PATA maximum right now is 133 MB/s whereas SATA is 150 MB/s with SATA II reaching 350 MB/s entry to 6 Gb/s max.
You can call it quoting from press releases, etc etc, but one thing you can't do is deny the facts. SATA and all of it's implementations are faster then PATA. That quote simply states facts. I mean it sounds to me like your trying to persuade him from going with SATA. Is that the case? Why? If not, what are you trying to do?
So since most hard drives that are pata don't even use pata 133 they just use ata 100 since it can't saturate it, what would the be the point of adding more throughput?
Are you kidding me? In your state of mind, so what's the point of adding Gigabit ethernet? Or for that matter, PCI-X. What's the point of moving from AGP to x16? I think you answered your own question. Just because PATA gets saturated dosen't mean SATA is. Different technologies there...
And just in case you still want to argue that there is no point to SATA, prepare to be pwned. Check out this hdtach benchmark (along with many others) that shows SATA pulling way ahead, especially in read speed.
"So with Serial ATA making it's presence felt in mainstream solutions for storage devices the decision is being presented on whether to save couple of dollars and stick with PATA a little while longer or go for the extra advantages that SATA clearly offers above PATA
besides the extra performance increase as we have seen with the benchmarks."
For your sake, next time do some research before you spout.