Are the performance differences significant in terms of running windows xp off an ide drive vs a sata drive?
currently, i use a 80gb ide drive for running windows and a 500gb sata drive for storage. The reason i do this is so if i ever have to reinstall windows, i won't lose all my movie and music which i keep in my 500gb. If the performance difference is significant, is it worth getting an 80gb sata for my new computer or should i just keep running it off the ide drive and save about $50?
IMO, you will see faster load/read/write times over IDE with using a SATA drive. IDE caps out at a theoretical maximum transfer speed of 133 MB/ps, where SATA starts at 150MB/ps or 1.5GB/ps. There is also SATA II that supports up to 3GB/ps.
SATA is serial, IDE is parallel.
Both are based off of ATA technology.
IDE is more limited by devices supported. One channel supports two devices which must be set master/slave. SATA is always the master and more ports can usually be fit on a mobo.
However, as mentioned, if only to save money, move to SATA once your IDE drive dies.
But then again, if you have some money to burn, get 2-80GB SATA drives and put them in RAID0 for a significant hard drive performance gain.
1- your HDD is usually maxed out at around 50mb/sec or so (it can burst a bit higher, nothing to write home about) and the connector is wider than what the HDD can feed it regardless.
2- You could partition your 500gig hdd in two 40/460 partitions and install windows on the 40gig partition. Then, you could ditch the 80gig (which must be getting old, possibly less reliable) and save yourself the trouble.
3- Your 500gig drive is most likely slightly faster than your older 80gig drive so you would gain some performance by having it all on the same.