Talk:Serial ATA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serial ATA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, the archived link above looks fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Serial Advanced Technology Attachment or Serial AT Attachment[edit]

I'm new here to Wikipedia and I don't know how to do everything, I came across this Serial ATA page and I edited the AT Attachment to Advanced Technology Attachment and it was rejected by a user who said that the edit page clearly said that we couldn't make this change.

But why is it so? AT is capitalized for a reason and doesn't stand for nothing. And I found both Intel[1] and the SATA-IO[2] (which is the organization on top of the SATA standard) calling it that way. So why are you (whoever placed that comment on the edit page) eager to say that this is wrong and AT Attachment is correct?!

Yisroel Tech (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No one doubts that some people make mistakes about this... even in blurbs posted at SATA-IO. Have you read the actual specs? That is, the documents that officially define the term? The official term has never been "Advanced Technology Attachment", going all the way back to ATA-1. (You can find links to that spec in the Parallel ATA article.)
We do appreciate your eagerness to help. Just keep in mind that sometimes things that "everyone knows" do turn out to be wrong. Jeh (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my recollection is that the ANSI group standardizing what was then WD's trademarked "IDE" interface deliberatety named it "AT Attachment" with no acroynm for the AT to avoid potential conflict with any IBM "Advanced Technology" trademark. The standards groups were pretty rigorous in adhering to this definition. SATA I/O seems somewhat less rigorous.
My suggestion to Yisroel Tech is that when you see a prohibition such as this in an article you should research beyond just a few hits that appear to contradict it. OTOH, WP:BRD Tom94022 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And when you see an "obvious error" that apparently has been in the page for a long time, research extra hard before assuming you're the first one to have noticed this "mistake". :) Note also that there's a recent discussion here on this very point, just three sections up. Jeh (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


4-pin or four-pin[edit]

Pick 4-pin or four-pin. More of the former in article; MOS says the latter. Either way don't leave the article in an inconsistent state. (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but your reverting to your erroneous edit just because I did an incomplete job seemed to me to be very peevish. I'd have gotten the point without that. Jeh (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
In general, it should be "four-pin" because numbers/integers smaller than ten should be spelled out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made these changes. clpo13(talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, "fifteen pin" should be spelled out in those comparisons, per WP:MOSNUM (we should not say "four-pin Molex vs. 15-pin SATA"). MOSNUM does permit spelling-out of numbers that can be said in one or two words. So I just made expressions of "numbers of pins" always spelled out, for consistency. But pin numbers (such as "pin (number) 1"), as opposed to numbers of pins, should be (IMO) digits along with numbers followed by units, like voltages and speeds. I've edited accordingly. Jeh (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. clpo13(talk) 16:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Measurement standard prefixes (KB vs KiB, MB vs MiB, GB vs GiB, ...)[edit]

The numeric data (bandwidth measurement) shouldn't be revised to explicitly declare which kind of prefixes (kilo vs kibi, mega vs mebi, etc), are being used, according to the SI (International System of Units - ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This article uses decimal prefixes (k=1,000, M=1,000,000 etc) as is reasonable. Any ambiguity? --Zac67 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
n.b.: It is exceptionally rare for bandwidth to be expressed using binary prefixes. Even for e.g. semiconductor RAM where the capacity is commonly quoted using traditional binary prefixes.
However, since there is variance from one article to the next, I see a benefit in having such a notice, and I don't see any harm in it.
Maybe there should be a template that would create a notification box at the top of the page. Maybe with several possible variants:
  • Following industry practice, this article uses SI ("decimal", "metric") prefixes in expressing both storage capacity and data transmission speeds. k = 1000 , M - 1,000,000, etc. (this would be the norm on articles about e.g. hard drives)
  • Unless otherwise noted, this article uses traditional binary prefixes (K=1024, M=1,048,576, etc.) in expressing storage capacities, but SI ("decimal", "metric", k=1000, M=1,000,000, etc.) prefixes in expressing data transmission speeds.
...and so on. Jeh (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, a template with a small top box would be nice. Some years ago I tried getting consent to not use ambiguous "KB" for 1024 byte etc any more but KiB, MiB, ... where binary prefixes are reasonable (RAM size, address ranges) and decimal prefixes everywhere else – maybe we have more sucess today? Unfortunately, a significant part of the industry (Microsoft, Apple) continues to stick to the obsolete prefixes with M = 1048576. --Zac67 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I know. I've been in some of those discussions. Personally I hugely support the IEC binary prefixes (note that I did a significant reorg/rewrite on Binary prefix awhile back, with both pro- and anti-IEC editors watching carefully) but Wikipedia must follow its sources; we can't strike out on our own even if that would be more standard-compliant.
What do you think of the ambox I put on the page here? I think I'll put it on History of IBM magnetic disk drives and see if its major maintainer complains. :) Jeh (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)