Serial ATA and USB 2 184
An anonymous reader pointed us to an anandtech article that discusses the future of
device attachment. Specifically USB 2:Electric Boogaloo and Serial ATA.
Definitely 2 standards will likely matter a lot in the future.
That Serial ATA stuff looks interesting...
can't help but think (Score:1)
ATA: sucks over a single cable, but much faster of late
Serial ATA?: sucks over a thinner wire, longer and stronger
Why reinvent the wheel? (Score:4)
post firewire flames here (Score:3)
in the interest of space conservation and sorting, and so that the rest of the discussion can be devoted solely to discussion of USB 2.0 and Serial ATA themselves, i would like to request that all Firewire-related flaming be posted as a reply to this message.
suggested topics:
-USB 2.0 is a pathetic excuse to destroy Firewire, designed solely to prevent a standard not controlled directly by Intel from gaining importance.
-Firewire/Serial ATA/USB 2.0 is not open enough in the sense that the open source movement would like it to be.
-Firewire is outrageously liscenced and expensive.
-USB 2.0 and Serial ATA will be far more widely used and supported than Firewire.
-Firewire will be far more widely used and supported than USB 2.0 and Serial ATA.
-WH04 D00D 1 \V4N7 4 830\VULF CLU573R 0F 1B00KZ
-[Firewire, Serial ATA, USB 2.0] is far technically superior to [Firewire, Serial ATA, USB 2.0]
-[Firewire, Serial ATA, USB 2.0] is vaporware.
-by the time [if ever] USB 2.0 comes to market, Firewire will already be in its second generation and far superior to the USB 2.0's first generation in every way USB 2.0 defeats Firewire now.
-Firewire is already widely supported.
OK, have fun!
In depth reporting... not (Score:4)
Their treatment of USB 2.0 was severely lacking. I wish Apple would drop its firewire tax (if not completely, then at least a few notches) so we could use a technology that was designed for things like this. This is the second time I've linked to this article today, but it's worth a read.
- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB2.html [mackido.com]
- http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/USB20.ht ml [mackido.com]
It's easier to just link to these articles than just rehash the same old arguments every time USB 2.0 is mentioned. Suffice it to say it'll be more than a day late and a dollar short, but, sadly, it will probably catch on due to Intel's stranglehold on the chip market. Once again, if Apple would ease up on the 1394 tax, we would all be better off (and Apple would have at least one victory against Wintel under its belt). Alas, they will not do that, so tomorrow's iMacs will probably ship with USB 2, 3, and 4, and FireWire 2, 3, and 4 will be quietly brushed under the rug._________________
It's all talk.. (Score:2)
If there's one thing I admire Apple for, it's their periphreal design. Even on the OLD Macs there was ADB. Then Apple decided to use USB. And look at the iMac. Or a new G4 for that matter. Pure simplicity for ports on the back.
With things like this Serial ATA and Firewire, you can even eliminate the clutter *inside* the computer. I just hope it finally HAPPENS! Why do I have to pay for all those serial/parallel ports on my machine? If we'd all just *forget* about them the price on USB stuff would go way down.
Where's the ideal PC? No mucking with IRQ hogs, no mucking with old IDE, serial or parallel technology. And when we see it, heres to hoping Linux runs on it.
hmm, I think you got them all. (Score:2)
Suggestion -- if you number the items on the list, it's easier for the "me too!" people. Like, I could say "3, 4, 7, 9, 10!!!" to indicate my support for those items in your list.
Maybe this is the next generation of Slashdot posting... when the answers are so predictable, just number them, then we can all just post/vote for our favorites.
_________________
Standards (Score:1)
Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:5)
That standard is IEEE-1394, also known as FireWire or i-Link.
Like Serial ATA, 1394 runs at very high speed over inexpensive cabling consisting of only two pairs of signal lines and one pair for power. The cabling does not impede airflow like parallel ATA cables.
Like Serial ATA, 1394 can be used to transfer data to or from ATA (IDE) interfaces, completely transparently to the host.
Like Serial ATA, 1394 can be (and is) implemented in extremely cheap chips. In fact, there are sub-$5 "tailgate" chips which provide a single-chip 1394-to-ATA adapter. If 1394 was integrated into the drive instead of Parallel ATA, the drive could actually be cheaper than it is now.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 can also be used to connect SCSI devices, digital cameras, digital audio and video, TCP/IP networking, and many other categories of devices. 1394 already appears to be the interface of choice for most upcoming consumer electronic gear.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 is already a recognized standard, and work is already underway to extend it to speeds of up to 3.2 Gbps.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 supports complex topologies: devices with multiple 1394 ports for daisy chaining and hubs. This provides considerable flexibility in how devices are hooked up.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 supports multiple masters on the same bus.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 is available NOW, and is already built into some computers.
UNLIKE Serial ATA, 1394 is already supported by Microsoft Windows, and to some extent, Linux.
So why do we need a new standard?
Part of the problem is probably Intel. Initially they announced that they were a supporter of 1394, and that they would build support for it into all of their chipset. They did this with USB, and now it's hard to buy a PC without USB. But when push came to shove, for some reason they didn't do it. Apparently this is due to their work on "USB 2", which pushes the speed of USB into the same range as 1394, but unfortunately still has most or all of the limitations of USB.
Part of the problem is probably Apple. They made ridiculous royalty demands ($1/port), and scared many vendors away. They've since backed down to much more reasonable numbers, but some of the damage was done.
Part of the problem is probably the ATA committee itself. They may be experiencing "NIH" syndrome, preferring to invent a new standard rather than using an existing one, no matter how suited the existing one is.
Part of the problem is just the standard chicken-and-egg question. If computers don't have 1394 interfaces, why should disk manufacturers build 1394 into disk drives? If disk drives don't have 1394, why should computer manufacturers build 1394 into the computers? Of course, serial ATA may have the same problem, but it may be less pronounced. The very fact that serial ATA is less functional may make it an easier sell from a marketing point of view.
What should be done? IMNSHO, they should scrap the proprietary Serial-ATA interface, and adopt 1394 as the official Serial ATA standard.
Serial ATA: yay. USB 2: whatever. (Score:2)
As far as USB 2.0 goes, well, I don't have any USB devices yet, so I guess I really don't care at this point.
I'm sure I've said several idiotic things here, so anyone who's more of an expert in these matters, please smack me around a bit.
Is the demand there? (Score:2)
Re:firewire over fiber/firewire raid and... (Score:1)
http://www.firewireworld.com/
also EVERY digital videocamera uses firewrie. If you want to hook up a DV camera to a computer you got to use firewire.
If its a mac its got firewire (except ibook)
If its a sony vaio its got i link (firewire with a different name)
Some compaqs offer it too.
Odd though, USB
But any new technology should have a chance. If its worse it will fail (this isn't always true, as marketing counts but I digress.)
Firewire tax? (Score:2)
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/january/9901
Then it went to a $0.25/system as of May 99
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/may/990512/n
How much more do you want it dropped, btw?
Does this mean Intel is charging nothing for it's USB implementations? Or that it's hidden in the costs of their chipsets, CPUs, etc?
-AS
intel cannot kill firewire. (Score:1)
USB2.0 is a big technical challange, and USB wasn't made for it. The problem will be largely with older usb devices attached to the same bus.
Serial ATA and FC are going to eliminate SCSI. In fact SerialATA doesn't have all the checkpoints to compete with firewire. The only reason it is a threat is that this pushes firewire out of the DeviceBay standard, but that's years away from shipping.
Firewire will still persist for the a/v crowd and that will slip more and more into consumer products. Firewire will quadrople in speed soon, so USB2.0 would still be slow.
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:1)
The other problem is that Intel hath decreed that This Is The Way. And once again, superior technology is overwhelmed by mass-produced, cheap mediocrity.
Again with the Firewire tax bit... (Score:2)
Firewire licensing [macobserver.com]
So unless you think $0.25 per system is unreasonable(up the wazoo?), perhaps Firewire *does* rock?
-AS
Not so odd, USB (Score:2)
So Intel didn't push USB very much until after Apple did. You'd think Intel would return the favor by supporting Firewire, just to be fair.
I like Firewire. Unfortunately, the PC support is so poor, my next PC may have to be a Mac!(I have a DV camcorder)
-AS
Your ideal PC (Score:2)
I mean, about the only thing missing is the Firewire HDs...
-AS
Big difference (Score:2)
For that matter, Serial ATA is not intended for external devices, so they're really apples and oranges. (No pun intended.)
I, for one, am excited to see somebody is finally addressing the issue of internal connections. Installing a "parallel" ATA drive seems like such a cumbersome process in the era of USB.
Re:Firewire tax? (Score:2)
Maybe it's implementation costs that make a firewire addon board cost a minimum of about $80? that's as much as a mid-grade motherboard with built in USB . . .
Wrong question... (Score:2)
Which means, fundamentally, users won't have to figure out cables, converters, passthroughs.
Which means the ordinary user will plug his monitor(maybe) into his USB or Firewire port in the back, and then the keyboard into the monitor, or into the back, if desired, and then the mouse into the keyboard, or the monitor, or whatever. And then plug in the speakers. And the mic. And the modem. And the headphones. And the printer.
All with 2 or 3 ports.
Vs the 8 ports today(2 PS2, 2 USB, 2 parallel, 2 serial)
So just by dropping PS2, parallel, and serial, price goes down.
As does support costs for motherboard design, BIOs, drivers, OSes, and drivers having to deal with all of the above.
Whoever said USB would revolutionize it, anyway? It's an incremental improvement!
-AS
Garden Hose all the way! (Score:1)
Bandwidth is only limited by the size of your pipe. Now we only have the little problem of encoding the stream and we're all set. Besides, the garden hose interface is already backwards compatible with almost 100% of existing installations, and even works with ancient peripherals. It can also be daisy-chained for near infinite lengths (if you have a good interface) and supports mid-hose taps to create a string of sprinklers.
Most importantly, when you attach your garden hose to a sprinkler you have a great way to keep yourself cool on those really hot days when your air conditioning goes out and you just can't stand the heat from your CPU a moment longer.
Re:Serial ATA: yay. USB 2: whatever. (Score:1)
:)
Why USB and not Firewire? (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the cost?
A firewire board costs $80 because of the costs of the PCI board, the drivers, the support, etc.
Imagine, if Intel just put firewire support into their chipset? What would it cost?
How about the cost of just the connectors?
I mean, of course the implementation is what makes firewire cost $80. How much does a add on USB board cost, then?
-AS
Why, again? (Score:1)
Can anyone out there give a (succinct) description of what the technical difficulties of increasing bandwidth are? I understand about s/n ratio, sort of, but do not really understand the recent trend towards the serial. For example, precisely *why* is it that ATA cannot be extended any further without signalling changes.
BTW, I while ago I saw someone apologise for being an EE instead of a CS. I would apologise for being a CS instead of an EE, except I'm neither! ;-)
____________________
Apple Pushes Both (Score:2)
_________________
Serial ATA will only make sense if.. (Score:2)
If you can't connect a reasonable number of devices to a serial ATA chain (like, oh, 15, for instance?) it sounds to me like more hype than substance.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
When do I get to use more devices? (Score:1)
Of course, I may be an exception here, with all four PCI slots, all four ATA slots, my AGP slot, and one ISA slot filled. At least I still have one memory slot left.... Anyone know where to find a motherboard with more expansion capabilities?
Re:Big difference (Score:1)
http://lowendmac.net/tech/internalfw.shtml
this will probably not get very widely used though. i'm not saying internal firewire is worth using, since i know very little about it, only that it's definately there.
firewire seems to be establishing itself as a niche thing for the Very High End. It will probably triumph over USB2, and may even make some serious inroads against SCSI, but i don't think it's going to do anything to hurt, say, IDE or ATA.
Note that even apple is using IDE drives internally on its computers and has for some time (earlier macs used SCSI internally), because that is a much cheaper way of doing it than SCSI or Firewire. Never mind performance or ease of use.
all i know is, if it is some nice, cheap, easy to use internal standard can appear and kill IDE, i'll be happy. if serial ATA is that standard then more power to it.
Re:Again with the Firewire tax bit... (Score:1)
Of course, since intel is now going to try and push USB in all its myriad and compatible (Irony)sure, I belive it!(/irony)forms down our throats, I would venture to say that firewire is going to die, leaving a spiraling, smoking trail as it falls from the sky. Too bad, too.
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:2)
i'm sure there are nice, serviceable firewire-scsi bridges. there are also usb-scsi bridges. it's still a scsi device on a scsi bus, it's just there's one more layer between the device and your memory.
but maybe you ment to say there are firewire harddrives?
Firewire won't die. (Score:2)
Not unless Sony stops making iLink camcorders, CDRWs, VCRs, digital TVs, and notebooks
Not unless Canon, Phillips, et al also stop making Firewire devices
Not unless Intel can push something better and cheaper than Firewire to all the above companies
-AS
Re:Warning: Idealist: RJ and USB is all we need! (Score:1)
I have a USB mouse.
I have a USB printer.
We are supposedly going to flat screens with digital video cards. So we may as well make that a USB port too.
Another USB cable carrying digital sound to your subs/speakers.
A USB joystick.
A USB keyboard.
So whats that leave. RJ45 net connection and a phone line. I can't see those changing anytime soon.
So really why can't we have a whole shit load of USB ports and an RJ45 and RJ11, isn't that all that is needed? Two standards, RJ and USB, sounds good to me. Its probably just a matter of time....
For the technically inclined out there, USB for video is the only weakness I see, if you have guranteed sufficient bandwidth and a digital signal there is no reason it shouldn't work?
Re:Serial ATA will only make sense if.. (Score:1)
If you can't connect a reasonable number of devices to a serial ATA chain (like, oh, 15, for instance?) it sounds to me like more hype than substance.
Did you read the article? Right there on the page it says that this is not a chained architecture. Perhaps you meant support for more than two devices in the machine, but I don't think so.
Before jumping in with knee-jerk responses that are nothing more than pseudo-technical uninformed gobbledy-gook, try reading the article that the post is about.
Re:Big difference (Score:1)
So, the original poster was quite correct.
Hagen
Re:Big difference (Score:1)
Re:Serial ATA will only make sense if.. (Score:2)
After all, with only 4 wires (or maybe 8, with grounds and the likes) instead of ATA's on-the-order-of-50, you can have a good half dozen "S-ATA" interfaces in the same amount of room.
And that means that rather than having a dozen devices sharing the bandwidth of one bus, you can have them be pretty independent. Rather than 100MB/s, that gives us 600 MB/s.
I don't realistically expect this to happen, but it would be pretty slick if it did.
Looking forward in the "ten year perspective," a natural development would be to move towards greater asynchronicity at the bus level, and what looks more asynchronous:
- Having one 72 pin parallel bus for "super-fast SCSI" that grabs some DMA? or
- Having 36 serial buses, one-per-drive, with two wires apiece, each buffering requests both to the disk as well as to DMA?
I frankly think the latter is a slicker idea, in the long run...Re:Is the demand there? (Score:1)
Does anyone need 256(?) devices?
You bet. P1394 was originally developed as a "smart home" communication system, and (I believe... correct me if I'm wrong) you can hook up multiple computers to the Firewire chain, just like you can with SCSI. So you can plug your camera into your Firewire bus and record onto your VCR or capture it onto your PC, use your tape drive from three different machines, and program your refrigerator to let you know when you're low on pickles from your nice GNOME interface. Theoretically, anyway.
And once IP-over-Firewire is implemented, if it isn't already, you can forget about Ethernet....
And if all this isn't the case, well, it should be, dammit :-)
then get a G4 (Score:1)
Linux: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:1)
Unfortunately for the BSD folk, and fortunately for those that have appreciated the outgrowth of Linux, technical considerations were not the only issue. There was this "minor" matter of the USL lawsuit.
As it turns out, with Linux, as well as with Firewire, technology is not the only issue; licensing constraints figure prominently. Extremely prominently.
People were scared off of *BSD, whether rightly or wrongly, by the fear of the effects of the lawsuit.
And it appears that Apple is doing a good number on the adoption of Firewire, perhaps, simply, by their existence. After all, after the discontinuance of Newton, and the fun of "What variation of NeXTstep will we stop selling today?" it appears unwise to trust too much to the good graces of Apple.
Well I'll be.... (Score:1)
Yawn (Score:1)
Nobody? Wow, what a surprise. Congratulations, you've taken the first step to peecee recovery: admitting that peecees aren't really what you want. Now, in that context, is serial ata really what you want either? No? Baby steps, kid, baby steps. You'll get there eventually. Hopefully the companies that know how to make what you really want will still be around by the time you realize what that is.
Fscking peecee lusers and their super-duper "standards" from their savior Intel. I'm going to go retch now. You think about what I've said.
Re:Big difference (Score:3)
I should have remembered that the G4 has an internal 1394 port... To make up for my mistake, I spent the past 20 minutes searching for internal firewire devices, and I couldn't find a single one. If 1394 is really intended to replace ATA, then why does Apple still use ATA drives in their latest machines? (It's not like they're big on backwards compatibility these days...)
I stand by my original statement: 1394 and Serial ATA are not competing standards. They do different things conceptually, even though the technology is similar. It wouldn't be the first time that marketing has driven technology.
Serial ATA - Ugly Kludge from Hell (Score:2)
Re:Big difference (Score:1)
Also, all of today's firewire drives have ATA-Firewire bridges. What benefit is there for an internal drive to be bridged to Firewire? The Firewire standard will be helped when drive manufacturers finally make "native" Firewire drives.
Re:Not so odd, USB (Score:1)
Re:post firewire flames here (Score:1)
Hey it is not that bad of an idea, I mean can anyone else think of a better misuse of an iBook?
For that matter what about making a "830\VULF CLU573R" of Digital Cameras or a router?
One box, one wire. (Score:1)
I'm not sure which of the competing serial standards achieve this, but it is impressive that the computer-guts pictures in the article show that they not only eliminated the ribbon cables, but the thumb-thick bundle of power wires also.
"I don't know much about hardware, but I know what I like"
Re:Yawn (Score:1)
And what's the alternative? I'm assuming you're a jackboot-licking Mac user (Apple was so fscking right to tie their image to 1984. How newspeak is 'THINK DIFFERENT' when it's been made clear over the years that Apple means 'Think this way or else!'), though you could be something else (Amiga fanatic, perhaps? Na, they're usually quietly fanatical, not stupidly). I'm not about to accept the gentle fascism of Apple's One True Computing Way just so I can get a few messy connections out of the way. Glad you're willing to submit to exorbant prices and a sub-standard OS so you can avoid the chance of putting your box together. (And as for the consumer market: If you're opening up your box at all, you're beyond the norm.)
Fscking trolling Mac lusers. Go intellectually wank on Mackido or something, or post something relevant like "Increases in ATA speed don't matter as long as the inherent flaws in the design exist - SCSI's ability to use multiple devices simultaneously properly is more important." Either that, or just don't post at all, and save the bandwith.
(I feel the stress leave my body like little eels going 'sssss' away. I guess idiots do have some function - slapping them down is fun.)
Re:Big difference (Score:1)
Also the external Firewire might just be ATA or SCSI drives in some box with some converters... any idea?
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard? (Score:2)
2a. You do not need topology internal to the computer. So hubs and daisychaining is meaningless.
2b. Since four ports of Serial ATA could technically operate in parallel (the bandwidth is not shared), four devices have a combined available bandwidth of 600 MB/s, as opposed to firewire's 400 Mbps (~40 MB/s)
2c. The max bandwidth of firewire, 3.2 Gbps, is ~320 MB/s, making it about the same speed as two Serial ATA ports running at the initial speed (which is not the maximum bandwidth)
3. Serial ATA is a point to point protocol. There is no master.
4. Serial ATA is already supported under both windows and linux, past the extent of IEEE1394. This is because Serial ATA uses the same protocol as regular ATA, and thus works exactly the same on an OS level. Unless you look at the chipset, the OS probably will not know it isn't using parallel ATA.
5. ATA is a cheaper solution than Firewire. Currently all firewire drives are actually ATA drives with a ATA<->Firewire chip inside, so Serial ATA reduces their cost, as well as requires a smaller engineering cost to change the chips on the drive to be native Serial ATA.
6. <i>What should be done? IMNSHO, they should scrap the proprietary Serial-ATA interface, and adopt 1394 as the official Serial ATA standard.</i>
What makes you think that Serial ATA is a proprietary interface?? Why would it be any less of an open standard than Parallel ATA? At least you don't need to pay licensing fees for ATA.
This is my opinion, moderate down accordingly
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:1)
> would have trouble with a full TCP/IP stack).
Some number of months ago slashdot had an article about a webserver & tcp/ip stack on a PIC microcontroller & a small flash ram chip.
Re:It's all talk.. (Score:1)
Re:Why, again? (Score:2)
Ha! You can kiss firewire goodbye... (Score:1)
See what happens when you'te too greedy? People just ignore you...
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
Re:Not so odd, USB (Score:1)
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard? (Score:1)
- 1. Serial ATA is an internal standard, Firewire is an external standard (although it can be used internally). Explain to me why Apple includes ATA drives inside the G4 when it has an internal Firewire port?
Because firewire drives aren't exactly ubiquitous.- 2a. You do not need topology internal to the computer. So hubs and daisychaining is meaningless.
Do you know what topology is? ATA has a topology. SCSI has a topology. In both cases, the controller card acts basically as a hub. Also, external SCSI devices have been daisychained for years (whereas internal ones have tended to be on parallel buses).- 2b. Since four ports of Serial ATA could technically operate in parallel (the bandwidth is not shared), four devices have a combined available bandwidth of 600 MB/s, as opposed to firewire's 400 Mbps (~40 MB/s)
Yes, but you're also still limited to two devices per controller, and I doubt we'll be seeing any motherboards with a bungload of controllers very soon. SCSI, on the other hand, started out with 7 devices per controller to begin with, and currently has 15 if memory serves.- 2c. The max bandwidth of firewire, 3.2 Gbps, is ~320 MB/s, making it about the same speed as two Serial ATA ports running at the initial speed (which is not the maximum bandwidth)
This is true. Now find an application in consumer devices (which is what both ATA and Firewire are designed for) where you need more than that, or even have the ability to use more than that.- 3. Serial ATA is a point to point protocol. There is no master.
So's firewire, except in an even looser sense, since you can have an arbitrary peer-to-peer connection between any two devices on the bus (which, admittedly, leads to some potential security concerns, and is why I wouldn't want an external port to be on the same bus as my hard drive)- 4. Serial ATA is already supported under both windows and linux, past the extent of IEEE1394. This is because Serial ATA uses the same protocol as regular ATA, and thus works exactly the same on an OS level. Unless you look at the chipset, the OS probably will not know it isn't using parallel ATA.
This is true. However, the ATA protocol in general is somewhat antiquated. Even getting more than four drives in a system is a horrible hack, and more than eight might as well not even be considered.- 5. ATA is a cheaper solution than Firewire. Currently all firewire drives are actually ATA drives with a ATAFirewire chip inside, so Serial ATA reduces their cost, as well as requires a smaller engineering cost to change the chips on the drive to be native Serial ATA.
As someone else already pointed out in this thread, there's firewire chips for around $5, which are considerably cheaper, AFAIK, than the current crop of parallel ATA chips. Also, it'll probably be a while before serial ATA drives aren't setup in the same way - a parallel ATA drive with a serial ATA convertor on it.- 6.
- What should be done? IMNSHO, they should scrap the proprietary Serial-ATA interface, and adopt 1394 as the official Serial ATA standard. What makes you think that Serial ATA is a proprietary interface?? Why would it be any less of an open standard than Parallel ATA? At least you don't need to pay licensing fees for ATA.
I'm not the poster you're responding to, so your question doesn't apply to my response, and actually, I agree with your point, but for the sake of argument: $0.25/computer isn't exactly bank-breaking, and you don't even have to call it that if you call it something other than Firewire AFAIK (for example, if you call it IEEE1394 there's no problem, or you can make up yet another new name for it like Sony did).---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:1)
IMO, although a trivial webserver could have fit on the PIC, I doubt the PIC was actually doing the PPP and TCP/IP as they claimed. More likely they had a pseudo-PPP which was arbitrated mostly by the DECstation it was connected to "for a router."
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:Why reinvent the wheel? (Score:1)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
You gotta love those pics (Score:1)
Parallel ATA picture-lots of ribbon cables and power supply cables, looks like your typical floppy, CD, single hard drive setup.
Serial ATA picture-just a single serial(two or four conductor wire) for each drive. No power. I guess that those Serial ATA drives (floppy too?) won't require 5v and 12v power. or at least will only pull 40mAh or so...
oh well, it is a nice concept, but the pictures are a bit misleading.
Re:Well I'll be.... (Score:1)
Firewire is peer-to-peer. Any two devices on a firewire bus can communicate without any mediation from a 'host'; the computer is just another host.
So what's to stop one computer from directly reading - and perhaps FUBARing - the hard drive of another?
I wouldn't have a problem with pervasive firewire as long as a single computer had separate buses - one for internal devices, one for external devices, and one for networking purposes. Of course, this also helps to avoid other nasty problems, such as not being able to put in a new harddrive because there's already 64 people on your firewire segment each with 4 devices total (not too far-fetched in, say, a university setting). Not to mention I really don't want skript-kiddies bypassing the need to packetsniff when they can just read my data directly...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:this is the wrong article (Score:1)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:Is the demand there? (Score:1)
Re:Well I'll be.... (Score:1)
Serial ATA is point-to-point (Score:2)
Serial ATA will only make sense if you can connect more than two damned devices to the chain.
If you had read the article, you would know that Serial-ATA is nothing like conventional IDE, and is a serial design, with a low-pin-count connector and a point-to-point design. You can have precisely one device connected to an SATA port. The idea is, of course, to have a bunch of SATA ports on the mainboard (you should be able to stuff six or eight in the space needed for existing 40-pin ATA ports).
Personally, I prefer firewire, which does support daisy-chaining.
Re:Not so odd, USB (Score:1)
WinNT support will still be missing until tomorrow -- 4 years after Intel shipped USB.
--
Re:Firewire won't die. (Score:1)
The problem is that unless you own a sexy DVcam, 1394 seems pretty useless.
But Sony's plan is to push "iLink" across their consumer line. When it's common for TVs, cable boxes, satellite boxes, amplifiers, DVD Players, and so on to have a 1394 port, most PC users will finally 'get' the application.
--
Re:Ha! You can kiss firewire goodbye... (Score:2)
Read the article; learn about existing ATA (Score:2)
Does anyone know if Serial ATA will support more than 4 devices?
First, the article states quite clearly that Serial ATA is a point-to-point protocol. This means one and only one device connected per port. As SATA also has a low pin count, the plan is to have more SATA ports on the mainboard. You could probably fit six or eight SATA ports in the space needed for two 40-pin ATA ports.
Second, ATA has a limitation of two devices per bus (port). You get four devices by having two ATA ports. Want six devices? Use three ATA ports. Most likely, you'll need to buy an add-in ATA controller, as I've never seen or heard of a mainboard with more then two on-board ATA ports. Of course, ATA is incredibly brain-damaged, and generally requires an IRQ per bus on PCs (or breaks compatibility with many things). The answer to that, of course, is not to use ATA... :)
And no, I can't afford the inflated price of SCSI.
You can afford all that nifty hardware, but you cannot afford an extra $30 per device in order to get a bus that actually works and performs well? Well, your loss. :-) Me, I've been running an all-SCSI system for some time, and I love it. No looking back for me!
Re:Wrong question... (Score:1)
Why? Because plugging everything in is a major source of support phone calls.
--
Re:Why reinvent the wheel? (Score:1)
SSA [ibm.com] is IBM's Serial Storage Architecture [ibm.com]. My only experience with them was in conjunction with two multiprocessor J40's. We had two full towers of SSA disks that where linked in with both J40's. Any disk in either array was available to either system. (Don't try to mount the same disk on both machines at the same time!)
It seemed pretty fast and allowed amazing flexibility on the placement of the external drive towers. The cables, were, of course, expensive.
Dean
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard? (Score:3)
The same is true for Serial ATA drives. You can bet that the first Serial ATA drives will NOT be cheaper than equivalent Parallel ATA drives. That will only happen as they ramp the volume.
If there was customer demand, they could start ramping production of 1394 drives now. Why should we wait until mid 2001 for them to start ramping Serial ATA? (I addressed this question in my earlier post.)
You need a non-trivial topology any time you want to hook up more devices than you have dedicated ports. If manufactured in equivalent quantities, hardware support for four 1394 ports (at 3.2 Gbps by 2001) should not cost more than four Serial ATA ports. Sure, but why compare two Serial ATA ports to only one 1394 port? With either interface the per-port cost will be about the same, but 1394 will offer 3.2 Gbps at about the same time that Serial ATA 1X will offer 1.5 Gbps. Probably sooner, in fact. Of course there's a master. The computer is the master; the disk drive is the slave. 1394 supports any mix of masters and slaves. If all you want to do is add one disk drive to a PC, you don't need that capability. But why restritct yourself if you don't have to? If you want to realize the claimed 1.5 Gbps performance of Serial ATA 1X, you'll probably need a different hardware-level register interface, with different device driver software (at the lowest level; some higher-level driver code may stay the same).It is true that 1394 hardware interfaces are not register-compatible with ATA ports, but 1394 drivers are already written.
Parallel ATA is cheaper today because it is manufactured in high volumes. Neither Serial ATA nor 1394 drives will be cheaper than Parallel ATA until and unless drives incorporating those interface start get manufactured in high volumes. Once the volumes are that high, Serial ATA or 1394 drives should be cheaper to manufacture than Parallel ATA, because they can use chips with lower pin counts, smaller board footprint, and fewer connector pins or edge fingers.Since both Serial ATA or 1394 offer the potential for higher performance than Parallel ATA at lower cost, but both would cost about the same amount, why not prefer the one with greater flexibility and performance.
Bad choice of words on my part. What I really meant was "a new and incompatible interface". Why use one of those, instead of a superior existing interface?Re:Yawn (Score:1)
I don't. I keep hoping others will see the light and, as I said, that there will still be people around who know how to make things right.
I'm assuming you're a jackboot-licking Mac user
Heh. Not. Even. Close. I've used a mac exactly once - in order to install ppclinux on a performa 6400, I and three others spent two hours trying to take the thing apart and replace the failed disk in it, then another four hours trying to get bootx onto a machine with no network, (un)stuffit, or (de-)binhexer. I came away from that experience convinced that the only thing worse than a peecee is a mac, and the only os worse than windoze 3.0 is the macos, choose any version.
Glad you're willing to submit to exorbant[sic] prices and a sub-standard OS so you can avoid the chance of putting your box together.
Well, the box I'm posting from was somewhat expensive compared with peecees, but my OS certainly isn't substandard. I know of at least three reasonable (read: unix) ones that will run on it; it's linux currently. I don't fear opening the box. In fact, this one's so damn beautiful inside I'd run it without the cover except that, well, the cover is part of the cooling system (yes, directed airflow - won't find *that* in peecees). What I fear is what's inside most boxes sold today. Ugh.
Fscking trolling Mac lusers
I hate macs. I'm anything but a luser and this is not a troll.
Go intellectually wank on Mackido
I honestly have no idea what this is.
post something relevant like "Increases in ATA speed don't matter as long as the inherent flaws in the design exist - SCSI's ability to use multiple devices simultaneously properly is more important."
Increases in ATA speed don't matter as long as the inherent flaws in the design exist - SCSI's ability to use multiple devices simultaneously properly is more important.
Gee, that added a lot to this discussion, no? Of course, this might be a good opportunity to mention that Apple (whom I supposedly dearly love) sold out and started using ATA in their own, previously all-scsi, systems some time ago, which further worsened their overall quality. The last decent machines they made were in the LC III timeframe, which are disturbingly similar inside to sparcstation 1s, another fine machine of that era. Both all-scsi of course, though I have trouble calling Apple's implementation "SCSI." Or the 53C90 in the SS1, for that matter. (shudder) Bad SCSI implementations. Guess the goats weren't sad to see those go, eh?
I love it when people make wildly wrong assumptions about me and thusly make themselves look like total fools when attempting to flame. Of course, this seems a common characteristic of anyone who thinks peecees are useful for any purpose other than keeping oceangoing vessels in one place.
--TM, wondering which lose more, peecees or the people who defend them
Oi (Score:2)
Re:Firewire tax? (Score:1)
One good example is the mouse. Why is it that no one really used mice (which have been around since the 60's) until the Mac not only came standard with them, but *required* their use? Now everyone seems to agree that mice are a pretty good idea. Never would've happened w/o someone ramming down yer throat though.
USB is nice, I like it, Intel may have developed it but Apple popularized it.
Firewire is also nice - both standards complement each other - and I'd like to see it get more common, dammit.
Re:Serial ATA - Ugly Kludge from Hell (Score:2)
Re:Your ideal PC (Score:1)
iMacs are not for you, guy. They're basically intended for the person who never would imagine upgrading hardware, doesn't even realize that you can add stuff to any computer once it's out of the factory. And certainly not a developer.
Anyone who'd care at all about pumping up their system shouldn't buy an iMac (except as a neat toy - the blue one would match my old bathroom very nicely
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:2)
Similarly, at the host end of things, there's no reason a 1394 host adapter would cost more than a Serial ATA host adapter, if they were integrated into the South Bridge of the chipset.
And if you want to add additional 1394 or Serial ATA ports to your computer, host adapter chips or cards for either should have comparable prices.
Note: when I talk about comparable prices, I'm referring to the hypothetical situation where they are manufactured in comparable volumes. Obviously if one is manufactured in much higher volumes than the other, it will be cheaper.
Re:Is the demand there? (Score:1)
Re:Warning: Idealist: RJ and USB is all we need! (Score:1)
USB for low-bandwith devices - keyboards, mice, consumer printers (real men use ethernet printers
Firewire for high-bandwith devices - hard drives, digital audio/video, high-end scanners (the kind that cost more than your car and if misused could sterilize you)
Note that you don't really want to use either for your monitor - think about how much data 1600x1200x24 bits, 30 times a second _is_. Give it its own damn bus.
Device Attachment (Score:1)
Apple's Firewire tax (Score:2)
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard? (Score:1)
Most OEM's try to save and scrimp every penny on production that they possibly can, because small differences in price start to add up in quantities of 10000 or more. That $0.25 per computer would equal $2500 across 10000 computers. (Just keep adding zeros, it adds up pretty quick.) That extra expense is that much money that the OEM isn't making in profit. It boils down to the problem of the production going to the lowest bidder, or in this case, the part with the lowest price. Parts that have royalty fees attached to them (take firewire and rambus as examples) tend to be overlooked more often than parts that are more freely/cheaply available, even if/when the alternative is less advanced in terms of technology. In a business sense, it's all about profit, not necessarily about what should or should not be done.
Re:Firewire won't die. (Score:2)
Will it replace SCSI? On Apple systems, prolly. On PCs? Prolly not.
-AS
Re:Yawn (Score:1)
Notice you didn't even address my first contention: PC hardware doesn't require stupid design and all the things you bitched about. Sure, there's poorly made PCs, but that doesn't mean other people can't put together a clean box. By claiming so and making such a wide generalization, you are trolling. No other interpretation. Explain how any statement containing "peecee luser" can be anything but a troll on a forum with many PC owners.
Well, the box I'm posting from was somewhat expensive compared with peecees, but my OS certainly isn't substandard. I know of at least three reasonable (read: unix) ones that will run on it; it's linux currently. I don't fear opening the box. In fact, this one's so damn beautiful inside I'd run it without the cover except that, well, the cover is part of the cooling system (yes, directed airflow - won't find *that* in peecees). What I fear is what's inside most boxes sold today. Ugh.
Very well. I made a faulty assumption and you're not using a Mac. Judging by some of your comments, you're obviously using something high-end. So what? We're all supposed to pay huge prices for expensive non-i386 computers like you? You remind me of someone who has an expensive sportscar and bitches about all the econoboxes out there without realizing maybe others can't quite spend so much. Get off your high horse and realize some people make decisions based on performance per dollar.
I hate macs. I'm anything but a luser and this is not a troll.
Being a luser doesn't have anything to do with knowledge - stupid comments do a luser make. And blanket statements such as "All PC hardware sucks and PC boxes are all crap that no-one should use" is very much so a troll.
I honestly have no idea what this is.
Be happy about that.
Gee, that added a lot to this discussion, no?
Twas an example of a possible statement that avoided trollage while being negative towards Serial ATA. What, you expect me to write your own posts or something? The point is, if you don't like something, say why with a reasoned and polite argument, not this "You're all peecee lusers" crap.
I love it when people make wildly wrong assumptions about me and thusly make themselves look like total fools when attempting to flame.
Heh, that's funny, thought I threw in a disclaimer saying you could very well be something other than a Mac user. Guess you skipped that part, huh? I guessed so and made statements based on that assumption, because frankly, there's more Mac idiots that whatever type of idiot you are.
Of course, this seems a common characteristic of anyone who thinks peecees are useful for any purpose other than keeping oceangoing vessels in one place.
I'm not hosting E-Bay or something on my box, I'm just doing school work, art, communication and a little hosting. Considering that the majority of people use their computers for tasks more like this than whatever you're doing, I'd say making blanket statements about the non-usefullness of a platform is a common characteristic of trolls and idiots. Any platform, even something like WinCE-stuff or a TI-82, can be useful. That doesn't mean I think WinNT should run battleships or something, and lumping all PC users together so shows what an idiot you are.
Re:Read the article; learn about existing ATA (Score:1)
There's an Abit motherboard or two that have two ATA chips on them, the BX chipset (which has ATA/33) and an HPT chip (ATA/66). The HPT chip allows you to connect another four ATA devices, but it doesn't support booting. This is all from memory, though, so I could have the details wrong. But the point is that you get ATA/66 and 8 ATA ports.
I'm all for replacing ATA with SCSI, but let's be realistic here. SCSI devices and host adapters are expensive.
ATA gets the job done, cheaply at the price of doing it gracefully. There's no reason you need SCSI hard drives if you're currently satisfied with your current ATA setup. Likewise for IEEE 1394 and USB. If USB is working just fine for you, then you don't need to worry about all the cool features of IEEE 1394 and what you're missing out on. It's mostly high-end stuff.
The biggest problem of USB and ATA is that they were designed for the average consumer, not power users or servers. This isn't really a 'problem' per se, except if you happen to be a power user and you're trying to wrestle with the limitations of your current hardware. This is when you want IEEE 1394 and/or SCSI. Not if you're an average Joe, just trying to hook up a new mouse.
There's always been room for both ATA and SCSI, and I think there's always going to be room for both USB and IEEE 1394. They serve different markets, really.
By the way, are you still using that sucky 32 bit Intel or Motorola CPU? Upgrade to a real processor, a DEC Alpha 21264, even if you do have to pay an extra $3000 just for the processor and motherboard!
Elitist attitudes are easy to mock.
Re:Read the article; learn about existing ATA (Score:1)
You're right about the four IDE connectors, but the ATA/66 interface is able to be used to boot. However, it did cause a bit of trouble when I had two hard drives on the ATA/66 interfaces, and an ORB drive and DVD-ROM drive on the normal interfaces. The effect was the NT became very confused, and from memory it wouldn't even boot if there was no disk in the ORB drive. But I can assure you that it will boot from the ATA/66 controller. This board is the BP6, which is the infamous dual celeron board. There's also at least one other board, which I think is the BE6, which is the same wrt booting.
Intel were originally firewire supporters (Score:2)
The real problem is not getting the bits from A to B. The software abstraction layers, descriptors and class definitions were the parts that took the most time in the USB standards commitees. Microsoft's insistence on making USB one more jewel on Windows 98's crown also contributed a significant delay.
But this is nothing compared to how long 1394 is taking. An environment with no single master is much more complex. But you should also take into account the commitee effect - they have vast plans with cute acronyms to make it take control of everything in your house. Yeah, sure.
USB 2.0 will be identical to 1.1 from the operating system's point of view. It will use the same class drivers and in some cases the same vendor-supplied drivers. This will enable it to reach the market in a relatively short time.
It's not that I'm "pro USB" and "anti 1394" - both have interesting features the the other lacks. It's just reality.
----
ibook beowulfs, airport, grade schools (Score:2)
Airport would serve wonderfully as the high-speed private network Beowulf requires. and it would very much help with logistics-- no cabling required, which makes things a LOT easier. hell, you could just take the ibooks and stack them in the corner of the room. no messy cables or overloaded hubs.
While ibooks themselves would maybe be a tad expensive to buy them for just this purpose-- after all, you're paying for an LCD screen you won't use-- i'm wondering about what happens when iBooks start getting passed out to grade school students. Think about it; you've got about 20, 30 children per room. ach one is holding an ibook, and most of these are going unused for most of the time. So install the beowulf software on each ibook and have the school network propigate tasks to be used with the spare processor cycles. Suddenly this isn't a grade school anymore; it's a _supercomputer_, with upward of a couple hundred parrallel ibook nodes. This would go beyond cracking RC5 or ripping mp3s for the school administrator; you could actually rent out task time on the ibook beowulf the way they rent out supercomputers at universities. It would be a lot less reliable in terms of exact time because the students would be using some of the computing power to themselves, but still it could work pretty good, and maybe give some extra money to the schools. our schools are underfunded anyway, and hell- if they did something like this to bring in a little extra money, maybe they could _afford_ things like a decent computer network or computer teachers or laptops for the students.
And i'm sure the beowulf software would run wonderfully on the BSD core of mac os x. How well would Beowulf run in a loosely structured dynamic environment such as a school where the nodes of the network are being periodically individually shuffled around into different physical areas of the network, of out of it?
just a thought.
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard (Score:2)
SCSI is not a physical interface -- you can run a SCSI device over a parallel cable if you like, if you've got a device and a controller that know how to do it.
Firewire devices ARE all SCSI at the moment, which is part of why the hard drives are so damn expensive.
Re:Again with the Firewire tax bit... (Score:2)
How can you sell a technology to consumers if every company calls it something different? How is Joe Sixpack supposed to know that an i.Link camcorder can plug into a FireWire port? If you're not a geek, you'll have no clue that a 1394 device is compatible with an i.Link port and can be plugged into a FireWire hub.
Apple may as well write "don't buy me" on Firewire...
Re:Read the article; learn about existing ATA (Score:2)
Reality check.
First, practically all mobos come with IDE built-in. To get a SCSI controller you need to buy one. A good one (say, Adaptec 2940) will set you back around $200.
Second, let's look at hard drives. Maxtor 18Gb IDE drive will cost you ~$140. The cheapest 18Gb SCSI drive will set you back $300 (all prices courtesy of PriceWatch).
You were saying something about 30 bucks?
Kaa
Firewire Tax is *very* relevant here... (Score:2)
There's a little casualty issue here. Apple only dropped their prices *after* other companies began casting about for alternatives. Here's a MacKiDo quote concerning a 3 port solution: "Apple is now seeking US$3 in royalties on a 1394 chipset that sells for less than US$5." They go on to say that it was possible that "some of Apple's competitors--perhaps like Intel--are being charged higher licensing fees than those cooperating with the Macintosh platform." We don't know if that's true, but if Apple attempted to use 1394 as a weapon, then the reasons for USB 2.0 and Serial ATA are obvious.
Intel could have changed course after Apple dropped their prices, but sometimes projects acquire a life of their own once started. Intel did not charge any royalities for the original USB and announced that they planned to do the same for USB 2.0, so it's got a lot of external support as well. Plus, I haven't seen any guarantees from Apple that they won't raise the tax again if Firewire becomes the standard.
Serial ATA: They'll Implement It Anyway (Score:2)
To quote from the article [anandtech.com], "Most important is the fact that Serial ATA is software/register compatible with Parallel ATA, which means there is no need to rewrite anything at the driver or OS level."
Which means that Linux and Windows already support it, and not merely "to some extent".
Firewire is by far the technologically superior standard. I like technologically superior tools; that's why I have two Beta VCRs rotting in my attic. But I think SATA is going to be very popular for internally-connected devices like disk and tape drives, if only so manufacturers can avoid the higher cost of adopting an entirely new standard instead of just building off the existing one. As a manufacturer, which would you rather do: hand the team a full specification and tell them to implement it, or give them your existing code base and say, "hack this so it does I/O one bit at a time instead of eight"?
--
Re:Big difference (Score:2)
well, that's even not true... or am i supposed to run the 1394 port inside my Apple Power Macintosh G4 thru an empty PCI slot to hook something up on the outside?
People, companies (HD makers, esp.) are fearful of 1394 because of two reasons..
Apple is pushing it - and Intel no longer wants anything to do with it. Its simple racism errrrr bias against Apple as usual...
Its also something far more insidious... there is an undercurrent within the WinTel community of prepared difficulty. You see, if shit was as easy as plugging it in to any 1394 port... well then, what would guys with MSCE's and tape holding their glasses together do? You don't need to pay someone $39 to install a $100 hard drive when hooking it up is coin-slot simple...
The perpetually retarded "I want control over the settings" PC vs. Mac arguement is the same kind of mindset that prevents people from accepting things like USB.. how many of you had anything USB pre-iMac... that's what i thought...
And 1394 is far far easier than USB! It makes "your friend that knows computers" (the same guy that comes over when a newbie buys a PC and installs illegal copies of 98, Office 2000, games, etc.) a far less useful person.
1394 takes the power out of the geeks hands and puts it into the customers hands.. and Intel, MS, and other surely couldn't stand for that.... that's why USB 2.x, which will be far far more confusing that this article assumes (how can you tell the difference between a USB 2.x hub and a USB 1.2 hub besides price? How do you draw up a network diagram to plan out your migration from USB 1.2 to 2.x? You'll need new hubs, new cables, you'll need to decide where to use the new hubs in relation to the speed of the devices and the old hubs, etc..)
USB 2.x stinks... it stinks to high heaven. its Intel's way of making *their* newer products necessary unnecessarily.
Re:Firewire Tax is *very* relevant here... (Score:2)
"You're making stuff up again. Please don't do that. That quote does not appear on the MacKiDo site, and it's not true."
Please see MacKiDo article USB Two-Point-Oh-My! [mackido.com]. Quote from the section "What Is Intel Up To?":
"Go back and re-read the excerpt of Gelsinger's speech earlier in this article, and you'll notice something rather diplomatic. He raises the problem of 1394 royalties, but never mentions Apple Computer--the inventor of 1394 and the collector of the royalties. Although Apple has refused official comment on the issue, enough sources have told enough news outlets that the company is now seeking royalties of US$1 per 1394 port from chip and system makers incorporating 1394 into their products. According to EETimes, which has not been on Apple's side in this story (even running an editorial blasting the company for the alleged fee structure), Apple is now seeking US$3 in royalties on a 1394 chipset that sells for less than US$5.
We noted in MWJ 1999.01.23 that sourcing on these reports is anonymous, and that Apple denies anything has changed. It raised for us the possibility that some of Apple's competitors--perhaps like Intel--are being charged higher licensing fees than those cooperating with the Macintosh platform. We note now that Intel is a leading manufacturer of PC support chips, including the kinds of circuits that drive technologies like 1394 and USB. Intel has done well with USB technologies, but this week admitted that after years of advocating 1394, the company is not including 1394 in the chipsets it sells for personal computers."
Re:Yawn (Score:2)
Re:Read the article; learn about existing ATA (Score:2)
To get a SCSI controller you need to buy one. A good one (say, Adaptec 2940) will set you back around $200.
FWIW, I see AHA-2940's for as cheap as $150 at PC shows. But yes, the SCSI host adapter is a cost you have to pay. But it is a one-time cost. You can carry the same host adapter from PC to PC as you upgrade. It isn't like you have to buy with every new PC.
Maxtor 18Gb IDE drive will cost you ~$140.
Yeah, but I wouldn't be caught dead with a Maxtor drive near me. They are the Yugo of hard drives.
The cheapest 18Gb SCSI drive will set you back $300...
You do have to look to find reasonably-priced SCSI drives. You will find more "Wow, I can't believe it is so cheap" deals with IDE. And you won't find low-end, bottom-of-the-barrel SCSI drives at all, simply because no one using SCSI will buy crap like that. But I don't pay that much more for SCSI.
Additionally, because SCSI performs so much better, I can save money by not having to upgrade as often. My SCSI system already has an edge against faster IDE-based systems.
Is SCSI for everyone? No. It is cheaper then IDE? No. Is it worth the price if you have that kind of hardware in your system anyway? Yes.
Re:ATA committee and NIH syndrome (Score:2)
Re:Serial ATA: The Unnecessary Standard? (Score:2)
From anyone else's point of view, that's still anecdotal. AFAIK, the only authoritative way to get pricing on the chips is to get quotes from the vendors.
Certainly they are. You can get the silicon for a low speed (1.5 Mbps) USB device from Cypress for under $1 in volume; the high-speed (12 Mbps) chips aren't much more.Re:1394 for drives, too (Score:2)
Lest anyone misunderstand, this only means that one device (including initiators) can be _on the bus_ at once. It does not preclude there being more than one request outstanding to the same or multiple devices at one time, waiting for disks to spin etc.