What I'm saying is that I wouldn't pay extra for it. For instance, right now ide, sata and sataII drives are virtually the same price so getting a sataII drive is fine because you aren't paying for something you can't use anyway.So, if I understand what you are saying, there is no point in acquiring one of the newer SATA drives because it would really make no significant difference?
I'm looking at a new MB. It has one IDE port which is really intended for the optical drives. The SATA ports are listed as 3.0 in the spec sheets. So I'll have to get some kind of SATA drive.
Am I correct that all SATA drives are compatible with the ports, even if they are 3.0? Kind of like USB 2 v. USB 1?
Thanks for your reply. I sincerely appreciate it!
Well, I can see the need for SATA 2.0 in certain situations.
Since its a theoretical max of 300MB/s and HDDs max out at around 60-80MB/s sustained, you can derive that about 4 HDD's that are RAID 0'd can come close to maxing out the 300MB/s.
So there is an application with RAID'd arrays, but to the wide consumer base, no real difference in terms of speed.
This isn't true for the most part of what a typical end-user sees. It really depends on the controller you have.Well I can see what you're saying but that actually isn't necessarily true since each of the drives would get a dedicated 300MB/s (hence the SERIAL part) so you'd still have a highly underutlized bus. As for the whole I-ram thing I see a lot of possibility with that.