<?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: Firefox 3.0.2 Released</title> <atom:link href="http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/</link> <description>Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:23:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Drew</title><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/comment-page-1/#comment-15062</link> <dc:creator>Drew</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:00:56 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/#comment-15062</guid> <description>I&#039;m running an Intel Quad Core processor with 6Gb RAM so I had a bit of an issue finding any noticeable difference in memory usage. I&#039;m all for a good FF update regardless though! :)
Thanks for the heads up Rich.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m running an Intel Quad Core processor with 6Gb RAM so I had a bit of an issue finding any noticeable difference in memory usage. I&#8217;m all for a good FF update regardless though! <img
src='http://pcmech.pcmediainc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br
/> Thanks for the heads up Rich.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Sharron (kkomp)</title><link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/comment-page-1/#comment-15039</link> <dc:creator>Sharron (kkomp)</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:27:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/article/firefox-302-released/#comment-15039</guid> <description>Actually it does appear that 3.02 seems to use around 90KB less RAM from initial findings, at least on this computer (AMD Athlon 64x2, 2GB RAM, ... blah.). I&#039;ll have to verify that over the next few days, but it seems to have fixed something anyway.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually it does appear that 3.02 seems to use around 90KB less RAM from initial findings, at least on this computer (AMD Athlon 64&#215;2, 2GB RAM, &#8230; blah.). I&#8217;ll have to verify that over the next few days, but it seems to have fixed something anyway.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 33/43 queries in 0.018 seconds using apc
Content Delivery Network via pcmech.pcmediainc.netdna-cdn.com

Served from: www.pcmech.com @ 2012-02-14 08:34:01 -->
