Marc de Vries wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote

Thats much more convenient for the user who
isnt then without a drive for any time at all, and
if the drive isnt completely dead they may be
able to copy stuff from the original drive too.

Their policy is that they don't do that.

And thats one of the reasons they can take their drives
and shove them where the sun dont shine and I choose
to use drive manufacturers with a clue on that stuff.

That must make your choose of drive manufacturers very small.

Nope, just excludes IBM/Hitachi.

Maxtor and WD have the same policy.

Completely wrong.

And can use the shipping container the replacement
showed up in to send the failed drive back in.

Luckily, in Europe, they don't make such a
fuss about the shipping container as in the US.

Its always been a terminal stupidity when
cross shipping fixes that problem completely.

It's the same with almost any component in your PC.
Having such a negative fixation on IBM/Hitachi when they do the same
as the rest of the industry is pretty stupid too.

I would certainly want cross shipment there too.

But the competition doesn't cross ship here either.

Bull****.

Is it?
And why do you think so? Do you live in the Netherlands?
Do you know the policy for Maxtor and WD here?

But that might be different in the US too?

And in plenty of other places too.


Seems just as good or better than the competition.

Fraid not. They can be surprisingly
slow to send out the replacement too.

Took about a week before I had the replacement.

Plenty have had to wait a lot longer
than that, reported in here alone.

Well, this is not the only hardware group on the internet.

Maybe the people in the Netherlands are just more efficient in these
matters?

That's about the same as I heard from other companies.

Not relevant with a cross ship.

Not relevant since they don't cross ship either.

Luckily I had a spare drive lying around,
so it didn't really bother me much.

Yeah, I have full spare PCs so its really just a nuisance.

Its just another example of a terminal
stupidity in the way they operate tho.

I've always been into dealing with operations
that have got their act into gear on the detail.

Thats why I dont bother with Maxtor. We have
to ship the drive to Singapore using a receipted
delivery system if the seller of the drive has gone
bust, and thats not cheap at all. Bugger that. They
can shove their drives where the sun dont shine too.

So IBM/Hitachi stinks because they don't cross ship, Maxtor too.
That means you won't like WD and Seagate either.

No we have had all the major players in the harddisk market.
Which harddisks do you use?

And when they've never had the balls to fess up to
what the problem was with the infamous GXP drives,

That was IBM :-)

Its only the OWNERSHIP that changed. The same monkeys
are largely involved in the design and manufacture of the drives.

Relax Rod, I know.
That's why I put the smiley there.

Duh.

Oh boy. Don't you know why people use smileys?

they can take their drives and shove them where
the sun dont shine as far as I am concerned.

I'll buy drives manufacturered by operations with a clue myself.

IBM hasn't been the only company which has had a bad model once.

Sure, but thats not the problem. The problem was that IBM
kept denying that there ever was a problem with those drives.

Let alone actually fessing up to what the problem actually was.

I find it VERY hard to believe that IBM never did manage to work
out what the problem was, and if they didnt, I wont be touching
any of the drives made by an operation that incompetant.

I find that hard to believe too.

Especially since it seems the internet
community had found a likely reason.

Nope.

Yes

Seems like only a later production batch failed.

Wrong.

Not wrong

All those review sites had early models and they still work fine.

Wrong. Plenty of those died too.

Not wrong.

My 75GXP still works fine too,

There's only ever been a single drive model where every
single copy failed in the field, made by that Indian operation.

Really? Which model might that have been then, since that description
does not fit the 75GXP.

but that was also an early model.

Thats irrelevant to failure rates.

It isn't.

But there are lots of reasons (valid reasons from
their standpoint) why they will never admit that.

Then they can take their drives and
shove them where the sun dont shine.

(Problem with the 75GXP is that it also
happened to be an extremely popular model)

The problem was that IBM never did admit
that there was any problem with that model.

And kept shipping the suckers another 75GXP
when the first one was RMAed, which went on
to fail itself quite a bit of the time. Utterly obscene.

True. Although I have heard some people who said they
didn't want a 75GXP anymore, that got a new model.

Sure, but most were told to like it or lump it and what
appears to have happened is that even those stupids
eventually managed to work out that it made a lot
more sense to ship a different model instead. Pity it
took so long for them to come to their senses on that.

They people that were told to lump it were probably people like you
who can't discuss things like this in a normal way.

This like you have shown above that you can't act like a grown up and
continue this discussion in a normal way.

No wonder that operation went bust.

it didn't.

I've decided I don't want to buy another ATA drive.

The main problem currently is that there are few
native SATA drives buyable. Most are bridged drives.

Why would you care if a drive is native SATA?

Basically just a cleaner design. And thats got to be visible
in the price once the volume gets up to pata shipping levels.

Eventually that will be the case. But if right now a cleaner design
means a more expensive harddisk without any performance gain,

Wrong.

not wrong.

what do yuo expect the customers will do?

Most wont be silly enough to bother with sata for quite a while.

Guess dutch costumers are silly then, because lot of hem already
bother with sata.

The US is walking behind in this?

I see bridged drives which are faster
in every way then native drives.

Bull****. Drives are still doing what the physics allows.
The interface is irrelevant on speed with current drives.

Since when is the truth bull****?

When it aint 'the truth' and is actually just bull****.

Too bad for you that it is the truth in this case.

But I've realised that you are not interested in facts. So I won't
bother you with them again.

So I couldn't care less about native SATA drives.
The actual performance is what I find interesting.

You dont get any better performance with mechanically
identical drives which only differ in the interface used.

Ah, now I see what you shouted bull****.
You didn't understand what I meant.

Wrong. Again.

I see no indication that I am.

Then again you could be just a Troll and now very well what I mean.

I was comparing harddisks that you can buy in stores.

So was I. There aint a single one where the sata
interface adds a damned thing to the performance,
because the pata version isnt pushing the pata interface.

I've given a link to a test on tech-report that shows without a doubt
that it does.

But again facts don't interest you. You'd rather live in the little
fantasy world in your head where that doesn't happen.

(difficult to compare performance otherwise)

Duh.

And of those, the bridged models are faster than
the native models that another manfacturer makes.

Wrong again.

Not wrong. Just look at the tests on dozens of review sites, or test
them yourself. The facts are there, for people that open their eyes.

But of course, if the drive is mechanically identical

And they always are currently with drives from a
particular manufacturer in sata and pata format.

and only the interface is different,
then bridges can never be faster.

And sata cant be faster than pata either.

Open your eyes Rod.

There IS a difference. You might not know WHY, and I don't know
either. But the fact is that there is a very clear difference in those
tests.

One advantage with sata drives is the cleaner cabling.

That's why I bought an sata raid5 controller.

Yep, there are a few situations where the
cleaner cabling system is more convenient.

Longer cables can be an advantage too,

Thats what I meant, both thinner and longer legally.

although most people will not
have had much problems with that.

Yep. The main problem is usually with the optical drives
on length and they arent mostly sata for other reasons yet.

One risk currently is that the technology isnt as mature.

Not how it is designed internally.

Thats what matters performance wise with hard drives.
Particuarly the basics physics of rpm, platter sizes,
numbers of platters etc for a particular capacity.

Of course all of that matters for the person designing
a new disk. And it matters to me as hardware
enthousiast, but it does not matter to me as buyer.

I just want a fast and silent disk for a good price.

No need for sata then.

And in making that choice I don't care if they used
pixie dust, or GMR heads or native sata or whatever.

Or sata either.

And that can mean that right now a bridged sata drive from
manufacturer A is faster cheaper and just as silent as a
native sata drive from manufacturer B. And I will buy from A.

Just as true of pata.

Of course. But the fact is that when I choose my new drives the SATA
version was clearly faster then the PATA version. So the choice was
easy.

In 6 months it might be the other way around. If I need
a new disk then, I will make a new choice, based on the
actual performace of the models that are available then.

Just as true of the interface too. Particularly when currently
there arent that many systems that have just sata ports.

Most new systems have them now.
But in my case I needed to buy a raid5 controller anyway, so that
wasn't an easy. (unless it would be much more expensive, which it
wasn't)

Maybe by spring time I've be able to buy a BTX case and MB
and all SATA drives, including a writable SATA DVD/CD drive
(strange there aren't any SATA optical drives on the market yet).

Nothing strange about that.

Why not?

Optical drives dont even get within a bulls roar
of exploiting what the pata interface can do.

Current harddisks don't need the higher bandwith
of SATA either. Although there are some other
features of SATA that can be interesting.

Not with optical drives. There isnt
formal ATAPI support with sata yet.

Wrong. There is aparantly formal atapi support with sata.

But there are serious issues with using atapi devices with sata
bridges. Those have also been raised with the T13 group:
http://www.t13.org/docs2003/e03131r0.pdf

Once again the standards on this are not good enough to prevent issues
like this.

The only real advantage is a cleaner cabling system.
That can be handy with bigger cases and optical drives.

That is usually the main reason people buy sata harddisks too.

Nope. Its mostly stupids buying the
latest thing because its the latest thing.

In your case, that yould probably be the reason yes.

If that generates a big enough market for
harddisks, then why not for optical drives.

Mainly because ATAPI isnt formally part of sata yet.

That's not what T13 says.

And the main downside is that there are few motherboards
with that many sata ports currently, not enough to be
able to handle the 4 drives of any type many want to have.

That could well be a reason.

Yeah, that clearly cripples the market
for sata optical drives currently.

I see no reason what that "clearly" cripples the market.

Shouting something like that is easy. Now try to support that claim.

The advantages for SATA optical
drives are the same as for harddisks.

Nope, they dont get anywhere near wringing out the pata interfaces now.

So which advantages are there for
harddisk that optical drives cannot use?

Its more the other way, lack of ATAPI currently,
and a perception of not much of a market while
most motherboards cant have purely sata drives.

- longer cables. Just as usefull for optical drives as for harddisks

More useful in fact with all cables going
from the drive to the motherboard directly.

Pity that few motherboards currently
have enough sata connectors tho.

A pity yes. Especially since those longer cables are needed for people
that want to place a optical drive in the top 5,25" bay of their
bigtower case.

- cleaner cables. Just as usefull for optical drives
- faster. Not important for optical drives, but not really important
for harddisks either. Even with two modern disks on 1 pata cable
you won't find a slowdown. Unless you use the most extreme worst
case scenario you can design in a benchmark.

Yep, but hard drives are close to needing that than
optical drives. Which is why ATAPI isnt in sata yet.

But in that case you are usually also hitting
the limit of the 33Mhz/32bit PCI interface.

Nope, because most hard drives dont use that.

That is only true when they are connected directly to the southbridge
without using pci in between.
This NOT the case for the majority of motherboards.

- there are features like tagged command queueing
in sata which is mainly important for harddisks, but
support for that isn't common in harddisks yet.

You dont need sata for that, its been available
in pata for years now. And is hardly used at all.

- there are also some other features in sata that make
a sata Maxtor Diamondmax9 clearly faster then a pata
Maxtor Diamondmax 9 which uses a mechanical identical drive.

Bull****.

I know realises that this is your standards answer when you are
confronted with facts you don't like.

But that same advantage is not visible with the Baracuda V.

More bull****.

again that your standard answer

So I don't know what is causing that.

Its a fantasy.

You are calling the people from tech-report liars?

Give me one reason why I should not believe their test, but should
believe a person in a newsgroup who can only answer with the word
bull****.

Especially since this results can also be seen in other tests on other
sites. But don't let that bother you.
Just call them all liars too.

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...o/index.x?pg=6

Please add the other advantages you see, because this list
doesn't seem to warrant the lack of optical sata drives imo.

Lack of ATAPI does. And the lack of enough sata ports too.

I think there would be a market for it by now?

Nope, because there arent many
motherboard with JUST sata ports.

What about the reason that others have offered
that lost of sata adapters just don't have support
for sata atapi devices in their software?

Yep, another important factor.

You know anything more about that?

What is there to know ? atapi isnt part of sata yet.

I suggest you read the specs on sata again.

But that advice will probably fall on deaf ears.

You are clearly not capable of discussing these matters as a civilized
person, but instead start acting like a 5 year old kid.

I am not going to waste my time on people that behave like that. You
can continu this thread without me.

Marc