Serial ATA (130MB/sec - 300MB/sec)

[Lars_Coleman]

If you are interested click on the link :::
<A HREF="http://www.serialata.org/" target="_new">Serial ATA</A>

I thought this was pretty interesting! We should be looking for it to start showing up at the beginning of 2002.

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[Guest]

Serial ATA has been postponed till 2003.

Leo

 

[Lars_Coleman]

Everything I read tells something different. I'm only going off of the website I have the link to :::

Q4: You stated that PCs implementing Serial ATA will be in the marketplace in 2002. Why does it take so long to implement?

A4: The goal of the working group is to ensure the Serial ATA transition happens as smoothly and quickly as possible. The Serial ATA specification is expected to be complete in the fall of 2000 with adoption to happen in the following 12 to 18 months.

But it may not have been updated. Good to know. But it's a pretty sweet interface to say the least!

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[Guest]

<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/chi20010725007000.htm" target="_new">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001july/chi20010725007000.htm</A>

Leo

 

[Lars_Coleman]

So it's not going to be intergrated in the motherboard till 2003, but it's still going to be available in an "add-on card".

Thanks for the information!

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[upec]

The interface wont help the performance because the bottleneck is the harddrive itself.

 

[Lars_Coleman]

Ok .... I'm not to sure how that is, but Ok. That speed may only be a burst speed which is understandable, but that's not the best thing about the interface. I mean ATA100 on average sustains around 30-35MB/sec.

There are a lot of good things about this interface. I would take the time to read the article. I have a better one at work that explains it better then the first one I have listed.

I just thought it was good information and something to look forward to ...

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[FatBurger]

Upec is right, it's the hard drives, not the interface.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[Lars_Coleman]

I never said that he was wrong.

All I was doing was pointing out that there are better things about the interface then just the transfer speed.

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[pvsurfer]

No need to wait for an interface that's far superior to ATA100, it called Ultra160 SCSI and it's available now!

 

[Lars_Coleman]

Yeah but you are talking one major difference, ATA is cheap!

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[FatBurger]

I know, I was just agreeing with him.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>

 

[pvsurfer]

It's all in the way you look at it. I figure that I put in more time at my PC than just about anything else I do. So the way I look at it, spending about $400 to add SCSI is nothing (compared to other expenses in life)!

 

[Lars_Coleman]

Just $400, huh? You must be buying some cheap equipment from the prices I see out there. I mean from pricewatch you can get drives fairly cheap but they are small (10-20gig), but you still have to buy the card if it's not intergrated. I have looked at the Adaptec cards and those are pretty $$$$.

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[pvsurfer]

Lars:

Mistake #1: Looking at Adaptec cards. Instead, consider the Tekram 390U3W, it's a great card (IMHO, better than Adaptec) with a street price of about $175.

Mistake #2: As far as SCSI HDDs go, all you need in order to see a dramatic improvement is a 'small' 9GB U160 SCSI drive, which should be ample for your OS, virtual memory, and apps. As an example, an IBM Ultrastar 36L7X U160 drive (9.1GB, 10000rpm, 4MB cache, 5-year warranty) can be had for about $150.

Mistake #3: As far as not being able to afford large SCSI mass storage, there is nothing wrong with having a 'hybrid' (SCSI-IDE) system, where you use a very large and inexpensive IDE drive for your data/image/video/music files, etc.

Voila, Ultra160 SCSI heaven for well under $400 (actually, more like $325) ...and that gets you high-quality (definitely NOT cheap) SCSI equipment!

 

[IntelConvert]

Hey Lars (and anyone else interested in SCSI), listen to pvsurfer, he knows what he's talking about here.

Tekram also gets my vote. Over the past few years, I have seen too many problems with Adaptec. And from what I'm reading in other SCSI topics around here, it seems like others are also experiencing problems with Adaptec. While they do produce quality cards (albeit very expensive), they just don't seem to get their drivers right!

 

[Lars_Coleman]

Yeah. I don't know, I'm not much of a SCSI person.

<font color=red>"Can you deal with that!"</font color=red>

 

[Arbee]

Of course that SCSI trully shines with multiple HDDs


How terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise

 

[pvsurfer]

While SCSI almost always provides better disk (and CD-R) I/O than IDE, you really notice a big difference when multi-tasking (as a result of the 'bigger pipe' and 'SCSI engine')!