|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 04/26/06 03:58
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:26:58 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> Gave us:
>Congratulations on stating the obvious. The use of perpendicular
>technology was, as I said, deferred due to other, cheaper technologies
>being used instead.
What is so much more costly about it, chump?
It costs less! At over four times the capacity, the cost per GB is
far less.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|