<?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: Adobe Flash getting faster on the Mac</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.itwriting.com/blog/2204-adobe-flash-getting-faster-on-the-mac.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.itwriting.com/blog/2204-adobe-flash-getting-faster-on-the-mac.html</link>
	<description>Tech writing blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:13:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kleine</title>
		<link>http://www.itwriting.com/blog/2204-adobe-flash-getting-faster-on-the-mac.html/comment-page-1#comment-196569</link>
		<dc:creator>kleine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 10:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.itwriting.com/blog/2204-adobe-flash-getting-faster-on-the-mac.html#comment-196569</guid>
		<description>Flash player 10.0 (71), 10.1 (80) and 10.1 (gala; 75) (the latter two are betas) make no difference in terms of cpu usage (tested on the same youtube videos). Safari is better on Mac with its H.264 option but it writes to disk too often which is bad for ssd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Flash player 10.0 (71), 10.1 (80) and 10.1 (gala; 75) (the latter two are betas) make no difference in terms of cpu usage (tested on the same youtube videos). Safari is better on Mac with its H.264 option but it writes to disk too often which is bad for ssd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
