<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://updates.zdnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[search failover Resources | ZDNet]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/search+failover.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, technical articles, and blog posts relating to search failover]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="1" found="1" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Do our Operating Systems need Search Failover?]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-17924-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=64585&messageID=1201841&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Do our Operating Systems need Search Failover?Update your post Jason, it wasn't AT&T faultn/tRE: Do our Operating Systems need Search Failover?If this existed, I'm sure someone will find a reason to sue Microsoft cause one Search provider is listed higher than the other.Oh I long for the glory days of...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 16:11:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/web+browsers.html"><![CDATA[Web browsers]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/now+it.html"><![CDATA[NOW IT]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/wait-time.html"><![CDATA[wait-time]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/search+failover.html"><![CDATA[Search Failover]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/failover.html"><![CDATA[failover]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/operating+system.html"><![CDATA[operating system]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/google+inc..html"><![CDATA[Google Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">GOOG</category>
		<category domain="tickers">GOOG</category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
