<?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: Windows Media Player vs Winamp</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sineadcochrane.com/2006/03/29/windows-media-player-vs-winamp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sineadcochrane.com/2006/03/29/windows-media-player-vs-winamp/</link>
	<description>create and control</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:39:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: WinampRock</title>
		<link>http://www.sineadcochrane.com/2006/03/29/windows-media-player-vs-winamp/#comment-64232</link>
		<dc:creator>WinampRock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sineadcochrane.com/?p=7#comment-64232</guid>
		<description>I agree, winamp is way more better than Windows Media player. I switched to winamp after found out that WMP is slow like snail especially when you have multiple software running on background. Winamp is fast and reliable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, winamp is way more better than Windows Media player. I switched to winamp after found out that WMP is slow like snail especially when you have multiple software running on background. Winamp is fast and reliable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
