Be serious. People who work in the industry are acquainted with those naming guides very well but still continue to use the term SATA II though some seem to use both SATA II and SATA 3Gbps.
As for whether SATA II is marketing hype or just a little improvement over SATA I, I can hardly agree and perhaps that was what prompted you to say SATA II doesn’t exist.
Can you connect 60 IDE drives to just four SATA I connectors? I can connect that many to four SATA II connectors (if I had those hardware.) NCQ or similar technology was supported long before the creation of SATA of course, but it was SATA II that explicitly added NCQ support for consumer hard disk drives (that is, excluding SCSI.) Hardly any SATA I HDDs had NCQ and the few SATA I HDD models that supported NCQ were actually those what IBM and such wanted to incorporate some of the SATA II features into existing SATA I lines before the official release of SATA II specifications. There are also eSATA, xSTAT, 2-meter SATA cables, 8-meter SATA cables… not supported in SATA I, but in SATA II. Hot-plugging is also one of the new features standard in SATA II and there are more. If you can call all of those appearing in SATA II (from IDE/PATA/SATA I), what more did you expect that would cost just as much as legacy PATA and predecessor SATA I?
Longhorn won’t be officially used and so will be Presler, but do we care?
As for using SATA II name to impress consumers, didn’t you say SATA II is the old name before? Which is older than SATA II that is used for SATA II? Manufacturers and reviewers still say SATA II because they have waited for SATA II even before the first commercial introduction of SATA on ICH5®.
And lastly, why buy PATA when SATA II costs nearly the same? Even SATA II isn’t enough yet compared to the latest (or 2-gen old) SCIS though it’d take at least two more years to add more.