why no more ATA-133 support?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I built my last computer in Spring 2001, and at the time everything
was coming out with ATA-133 IDE. Both my motherboard (Intel 815
chipset-based) and the drives I bought supported it.

i recently purchased a new motherboard, & when i was looking, I
noticed that none of the current Intel chipsets support ATA-133, only
ATA-100 max plus SATA. I ended up buying an Intel 865G chipset-based
motherboard, which says it's only ATA-100, though the BIOS shows my
drives detected as UDMA mode 5. I'm using my old drives, but briefly
looking at newer drivers, I notice many are only ATA-100.

just out of curiosity, anyone know why vendors seemingly have dropped
133? i can't imagine it matters in the real world on a home PC, i'm
just interested.

thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

usenetacct@lycos.com wrote:

> I built my last computer in Spring 2001, and at the time everything
> was coming out with ATA-133 IDE. Both my motherboard (Intel 815
> chipset-based) and the drives I bought supported it.
>
> i recently purchased a new motherboard, & when i was looking, I
> noticed that none of the current Intel chipsets support ATA-133, only
> ATA-100 max plus SATA. I ended up buying an Intel 865G chipset-based
> motherboard, which says it's only ATA-100, though the BIOS shows my
> drives detected as UDMA mode 5. I'm using my old drives, but briefly
> looking at newer drivers, I notice many are only ATA-100.
>
> just out of curiosity, anyone know why vendors seemingly have dropped
> 133? i can't imagine it matters in the real world on a home PC, i'm
> just interested.
>
> thanks

Your 815 is ATA100, at best (early ones are ATA66 max), and, to my
knowledge, no Intel chipset has ever supported ATA133.

ATA133 was a Maxtor 'initiative' and not everyone decided to hop on the
bandwagon. Intel is one and Western Digital is another (WD drives are ATA100).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<usenetacct@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:61952ab6.0411072010.54055920@posting.google.com...
> I built my last computer in Spring 2001, and at the time everything
> was coming out with ATA-133 IDE. Both my motherboard (Intel 815
> chipset-based) and the drives I bought supported it.
>
> i recently purchased a new motherboard, & when i was looking, I
> noticed that none of the current Intel chipsets support ATA-133, only
> ATA-100 max plus SATA. I ended up buying an Intel 865G chipset-based
> motherboard, which says it's only ATA-100, though the BIOS shows my
> drives detected as UDMA mode 5. I'm using my old drives, but briefly
> looking at newer drivers, I notice many are only ATA-100.
>
> just out of curiosity, anyone know why vendors seemingly have dropped
> 133? i can't imagine it matters in the real world on a home PC, i'm
> just interested.
>
> thanks

Well ATA-133 like ATA 100 is marketing hype as you suspected. The drives are
well below those numbers in read speed.
I you are serious about a new drive look at the data shown at
storagereview.com.
JPS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The manufacturers are all in the midst of switching over to SATA harddrive
controllers.

--
DaveW



<usenetacct@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:61952ab6.0411072010.54055920@posting.google.com...
>I built my last computer in Spring 2001, and at the time everything
> was coming out with ATA-133 IDE. Both my motherboard (Intel 815
> chipset-based) and the drives I bought supported it.
>
> i recently purchased a new motherboard, & when i was looking, I
> noticed that none of the current Intel chipsets support ATA-133, only
> ATA-100 max plus SATA. I ended up buying an Intel 865G chipset-based
> motherboard, which says it's only ATA-100, though the BIOS shows my
> drives detected as UDMA mode 5. I'm using my old drives, but briefly
> looking at newer drivers, I notice many are only ATA-100.
>
> just out of curiosity, anyone know why vendors seemingly have dropped
> 133? i can't imagine it matters in the real world on a home PC, i'm
> just interested.
>
> thanks