A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Quick Questions: IDE (SCSI) vs SATA and SATA2



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 12th 07, 07:36 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Cordelia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Quick Questions: IDE (SCSI) vs SATA and SATA2

1) Are IDE/SCSI hard drive outdated technology? (sorry if I am using
the wrong terminology... is it EIDE?)

2) Is SATA faster or better in some way, how?

3) How much better / faster / more expensive is SATA 2?

4) Is it better to use one in particular of these configurations for
Windows - if so which one and why?

5) My Bios / Asrock motherboard configuration has a strange pecularity:
If shut down by power-off (bad way to shut down) it 'forgets' to look
first at the SATA drive for Windows (as it was set up to do). So when I
used to have the OS on a SATA drive and powered down in this way, I
always had to start next session on the PC by going into Bios and
changing the default Boot hard drive from the IDE/SCSI hard drive to the
SATA drive where Windows was! Extremely irritating - nothing seemed to
stop this from happening. Recently when I had some problem and had to
re-install the OS, I decided to put it on the old IDE/SCSI drive, just
so I wouldn't have to waste time on going into the BIOS on a regular
basis. But what caused this behaviour in the first place? Anything I
could have done to fix it?


  #2  
Old August 12th 07, 10:57 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,416
Default Quick Questions: IDE (SCSI) vs SATA and SATA2

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:36:23 -0700, Cordelia
wrote:

1) Are IDE/SCSI hard drive outdated technology? (sorry if I am using
the wrong terminology... is it EIDE?)


"Outdated" is a bit of an arbitrary term. You have a need,
a system that can or can't support IDE/SCSI, the most common
being PATA or commonly called ATA100 or ATA133, and devices
available to use these interfaces which do the job fine.

On the other hand since SATA is newer and eventually
production of PATA will slow down quite a bit (IIRC, Seagate
has already planned to stop producing PATA hard drives soon)
limiting your PATA product choices and possibly raising
prices.



2) Is SATA faster or better in some way, how?


The SATA connector is more fragile, but the cable thinner
and easier to route, due to it's thinness and that there is
only one device per cable.

SATA has the potential to be significantly faster, but
current single drives cannot transfer the data from the
platter to the bus even as fast as ATA133, so the primary
improvement is a small increase from transfers to/fro the
HDDs onboard memory cache.




3) How much better / faster / more expensive is SATA 2?


Minimal if any addt'l expense, barely any faster, but it is
current technology and should have the longest forward
support of the 3 low-cost common desktop/PC drive
interfaces.



4) Is it better to use one in particular of these configurations for
Windows - if so which one and why?


No, windows has nothing to do with it really. Millions of
systems prove any of them will do the job acceptibly... but
since SATA2 has both low cost and good forward-looking
availability, it should be the preferred interface for a new
system built today.



5) My Bios / Asrock motherboard configuration has a strange pecularity:
If shut down by power-off (bad way to shut down) it 'forgets' to look
first at the SATA drive for Windows (as it was set up to do). So when I
used to have the OS on a SATA drive and powered down in this way, I
always had to start next session on the PC by going into Bios and
changing the default Boot hard drive from the IDE/SCSI hard drive to the
SATA drive where Windows was! Extremely irritating - nothing seemed to
stop this from happening.


Consider it an unusual bios bug. The bios is supposed to
allow you to choose the preferred and/or boot order for the
device you want, and store that setting saved to nonvolatile
memory. When the system is next reset or turned on, it
should be booting to it. You might occasionally check
Asrock's website to see if they have (Or ever do) come up
with a bios update that fixes this... and also recheck your
bios settings just in case you had overlooked some setting
that might resolve it.


Recently when I had some problem and had to
re-install the OS, I decided to put it on the old IDE/SCSI drive, just
so I wouldn't have to waste time on going into the BIOS on a regular
basis. But what caused this behaviour in the first place? Anything I
could have done to fix it?


See above.

Whether any particular PATA or SATA drive you have is a
better choice than the other, might depend more on the
inherant performance of the drive due to it's age and
capacity far more than which interface it uses.

Since you described the PATA drive as "old", it is likely
smaller and slower due to it's age and so the remaining
question is whether you find it to be too small or too slow
for your particular uses. Plenty of people do keep their
older drive for the OS and add a newer and (usually) faster
drive for addt'l storage. Only you can decide when the
older drive performance is comparitively low enough that it
is important to replace it or exchange the roles of the
two... or buy another drive since relying on an "old" drive
to run the OS or store data becomes a risk since no drive
lasts forever... while it's good to make frequent backups
regardless of drive age, having a drive fail at an
inconvenient time and interrupt use of the system can be
more of a hassle than it's worth when drives today are so
inexpensive for moderate capacity models.
  #3  
Old August 14th 07, 05:44 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Cordelia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Quick Questions: IDE (SCSI) vs SATA and SATA2

That answers all my questions really clearly! Thank you so much for
explaining! It would have taken me ages to locate all this information
in books and online. (You *really* know your stuff and you are good at
explaining. Do you every think about that you could launch a website or
podcast and become a hit online any day! :-) C.

kony wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:36:23 -0700, Cordelia
wrote:

1) Are IDE/SCSI hard drive outdated technology? (sorry if I am using
the wrong terminology... is it EIDE?)


"Outdated" is a bit of an arbitrary term. You have a need,
a system that can or can't support IDE/SCSI, the most common
being PATA or commonly called ATA100 or ATA133, and devices
available to use these interfaces which do the job fine.

On the other hand since SATA is newer and eventually
production of PATA will slow down quite a bit (IIRC, Seagate
has already planned to stop producing PATA hard drives soon)
limiting your PATA product choices and possibly raising
prices.


2) Is SATA faster or better in some way, how?


The SATA connector is more fragile, but the cable thinner
and easier to route, due to it's thinness and that there is
only one device per cable.

SATA has the potential to be significantly faster, but
current single drives cannot transfer the data from the
platter to the bus even as fast as ATA133, so the primary
improvement is a small increase from transfers to/fro the
HDDs onboard memory cache.



3) How much better / faster / more expensive is SATA 2?


Minimal if any addt'l expense, barely any faster, but it is
current technology and should have the longest forward
support of the 3 low-cost common desktop/PC drive
interfaces.


4) Is it better to use one in particular of these configurations for
Windows - if so which one and why?


No, windows has nothing to do with it really. Millions of
systems prove any of them will do the job acceptibly... but
since SATA2 has both low cost and good forward-looking
availability, it should be the preferred interface for a new
system built today.


5) My Bios / Asrock motherboard configuration has a strange pecularity:
If shut down by power-off (bad way to shut down) it 'forgets' to look
first at the SATA drive for Windows (as it was set up to do). So when I
used to have the OS on a SATA drive and powered down in this way, I
always had to start next session on the PC by going into Bios and
changing the default Boot hard drive from the IDE/SCSI hard drive to the
SATA drive where Windows was! Extremely irritating - nothing seemed to
stop this from happening.


Consider it an unusual bios bug. The bios is supposed to
allow you to choose the preferred and/or boot order for the
device you want, and store that setting saved to nonvolatile
memory. When the system is next reset or turned on, it
should be booting to it. You might occasionally check
Asrock's website to see if they have (Or ever do) come up
with a bios update that fixes this... and also recheck your
bios settings just in case you had overlooked some setting
that might resolve it.


Recently when I had some problem and had to
re-install the OS, I decided to put it on the old IDE/SCSI drive, just
so I wouldn't have to waste time on going into the BIOS on a regular
basis. But what caused this behaviour in the first place? Anything I
could have done to fix it?


See above.

Whether any particular PATA or SATA drive you have is a
better choice than the other, might depend more on the
inherant performance of the drive due to it's age and
capacity far more than which interface it uses.

Since you described the PATA drive as "old", it is likely
smaller and slower due to it's age and so the remaining
question is whether you find it to be too small or too slow
for your particular uses. Plenty of people do keep their
older drive for the OS and add a newer and (usually) faster
drive for addt'l storage. Only you can decide when the
older drive performance is comparitively low enough that it
is important to replace it or exchange the roles of the
two... or buy another drive since relying on an "old" drive
to run the OS or store data becomes a risk since no drive
lasts forever... while it's good to make frequent backups
regardless of drive age, having a drive fail at an
inconvenient time and interrupt use of the system can be
more of a hassle than it's worth when drives today are so
inexpensive for moderate capacity models.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
some questions about Quick Restore gecele Compaq Computers 1 July 30th 05 09:15 PM
Couple of quick pre-buy questions Chris Flowers AMD Thunderbird Processors 7 August 3rd 03 01:34 PM
Scan -> PDF, some quick questions Michael Robbins Scanners 3 July 31st 03 03:48 PM
quick questions regarding Athlon XP fred.do Homebuilt PC's 3 June 25th 03 06:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.