ata100 vs ata133

[fastvideo]

can someone tell me some expirence with these two different type hd?
personally i like ibm's, but maxtor now come out with ata133, which is a better choice.

 

[187]

ata133 is all theoritical, meaning that everyonce in a blue moon it will burst to 133. same with ata100. we cant utilize either at max. realworld performace is much less.

 

[Jhhnn]

ATA33 was like driving a vespa on a dirt road. ATA66 paved the road, ATA 100 widened it, and ATA100 made it 4 lanes. ATA133 adds a little more, but you're still drivin' a vespa, so it doesn't matter much.

The ATA100 standard added some under the surface improvements having to do with error checking &etc, and is part of the reason it was quickly adopted. Unless ATA 133 does more of this kind of stuff, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me....

 

[Demonicon]

ATA/133 allows for single drives to be recognized over 137GB.

 

[Rand]

<< ATA/133 allows for single drives to be recognized over 127GB. >>



It's not necessary to have ATA133 to see drives over 137GB though, it merely has that capability natively while previous standards need to be updated for it.
48 bit LBA logical ATA commands -- the means by which you can access hard drives larger than 137 Gigabytes can be adapted for use with even ATA66 and earlier.

 

[kjmcdonald]

I posted something like this as a response to another thread but here it goes again:

ATA133 does have some uses. Especially if you have more than one drive on the same channel.

In the beginning if you put two drives of different speeds on the same channel they only could
run at the slower of the two speeds... But this isn't always true any more. Today's controllers
can switch speeds when they switch devices.

I see many people talk about how the 133MB/s is only theoretical, how it will be rare to ever
see that happen. This may be true if you only have one drive on the channel.

But if you have two drives, you will see an improvment in the transfer of both drives together.
This is because while the spinning disks may only be able to read the data at say 32MB/s, this
data gets buffered, and when the buffer is full, the dat is transfered to the controller at the full
133MB/s. This means that the IDE bus will be locked 'in use' for a much shorter time before
being freed up for the other drive to use *much* sooner than if the data went over the wires at
only 33MB/s.

Add to that the fact that it will last longer before being obsolete. If you'll only have one disk
it may not be worth it. but If it's only a few $ more (or cheaper maybe?) I'd go with the ATA133.

-Kyle

 

[Demonicon]

<<

<< ATA/133 allows for single drives to be recognized over 127GB. >>



It's not necessary to have ATA133 to see drives over 137GB though, it merely has that capability natively while previous standards need to be updated for it.
48 bit LBA logical ATA commands -- the means by which you can access hard drives larger than 137 Gigabytes can be adapted for use with even ATA66 and earlier. >>




So ATA66 and ATA100 can recognize single drives above 137GB? Can you explain how? 48 bit LBA logical ATA commands ?

Sorry for all the ?'s, just curious.