Dispelling SATA myths

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 9/7/2005 3:08 PM EST
Comments Locked

7 Comments

Back to Article

  • NicholasTaylor - Sunday, September 11, 2005 - link

    I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject lately, and I have to say it was this short article that finally made me get the whole picture.
  • Spoonbender - Thursday, September 8, 2005 - link

    Sheesh, what on earth are they thinking?
    First, naming the organization SATA II is just asking for trouble. Second, making two different names for a spec which doesn't actually offer any improvement (other than optional features)?
    And third, using two different names for the spec (1.0a and 2.5), but *not* the one everyone else actually uses, SATA 2?

    Are they stupid? Or just living on a different planet?
    When even manufacturers use the wrong name, isn't it time to reconsider your naming conventions a bit?
  • ceefka - Thursday, September 8, 2005 - link

    There is also the notion that the chipset/controller as well as the HDD must support a feature like NCQ. All in all, this needs much more publicity to get the fact straight.
  • VooDooAddict - Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - link

    Wait let me get this straight ...they finnaly have a non-confusing name for the standard (SATA 2.5), but they don't leverage it with requiring a feature set?

    I guess they are just a puppet for the drive companies and not a true standards organization.
  • xtknight - Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - link

    So in 3 words, "SATA2.5" means nothing?
  • Scrogneugneu - Thursday, September 8, 2005 - link

    In fact, it means "This drive is certified to maybe have some very nice options".


    In other words, yeah, it does mean nothing...
  • jebo - Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - link

    This post did clear the confusion. Interestingly, I was just looking at SATA IO's site yesterday trying to figure out all this mess myself.

    The thing that doesn't make one iota of sense to me is how all the SATA 2.5 specs are optional? Good Lordy. Don't these people realize it's so much easier on everybody involved to lump all the features into one standard? A conversation with a non-familiar person is so much easier if I can say "look at the package and see if it says SATA 2.5 on it" rather than "does it say 3.0gb/s? Does it say NCQ? Hot pluggable?" Not to mention if you wanna brag about your system (in a signature on a forum, perhaps) you have to list out all the features of your hard drives instead of the clean, concise, "SATA 3" or etc. Pffft.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now