<?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: Microsoft ActiveSync 4.2 Beta Released For Testing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cybernetnews.com/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cybernetnews.com/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/</link>
	<description>Technology News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:53:50 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-2081</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/04/27/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/#comment-2081</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I have been using 3.8 for quite some time now. I just can&#039;t imagine not having the WiFi synchronization.

-Ryan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I have been using 3.8 for quite some time now. I just can&#8217;t imagine not having the WiFi synchronization.</p>
<p>-Ryan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mediaphile</title>
		<link>http://cybernetnews.com/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-2080</link>
		<dc:creator>mediaphile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/04/27/microsoft-activesync-42-beta-released-for-testing/#comment-2080</guid>
		<description>Looks like I&#039;ll be sticking with 3.8 for the time being. Why remove a feature, even if it&#039;s buggy? It worked enough of the time that it was useful, and when it didn&#039;t work I was in the same position I would be now that they&#039;ve removed the feature completely. Guess this update has more to do with Vista than it does with Activesync itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like I&#8217;ll be sticking with 3.8 for the time being. Why remove a feature, even if it&#8217;s buggy? It worked enough of the time that it was useful, and when it didn&#8217;t work I was in the same position I would be now that they&#8217;ve removed the feature completely. Guess this update has more to do with Vista than it does with Activesync itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
