit a file residing in flash storage."
On 2/5/2025 4:25 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
Well - it was not about not calling SSD "flash media". The origin of
this discussion was this sentence by Carlos:
"Also I *never* edit a file residing in flash storage."
And you didn't know he was talking about an external
stick or card? Lawrence was just trying to catch him in
"I know and you don't. Ha ha!"
It's getting to be ridiculous how many posts here are just
bickering that's kept going by compulsive arguers.
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not "flash media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket computers
or programmable calculators.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not "flash
media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket computers
or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they.
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not "flash
media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket computers
or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 01:05:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not
"flash media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket
computers or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they.
Correct - "solid state drive" and not "solid state disk".
Flash could last forever... if we could anneal it to repair defects in
the cells. But we're not there yet, and might never make it there.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 15:42:50 -0500, Paul wrote:
Flash could last forever... if we could anneal it to repair defects in
the cells. But we're not there yet, and might never make it there.
Certainly the vendors of flash storage have no financial incentive to take
us there.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:17:57 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 01:05:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not
"flash media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket
computers or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they.
Correct - "solid state drive" and not "solid state disk".
Neither.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 22:02:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:17:57 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 01:05:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:Correct - "solid state drive" and not "solid state disk".
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not
"flash media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket
computers or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they. >>>
Neither.
Well, you can ignore the real world, that's your choice.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 21:47:34 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 22:02:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:17:57 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-06 01:05:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:18:28 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:Correct - "solid state drive" and not "solid state disk".
... that's the reason why it is called "solid state disk" and not
"flash media disk".
JFTR: In the past there were in fact SSDs based on RAM chips with
battery backup - for example the "memory cards" of some pocket
computers or programmable calculators.
But those were never called “solid state disks” though, where they. >>>>
Neither.
Well, you can ignore the real world, that's your choice.
You have no idea how long the concept of non-volatile RAM has been around,
do you?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-08 04:28:
You have no idea how long the concept of non-volatile RAM has been
around, do you?
I have. I've been working in the IT business since the late 1980ies and
used RAM based solid-state drives as well ...
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 10:18:22 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-08 04:28:
You have no idea how long the concept of non-volatile RAM has been
around, do you?
I have. I've been working in the IT business since the late 1980ies and
used RAM based solid-state drives as well ...
So you never used core memory.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 10:18:22 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-08 04:28:
You have no idea how long the concept of non-volatile RAM has been
around, do you?
I have. I've been working in the IT business since the late 1980ies and
used RAM based solid-state drives as well ...
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from the
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-11 02:00:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from
the core memory era ...
Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:59:35 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".
Neither term was used back then.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> previously wrote:
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
I certainly didn’t use them in this context.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:59:35 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-11 02:00:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even
when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from
the core memory era ...
Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".
Neither term was used back then. I certainly didn’t use them in this context.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-13 23:15:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:59:35 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-11 02:00:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even >>>>> when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from >>>> the core memory era ...
Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".
Neither term was used back then. I certainly didn’t use them in this
context.
It does not matter, if you use that term. I talk about the real world
usage.
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-13 23:15:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:59:35 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-11 02:00:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory, even >>>> when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines from >>> the core memory era ...
Anyway - the memory was "RAM" and not "mass storage".
Neither term was used back then. I certainly didn?t use them in this context.
It does not matter, if you use that term. I talk about the real world
usage. And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage,
even if it is technically possible to keep information without powering
the memory.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn’t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn?t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't. This was just the side-effect of using magnetic cores.
If
any other technology would have been as cheap and fast as core memory,
it would have been used.
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years, because the proporty "non
volatile" was not the important thing. Instead having a lot of cheap RAM
was much more important - also when core memory was invented.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn’t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't.
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn’t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't. This was just the side-effect of using magnetic cores. If
any other technology would have been as cheap and fast as core memory,
it would have been used.
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years, because the proporty "non
volatile" was not the important thing. Instead having a lot of cheap RAM
was much more important - also when core memory was invented.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:27:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn’t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't.
It was non-volatile. That is a matter of indisputable fact.
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years ...
Why wait for *non-volatile* ones? If the non-volatility was not important, the replacement would have happened sooner.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-22 00:35:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:12:09 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-18 22:55:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:56:41 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:[...]
And core memory is not *intended* to be non volatile storage ...
It did work that way, you know. By design.
Which is irrelevant for what I said.
You said it wasn?t intended to be non-volatile. But it was.
No, it wasn't. This was just the side-effect of using magnetic cores.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. I gave some examples from that era, where non-volatility was not a 'side-effect', but an essential property
without which the system(s) couldn't function,, especially in the
abscence of on-line mass-storage.
As soon as *non-volatile* integrated circuits became cheaper, they
replaced core memory within a few years, because the proporty "non
volatile" was not the important thing. Instead having a lot of cheap RAM
was much more important - also when core memory was invented.
I think you mean "*volatile* integrated circuits", otherwise the rest
of your comments do not make any sense. And indeed, after the second generation HP computers with core memory (2100), the third generation
(21MX) had volatile RAM with ICs.
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: ...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a
controller which takes care of wear leveling, the storage
technology itself is not different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways.
That doesn't make them wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of
reference, and I accept it. You should do likewise.
Just for one example: In some circles, unless it is a 4 footed
mammal, it is not an "animal".
I assume Carlo's use of terminology is similar.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways.
.... which CAN lead to mis-understandings!!
On 02/03/2025 8:34 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-02-03 14:09, Kenny McCormack wrote:A rose is a rose, as long as it does the job you want what does it
In article <m0br40Ff8v9U2@mid.individual.net>, Arno Welzel
<usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: ...
I don't call an SSD a flash media.
Why not? SSD *is* flash storage. Just because there is a
controller which takes care of wear leveling, the storage
technology itself is not different to that of SD cards.
Chill out, man.
People often use terminology in idiosyncratic ways. That doesn't
make them wrong. I understand Carlo's frame of reference, and I
accept it. You should do likewise.
Just for one example: In some circles, unless it is a 4 footed
mammal, it is not an "animal".
I assume Carlo's use of terminology is similar.
This minute, I do not know how to name SSDs. I'm confused.
matter what it is called. I have many useful devices called
Thingamajig.
Newyana2, 2025-02-03 21:15:
Lawrence just spends his days trying to one-up other people,
especially with tech trivia. Why do you let him?
SSD is unambiguous. Like you, I don't call it a flash drive. I
don't call anything flash. There are USB sticks, SSDs and SD
cards. The type of data strorage they use is not a practical
concern. Those terms are specific in terms of IDing the item.
Well - it was not about not calling SSD "flash media". The origin of
this discussion was this sentence by Carlos:
"Also I *never* edit a file residing in flash storage."
And "flash storage" or "flash memory" is the name for a storage
technology. SSD is "flash storage" as well as USB sticks or SD cards,
because all these media use the same basic technology, just with
different detail implementations like wear leveling etc..
Also see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory> and the
sources referred there.
Of course you can always decide to only call an SD card "flash media"
and anything else working with the same technology "SSD" and "USB
stick" depending on what you use exactly. But using technical terms
this way makes any discussion about technology quite difficoult -
because then you always need to know, that a person understands as
"flash media". One might see only SD cards as "flash media" while
another one would call a USB stick as "flash media".
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory,
even when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines
from the core memory era, there was no “boot ROM”. The first-stage bootloader was typically around a dozen machine instructions or so,
which had to be hand- entered using front-panel switches.
(No doubt seasoned operators had this memorized.) It was handy that
this could be preserved across power cycles, assuming it didn’t get overwritten by some wayward buggy program.
Then there were applications that ran without an OS as such. For
example, on the PDP-8, you could load a BASIC interpreter. This would
take about 20 minutes to load off paper tape. So the fact that a
power cycle did not wipe memory was helpful if you had a lot of BASIC programs to run.
On 11/02/2025 12:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory,
even when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines
from the core memory era, there was no ?boot ROM?. The first-stage bootloader was typically around a dozen machine instructions or so,
which had to be hand- entered using front-panel switches.
I remember having to do that on a PDP-8 (was it??) in 1982-3.
(No doubt seasoned operators had this memorized.) It was handy that
this could be preserved across power cycles, assuming it didn?t get overwritten by some wayward buggy program.
Then there were applications that ran without an OS as such. For
example, on the PDP-8, you could load a BASIC interpreter. This would
take about 20 minutes to load off paper tape. So the fact that a
power cycle did not wipe memory was helpful if you had a lot of BASIC programs to run.
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 12:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory,
even when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines
from the core memory era, there was no ?boot ROM?. The first-stage
bootloader was typically around a dozen machine instructions or so,
which had to be hand- entered using front-panel switches.
I remember having to do that on a PDP-8 (was it??) in 1982-3.
That seems rather late!
On 14/05/2025 10:54 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 12:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent* memory,
even when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on machines
from the core memory era, there was no ?boot ROM?. The first-stage
bootloader was typically around a dozen machine instructions or so,
which had to be hand- entered using front-panel switches.
I remember having to do that on a PDP-8 (was it??) in 1982-3.
That seems rather late!
For computing, yes, that might seem rather late ... but for its purpose (Training us in how an Aust Army Direction Finding system worked) it was quite reasonable. I don't know what the actual DF system used.
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:54 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2025 12:00 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2025-02-09 00:35:
So you never used core memory.
Correct. But core memory is not intended as *persistent*
memory, even when it can be used this way.
It was indeed regularly used that way. Consider that, on
machines from the core memory era, there was no ?boot ROM?.
The first-stage bootloader was typically around a dozen
machine instructions or so, which had to be hand- entered
using front-panel switches.
I remember having to do that on a PDP-8 (was it??) in 1982-3.
That seems rather late!
For computing, yes, that might seem rather late ... but for its
purpose (Training us in how an Aust Army Direction Finding system
worked) it was quite reasonable. I don't know what the actual DF
system used.
I see! Yes. Defense Force systems have a very long lifecycle. In
aerospace even longer, for obvious reasons.
They used HP 21MX (16-bit) mini-computers in some missiles. At the
time, it felt rather strange, letting an expensive computer
self-destruct. Sadly enough, these days it's no longer strange at
all! :-(
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 507 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 206:18:36 |
| Calls: | 9,969 |
| Files: | 13,828 |
| Messages: | 6,357,767 |
