|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 04/26/06 04:07
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:28:09 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> Gave us:
>Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>> Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:37:23 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>> <nothere@notnow.never> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> Then I guess this doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> I just went by what I read months ago.
>>>
>>> Also, I saw what seagate showed as their offerings a week or so ago,
>>> and did not see that drive or form factor listed. I guess I didn't get
>>> to their main site.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter though.
>>>
>>> The smaller form factor I mentioned is coming, and nothing you said
>>> deriding them is true. They are quite viable, and are even used by the
>>> military in situations where weight and space are considerations, like
>>> UAVs and UGVs., so there is no reason for a business to fear them
>>> failing on them, and they are actually EASIER to make.
>>>
>>> Less is indeed more.
>>
>> You are an unreasoning moron. Think before you type.
>>
>> Name me one single disk drive 2.5" or smaller with a 1 million hour
>> MTBF. I can name you dozens of 3.5" disk drives with more than 1 million
>> hour MTBF.
>
>What's the matter? Can't find any enterprise quality 2.5" drives or has
>the cat got your filthy tongue?
>
Do you even know what a UAV or a UGV is? How about the deck of a
carrier? Ever heard of RAID level 5? It doesn't matter if a drive
fails.
Guess how much less nine laptop drives weigh than nine 3.5" form
factor drives.
While you are at it, figure out why we went to 3.5" form factor
from 5.25". The reason wasn't MTBF, dipshit.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|