backtop


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

RE: proofreading
By gstrickler on 9/21/2009 8:02:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
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.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins




Latest Headlines
4/21/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 21, 2014, 12:46 PM
4/16/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 16, 2014, 9:01 AM
4/15/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 15, 2014, 11:30 AM
4/11/2014 Hardware Reviews
April 11, 2014, 11:03 AM










botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki