Print 72 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on Sep 25 at 10:20 AM

Not many motherboards support new standard yet

Seagate is launching today the latest in the  Barracuda family of 7200 RPM hard disk drives. The Barracuda XT is the first drive to market that supports SATA interface speeds of up to 6Gbps. 

The 2TB monster features a large 64 MB cache, which is the largest seen on a regular HDD. However, several SSDs already use 128MB caches, and at least one controller design in the works is capable of accessing up to 256MB of cache. It is these large and fast caches that are driving SATA standards forward.
The latest version of Seagate's SeaTools software allows for short-stroking, in which data is stored only on the outer tracks of the drive, allowing greater access speed at a reduction in capacity. The company claims that a short-stroked Barracuda XT using 1TB of storage will be able to compete with a 10k RPM Velociraptor drive from competitor Western Digital.

The company is targeting high performance and gaming PCs, low cost servers for SMBs, and external storage applications using eSATA for the new drive. Seagate expects almost 20% of all HDDs sold in 2010 will have a capacity of  1TB or greater.

The new drive (model ST32000641AS) comes with a 5-year warranty at a MSRP of $299. It should be available at retail by the end of this week.

Despite all the enthusiasm from Seagate, it will be SSDs that see the greatest performance jump with the move to the next generation for the SATA interface. Several SSDs are already hitting the limits of SATA II when reading from their cache.

Adoption of the new SATA standard is currently slow, as the ASUS P7P55D is the only motherboard that is natively capable of support 6Gbps. Older motherboards are capable of such speeds only through the use of a PCIe adapter card.

The problem is that motherboard manufacturers are waiting for a new I/O Controller Hub (ICH) from Intel. Commonly known as a southbridge, the new ICH is expected to support new technologies such as SuperSpeed USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps. AMD is also working on a new southbridge to support these technologies.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By hessenpepper on 9/21/2009 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 0
Anybody else get annoyed by the spelling/grammatical errors in a significant number of these articles?

"other tracks" -> "outer tracks"

RE: proofreading
By jonup on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: proofreading
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:37:24 PM , Rating: 4
Your brain might ignore them, but for many of us, simple spelling and grammar errors undermine the credibility of the author. After all, if the author can't spell or proofread, how can he be trusted to get the facts right or to know what he's talking about on the subject?

One of the problems with the current Internet IMO is that there don't seem to be very professional standards set on the part of content publishers as much. Yet these publishers are still companies getting paid to do this work, and the articles are being read by large numbers of readers. So why the slack?

I'm an engineer/manager, and if I turned in poor work to my customers and other stakeholders, I'd certainly hear about it.

RE: proofreading
By GaryJohnson on 9/21/2009 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 5
Someone with good spelling and grammatical accuracy can be just as factually accurate or inaccurate as someone with bad spelling and grammatical accuracy.

I agree it's unprofessional, but it doesn't have any bearing on the credibility of the author.

RE: proofreading
By slyadams on 9/21/2009 6:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
I can't agree. Surely the desire of a person to write an accurate and well researched aritcle would also stretch to eliminating simple spelling/grammatical errors?

If you were due to have heart surgery and the surgeon gave you some letters or information he had written and they were strewn with errors would it not make you a little concerned about his attention to detail?

RE: proofreading
By blwest on 9/21/2009 9:19:19 PM , Rating: 1
You forget one thing. These guys don't write the articles, they paraphrase, poorly. In addition, they don't research the articles, they simply put all the tech articles Anandtech readers might like in one place.

Many of these people have a personal agenda against certain hardware/software vendors. In addition, they most likely use IE because Firefox underlines spelling mistakes. There is no way any of these articles went into a legitimate word processor.

They forget that the average Anandtech reader is highly educated and will pick up on BS quickly. If you write like a 6th grader, I'll trust you like I would a 6th grader. =)

RE: proofreading
By gstrickler on 9/21/2009 8:02:35 PM , Rating: 4
Someone with good spelling and grammatical accuracy can be just as factually accurate or inaccurate as someone with bad spelling and grammatical accuracy.
They can be, yes. However, such errors call into question the quality of the work and the attitude or "work ethic" of the author. It suggests that the author may be "sloppy", "lazy", or "careless". If a "reporter" doesn't bother to use a spelling and grammar checker before publishing an article, how much should I trust his ability to accurately find and report the facts for the article? Still, it doesn't necessarily mean the information is incorrect.

Statistically, there is a strong correlation between the number of significant grammar errors and the accuracy of the information presented. That doesn't mean that one causes the other, only that they're likely to be found together. When two things are commonly found together, finding one suggests the likely presence of the other.

When I read a resume for a job applicant and there are spelling errors or obvious grammatical errors, I question the quality or work I would get from someone who is "careless" about their resume (which should present the applicant in the best possible way, as long as it's accurate). What quality of work should I expect from someone who didn't bother to use a spelling and grammar checker on their resume?

Spelling errors (where the "word" isn't even a word in the dictionary) are inexcusable in most instances simply because nearly everything is created on a computer now and nearly every "editor" routine includes a very good spell check capability. Typographical errors where the incorrect word is used won't be detected by a spell check capability, but should be detected by a grammar check capability.

I'm more forgiving of grammar errors, and particularly of the types of grammatical errors that are common due to a widespread misunderstanding of grammar rules. Others are personal preference, for instance, I could have said "grammatical rules" (adjective + noun), but I chose "grammar rules" (phrase used as a noun).

Now, technically inclined and creative people will commonly not "worry" about "details" like spelling or grammar, after all there are editors and proof-readers (and now software) that can worry about and correct those. That's not a problem, as long as you have an editor, proof-reader, and/or software that verifies the work before it's published. Unfortunately, those steps are either frequently being skipped, or the are of insufficient quality to correct the mistakes, so the mistakes end up getting published.

RE: proofreading
By afkrotch on 9/22/2009 2:08:40 AM , Rating: 3
It's called attention to detail. If you can't even pay attention to the details in your own article, who's to say you were paying attention in the information gathering process.

RE: proofreading
By Starcub on 9/25/2009 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
Someone with good spelling and grammatical accuracy can be just as factually accurate or inaccurate as someone with bad spelling and grammatical accuracy.

Aside from the fact that you've got the order wrong, I understand what you were trying to say. Personally, I don't mind spelling errors so much, but gramatical errors can be extremely frustrating: the use of an innapropriate term, or something as simple as a misplaced comma, can completely change the meaning of a sentence. If I have to re-read a sentence multiple times and attempt to guess what the author's actual message was from context, then I tire of reading the article, and even though the person might have had something important to say, I will ignore them.

I almost always make mistakes the first time through anything I compose, so I go back and re-read my posts to ensure that I'm able to understand what it is I was trying to say.

RE: proofreading
By luhar49 on 9/22/2009 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Cut the author some slack. He is probably a non-native English speaker. Chinese, going by his name. Although that isn't an excuse when you post on an English website. Still, pointing the error is enough. Dont have to write an article of your own about bad english. Your post just sounds like a frustrated individual venting.

RE: proofreading
By plowak on 9/23/2009 2:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Students, give me your attention. As an exercise in communication skills, I would like you to underline all of the non sequiturs in the above paragraph. You have five minutes...go!

RE: proofreading
By MrPoletski on 9/24/2009 10:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
Like I've said before.

You see a grammatical error, or something spelt incorrectly then:

Quote the section of text;
Highlight your percieved error;
Provide a suggested correction;
End of story.

That process does not involve this:


So bear that in mind when detecting less-than-perfect English in an online article.

RE: proofreading
By mikeyD95125 on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: proofreading
By lukasbradley on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: proofreading
By adiposity on 9/21/2009 2:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
A typo is one thing, but spelling checks make it worse. The wrong word is substituted and makes it confusing. In this case my knowledge of hdds allowed me to deduce what I assume was the right word ("outer"). However, I did for a second wonder if he meant "every other," which makes no sense of course.

Yes, I do find it annoying, but it's a fact of life. These posts don't have a proof reader, obviously. Welcome to the world of free news.


RE: proofreading
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
DT isn't really free. It is ad-supported, and we "pay" for the site by viewing and clicking on the ads. Furthermore, DT is a for-profit company with employees who I assume are paid for their work. As such, they should be held to professional standards.

Maybe they are all donating their time for free, but I doubt it.

RE: proofreading
By jonup on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: proofreading
By adiposity on 9/21/2009 5:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have any issue holding them to higher standards. I'm not sure a wrong word is worth getting getting too-riled up about. Mick, on the other hand...


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki