<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mac OS X 10.5.4 update arrived</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sixsigns.com/2008/06/30/mac-os-x-1054-update-arrived/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sixsigns.com/2008/06/30/mac-os-x-1054-update-arrived/</link>
	<description>Enrich people's lives and web experience</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Al Rydberg</title>
		<link>http://blog.sixsigns.com/2008/06/30/mac-os-x-1054-update-arrived/#comment-367</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Rydberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sixsigns.com/?p=370#comment-367</guid>
		<description>Gee, the Combo Update is 561 MB! Of course, if you update to 10.5.3, it is only 88 MB (not 59).  Not bad coding speed for one month. Of course, if you updated to 10.5.3, you may have altogether trashed your Mac.....

10.5.3 was an even worse update than 10.5.1.  It may be time to start asking who is minding the store at Apple, as Leopard has been, by far, the worst OS to be released...and I started with 6.2!

AR</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Gee, the Combo Update is 561 MB! Of course, if you update to 10.5.3, it is only 88 MB (not 59).  Not bad coding speed for one month. Of course, if you updated to 10.5.3, you may have altogether trashed your Mac&#8230;..</p>
<p>10.5.3 was an even worse update than 10.5.1.  It may be time to start asking who is minding the store at Apple, as Leopard has been, by far, the worst OS to be released&#8230;and I started with 6.2!</p>
<p>AR<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
