Rusty Nejdl wrote: >> Does SATA300, but has the same "feature" as the OP's Seagate drive: >> a small jumper that limits the drive to SATA150 unless removed. >> See below PDF. >> >> http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e2af99f4fa74c010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD&locale=en-US >> http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/disc/manuals/desktop/Barracuda%207200.10/100402371h.pdf >> > > Jeremy, > > Thanks! Like Aryeh, I missed the jumper. I'll test this out tonight when > I get home. > > Rusty > BTW - in a recent test of 2.5" high-capacity HDD, it was noted that SATA required significantly more power than PATA. Well 'significant' to a laptop on battery, anyway. Given that single-drive setups seldom stress even UDMA 133 over the course of reasonable time spans, does anyone know if: A) SATA 300 needs yet-again more power than SATA 150? B) running down-shifted to SATA 150 might actually be a better plan anyway in some circumstances? Easier to maintain data integrity comes to mind as well as power budget. Just curious... BillReceived on Tue Nov 06 2007 - 14:40:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC