> > > > > Could somebody please explain to me what is so great about the new
> > > > > Serial ATA.
> > > > - Disks will likely become faster in the future, and SATA is ready
> > > > this.
> > > > - The SATA signaling is less sensitive to interference than parallel
> > > > ATA. My machine is apparently rather noisy, so with old ATA, I can
> > > > only use ATA-33, but SATA works perfectly at the faster speeds.
> > > > - The cables are *much* easier to work with. Since they are
> > > > they do not obstruct air flow very much. The smaller connectors
> > > > make it possible to have more ports on a single board, so there is
> > > > need to use master/slave setups. This is good for performance.
> > > > Did I miss anything important?
> > > The implications of having a cache on the disk?
> > Is that cache significantly different than the 2MB-8MB+ caches currently
> > ATAPI disks?
> Well, caches are getting bigger and will continue to do so, but: the OP
> asked why one needs fast interfaces to disks when the disk itself is so
> slow to take data off the platters. My point is that this does not
> necessarily limit the data rate that the disk drive can achieve because
> the cache can provide much faster data rates for small bursts of data
> to/from the cache.
Yes, caches are a Good Thing. But how are serial ATA disks' cache
implentations different from ATA disks'? I believe the OP's point was "what
makes serial ATA better than ATA, considering that ATA's speed isn't the
bottleneck?". ICBW, of course...