<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Toshiba Announces TR200 SATA Consumer SSD Featuring 64-Layer 3D NAND	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/toshiba-announces-tr200-sata-consumer-ssd-featuring-64-layer-3d-nand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/toshiba-announces-tr200-sata-consumer-ssd-featuring-64-layer-3d-nand/</link>
	<description>The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource &#124;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 02:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: dravo1		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/toshiba-announces-tr200-sata-consumer-ssd-featuring-64-layer-3d-nand/#comment-24123</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dravo1]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2017 02:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=96496#comment-24123</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The packaging seems to indicate that the OCZ brand is officially dead. Am I right?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The packaging seems to indicate that the OCZ brand is officially dead. Am I right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rados?aw Or?owski		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/toshiba-announces-tr200-sata-consumer-ssd-featuring-64-layer-3d-nand/#comment-24122</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rados?aw Or?owski]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 07:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=96496#comment-24122</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[no 120 GB option. That&#039;s new. Nice params, while saying its power efficient, but no data to prove. still if its under 85$ for 240 I will take one :)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>no 120 GB option. That&#8217;s new. Nice params, while saying its power efficient, but no data to prove. still if its under 85$ for 240 I will take one 🙂</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
