5 Oct
2012
5 Oct
'12
9:46 p.m.
> The source/vintage makes tham all probably
"1.2M" (anybody who wants to
> argue the impreciseness of that designation can come up with a CONCISE
> (not paragraph long) and unambiguous name for that type of drive)
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Jules Richardson wrote:
Kevin.
That is just as good as type 1, 0, 2, 7, etc.!
Sure that Kevin won't mind?