SATA Harddrives better than IDE ?? for Starup in Win2k or ..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
the SATA being startup being quicker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> the SATA being startup being quicker.

You wont boot any faster than an SATA WDC Raptor or triple cost 15K RPM
SCSI. That is due to the speed of the HD and NOT SATA.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> the SATA being startup being quicker.

Am interested in opinions on this too - currently have Seagate Barracuda
7200.7 80Gb IDE - very happy with it - just need more space.
Was going to go SATA as primary drive & IDE as secondary for storage - if
there is no real difference in speed I'll save some money & go IDE again.

JonMaC

 

[Max]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

You need to look at the hard drive, not the interface so much. SATA is the
newest and latest, and will allow for better performance, but unless the
hard drive is actually faster then it doesn't matter what interface you use.

-Max

"Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> the SATA being startup being quicker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ron Reaugh wrote:
>
> "Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> > Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> > getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> > the SATA being startup being quicker.
>
> You wont boot any faster than an SATA WDC Raptor or triple cost 15K RPM
> SCSI. That is due to the speed of the HD and NOT SATA.

When you take into account the loading of the SCSI BIOS on bootup, it is
considerably slower than IDE or even SATA if you time from switch on
until Windows has loaded.

Not much of a benchmark, I must admit, but for me, when I reboot a
machine 50 times or more a day it all adds up. Even so, I still run
SCSI on a few machines.


Odie
--

RetroData
Data Recovery Experts
www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"JonMaC" <john.mccarthy@services.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
news:cjbekt$3ks$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> > Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> > getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> > the SATA being startup being quicker.
>
> Am interested in opinions on this too - currently have Seagate Barracuda
> 7200.7 80Gb IDE - very happy with it - just need more space.
> Was going to go SATA as primary drive & IDE as secondary for storage - if
> there is no real difference in speed I'll save some money & go IDE again.

The issue is NOT SATA vs ATA but the HD model. For the fastest get the SATA
WDC 74GB Raptor. Close second is the Hitachi 7K400.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41597E38.48D69392@hotmail.com...
> Ron Reaugh wrote:
> >
> > "Tokyo Otaku" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d54f34b7.0409271235.4f1cf670@posting.google.com...
> > > Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> > > getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> > > the SATA being startup being quicker.
> >
> > You wont boot any faster than an SATA WDC Raptor or triple cost 15K RPM
> > SCSI. That is due to the speed of the HD and NOT SATA.
>
> When you take into account the loading of the SCSI BIOS on bootup,

It's not the loading of the SCSI BIOS, which is instantaneous, but the
enumeration of SCSI devices.

>it is
> considerably slower than IDE or even SATA if you time from switch on
> until Windows has loaded.
>
> Not much of a benchmark, I must admit, but for me, when I reboot a
> machine 50 times or more a day it all adds up. Even so, I still run
> SCSI on a few machines.
>
>
> Odie
> --
>
> RetroData
> Data Recovery Experts
> www.retrodata.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Tokyo Otaku wrote:
> Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
> getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
> the SATA being startup being quicker.
If you take 2 hard drives and compare them SATA and EIDE, you have to
use logic here. If they both have the same spin rate, the read rate
will be the same approximately. (Even 2 drives of the same type and
speed may have some differences in read/write rates.) One hard drive
installed on as master on IDE-0 port can not read data faster than it
can be sent. This means the faster Transfer speed of SATA is of no use
whatsoever. To say otherwise is to ignore the laws of logic.

I have often observed that a newly installed operating system always
seems to load faster, and this is what they may be seeing. SATA may be
slightly faster in the first second or two. I guess if you had a large
cache and you could program the drive to load the cache with the startup
program information you could theoretically make a drive boot faster.
I dont know if the drive manufacturers do things like this or not.
There has been some talk by ATI about the combined speed of DDR-2 and
16X PCI Express being faster than Cache Memory. They have been
considering accessing system memory or memory on a daughter card to make
a video card with less on-board memory and still run at the same speed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On 27 Sep 2004 13:35:43 -0700, tokyootaku@hotmail.com (Tokyo Otaku) wrote:

>Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
>getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
>the SATA being startup being quicker.

Although some HDD's are a little faster than others, I don't think the HDD
is the booting bottleneck. Here are some things to think about:

Some motherboards simply boot slower than others.

Some motherboard BIOS's boot slower than others. Ask around for your board.

"Auto detect" settings in the BIOS can slow things down. Set everything to
the exact device and setting whenever possible.

Look at the many fine Windows Tweak web sites for tips on improving booting
speed once the Windows splash screen comes up. Simply unloading unneeded
drivers and services can take several seconds off bootup time.

-- Bob

 

[None]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:09:05 -0500, Last Boy Scout
<eggbtr@charter.net> wrote:

>Tokyo Otaku wrote:
>> Are the SATA Drives now better than the best IDE drives as startup..
>> getting sick of slow startups and keep hearing of many who raves about
>> the SATA being startup being quicker.
>If you take 2 hard drives and compare them SATA and EIDE, you have to
>use logic here. If they both have the same spin rate, the read rate
>will be the same approximately. (Even 2 drives of the same type and
>speed may have some differences in read/write rates.) One hard drive
>installed on as master on IDE-0 port can not read data faster than it
>can be sent. This means the faster Transfer speed of SATA is of no use
>whatsoever. To say otherwise is to ignore the laws of logic.
>
>I have often observed that a newly installed operating system always
>seems to load faster, and this is what they may be seeing. SATA may be
>slightly faster in the first second or two. I guess if you had a large
>cache and you could program the drive to load the cache with the startup
> program information you could theoretically make a drive boot faster.
> I dont know if the drive manufacturers do things like this or not.
>There has been some talk by ATI about the combined speed of DDR-2 and
>16X PCI Express being faster than Cache Memory. They have been
>considering accessing system memory or memory on a daughter card to make
>a video card with less on-board memory and still run at the same speed.

I have noticed that the ATA133 that I'm running does boot a bit faster
than when I run the HD straight off the MB.
I DO run nothing but 7,200rpm drives though. (Can't imagine why anyone
would install a ATA133 card and NOT run the faster drives though.)
I have the Promise card which runs a Bios overlay to ID the card and
drive. This takes about 2-3 seconds on my system and after that it
blazes through regular bios and boot up.(I run Win2K and my boot is
usually less than a minute.)