<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://hothardware.com/cs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results matching tags 'WD', 'Green', and 'Windows 7'</title><link>http://hothardware.com/cs/search/SearchResults.aspx?s=12&amp;o=DateDescending&amp;tag=WD,Green,Windows+7&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results matching tags 'WD', 'Green', and 'Windows 7'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: WD Launches Largest Ever 3TB Drive, HH Tested</title><link>http://hothardware.com/cs/forums/p/51405/379127.aspx#379127</link><pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:08:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">ba4e517a-01ef-48a6-b096-821b95afe388:379127</guid><dc:creator>Abeiis</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Great reporting - I wonder if the same benchmark outcome holds true when the drive is in a RAID-5 configuration. To me, this drive is meant to&amp;nbsp;be in a RAID5 Array; it will save energy and will render better performance than when used in a standalone configuration... what do you think?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also would like to know (I may have missed it) where it is sold for $239?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>