What Is SATA?

[Rogue1987]

I've read ads for it, but i've never seen it, execpt for pictures, or used it. What is It? I get that it is a form of IDE (I think)

Help Me!

[WebHead]

Check this out: http://webopedia.com/TERM/S/Serial_ATA.html

[Rogue1987]

So its just faster, smaller, and can be longer than normat IDE. Thanks!

[confus-ed]

So its just faster, smaller, and can be longer than normat IDE. Thanks!

Err no !

SATA has been developed as even though its conceptually slower than PATA the limitations of electronics & practical design considerations mean that to get data moving faster than its current technological limits using two wires rather than lots makes sense on an ecconomic level - so actually in techno terms its backwards not forwards - just cheaper & easier to develop !

[Rogue1987]

Ok so its just faster and smaller, more economical. I think I get it now.
Thanks

[confus-ed]

Ok so its just faster and smaller, more economical. I think I get it now...

Err its not faster - current implementations on general sale are, but go poking about in a Kray supercomputer or whatever & you'll find everything possible is parallel & not serial - more wires==more data flow - trouble is those pesky little IDE wires stretch & then levelling the data rates through them eats more bandwidth than it makes, or costs you loads to get 'right' stuff

So absolutely the only reason we have SATA now & not any further development on PATA is cost, as of course you can make wires really small if you are so minded (they only need to carry either a positively or negatively charged electron anyway) - this is a manufacturer driven change as we don't have the ability or understanding yet electronically to deal with 'skew' well/cheaply (uneven wire length creates this) if you want a one word summary - 'easier' ..

[Rogue1987]

Ok so its slower than PATA, but PATA costs more and is more complex to use, so it is not widely used yet. But, in theory, it would be better and faster, but no one is researching into it for general use.

[confus-ed]

Err .. nope ! .. again !

PATA is currently 'peaked out' at ata 133 (& its everwhere already, whenever you hear IDE/EIDE said they mean PATA - (p)ata & IDE being for practical usage interchangeable) & the first SATA incantations are equivalent to ata 150 & until we fathom how to deal with skew better/cheaper, manufacturers will continue to develop SATA until it reaches an expected peak equivalent to ata 300.. but just to confuse you even more SCSI is Parallel data delivery (but not PATA as that refers to IDE devices) & thats getting developed all the time & thats way faster anyway {equivalent to ata 320 already} - but of course its more expensive & a different connector

[WebHead]

Ok so its slower than PATA, but PATA costs more and is more complex to use, so it is not widely used yet. But, in theory, it would be better and faster, but no one is researching into it for general use.

I don't think you will win. Just accept the fact that no matter what you say, confus-ed will say you are wrong.

[confus-ed]

I don't think you will win. Just accept the fact that no matter what you say, confus-ed will say you are wrong.

Now thats not fair .. when he agrees with me I'll agree with him ! - I can't help it if you gave him a duff link to work from - you explain to him then why a technolgical step backwards is 'better' .. or find a link that does it neatly as my google drew a blank

[Rogue1987]

Ok, so SATA is faster, but SCSI is even faster than that, and SATA wil eveuntly get close to the speed of SCSI and tops out there. You have raised more questions to me, but thank you very much for helping me with this. from what I gather, Its rather complex.

Thanks!..Until I come up with another question......

Hey wait a minuite PATA and IDE are the same?

[confus-ed]

..Hey wait a minuite PATA and IDE are the same?

Near enough - not strictly but often folks just muddle the terms up without being really 'incorrect' See ! I knew we could agree ..

[Rogue1987]

WHOOHOO WE AGREE!!!!!!........................I Think.

[Thag]

" . . . of course you can make wires really small if you are so minded (they only need to carry either a positively or negatively charged electron anyway) . . . "

Umm, there's no such thing as a positively charged electron - if you change the charge on an electron, you've changed it into a positron (ooohhhh . . . anti-matter . . . cool!)

[confus-ed]

Umm, there's no such thing as a positively charged electron - if you change the charge on an electron, you've changed it into a positron (ooohhhh . . . anti-matter . . . cool!)

Bah humbug I say - course you can have electrons with a negative or a positive charge, its how all that reactive chemistry stuff works , but younger folks than I will call them electrons for negatively charged ones & protons for positively charged ones - if you want to start chucking in positrons then you'd better explain the bit to me about Neurtons existing in every element, when they definately don't in hydrogen, as Einstein had a little trouble with that one too & is one of the many reasons that they can't prove what they 'know' about 'anti-matter' whatsoever until they make some & then the theory goes that we'll go 'bang' big style - so I'm pretty sure I don't want to see any proof !