Seagate to Drop IDE Drives by Year End

ianare writes "Seagate plans to cease manufacturing IDE hard drives by the end of the year and will focus exclusively on SATA-based products. Seagate is the first major hard drive manufacturer to announce such plans, though others will likely follow suit. That's not to say support for the 21-year-old PATA standard is going to vanish overnight; similar to how ISA slots were available long after most of us had ditched our old ISA peripherals."

Comments

Good

[Espectr0]

At the least, this will drive the price of SATA drive down. Maybe it will be the same like RAM, where DDR2 is actually cheaper than the old DDR memory standard.

Re:What about osdev?

[larry bagina]

As a consumer, I'd rather get rid of the legacy shit (ATA, ps2 keyboards, bios, DOS/Windows :-). But for hardware hacking/os writing, a USB stack, firewire stack, etc are more work (and don't provide the immediate feedback like 100 lines of assembly to read the raw keystrokes).

You an still have fun with an ARM breadboard kit, though :-)

Re:What about osdev?

[Xiph1980]

By jonwil (467024)

The #1 reason I want something like EFI is to eliminate the world of proprietary bootloaders/selection mechanisms for good. Essentially the BIOS would be the one that displays the list of boot options.

Unfortunatly no vendor that supports EFI (including all Linux distros I have seen) gets it totally right (where any boot time configuration options are handled through EFI and not through another bootloader)
Well, EFI may not be the best way to get away from proprietary stuff. It seems that EFI explicitly vacilitates such behaviour by hardware manufacturers:

Interview with Ronald G. Minnich (Google cache)

What are your thoughts on the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI)?

I have spoken with the EFI authors at length. They make no secret of the fact that a "core value" of EFI is the preservation of intellectual property related to chipset programming and internal architecture. To put it another way, EFI is dedicated to the preservation of "Hard" hardware (as defined above), and the provision of binary interfaces and subsystems to BIOS vendors and others.
It is not really possible to build a full open-source BIOS if EFI is involved. The Tiano system, which Intel claims is an open source BIOS, can not be used to build a BIOS unless it is attached to proprietary, binary-only BIOS code provided by a vendor.

Another important thing to realize about EFI is that it also contemplates enabling chipset features that will trap certain OS operations to an EFI-based control system running in System Management Mode. In other words, under EFI, there is no guarantee that the OS owns the platform.
Accesses to IDE I/O addresses, or certain memory addresses, can be trapped to EFI code and potentially examined and modified or aborted. Many see this as an effort to build a "DRM BIOS".
I am not sure what the real intent of this design is, but is is a real concern in secure environments (such as those found in governments, banks, and large search engine companies). A number of vendors and users have told me that they are not sure they can ship an EFI system they are willing to trust in a secure environment.