Still using PATA for Optical Drive?

[Zarathustra[H]]

Hey all.

Are many of you doing this?

Since I don't need a blu-ray drive, and not much has change I have kept my PATA CD/DVD burner for some time.

Would I gain anything from switching it for a SATA drive, or would it just be a waste of money?

Reasons I can think of that would be a benefit:
- Less cabling = better case airflow, especially in my SFF
- Can disable PATA controller in bios and save system resources

What do you guys think?

 

[drescherjm]

I am at home and at work. At home both DVD writers were purchased before 2007.

Less cabling = better case airflow, especially in my SFF

This one will have the most effect..

 

[Mr. B]

Just last week I replaced a DVD drive which was my last PATA device because the new motherboard doesn't have any connectors. I don't think there are any great gains from 'upgrading' although the easier cabling in the case is nice. Optical drives are quite cheap now, and the new Asus DVD burner I just bought for a little over $20 is quieter than my last one. That alone was worth it.

 

[MaxBurn]

I still have one, just can't kill that Pioneer dvd108. I finally took it out because I couldn't get the cable around my SLI cards anymore.

 

[kuyaglen]

Your using a SFF rig so go for it.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm not. I've had SATA optical drives since the first Plextor drive was available with an SATA interface. In fact optical drives were the very last legacy EIDE devices in any of my machines. At this point I haven't used one in years.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I still have one, just can't kill that Pioneer dvd108. I finally took it out because I couldn't get the cable around my SLI cards anymore.

I'm having the same experience with my black Sony 16x DW-Q30A-B2 DVD/CD burner. The thing seems determined to live forever.

 

[drescherjm]

Well the good thing with DVD burners is a replacement will cost $25 to $35 shipped so its not like it's a big deal.

 

[zorobabel]

All my opticals are still PATA. It will stay that way until I get a Bluray burner.

 

[KaizerDan]

i replaced an old pata drive with a new 22x i believe... the only thing that i noticed was windows installs loading faster, and for how often i had to do that i was happy.

 

[limitedaccess]

What about an external? I'm thinking about going that route. Though I'm not to sure what disadvantages they would have over internals.

The reason I'm considering this I would only need one DVD drive for all my PCs, at the moment I swap a single internal around depending on which PC needs it (or read then send over the network) haha... Yea I know a drive is that cheap, but still seems like a waste buying more since I rarely use them, and they take up more space inside the case.

 

[pankkake]

I have a Plextor Premium in PATA, it only reads CDs, but it reads (and rips) audio CDs well, which is not the case of most of the crappy new optical drives. Currently I use it over USB, though.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I have a Plextor Premium in PATA, it only reads CDs, but it reads (and rips) audio CDs well, which is not the case of most of the crappy new optical drives. Currently I use it over USB, though.

What? Drives no longer support bit perfect audio extraction? What, is this some sort of RIAA bs?

 

[Red Squirrel]

I try to if I can, at least when I'm building a server. I hate using up a sata port just for an optical drive, I rather use it for another hard drive I can add in.

This was a challenge when I built my last server, the IDE port on the motherboard was DOA, and I had already RMAed 2 different parts and I was getting sick of RMAing so I gave up. Problem is I planned on being able to have 8 HDD bays and the motherboard only had 6 sata ports and the card I bought only had 2 since 2 was the most I could find on a single card. So I was down to 7 ports. Ended up ordering another card with 2 more ports then I was ok. Maybe this is not as much of a problem today though, maybe it's possible to get 4 port sata cards now, or even higher.

 

[swatbat]

I think one of my test server's might still have an ide drive in it. Only reason I did it was because I turned on the onboard shitty software raid for a raid 1 and it made it so windows wouldn't handle the optical drive on the sata(intel board with only the intel sata on it).

My main desktop might have one in it as well. For some reason I remember my optical drive screwing up and having a new ide dvdrw drive sitting around. Can't remember if I ever switched it back to sata.

I try to keep with sata when possible.

 

[thefreeaccount]

Lower CPU usage for SATA burning, no chance of read/write errors sending the drive back to PIO mode, and faster cache reads/writes means less chance of burning a toaster under heavy system use.

Never using IDE mode guarantees that no ASPI driver will ever infect your system!

 

[drescherjm]

Lower CPU usage for SATA burning, no chance of read/write errors sending the drive back to PIO mode, and faster cache reads/writes means less chance of burning a toaster under heavy system use.

I guess if you have a low end system this is a problem. It has not been for me since I have had 4 cores in a system and that was 3 to 4 years ago..

 

[Surly73]

Yep. BenQ DW1640.

Great drive, no need to change it.

 

[Lateralus]

I bought a PATA Pioneer slot-load DVD drive years ago, and still use it in every rig I build. I'll continue to use it until I can't due to the absence of an IDE port on my mobo or until the drive croaks. The cable and molex connector are kind of a pain, but I love that slot-load drive. Not sure why other manufacturers never made them; perhaps a tray-loading drive is cheaper to manufacture.

 

[Knuckle-Head]

I still use a Yamaha CRW-F1 cd writer for cds. It still works fine. And recently gave away a Plextor ide cd writer I was wasn't using.

 

[Old Hippie]

Yep, BenQ DW1655...and look at some of these prices for a refurb'd drive!

I have two of 'um and IDE was needed for my Abit Pro35 to install an OS.

It was one of those deals where the SATA drivers had to be loaded with an IDE drive.

 

[PGHammer]

Hey all.

Are many of you doing this?

Since I don't need a blu-ray drive, and not much has change I have kept my PATA CD/DVD burner for some time.

Would I gain anything from switching it for a SATA drive, or would it just be a waste of money?

Reasons I can think of that would be a benefit:
- Less cabling = better case airflow, especially in my SFF
- Can disable PATA controller in bios and save system resources

What do you guys think?

I have two optical drives (in fact, both are DVD burners) - one is PATA and one is SATA. Usually you save diddly in terms of system resources (as unless either PATA or SATA is third-party, no extra resources are used, despite the controller possibly showing up twice). The biggest advantage (for SATA drives of any sort) is no master/slave jumpering.
The PATA burner also has one other surprising advantage - it is able to run slower (using cheap media); this is useful for CD-RW image burning or burning of any non-DL DVD image that should be burned at as slow a speed as possible. (The PATA burner will burn DVD media as slow as 2.4x; the SATA burner will go no slower than 10x. This is in ImgBurn for Windows.)
I *have* managed to banish a PATA drive - however, the banished drive was my 40 GB WD Caviar Linux/small-OS *scratch* drive. Instead, my previous main drive (200 GB Maxtor SATA) is now the *smaller* of my two magnetic drives, while the PATA-based Lite-ON LDW411S soldiers on another few months.

 

[shetu]

I use pata cable for dvd writer.

 

[bexamous]

I don't even use optical drives , maybe if I see a good deal on a USB drive one day I'll buy it, but till then no need. Actually I prefer not having a burner, now when someone says "can you burn me a copy of ____ movie?" I can honestly say "no, I don't have a burner." Or when my GF goes "Can you burn those pictures to a CD so I can give them to _____?" I get to go "Nah I don't have a burner, BUT YOU DO!@ LOLO@L@# Get to work!"

But really, for PATA vs SATA optical drive... they both work, you won't notice a difference actually using the drive. Upshot for PATA is you have 1 more SATA port for HDDs, and upshot for SATA is it looks prettier.

 

[Tolyngee]

I still use a Yamaha CRW-F1 cd writer for cds. It still works fine.

I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

I owned one. It was supposed to be the all-in-one burner; the end-all, be-all of burners. The price tag was like double or so a typical burner at the time.

Problem was, that although it could do more than you could ever even want to do with a burner, it just didn't do anything at all very well.

If it wasn't for the pricetag, it would have been removed from my system faster than it was.

I do admit my experience with it somehow ended up with my becoming a Pioneer fanboi for life. I may use almost anything for reading, but if I burn, a Pioneer's doing the job...


That said, I just built a new gaming rig two weeks ago. A Sony IDE DVD drive went into it. I think I bought it ultra-cheap a few years ago, and realized I had never used it. I figured it would give my IDE connector (my God, what is that doing on a tri-SLI mobo?) something to do.

I'll give the mobo a little credit: it doesn't have a floppy connector...

But the IDE connector is right next to the SATA3 connectors... And to rub it all in, my IDE/SATA2/SATA3 connectors are all seemingly color-coded based on their speed...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The PATA burner also has one other surprising advantage - it is able to run slower (using cheap media); this is useful for CD-RW image burning or burning of any non-DL DVD image that should be burned at as slow a speed as possible. (The PATA burner will burn DVD media as slow as 2.4x; the SATA burner will go no slower than 10x. This is in ImgBurn for Windows.)

Can you either link or delve in deper into this? I didn't know there were situations you would want to burn slower than your drive/media could handle...

 

[Metaluna]

Yep. BenQ DW1640.

Great drive, no need to change it.

There are a lot of good PATA drives that are no longer made. The Benq 1620/40/50's were near legendary in DVD burn quality, and they don't play nice with IDE-SATA adapter dongles for some reason. I keep my Benqs in external enclosures though, since I don't burn DVDs very often anymore. So there's no reason to leave it sitting there powered on and sucking in dust.

While I wouldn't buy a new PATA drive these days, if your motherboard has the connector, then there's little reason not to use it, IMHO. A short, rounded IDE cable doesn't take up any more room than a SATA cable. Even a ribbon cable, with careful folding and routing, can usually be kept out of the airflow path. And, unlike many SATA cables I've encountered, an IDE cable won't fall out if you breathe on it. Plus it frees up a SATA connector for HD's or an eSATA bracket.

 

[Surly73]

Can you either link or delve in deper into this? I didn't know there were situations you would want to burn slower than your drive/media could handle...

This isn't really a PATA vs. SATA advantage in the general case, but is specific to the individual burner models the poster focused on.

All media blanks are not created equal. Neither are burners. And neither are the recording strategies in the burner firmware which match burn strategies to media type to burn speed. If one hangs around sites like cdfreaks long enough you'll see that sometimes some burners or specific firmware releases will make better quality burns at specific speeds. It is not "slower is better" as an absolute rule, but you may find that, for instance, perhaps you should only burn YUDENT02-type blanks at 8x on a BenQ burner for best results.

 

[Metaluna]

Can you either link or delve in deper into this? I didn't know there were situations you would want to burn slower than your drive/media could handle...

OS install disks, in particular, seem to be sensitive to burn speed. I don't have a link handy, but if you go, for example, to Microsoft's site and download a Windows 7 install DVD (e.g. from the Technet area) there's usually a note in the instructions somewhere that tells you to burn the disc as the slowest speed your burner supports.

I personally have had issues with MS and Ubuntu installers that went away after I burned a new disc at a slower speed.. I guess the bare metal installer programs are less able to deal with read errors than a full blown OS.

Also, media burned for non-data purposes (e.g. "redbook audio" CD's for use in CD players, or conventional video DVDs) can be very sensitive to burn speed if you want them to be compatible with the widest selection of consumer players. But it often comes down to a trial-and-error to find the best combination of burn speed and media for a particular burner. The slowest speed doesn't necessarily give you the best burn. It depends on how well the drive's firmware is optimized for a particular media/speed combination.

 

[@dmin]

I do notice slightly faster burns with dvds and especially dual layer dvds but if it still works then use it. Also my 2 ide drives will not die I have had 2 or 3 sata drives die but not a ide. also I think Sata's use less power... but that's negligible.

 

[pojut]

I'm still using a PATA optical drive, mainly because I just haven't gotten around to replacing it. Next time I do an upgrade, I'll probably drop the ~$20 and just replace it while I have my case open.

 

[Surly73]

OS install disks, in particular, seem to be sensitive to burn speed. I don't have a link handy, but if you go, for example, to Microsoft's site and download a Windows 7 install DVD (e.g. from the Technet area) there's usually a note in the instructions somewhere that tells you to burn the disc as the slowest speed your burner supports.

I think that's an MS generalization to deal with people with "whatever is cheapest" burners burning to "whatever is cheapest" blanks. With quality materials, slowest isn't best, but fastest often isn't either. In a lot of cases somewhere in the middle (say 8x or 12x on a 16x burner) is often best. I've also read about burners which actually produce the highest quality at their max speed.

Either way, it's important to realize that it is the COMBINATION of the media and the writer which determine quality. Not either one alone.

I personally have had issues with MS and Ubuntu installers that went away after I burned a new disc at a slower speed.. I guess the bare metal installer programs are less able to deal with read errors than a full blown OS.

The programs have less to do with it than what you're implying here. Sure the number of forced retries can vary with the software running on the host, but it's up to the drive to successfully read the disc error-free.

One casual indicator of quality is how often during long continuous reads your reader has to slow down. If it spins up to 16x and stays there solid while installing your OS, your burns are probably in good shape. If it keeps stalling and having to slow down to successfully read your disk there's plenty of room for improvement in your burns.

Nero CD-DVD Scan (it was replaced with something else which isn't free anymore) can be used in "quality scan" mode to give you an idea about the distribution of correctable and uncorrectable parity errors in your burn. The fewer the better, and there's a max within the relevant specifications for DVD+-R media.

Also, media burned for non-data purposes (e.g. "redbook audio" CD's for use in CD players, or conventional video DVDs) can be very sensitive to burn speed if you want them to be compatible with the widest selection of consumer players. But it often comes down to a trial-and-error to find the best combination of burn speed and media for a particular burner. The slowest speed doesn't necessarily give you the best burn. It depends on how well the drive's firmware is optimized for a particular media/speed combination.

This is often a function of the contrast characteristics of your chosen media. Wide range compatibility, especially with older audio-only CD players can be a little dicey. You need media with the contrast characteristics closest to what the player is expecting to see, and then you need the most error-free burn possible.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I think that's an MS generalization to deal with people with "whatever is cheapest" burners burning to "whatever is cheapest" blanks. With quality materials, slowest isn't best, but fastest often isn't either. In a lot of cases somewhere in the middle (say 8x or 12x on a 16x burner) is often best. I've also read about burners which actually produce the highest quality at their max speed.

Either way, it's important to realize that it is the COMBINATION of the media and the writer which determine quality. Not either one alone.



The programs have less to do with it than what you're implying here. Sure the number of forced retries can vary with the software running on the host, but it's up to the drive to successfully read the disc error-free.

One casual indicator of quality is how often during long continuous reads your reader has to slow down. If it spins up to 16x and stays there solid while installing your OS, your burns are probably in good shape. If it keeps stalling and having to slow down to successfully read your disk there's plenty of room for improvement in your burns.

Nero CD-DVD Scan (it was replaced with something else which isn't free anymore) can be used in "quality scan" mode to give you an idea about the distribution of correctable and uncorrectable parity errors in your burn. The fewer the better, and there's a max within the relevant specifications for DVD+-R media.




This is often a function of the contrast characteristics of your chosen media. Wide range compatibility, especially with older audio-only CD players can be a little dicey. You need media with the contrast characteristics closest to what the player is expecting to see, and then you need the most error-free burn possible.

Interesting stuff. I must have just accidentally bought a good burner and good media. Ever since my first "burn-proof" burner (a 12x Plextor CD only burner) I have always just set the speed to the max, and never had an issue.

 

[PGHammer]

OS install disks, in particular, seem to be sensitive to burn speed. I don't have a link handy, but if you go, for example, to Microsoft's site and download a Windows 7 install DVD (e.g. from the Technet area) there's usually a note in the instructions somewhere that tells you to burn the disc as the slowest speed your burner supports.

I personally have had issues with MS and Ubuntu installers that went away after I burned a new disc at a slower speed.. I guess the bare metal installer programs are less able to deal with read errors than a full blown OS.

Also, media burned for non-data purposes (e.g. "redbook audio" CD's for use in CD players, or conventional video DVDs) can be very sensitive to burn speed if you want them to be compatible with the widest selection of consumer players. But it often comes down to a trial-and-error to find the best combination of burn speed and media for a particular burner. The slowest speed doesn't necessarily give you the best burn. It depends on how well the drive's firmware is optimized for a particular media/speed combination.

The lower-speed issue also applies to Linux distributions, and especially live media (which are usually CD-sized). Because I usually use rewritable (not recordable) CD and DVD media, the media are more susceptible to record-speed variations than record-once media (one of the tradeoffs on using rewritable media in the first place). (Typically, I use Memorex CD-RW and DVD+RW media purchased at the local BB in 25-disc spindles.) Because I have had to deal with many different brands of drives (as I have no idea what brand of drive the target computer will have prior to burning), I burn at the lowest speed I can get away with (better safe than sorry); therefore, for CD-RW media, the PATA Lite-ON gets used a lot.

 

[Jon55]

Well the good thing with DVD burners is a replacement will cost $25 to $35 shipped so its not like it's a big deal.

Hell I've seen ASUS OEM drives at Fry's for $19.99. These things are so cheap (as they should be) that it's really a non-issue. There's no excuse not to get one, or at least have one just in case.