Is (PATA) ATA 100 slower than (IDE) ATA 133

[Pain]

Please don't talk to me about fanboyism. It's really unproductive. The charts you link show sustained rates of around 30. The ones I link show higher, and that is what I was speaking of. If you want to get technical to the letter of the law then what you are saying is probably right, but take it up with your professor. :roll:

All I was saying [and others said as well] is that pratically speaking no one is going to get 100 or 133 out of any disk. I think that is pretty accurate and is what the man was worried about.

 

[darkstar782]

We are all arguing the same point here so why the disagreement and hostility? you aint gettin' 100mb/s let alone 133 so it doesnt matter.

 

[apache_lives]

ATA133 was developed by VIA and Maxtor, it's their standard. SiS and nVidia adopted it, but Intel didn't, nor did Western Digital or Seagate.

Thanx for clearing that up d00d.

As for the rest of you, stop talking in loops! :x

Anythin that comes from VIA and you know whats gona happen.

 

[Crashman]

Hi
I remember reading ( a few times) that the ATA 100 can only read up to 127 Gigs. If a drive is larger than that, you will need to partition the drive to 127 gig parts.

This is true for older BIOS. ATA133 was the FIRST method to add 48-bit addressing to allow larger drives, but ATA100 later adopted 48-bit addressing.