Vista On PATA drive

[Broken]

I am doing an overhaul on my computer that will require a reinstall.
I have a spare WD 250GB 8mb cache PATA hard drive.

Would I take a major performance hit if I put Vista only (all other programs on the RAID array) on the above drive as compared to my RAID 0 array of 2 Seagate 500GB 16mb cache SATA II hard drives?

I'm thinking a minor hit would well justify the ability to dump windows anytime and not have to do a full backup everytime. If I can't get a good answer before I get off work tonight I'm gonna give it a go. But it someone here knows better, they could save me the time.

Thanks.

[BawA]

well since your putting programs files on other drive it wont effect performance except rebooting which in my opinion it wont be a big deal cuz you'll be loading windows only files from there and rest are loaded from your other drive.
tbh i dont see much difference between SATA and PATA, atleast on noticeable performance wise.

[Broken]

...i dont see much difference between SATA and PATA, atleast on noticeable performance wise.

I never got a chance to run the SATA drives without being in RAID. I purchased twin drives, and set them up to run in RAID right out of the box. Before that I was running the PATA drive and I was getting noticeable lag in games and could only burn DVD's at a max burn rate of about 11x. My graphics card and DVD burner was getting bottlenecked by the PATA interface.

So, I can't say there is a noticeable difference between SATA 2 and PATA, I simply didn't try it like that. But I can say 100% there is a difference between a PATA drive and a pair of SATA drives set up in RAID.

But like you said BawA, I don't think there will be a major performance difference if I set the drives up like I said. But, I'm still wanting to throw it out there and see what people have to say. Especially because I don't have the time to just go for it right now, other wise I'd just do it and see what happens.