From: Odie Ferrous on 4 Jul 2005 12:22
Eric Gisin wrote:
> Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?
Stupid, for asking questions?
Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
group - but obviously not.
Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
From: Eric Gisin on 4 Jul 2005 13:10
"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C96232.DF26FAC2(a)hotmail.com...
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Jeez, you are stupid. How noticable was the jump from UDMA-100 to 133?
> Stupid, for asking questions?
> Gisin, if you have period pains, you can get medication to relieve the
> I thought there would exist a modicum of professional expertise on the
> group - but obviously not.
The professionals are fed up with clueless newbies who ask stupid questions.
The "faster interface" issue comes up every month.
How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?
From: Ron Reaugh on 4 Jul 2005 14:01
"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> How many years have you been trolling without learning anything?
NO, Google groups shows that you've been so doing much longer than odious
odoriferous HD butcher.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 4 Jul 2005 13:44
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote in message news:dabh5g32cpr(a)news2.newsguy.com
> Odie Ferrous wrote:
> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in
> > speed between the two?
> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of
> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing?
> It requires tools more sensitive than that. The _only_ thing that an SATA
> II drive on an SATA II controller can do _faster_ than an SATA I drive is
> move data from the buffer to memory.
Not if that Serial ATA II drive has a standard 1.5Gb/s interface.
Note that he subtitle to Serial ATA II is "Extensions to Serial ATA 1.0"
> It is no doubt possible to contrive a
> usage pattern in which this makes an SATA II drive appear to be much faster
> than an SATA I drive,
Provided that it incorporates *that* particular new 'extension' of Serial ATA II,
the new higher interface speed.
> but in the real world performance is limited by the
> number of bits on a track and the amount of time it takes to move a track
> past the head, and that limit is far less than the data transfer rate of SATA I.
And you really think Duncan didn't know that?
> The command queuing can be beneficial in machines that are doing heavy
> multitasking--in the real world that lets out most single-user systems--but
> even there the difference is second-order.
> The major "benefit" of SATA II is that SATA II advocates can now claim that
> it is "almost as fast as SCSI".
Oh? How is that?
> > Odie