PATA vs SATA boot time?

[halfadder]

The fastest PC I have seen boot is actually a 2.6 GHz P4 on an 845 chipset! The board is Intel brand and has some sort of "quick boot" BIOS setting. The drive is a pretty fast Western Digital PATA (ATA-100 I think). My 3.0 GHz P4 boots a little slower, but then I have more stuff installed. My 3200+ boots even slower, but most AMD systems I've seen are like that. They all boot fast, but faster is better...

I've heard rumors that on many boards, Windows will actually boot faster from a (fast) PATA drive due to BIOS, drivers, and/or mobo issues in initiating the SATA interface.

Has anyone actually tested this?

 

[Andres3605]

my 3000+ with seagate 7200.7 has virtually same boot time to my friends p4 2.6 and 2*hitachi satas raid 0

 

[islandtechengineers]

how about the stats? Have you timed your rig?

my old p4 1.7, on a 845 chipset and XPpro clocked at 28 secs - which is decent, but i would love to have a system under 20 (is it possible/anyone accomplish?).

 

[bob4432]

mine boots slow because i run a scsi system drive. i would rather have the performance when the machine is on vs having it take 15-30 seconds less at startup. boot time means nothing.

 

[AristoV300]

If the board is running RAID or doesn't have native SATA support then yes the boot time will be slower due the drivers having to load first.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: bob4432
mine boots slow because i run a scsi system drive. i would rather have the performance when the machine is on vs having it take 15-30 seconds less at startup. boot time means nothing.

Totally agree that performance when needed is more important than boot times.

 

[GprophetB]

Interesting, my PIII 1.0 ghz 512 PC133 (msconfig nothing is set to start on startup) boots in 26 (to the windows xp login screen)