IDE vs SATA

[rickytheanuj]

I have so many bad experiences with SATA believe me when I was a kid just learning the computer hardware , that time i haven't seen any IDE HDD which is damaged even I am still using a old 40 GB of IDE HDD which is still working fine without any failure but now a days I have the collection of damaged SATA HDD, my friends' sata HDD is damaged so many times. even I bought a 160GB of sata HDD which is hardly worked till 1 and half year and crashed.. when i run windows with sata HDD it sounds like "kir.. kir..rrrrr" which i think the major problem of HDD

[jaclaz]

I have so many bad experiences with SATA believe me when I was a kid just learning the computer hardware , that time i haven't seen any IDE HDD which is damaged even I am still using a old 40 GB of IDE HDD which is still working fine without any failure but now a days I have the collection of damaged SATA HDD, my friends' sata HDD is damaged so many times. even I bought a 160GB of sata HDD which is hardly worked till 1 and half year and crashed.. when i run windows with sata HDD it sounds like "kir.. kir..rrrrr" which i think the major problem of HDD

And, again, the interface has NOTHING to do with reliability of a drive.

Design, actual manufacturing methods (please read as lowering costs) and mainly EVER INCREASING DENSITY of the data are to be blamed.

Most modern hard disks have on a SINGLE platter 500 Gb or more of data.

Since form factor remained fixed, the surface where the recording is actually stored is the same of, say a 20 Gb hard disk of a few years ago.

Tolerances, precision of movements, stability, etc, has to be at least ten to thirty times smaller.

A misalignment 1/10th or 1/30th the size of the one that could barely cause a problem on an "oldish" drive now it's catastrophic.

Anyone old enough to remember the "bigfoot" drives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bigfoot_(hard_drive)

http://palazzo.pro.br/hist/museu/bigfoot.htm

To be able to handle 6 Gb they had 3 5.25" platters!

jaclaz

[puntoMX]

Anyone old enough to remember the "bigfoot" drives?

I Loved them; Good price and fast, about 12MB/s, for that time and none ever died on me in 4 years. You would not believe it for sure, but at the time they were released I dropped SCSI for video editing and went with the bigfoots. Also customers never came back for a replacement.

Now, talking about reliable drives; it's now a HYPE to re-manufacture/rebuild/refurbish drives and push them to Africa, large part of Asia and to Latin America... Most of them fail after 6 months. We here have a sh/t load of WDs and Seagate for sale, but I refuse to sell them.

[jaclaz]

You would not believe it for sure, but at the time they were released I dropped SCSI for video editing and went with the bigfoots.

You are right : I don't believe you.

To be more exact, I do believe you , but I won't believe that bigfoots were anywhere near being comparable in speed with SCSI.

Unless I am mistaken at the time we were between SCSI Ultra wide and Ultra2 and Quantum ATLAS disks (the common size was 9.1 GB) simply blew away anything else (for a rather steeep price ).

Additionally SCSI have traditionally used no (or very little) processor time, that at the time was VERY important for graphical or video work.

jaclaz

[VideoRipper]

Hehehehe, my first hard-drive was a 10MB MFM from IBM.

Can't remember how many platters it had, but I guess it would be

a lot since it was 5 1/4" wide and two units (about 3") high

[jaclaz]

Hehehehe, my first hard-drive was a 10MB MFM from IBM.

Kids today! Why, in my day ....

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1908

jaclaz

[puntoMX]

You would not believe it for sure, but at the time they were released I dropped SCSI for video editing and went with the bigfoots.

You are right : I don't believe you.

To be more exact, I do believe you , but I won't believe that bigfoots were anywhere near being comparable in speed with SCSI.

Unless I am mistaken at the time we were between SCSI Ultra wide and Ultra2 and Quantum ATLAS disks (the common size was 9.1 GB) simply blew away anything else (for a rather steeep price ).

Additionally SCSI have traditionally used no (or very little) processor time, that at the time was VERY important for graphical or video work.

jaclaz

That was back in 1996 indeed, editing was done still on the SCSI drives and hooked to the Fast/Miro cards. The capturing and storage was done on the 12.7-12.8GB Bigfoot versions (and a little before that on the 4.3/6.4/8.4 drives). Now, the biggest problem was the heat from the darn Seagate and Quantum SCSI drives was really high and good housings were rare, that combined with those large Fast video editing cards and you had a system crash every 2 hours If you build the system by the rules, I did not. I don't recall how much the sustained throughput was of the 7200rpm AV SCSI drives, but it didn't go over the Bigfoots. For sure the SCSI AV drives were faster in seek times and random access. those were the days...

[jaclaz]

Now, the biggest problem was the heat from the darn Seagate and Quantum SCSI drives was really high and good housings were rare, that combined with those large Fast video editing cards and you had a system crash every 2 hours If you build the system by the rules, I did not.

Housings?

We didn't have any fancy housings....

NO, sir, all we had was some shelves and a few fans ....

.... and we liked it!

jaclaz