<?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: SDK Update (statically linked runtime)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/</link>
	<description>Official Blog - The Full Story</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 07:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vojtech</title>
		<link>http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Vojtech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rawzor.com/blog/?p=15#comment-91</guid>
		<description>Yes, I meant 64 bit version of SDK. Thanks for answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I meant 64 bit version of SDK. Thanks for answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sachin Garg</title>
		<link>http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Sachin Garg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rawzor.com/blog/?p=15#comment-90</guid>
		<description>I am &lt;i&gt;guessing&lt;/i&gt; there won't be any performance advantage in having a 64-bit version as Rawzor doesn't needs large amount of memory, so we shouldn't need a separate 64-bit version (it will only add confusion among users as to which version to download).

However, I will be releasing the 64-bit version of SDK soon (within weeks) so that 64-bit applications can also add support for .rwz format. This is needed because 64-bit applications can not link to 32 bit SDKs.

If any performance is noticed, I will release the 64-bit version of the Rawzor too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am <i>guessing</i> there won&#8217;t be any performance advantage in having a 64-bit version as Rawzor doesn&#8217;t needs large amount of memory, so we shouldn&#8217;t need a separate 64-bit version (it will only add confusion among users as to which version to download).</p>
<p>However, I will be releasing the 64-bit version of SDK soon (within weeks) so that 64-bit applications can also add support for .rwz format. This is needed because 64-bit applications can not link to 32 bit SDKs.</p>
<p>If any performance is noticed, I will release the 64-bit version of the Rawzor too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vojtech</title>
		<link>http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>Vojtech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rawzor.com/blog/?p=15#comment-89</guid>
		<description>Have you considered 64 bit Windows version?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you considered 64 bit Windows version?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ss</title>
		<link>http://www.rawzor.com/blog/2008/07/26/sdk-update-statically-linked-runtime/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>ss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rawzor.com/blog/?p=15#comment-20</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;[Comment deleted, troll]&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>[Comment deleted, troll]</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
