If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SATA connectors
Here is the text of a letter I am about to send to the Serial ATA
International Organization, any thoughts or comments in the NG's are welcome. Hello, I have been using SATA drives (3 at the moment) since last year, and have been anxiously awaiting SATA II ever since. As much for NCQ/TCQ as for the 300mbs spec. Seagate has just come out with a drive that supports NCQ, but at this time the only controller that supports NCQ/TCQ is the Intel ICHR6 on the new 925 chipset mobo's. Why anyone would buy one at this point in time is beyond me, I am waiting for ASUS to come out with a board that supports DDR2, PCI Express, and SATA II, and even then, I will wait until the dust settles a bit on the implementation of all these new specs and the peripherals to go with them. The reason I am writing however, is that I would like to know what DUMBASS (S) designed the SATA drive and power connectors. The design of these is stupid almost beyond comprehension. They are SO flimsy. The connectors on the cables are fine, but why, on the drives and the ports, is there no protective shroud that fits around the connector (like PATA or 4 pin Molex) to securely hold it in place? The way the design is now, the cables connect loosely and if you are not EXTREMELY careful, just moving the connector up or down a little bit will break off the flimsy little piece of plastic that 'orients' the connector. Ditto for the SATA power connectors. They break off with almost no effort. How could the designers be so stupid? How could they look at what they had designed and let it go out as it is without thinking 'we should design it so that the connection is solid and secure'. I just don't get it. Western Digital at least had the foresight to include a 'legacy' standard Molex power connector as well as the flimsy SATA one. They also have a little kit that will secure the SATA drive connector, but it also blocks the SATA power connector. More than likely, they realized how flimsy the SATA connector design is, came up with their own 'fix', and included a Molex power connector to make it all work. Why doesn't SATA use the Molex/PATA 'shroud' design approach to both the SATA data and power connectors? I just don't get it and I won't be buying any new SATA drives (even though I am in the market for at least 2), until SATA II is implemented, the connectors are fixed, and there is a board (preferably ASUS), that has native SATA/SATA II support, PCI Express, and DDR2. end --------------------------------------------------------------- A p.s. for the NG's - And at that point it will also have to be 64 Bit as Linux has become my personal OS of choice and can take good advantage of 64 Bit. Currently I dual-boot Mandrake 10 and Windows XP Pro. There is no consumer 64 Bit Windows at the moment, I know they're working on it, but Windows is a crappy OS anyway and a 64 Bit version is likely to only be twice as crappy and troublesome as 32 Bit Windows is. I paid $300.00 each for Windows 2000 and XP Pro full retail and I don't think I will ever buy another Microsoft OS. For Windows I'll just fall back to Windows 2000... it's as good as Windows is ever gonna get. Peace, out end ----------------------------------------- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Son4ta wrote:
Here is the text of a letter I am about to send to the Serial ATA International Organization, any thoughts or comments in the NG's are welcome. Hello, I have been using SATA drives (3 at the moment) since last year, and have been anxiously awaiting SATA II ever since. As much for NCQ/TCQ as for the 300mbs spec. Seagate has just come out with a drive that supports NCQ, but at this time the only controller that supports NCQ/TCQ is the Intel ICHR6 on the new 925 chipset mobo's. Why anyone would buy one at this point in time is beyond me, I am waiting for ASUS to come out with a board that supports DDR2, PCI Express, and SATA II, and even then, I will wait until the dust settles a bit on the implementation of all these new specs and the peripherals to go with them. The reason I am writing however, is that I would like to know what DUMBASS (S) designed the SATA drive and power connectors. The design of these is stupid almost beyond comprehension. They are SO flimsy. The connectors on the cables are fine, but why, on the drives and the ports, is there no protective shroud that fits around the connector (like PATA or 4 pin Molex) to securely hold it in place? The way the design is now, the cables connect loosely and if you are not EXTREMELY careful, just moving the connector up or down a little bit will break off the flimsy little piece of plastic that 'orients' the connector. Ditto for the SATA power connectors. They break off with almost no effort. How could the designers be so stupid? How could they look at what they had designed and let it go out as it is without thinking 'we should design it so that the connection is solid and secure'. I just don't get it. Western Digital at least had the foresight to include a 'legacy' standard Molex power connector as well as the flimsy SATA one. They also have a little kit that will secure the SATA drive connector, but it also blocks the SATA power connector. More than likely, they realized how flimsy the SATA connector design is, came up with their own 'fix', and included a Molex power connector to make it all work. Why doesn't SATA use the Molex/PATA 'shroud' design approach to both the SATA data and power connectors? I just don't get it and I won't be buying any new SATA drives (even though I am in the market for at least 2), until SATA II is implemented, the connectors are fixed, and there is a board (preferably ASUS), that has native SATA/SATA II support, PCI Express, and DDR2. end --------------------------------------------------------------- A p.s. for the NG's - And at that point it will also have to be 64 Bit as Linux has become my personal OS of choice and can take good advantage of 64 Bit. Currently I dual-boot Mandrake 10 and Windows XP Pro. There is no consumer 64 Bit Windows at the moment, I know they're working on it, but Windows is a crappy OS anyway and a 64 Bit version is likely to only be twice as crappy and troublesome as 32 Bit Windows is. I paid $300.00 each for Windows 2000 and XP Pro full retail and I don't think I will ever buy another Microsoft OS. For Windows I'll just fall back to Windows 2000... it's as good as Windows is ever gonna get. Peace, out end ----------------------------------------- "America, the land of the FREE!" If you want to express your opinion, then you certainly should! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:56:30 -0500, Son4ta
wrote: Here is the text of a letter I am about to send snip I predict that they will delete the email right about the time they get to the "dumbass" part, if not before then when you start out egocentric. Skip the personal preferences and name-calling and just focus on concerns about mechanical integrity of the connector, short and sweet. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
just out of curiosity do you spend your time playing with your SATA
connectors? If you do I'm sure there are MIL spec connectors somewhere you just might not get them for 5 bucks "Son4ta" wrote in message ... Here is the text of a letter I am about to send to the Serial ATA International Organization, any thoughts or comments in the NG's are welcome. Hello, I have been using SATA drives (3 at the moment) since last year, and have been anxiously awaiting SATA II ever since. As much for NCQ/TCQ as for the 300mbs spec. Seagate has just come out with a drive that supports NCQ, but at this time the only controller that supports NCQ/TCQ is the Intel ICHR6 on the new 925 chipset mobo's. Why anyone would buy one at this point in time is beyond me, I am waiting for ASUS to come out with a board that supports DDR2, PCI Express, and SATA II, and even then, I will wait until the dust settles a bit on the implementation of all these new specs and the peripherals to go with them. The reason I am writing however, is that I would like to know what DUMBASS (S) designed the SATA drive and power connectors. The design of these is stupid almost beyond comprehension. They are SO flimsy. The connectors on the cables are fine, but why, on the drives and the ports, is there no protective shroud that fits around the connector (like PATA or 4 pin Molex) to securely hold it in place? The way the design is now, the cables connect loosely and if you are not EXTREMELY careful, just moving the connector up or down a little bit will break off the flimsy little piece of plastic that 'orients' the connector. Ditto for the SATA power connectors. They break off with almost no effort. How could the designers be so stupid? How could they look at what they had designed and let it go out as it is without thinking 'we should design it so that the connection is solid and secure'. I just don't get it. Western Digital at least had the foresight to include a 'legacy' standard Molex power connector as well as the flimsy SATA one. They also have a little kit that will secure the SATA drive connector, but it also blocks the SATA power connector. More than likely, they realized how flimsy the SATA connector design is, came up with their own 'fix', and included a Molex power connector to make it all work. Why doesn't SATA use the Molex/PATA 'shroud' design approach to both the SATA data and power connectors? I just don't get it and I won't be buying any new SATA drives (even though I am in the market for at least 2), until SATA II is implemented, the connectors are fixed, and there is a board (preferably ASUS), that has native SATA/SATA II support, PCI Express, and DDR2. end --------------------------------------------------------------- A p.s. for the NG's - And at that point it will also have to be 64 Bit as Linux has become my personal OS of choice and can take good advantage of 64 Bit. Currently I dual-boot Mandrake 10 and Windows XP Pro. There is no consumer 64 Bit Windows at the moment, I know they're working on it, but Windows is a crappy OS anyway and a 64 Bit version is likely to only be twice as crappy and troublesome as 32 Bit Windows is. I paid $300.00 each for Windows 2000 and XP Pro full retail and I don't think I will ever buy another Microsoft OS. For Windows I'll just fall back to Windows 2000... it's as good as Windows is ever gonna get. Peace, out end ----------------------------------------- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Son4ta
wrote: Here is the text of a letter I am about to send to the Serial ATA International Organization, any thoughts or comments in the NG's are welcome. Hello, I have been using SATA drives (3 at the moment) since last year, and have been anxiously awaiting SATA II ever since. As much for NCQ/TCQ as for the 300mbs spec. Seagate has just come out with a drive that supports NCQ, but at this time the only controller that supports NCQ/TCQ is the Intel ICHR6 on the new 925 chipset mobo's. Why anyone would buy one at this point in time is beyond me, I am waiting for ASUS to come out with a board that supports DDR2, PCI Express, and SATA II, and even then, I will wait until the dust settles a bit on the implementation of all these new specs and the peripherals to go with them. The reason I am writing however, is that I would like to know what DUMBASS (S) designed the SATA drive and power connectors. The design of these is stupid almost beyond comprehension. They are SO flimsy. The connectors on the cables are fine, but why, on the drives and the ports, is there no protective shroud that fits around the connector (like PATA or 4 pin Molex) to securely hold it in place? The way the design is now, the cables connect loosely and if you are not EXTREMELY careful, just moving the connector up or down a little bit will break off the flimsy little piece of plastic that 'orients' the connector. Ditto for the SATA power connectors. They break off with almost no effort. How could the designers be so stupid? How could they look at what they had designed and let it go out as it is without thinking 'we should design it so that the connection is solid and secure'. I just don't get it. Western Digital at least had the foresight to include a 'legacy' standard Molex power connector as well as the flimsy SATA one. They also have a little kit that will secure the SATA drive connector, but it also blocks the SATA power connector. More than likely, they realized how flimsy the SATA connector design is, came up with their own 'fix', and included a Molex power connector to make it all work. Why doesn't SATA use the Molex/PATA 'shroud' design approach to both the SATA data and power connectors? I just don't get it and I won't be buying any new SATA drives (even though I am in the market for at least 2), until SATA II is implemented, the connectors are fixed, and there is a board (preferably ASUS), that has native SATA/SATA II support, PCI Express, and DDR2. end --------------------------------------------------------------- A p.s. for the NG's - And at that point it will also have to be 64 Bit as Linux has become my personal OS of choice and can take good advantage of 64 Bit. Currently I dual-boot Mandrake 10 and Windows XP Pro. There is no consumer 64 Bit Windows at the moment, I know they're working on it, but Windows is a crappy OS anyway and a 64 Bit version is likely to only be twice as crappy and troublesome as 32 Bit Windows is. I paid $300.00 each for Windows 2000 and XP Pro full retail and I don't think I will ever buy another Microsoft OS. For Windows I'll just fall back to Windows 2000... it's as good as Windows is ever gonna get. Peace, out end ----------------------------------------- Yeah, a letter like this should be polite and technical. And the organization you send it to, may not be set up to handle input from the public. It might be better to identify key individuals in the organization, and copy them on the letter. At least that will make you feel better :-) I downloaded my copy of the spec a while ago. It was he http://www.serialata.org/collateral/...rialata10a.ZIP There are multiple documents in there, but reading from "Serial ATA 1.0 gold.pdf" page 38, it says: "This section covers Serial ATA connectors and cable assemblies. It defines the * Connector mating interfaces * Connector location on the device * Electrical, mechanical and reliability requirements of the connectors and cable assemblies * Connector and cable testing procedures It, however, does not define how the connector and cable assembly should be implemented, such as * The mounting feature of the connectors * The cabling and cable terminations * The methods on how the PCB connects to other components of the system" So, for better or worse, they chose not to constrain the whole design of the connector. That is typically done, so no connector manufacturer feels cheated, by a particular companies design being incorporated into the standard. I agree with you, that they should have put info on lock latches and other mechanisms in the spec, to protect against shock, vibration, and strain on the cables. Looking at how the connector is designed, there is a secret plan at work here. The SATA people don't give a damn about the use of SATA drives in personal computers. The SATA connector was designed first and foremost, to be plugged into a backplane. This is a typical mechanism for building large servers (like the SCA connector?). IOW, the SATA committee wants to complete with the SCSI boys - they wanted a drive that could be hot plugged into a working server, and they wanted the economy of having a backplane to seat the drive against. A backplane doesn't have the same stress and strain issues as does discrete cabling. The move to SATA II will be an attempt to match SCSI's 320MB/sec transfer rate. The command queueing is an attempt to match the SCSI feature set in a server environment. NCQ/TCQ or whatever, has nothing to do with the desktop, and everything to do with competing in the server domain. I would still send the letter. After all, desktop sales of SATA drives is paying the bills, and I feel that desktop users deserve a better quality solution than they are currently getting. Maybe the standards boys could come up with a few alterations, without changing the rest of the design too much, that would allow both server and desktop to be satisfied. Maybe if they gave the design to Amp, Amp could come up with a latch for the connector - Amp loves to put latches on stuff :-) Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Paul wrote:
Looking at how the connector is designed, there is a secret plan at work here. The SATA people don't give a damn about the use of SATA drives in personal computers. The SATA connector was designed first and foremost, to be plugged into a backplane. This is a typical mechanism for building large servers (like the SCA connector?). IOW, the SATA committee wants to complete with the SCSI boys - they wanted a drive that could be hot plugged into a working server, and they wanted the economy of having a backplane to seat the drive against. It's not so much they want to compete with scsi, but more about being compatible to SAS (Serial Attached SCSI). In fact, the backplanes for SATA and SAS are universal, so you can plug in both sorts of drives. This of course means SAS and SATA connectors must be both physically and electrically compatible. I'd agree though that this should not mean that desktop-users get flimsy connectors (can't comment on that personally, I have a sata-capable motherboard and even some sata cables (which sure look nice compared to these 80pin flat-ribbon suckers!) but no sata drives...). Roland |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Son4ta" wrote in message ... Here is the text of a letter I am about to send to the Serial ATA International Organization, any thoughts or comments in the NG's are welcome. [complaint about ridiculously engineered SATA connectors removed] I believe they are addressing the situation because I saw some new connectors on some seagate drives at a trade show. I too find it hard to believe that they implemented what they did originally. That's why being an early adopter is not good (especially in the marketing driven, rather than quality driven, states). There's a lot of examples of the seemingly mindless implementation of products (in this case it's actually a standard specification!) . As long as it makes money, the companies consider it a success. Engineering excellence is secondary. It's almost like all they have are electrical engineers who are trying to do the mechanical engineering and they are failing miserably at it! SATA II (at least at first) won't have 3GB/s transfer rate, btw. That's a year or so away still (so I have heard). And you'll need motherboard support for it anyway or an add-in card. NCQ doesn't mean much to desktop users, but for servers could be significant. T |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for all the feedback. Some very good comments and I learned a
few things. The backplane idea pretty much answers my question as to why the connectors are the way they are, although the mobo connectors are the same design and there is no room for backplane-ing there. Thanks all! Peace, out |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
There is a latching/external version of the SATA connector due,
under SATA-2 - go read the full specs. The design is poor largely from a latching perspective - they can come loose in shipping. However, the 4-pin Molex connector was hardly brilliant - very sloppy in design, large, cumbersome, sometimes hard to remove. There are better connectors out there, and whilst the SATA data connector is quite compact, the power version is stupidly large. Consider 2006+ sees 2.5" SATA becoming common, and then we have 2008+ putting 1.8" SATA in laptops - often in pairs. The connector design seems to have been designed in 3.5" era, a form factor which lasted a surprisingly long time - although the high-speed (15.3k-rpm) drives are actually a 2.5" platter inside. SAS/SATA compatibility is the focus, as well as backplane use, but a latching inline (cable) version need not prohibit compatibility. So SATA is the product of the system that created it: o A committee that designed a horse, producing a camel -- Dorothy Bradbury www.stores.ebay.co.uk/panaflofan for quiet Panaflo fans & other items www.dorothybradbury.co.uk (free delivery) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Roland Scheidegger
wrote: Paul wrote: Looking at how the connector is designed, there is a secret plan at work here. The SATA people don't give a damn about the use of SATA drives in personal computers. The SATA connector was designed first and foremost, to be plugged into a backplane. This is a typical mechanism for building large servers (like the SCA connector?). IOW, the SATA committee wants to complete with the SCSI boys - they wanted a drive that could be hot plugged into a working server, and they wanted the economy of having a backplane to seat the drive against. It's not so much they want to compete with scsi, but more about being compatible to SAS (Serial Attached SCSI). In fact, the backplanes for SATA and SAS are universal, so you can plug in both sorts of drives. This of course means SAS and SATA connectors must be both physically and electrically compatible. I'd agree though that this should not mean that desktop-users get flimsy connectors (can't comment on that personally, I have a sata-capable motherboard and even some sata cables (which sure look nice compared to these 80pin flat-ribbon suckers!) but no sata drives...). Roland I didn't even know there was a serial SCSI. So I guess it isn't a competition after all. Seems like a lot of duplicated effort though, but I guess that is the bread and butter of standards committees. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On the brink of madness... | I.C. Koets | General | 18 | January 31st 05 10:49 PM |
Source for crimp on SATA power connectors? | Noozer | General | 2 | October 2nd 04 11:28 PM |
Updrade PC | Guy Smith | General | 22 | August 15th 04 01:57 AM |
SATA vs. IDE | Ransack The Elder | Overclocking AMD Processors | 32 | August 23rd 03 03:04 PM |
probs with win xp and sata hd | P Gagg | Overclocking | 1 | July 16th 03 08:05 PM |