ata133 vs ata100...any opinions?

[bubba freaktree]

hi guys,
i'm setting up a gigasampler computer. since my mobo can take either ata100 or ata133 drives, i was thinking ata133 for snappier performance.

maybe 40gig ata133 for system drive split into two 20 gig partitions. and then an 80 gig ata133 file drive split into 4 20-git paritions.

just seeing if anybody is using ata133 out there.

[Iceberg]

I would partition the 40 gig drive in to a 6 or 7 gig partition and then a 33 gig partition. you dont need your system drive to be more than 6 or 7 gig and I wouldnt do any more than 10 gig max. in fact, I have seen PC's that dont run well at alll on large system drives with xp.
PS: ATA133 will be faster, just make sure it is UDMA compatible.

[dawboxpro]

ATA-100 and ATA-133 are about the same speed by 1%

You would not notice a performance difference using a ATA-100 Seagate 7200rpm 8m Cache VS. a WD or Maxtor ATA-133 of the same specs.
www.dawbox.com (http://www.dawbox.com)