I wish I'd got sata. I was so intent on getting 8MB cache on my WD 80's I missed out. Advantages: Small flexible cable(s) with fewer lines/pins, so smaller plugs, faster (i50 against 133 max), alresdy as option on new mobos, compatible with the old parallel IDE (except sata runs on half a volt pk to pk instead of the previous 5 volts.) With all this going for it I see it as the new standard.
I have 2 IDE drives on SATA (using converters) in a RAID 0 set up just to free the IDE channels up. I get 90MBs reads and writes (using ATTO) but that has everything to do with RAID 0 and nothing to do with SATA.
Biggest problem with SATA is you can only have one device per connector so although the cables and connectors are smaller you need twice as many of them.
Trouble is, I'm curious but so rusty. Small technicalities make my mind boggle. For instance,in this thread The Sack has 90MB/s on each ATA lead so is he in effect getting 180 MB/s transfer on his raid0 because the stripes are alternate sections of one data stream?
I have two SATA hdd's(removed IDE channels in BIOS)and I installed XP Home onto the SATA hdd.The SATA drivers supplied aren't WHQL certified(the Update site offers a newer one that is WHQL)These drivers are very unstable,rebooting often produces "xyz is missing/corrupted" requiring the use of Recovery console/Repair of XP.After weeks of reinstalling XP every day(sometimes three/four times a day)yesterday I reinstalled an IDE hdd just to get some kind of stability.Once I find somewhere to store 60+Gb's of video/data,I will be trying them in a RAID setup,see if it can cope with a reboot and not "lose" data.