<?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: New Facebook Despite Protests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/new-facebook-despite-protests/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/new-facebook-despite-protests/</link>
	<description>Digital Trends is your home for technology news, CE product reviews, mobile app reviews and daily videos.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:14:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/new-facebook-despite-protests/#comment-57359</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitaltrends.com#comment-57359</guid>
		<description>The main problem I have with it is that it looks bare and unfinished. If it had a background, like the Facebook for iPhone app has, then it would look less bare. I&#039;ve still not been turned over to the new Facebook yet, but am dreading it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On why they can&#039;t keep both versions running, there is no reason why they can&#039;t - at best, it&#039;ll be a few CSS files that need keeping, which, let&#039;s be honest, take up less than 1mb each. What&#039;s 10mb to Facebook? Nothing. Consider that 8.6million photos are uploaded to Facebook every day, each of about 1mb, 10mb really is nothing to them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&#039;s change if change is unwanted?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The main problem I have with it is that it looks bare and unfinished. If it had a background, like the Facebook for iPhone app has, then it would look less bare. I&#039;ve still not been turned over to the new Facebook yet, but am dreading it.</p>
<p>On why they can&#039;t keep both versions running, there is no reason why they can&#039;t &#8211; at best, it&#039;ll be a few CSS files that need keeping, which, let&#039;s be honest, take up less than 1mb each. What&#039;s 10mb to Facebook? Nothing. Consider that 8.6million photos are uploaded to Facebook every day, each of about 1mb, 10mb really is nothing to them.</p>
<p>What&#039;s change if change is unwanted?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/new-facebook-despite-protests/#comment-57361</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitaltrends.com#comment-57361</guid>
		<description>&quot;He kept telling me it was to make it &#039;more user friendly.â€™â€ he told the BBC. &quot;But they&#039;re smart guys. Why couldn&#039;t they figure out to make both designs compatible and let those that want to stay with the old design do that?&quot;&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree completely!  They&#039;re clearly smart enough to have designed the whole thing...yet they claim they can&#039;t maintain both versions?!  Wow, what complete imbeciles.  Nobody can see what they would lose if they&#039;d provide both options, and nobody understands why they won&#039;t leave it alone period.  It&#039;s a crummy, crummy &quot;design&quot; which looks like a child created it (no offense to children).&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;He kept telling me it was to make it &#039;more user friendly.â€™â€ he told the BBC. &#8220;But they&#039;re smart guys. Why couldn&#039;t they figure out to make both designs compatible and let those that want to stay with the old design do that?&#8221;"</p>
<p>I agree completely!  They&#039;re clearly smart enough to have designed the whole thing&#8230;yet they claim they can&#039;t maintain both versions?!  Wow, what complete imbeciles.  Nobody can see what they would lose if they&#039;d provide both options, and nobody understands why they won&#039;t leave it alone period.  It&#039;s a crummy, crummy &#8220;design&#8221; which looks like a child created it (no offense to children).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/new-facebook-despite-protests/#comment-57360</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digitaltrends.com#comment-57360</guid>
		<description>It is better, it is more user friendly, it is cleaner... it doesn&#039;t take long to figure it out.  The people that are complaining represent a 1/4 of the facebook users... so, apparently the majority should adhere to the wants of the few?  Sound like liberals to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is better, it is more user friendly, it is cleaner&#8230; it doesn&#039;t take long to figure it out.  The people that are complaining represent a 1/4 of the facebook users&#8230; so, apparently the majority should adhere to the wants of the few?  Sound like liberals to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Content Delivery Network via cdn.digitaltrends.com

Served from: www.digitaltrends.com @ 2012-02-14 09:18:48 -->
