<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Luxology modo - universal binary in 20 minutes</title>
	<link>http://www.postpixel.com.au/2005/07/08/luxology-modo-universal-binary-in-20-minutes/</link>
	<description>because pixels look better after post</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MacRumors MacWorld roundup</title>
		<link>http://www.postpixel.com.au/2005/07/08/luxology-modo-universal-binary-in-20-minutes/#comment-198</link>
		<author>The Woodwork &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MacRumors MacWorld roundup</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.postpixel.com.au/2005/07/08/luxology-modo-universal-binary-in-20-minutes/#comment-198</guid>
		<description>[...] It is important to note that Apple&#8217;s own benchmarks are contrived: Those are two universal apps that they are comparing (check it out). I find this amusing that nobody has noticed this in their rush to bow to all things x86. Remember the days when we were quick to fault Apple for their contrived Photoshop benchmarks? How are these any different? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] It is important to note that Apple&#8217;s own benchmarks are contrived: Those are two universal apps that they are comparing (check it out). I find this amusing that nobody has noticed this in their rush to bow to all things x86. Remember the days when we were quick to fault Apple for their contrived Photoshop benchmarks? How are these any different? [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
