Jump to content

Talk:SATA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walks on Water (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 12 January 2012 (→More cable spec info would be nice.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

SATA II

I might have missed it but is there a reference to SATA II on this page? A lot of spec sheets/manufacturers/techies refer to SATA II so it might be good to include something somewhere??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.96.213 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SATA II is more commonly called SATA 2.0 or SATA 3Gbps (and more correctly, SATA revision 2.0). I suspect that the sections describing the different standards needs re-writing, as there are point updates in between the major revisions to the standard, and it is likely incorrect to simply conflate speeds with revisions. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

substantially out of date

some of the info is out of date to the point of being inaccurate -- even though it was accurate at the time it was written. Specifically the comparison to Firewire usage. It is now the case that hardly any computers at all are being manufactured with Firewire interfaces on them, even Apple has stopped shipping computers with Firewire. On the other hand it is now common to find eSATA interfaces on computers, especially laptops. Also the Express Card interface is now quite rare on laptops as well. For example, I recently tried to buy a laptop with either a Firewire interface built in, or the ability to add a Firewire adapter. I totally failed. I found only one very high end laptop $3k that had a Firewire interface. I also did not find any mainstream laptops with PCMCIA Express Card slots. Therefore I found no affordable laptops with Fireware or the ability to add a Firewire converter, and yet nearly all of those laptops did have an eSATA interface and all of them used SATA internally. a lot has changed since this article was originally written. old codger 71.217.8.167 (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Express Card still seems fairly common on mid to high end. 1394 (firewire) seems to be quite rare these days, however Apple still has Firewire 800 (1394b) on ALL their computers except the MacBook Air (which has very few ports; common in ultraportables). eSATA seems less common than it was. I suspect that USB3.0 is supplanting older interfaces. Trawling through HP's, Toshiba's and Dell's website it's actually quite difficult to find information about ports. There are a few other points out of date, which is quite common in IT articles. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"even Apple has stopped shipping computers with Firewire" -- BULLSHIT The only two apple machines to ship without firewire in recent times have been the macbook air and the unibody macbook. All models of macbook pro and all intel based apple desktops have shipped with firewire (though on more modern machines it's firewire 800 so you need a different cable). Apple seems to have shunned both USB3 and eSATA and be pushing towards thunderbolt.
"For example, I recently tried to buy a laptop with either a Firewire interface built in, or the ability to add a Firewire adapter. I totally failed." -- Then you probablly didn't look all that hard. Note that most manufacturers call it 1394 rather than firewire. http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e5420/pd?refid=latitude-e5420&baynote_bnrank=1&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch&isredir=true has it for example
"I suspect that USB3.0 is supplanting older interfaces." I'd agree with this to some extent eSATA does seem to be losing ground to USB3 at the moment though I don't have any hard figures and both are still common. Both seem a lot more common on modern machines than any form of firewire. In principle eSATA should offer better performance than USB3 because of the elimination of a conversion step but there is little advantage in practice and USB3 has advantages of reliable hotplugging and backwards compatibility. On the other hand eSATA is practically free especially for laptops and small form factor desktops that don't need many internal sata ports so i'd expect it to stick arround for a while.
USB2 is still the best perhipheral interface you can reasonablly rely on finding. Plugwash (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SATA revision 2.0 Date

[SATA revision 2.0[1]]

Reference to 2010 seems unhelpful to me for SATA2. Looking at information on other pages just for Intel chipsets SATA2 was being shipped in 2005 and across the board in 2006 (with the exception of mobile - which came the following year).

[[2]] [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestovitch (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More cable spec info would be nice.

I came here to find out if this cable meets the SATA 2.6 specifications. But I don't find the info I need to do so. I'd like to buy a cable that will do 6GB/s, and this one says it can handle 3Gb/s, but it's possible it's out of spec and can still do 3Gb/s, but not 6Gb/s --W☯W t/c 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SATA&oldid=471004640"