What is better ATA/100 or ATA/150?

[xSteathx]

^^^^^

[ignitionxvi]

IIRC there is NO ata150, there is SATA tho which runs at 150mbps, which is better.

[jamestime88]

IIRC there is NO ata150, there is SATA tho which runs at 150mbps, which is better.
well SATA is ata........... its just serial instead of parallel

and as for now, i would probebly stick with a ata100 hard drive. unless of course you were to get a raptor or something.....

[dave_graham]

negligible difference. i'd get the SATA just to "future-proof" somewhat, but...you're safe either way.

cheers,

dave graham

[ameoba]

With current drives there's not much of a performance difference between the two. ATA100 has a disk size limit of about 130GB, but other than that & the nicer cables for SATA, it doesn't really matter.

[kronchev]

SATA is said to be hot-swappable but ive NEVER had it work for me. other than that there isnt a huge advantage, although SATA just feels leet, and you can use raptors with it. then again you could always get an SATA->IDE adapter if you wanted to use raptors on an IDE system. its really your call.

how come no one considers SCSI anymore?

[jamestime88]

SATA is said to be hot-swappable but ive NEVER had it work for me. other than that there isnt a huge advantage, although SATA just feels leet, and you can use raptors with it. then again you could always get an SATA->IDE adapter if you wanted to use raptors on an IDE system. its really your call.

how come no one considers SCSI anymore?

scsi is expinsive and its really hard to get a normal motherboard with SCSI.

[lessthanjakejohn]

scsi is expinsive and its really hard to get a normal motherboard with SCSI.


You get an SCSI card, not a motherboard

[ameoba]

Not really worth spending the money on SCSI if you're going to bottleneck it with 32/33 PCI.

[kronchev]

Not really worth spending the money on SCSI if you're going to bottleneck it with 32/33 PCI.

its no more of a bottleneck than with SATA

do you think youre going to get more than 133 megs a sec?