<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_0254255</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Hard Drive and SSD Performance Analyzed</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243615920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">bigwophh</a> writes <i>"Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of performance. With that in mind, this article looks at <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Windows-7-Disk-Performance-Analyzed">how various types of disks perform under Windows 7</a>, both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks. Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD. SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested. Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives. Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance, particularly with regard to solid state drives."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bigwophh writes " Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista , Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh , new light , especially in terms of performance .
With that in mind , this article looks at how various types of disks perform under Windows 7 , both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks .
Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD .
SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested .
Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives .
Looking at the performance data , it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance , particularly with regard to solid state drives .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bigwophh writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of performance.
With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of disks perform under Windows 7, both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks.
Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD.
SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested.
Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives.
Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance, particularly with regard to solid state drives.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137417</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1243605060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a = 9.8 meters per second squared</htmltext>
<tokenext>a = 9.8 meters per second squared</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a = 9.8 meters per second squared</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28284019</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just download the Windows 7 RC and give it a try?  Since Microsoft are giving out free licence keys valid until next July (albeit with forced 2-hourly shutdowns starting next March) and an option to upgrade to the release version if you want to, it's got to be worth trying given all the trouble Vista is giving you.  And if you don't like it, you can try one of the other options afterwards, like the SUSE and XP VM option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just download the Windows 7 RC and give it a try ?
Since Microsoft are giving out free licence keys valid until next July ( albeit with forced 2-hourly shutdowns starting next March ) and an option to upgrade to the release version if you want to , it 's got to be worth trying given all the trouble Vista is giving you .
And if you do n't like it , you can try one of the other options afterwards , like the SUSE and XP VM option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just download the Windows 7 RC and give it a try?
Since Microsoft are giving out free licence keys valid until next July (albeit with forced 2-hourly shutdowns starting next March) and an option to upgrade to the release version if you want to, it's got to be worth trying given all the trouble Vista is giving you.
And if you don't like it, you can try one of the other options afterwards, like the SUSE and XP VM option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139123</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Foredecker</author>
	<datestamp>1243613400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Win7 detects SSD's for this purpose (disabling defrag) by measuring Random I/O performance of the device, not by using the ATA command set.  The reason is that the reporting is unreliable on many devices and with some drivers.   We needed something that worked every time.   Measuring random I/O rate is a very reliable way to distinguish SSD from Mechanical devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Win7 detects SSD 's for this purpose ( disabling defrag ) by measuring Random I/O performance of the device , not by using the ATA command set .
The reason is that the reporting is unreliable on many devices and with some drivers .
We needed something that worked every time .
Measuring random I/O rate is a very reliable way to distinguish SSD from Mechanical devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Win7 detects SSD's for this purpose (disabling defrag) by measuring Random I/O performance of the device, not by using the ATA command set.
The reason is that the reporting is unreliable on many devices and with some drivers.
We needed something that worked every time.
Measuring random I/O rate is a very reliable way to distinguish SSD from Mechanical devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Seriousity</author>
	<datestamp>1243533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is irrelevant to many of us ; for a frame of reference , how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138129</id>
	<title>Re:Vista is not slow!</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1243608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only power users that consider Vista to be slow are the ones who use XP cause they've never used Vista.</p></div><p>Or those of us who use Vista everyday. But not ignoring us would destroy your point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only power users that consider Vista to be slow are the ones who use XP cause they 've never used Vista.Or those of us who use Vista everyday .
But not ignoring us would destroy your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only power users that consider Vista to be slow are the ones who use XP cause they've never used Vista.Or those of us who use Vista everyday.
But not ignoring us would destroy your point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135707</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1243629000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is is fast enough to get first post?</p><p>(Sarcasm guys)</p></div><p>Depends. What were you using when making that comment?</p><p>Anyway, why doesn't the article compare to XP as well? I'm sure 7 is beter than Vista, but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anyway. Will I see any benefit moving from XP though?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is is fast enough to get first post ?
( Sarcasm guys ) Depends .
What were you using when making that comment ? Anyway , why does n't the article compare to XP as well ?
I 'm sure 7 is beter than Vista , but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anyway .
Will I see any benefit moving from XP though ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is is fast enough to get first post?
(Sarcasm guys)Depends.
What were you using when making that comment?Anyway, why doesn't the article compare to XP as well?
I'm sure 7 is beter than Vista, but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anyway.
Will I see any benefit moving from XP though?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139211</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1243613820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?</i></p><p>Mechanical HDs will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.</p><p>The question you should be asking yourself is "When can I get an SSD at an affordable price?" rather than "How well does the old HD perform?"</p><p>The key issue with Win7 is that it does include the TRIM command that improves SSD performance and longevity where WinXP and Vista does not.</p><p>That said, SSD improves any OS performance, it is just that Win7 was made with SSD file systems in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is irrelevant to many of us ; for a frame of reference , how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP ? Mechanical HDs will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.The question you should be asking yourself is " When can I get an SSD at an affordable price ?
" rather than " How well does the old HD perform ?
" The key issue with Win7 is that it does include the TRIM command that improves SSD performance and longevity where WinXP and Vista does not.That said , SSD improves any OS performance , it is just that Win7 was made with SSD file systems in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?Mechanical HDs will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.The question you should be asking yourself is "When can I get an SSD at an affordable price?
" rather than "How well does the old HD perform?
"The key issue with Win7 is that it does include the TRIM command that improves SSD performance and longevity where WinXP and Vista does not.That said, SSD improves any OS performance, it is just that Win7 was made with SSD file systems in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138913</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?</p></div><p>If anyone can spare one, I need it to run Firefox with 64-bit Flash on Linux.</p><p>Also I need 16 or 24 G of RAM, please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills ? If anyone can spare one , I need it to run Firefox with 64-bit Flash on Linux.Also I need 16 or 24 G of RAM , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?If anyone can spare one, I need it to run Firefox with 64-bit Flash on Linux.Also I need 16 or 24 G of RAM, please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139971</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243617900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7...</p></div><p>Thats quite the underclock you have going on there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7...Thats quite the underclock you have going on there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7...Thats quite the underclock you have going on there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139653</id>
	<title>Go for it.</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1243615980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first got my mac pro (2 times 4 core Xeon 2.8 GHz with 8GB of RAM) I installed XP in Virtual Box, just for kicks. That was the fastest install of Windows XP I have ever witnessed and it ran way faster that on my previous PC (3.2 GHz Pentium IV with 2 GB of RAM).</p><p>I don't really need XP for anything, so I didn't keep that setup, but it was good to know that running XP in VM is a viable option for all but the most power hungry apps (I would not run video processing apps like that for example). But then again, Windows in general has no software that I use that is not available for OS X as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first got my mac pro ( 2 times 4 core Xeon 2.8 GHz with 8GB of RAM ) I installed XP in Virtual Box , just for kicks .
That was the fastest install of Windows XP I have ever witnessed and it ran way faster that on my previous PC ( 3.2 GHz Pentium IV with 2 GB of RAM ) .I do n't really need XP for anything , so I did n't keep that setup , but it was good to know that running XP in VM is a viable option for all but the most power hungry apps ( I would not run video processing apps like that for example ) .
But then again , Windows in general has no software that I use that is not available for OS X as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first got my mac pro (2 times 4 core Xeon 2.8 GHz with 8GB of RAM) I installed XP in Virtual Box, just for kicks.
That was the fastest install of Windows XP I have ever witnessed and it ran way faster that on my previous PC (3.2 GHz Pentium IV with 2 GB of RAM).I don't really need XP for anything, so I didn't keep that setup, but it was good to know that running XP in VM is a viable option for all but the most power hungry apps (I would not run video processing apps like that for example).
But then again, Windows in general has no software that I use that is not available for OS X as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135091</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243535280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.</p></div><p>Right.  So then, can you please point us in the direction of the PC operating system that is "on time" according to your criteria?  You can scratch Linux off that list, it's still stuck in the 90s.  OS X only runs on Apple hardware.  Is there an OS out there that only you know about?  Please share it with us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world 's PCs by half a decade.Right .
So then , can you please point us in the direction of the PC operating system that is " on time " according to your criteria ?
You can scratch Linux off that list , it 's still stuck in the 90s .
OS X only runs on Apple hardware .
Is there an OS out there that only you know about ?
Please share it with us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.Right.
So then, can you please point us in the direction of the PC operating system that is "on time" according to your criteria?
You can scratch Linux off that list, it's still stuck in the 90s.
OS X only runs on Apple hardware.
Is there an OS out there that only you know about?
Please share it with us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136351</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243594020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well i can say this: Windows 7 rocks.<br>I use Windows 7 64-bit on a dual-core AMD X2. 4200+<br>4GB RAM. And i have two USB drives: a Seagate 250GB external drive and a Flash Drive for ReadyBoost.<br>Two internal drives: Hitachi 7200 RPM and a Seagate velociraptor as primary drive for OS.<br>I must say that Windows 7 is much much faster than even XP ever was.<br>The external drives are able to write/read at 20MB/second considering that they are USB 2.0 and i have four peripherals dangling out of same USB rack.<br>Internal drives are faster by about 15-20\% than XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well i can say this : Windows 7 rocks.I use Windows 7 64-bit on a dual-core AMD X2 .
4200 + 4GB RAM .
And i have two USB drives : a Seagate 250GB external drive and a Flash Drive for ReadyBoost.Two internal drives : Hitachi 7200 RPM and a Seagate velociraptor as primary drive for OS.I must say that Windows 7 is much much faster than even XP ever was.The external drives are able to write/read at 20MB/second considering that they are USB 2.0 and i have four peripherals dangling out of same USB rack.Internal drives are faster by about 15-20 \ % than XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well i can say this: Windows 7 rocks.I use Windows 7 64-bit on a dual-core AMD X2.
4200+4GB RAM.
And i have two USB drives: a Seagate 250GB external drive and a Flash Drive for ReadyBoost.Two internal drives: Hitachi 7200 RPM and a Seagate velociraptor as primary drive for OS.I must say that Windows 7 is much much faster than even XP ever was.The external drives are able to write/read at 20MB/second considering that they are USB 2.0 and i have four peripherals dangling out of same USB rack.Internal drives are faster by about 15-20\% than XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135115</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remove your blind rose-tinted open-source fanboy glasses and type that comment out again.</p><p>Just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad. Open-source is so fragmented these days you Linux zealots are to blame for operating systems being "set back" by half a decade. Pick a fucking window manager, kernel and source distribution and stick with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove your blind rose-tinted open-source fanboy glasses and type that comment out again.Just because it 's from Microsoft does n't mean it 's bad .
Open-source is so fragmented these days you Linux zealots are to blame for operating systems being " set back " by half a decade .
Pick a fucking window manager , kernel and source distribution and stick with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove your blind rose-tinted open-source fanboy glasses and type that comment out again.Just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad.
Open-source is so fragmented these days you Linux zealots are to blame for operating systems being "set back" by half a decade.
Pick a fucking window manager, kernel and source distribution and stick with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139901</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1243617480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting. I've heard that the disk usage on 7100 is less than for 7000, and that they've trimmed things down quite a bit. I've also heard that the performance is better, but I'm only running the RC on a grossly overspecced system, so I can't really comment on low-end performance. But people have had both outcomes... faster and slower with the RC, possibly depending on how it was installed, and what drivers are used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
I 've heard that the disk usage on 7100 is less than for 7000 , and that they 've trimmed things down quite a bit .
I 've also heard that the performance is better , but I 'm only running the RC on a grossly overspecced system , so I ca n't really comment on low-end performance .
But people have had both outcomes... faster and slower with the RC , possibly depending on how it was installed , and what drivers are used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
I've heard that the disk usage on 7100 is less than for 7000, and that they've trimmed things down quite a bit.
I've also heard that the performance is better, but I'm only running the RC on a grossly overspecced system, so I can't really comment on low-end performance.
But people have had both outcomes... faster and slower with the RC, possibly depending on how it was installed, and what drivers are used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136509</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stop clicking on every 14\_yr\_old\_girl.jpg.exe you see and you won't be having that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stop clicking on every 14 \ _yr \ _old \ _girl.jpg.exe you see and you wo n't be having that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop clicking on every 14\_yr\_old\_girl.jpg.exe you see and you won't be having that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135959</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243588860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only on Slashdot could an inaccurate post be modded "Informative" simply because it "bigs up" Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only on Slashdot could an inaccurate post be modded " Informative " simply because it " bigs up " Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only on Slashdot could an inaccurate post be modded "Informative" simply because it "bigs up" Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1243536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?</p></div><p>Even more importantly, in the particular frame of reference, where XP is moving at a velocity of 38.5\% c relative to Windows 7, with a time of passing of 92.3\% relative to XP, do these calculations add up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is irrelevant to many of us ; for a frame of reference , how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP ? Even more importantly , in the particular frame of reference , where XP is moving at a velocity of 38.5 \ % c relative to Windows 7 , with a time of passing of 92.3 \ % relative to XP , do these calculations add up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?Even more importantly, in the particular frame of reference, where XP is moving at a velocity of 38.5\% c relative to Windows 7, with a time of passing of 92.3\% relative to XP, do these calculations add up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136959</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1243601880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?</p></div><p>I'm not sure how Windows handles this since I only run it for games and all I really do there is click on icons, but the PC Unix systems still have a way to go to handle multi-core CPUs efficiently.</p><p>I'm regularly looking at my (dual core) machines overloading one CPU while the other one is mostly idle. I know that it's fairly difficult to handle efficient load balancing, and that there are lots of apps that don't scale gracefully. But the CPU intensive current desktops really should start to look into this (presumably they already are, hopefully). Single CPU (or single core) machines are soon going to disappear, apparently even the CPU itself is getting distributed with things like CUDA. Getting the software to deal with this is the real challenge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills ? I 'm not sure how Windows handles this since I only run it for games and all I really do there is click on icons , but the PC Unix systems still have a way to go to handle multi-core CPUs efficiently.I 'm regularly looking at my ( dual core ) machines overloading one CPU while the other one is mostly idle .
I know that it 's fairly difficult to handle efficient load balancing , and that there are lots of apps that do n't scale gracefully .
But the CPU intensive current desktops really should start to look into this ( presumably they already are , hopefully ) .
Single CPU ( or single core ) machines are soon going to disappear , apparently even the CPU itself is getting distributed with things like CUDA .
Getting the software to deal with this is the real challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?I'm not sure how Windows handles this since I only run it for games and all I really do there is click on icons, but the PC Unix systems still have a way to go to handle multi-core CPUs efficiently.I'm regularly looking at my (dual core) machines overloading one CPU while the other one is mostly idle.
I know that it's fairly difficult to handle efficient load balancing, and that there are lots of apps that don't scale gracefully.
But the CPU intensive current desktops really should start to look into this (presumably they already are, hopefully).
Single CPU (or single core) machines are soon going to disappear, apparently even the CPU itself is getting distributed with things like CUDA.
Getting the software to deal with this is the real challenge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140647</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, to 42 to be precise</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , to 42 to be precise</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, to 42 to be precise</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139863</id>
	<title>One thing that will make or break windows 7</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1243617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the push from OEM's and Microsoft for using the 64bit version. I feel a lot of good would be done if they actually made the transition to 64bit on machines that are capable rather then installing the 32bit version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the push from OEM 's and Microsoft for using the 64bit version .
I feel a lot of good would be done if they actually made the transition to 64bit on machines that are capable rather then installing the 32bit version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the push from OEM's and Microsoft for using the 64bit version.
I feel a lot of good would be done if they actually made the transition to 64bit on machines that are capable rather then installing the 32bit version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28148401</id>
	<title>TRIM?</title>
	<author>Chiindi</author>
	<datestamp>1243684560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VISTA not bringing in the cash? Has MS gone into the TRIM business? I want to see Bill Gates in his natty pimp suit, purple fuzzy hat and stretch limo. We can all use more TRIM!</htmltext>
<tokenext>VISTA not bringing in the cash ?
Has MS gone into the TRIM business ?
I want to see Bill Gates in his natty pimp suit , purple fuzzy hat and stretch limo .
We can all use more TRIM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VISTA not bringing in the cash?
Has MS gone into the TRIM business?
I want to see Bill Gates in his natty pimp suit, purple fuzzy hat and stretch limo.
We can all use more TRIM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137615</id>
	<title>Many-core machines and their application</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1243606200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?</p></div><p> <tt>emerge world</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills ?
emerge world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?
emerge world
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28148391</id>
	<title>So:</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1243684440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So yadda, yadda, Windows 7 is better than Vista. I should hope so, since Vista is craptastic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So yadda , yadda , Windows 7 is better than Vista .
I should hope so , since Vista is craptastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yadda, yadda, Windows 7 is better than Vista.
I should hope so, since Vista is craptastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140705</id>
	<title>Re:Moving off-topic a little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's been fixed since Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's been fixed since Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's been fixed since Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138183</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, DOS still kicks XPs ass. NT4 kicks XPs ass. Pretty much every previous OS kicks XPs ass in performance. When XP came out it was lambasted for being only eye-candy and for being dog-slow. Now slashholes herald it.</p><p>Unfortunately, previous OSes offer so much less functionality that people like and use XP.</p><p>Perhaps Win7 will do the same to XP as XP did to NT4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , DOS still kicks XPs ass .
NT4 kicks XPs ass .
Pretty much every previous OS kicks XPs ass in performance .
When XP came out it was lambasted for being only eye-candy and for being dog-slow .
Now slashholes herald it.Unfortunately , previous OSes offer so much less functionality that people like and use XP.Perhaps Win7 will do the same to XP as XP did to NT4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, DOS still kicks XPs ass.
NT4 kicks XPs ass.
Pretty much every previous OS kicks XPs ass in performance.
When XP came out it was lambasted for being only eye-candy and for being dog-slow.
Now slashholes herald it.Unfortunately, previous OSes offer so much less functionality that people like and use XP.Perhaps Win7 will do the same to XP as XP did to NT4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137105</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>xenolion</author>
	<datestamp>1243603080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To answer your question from what I have seen with my testing of Win7 it doesn't call home as much as Vista but you must remember its still not a RTM so its going to call more then the final product. God did I hate Vista I was stuck on it cause XP64 didn't work well on my hardware. right now Im running build 7127 and it has the speed of the beta release and the fixes of the RC, as for gaming the only problem I have found is punkbuster gives an error here and there but that could just need updated on their end nothing I can do there. As for Apps what are you looking to run is the question I have yet to find something that didnt work right for me but I have updated a good bit of what I use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer your question from what I have seen with my testing of Win7 it does n't call home as much as Vista but you must remember its still not a RTM so its going to call more then the final product .
God did I hate Vista I was stuck on it cause XP64 did n't work well on my hardware .
right now Im running build 7127 and it has the speed of the beta release and the fixes of the RC , as for gaming the only problem I have found is punkbuster gives an error here and there but that could just need updated on their end nothing I can do there .
As for Apps what are you looking to run is the question I have yet to find something that didnt work right for me but I have updated a good bit of what I use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer your question from what I have seen with my testing of Win7 it doesn't call home as much as Vista but you must remember its still not a RTM so its going to call more then the final product.
God did I hate Vista I was stuck on it cause XP64 didn't work well on my hardware.
right now Im running build 7127 and it has the speed of the beta release and the fixes of the RC, as for gaming the only problem I have found is punkbuster gives an error here and there but that could just need updated on their end nothing I can do there.
As for Apps what are you looking to run is the question I have yet to find something that didnt work right for me but I have updated a good bit of what I use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is is fast enough to get first post?</p><p>(Sarcasm guys)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is is fast enough to get first post ?
( Sarcasm guys )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is is fast enough to get first post?
(Sarcasm guys)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135455</id>
	<title>Windows is an old Indian word for "bottleneck".</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1243539900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see some impartial figures to see how disk subsystem performance (regular and raided) compares with FreeBSD. You can even use FreeBSD 2.2.1 if you want.</p><p>And them again under heavy load. Not just "oooh, lets try a million database reads".</p><p>I'll wait. I use windows. I'm used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see some impartial figures to see how disk subsystem performance ( regular and raided ) compares with FreeBSD .
You can even use FreeBSD 2.2.1 if you want.And them again under heavy load .
Not just " oooh , lets try a million database reads " .I 'll wait .
I use windows .
I 'm used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see some impartial figures to see how disk subsystem performance (regular and raided) compares with FreeBSD.
You can even use FreeBSD 2.2.1 if you want.And them again under heavy load.
Not just "oooh, lets try a million database reads".I'll wait.
I use windows.
I'm used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145389</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1243600140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>African or European?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>African or European ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>African or European?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139933</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243617720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months, I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution. (I've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux). I have a pretty powerful desktop machine, with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7, 6GB of fast RAM, two Velociraptors and an SSD. This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2, and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged "Not Responding" (and living right up to that) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85\% of the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's funny, my desktop's hardware is not as good as your desktop's, and yet I've never experienced problems like these.</p><p>To be more exact, my computer has:<br>Vista x64 SP1<br>Intel Q6600 (pre-i7 Quad Core 2.4Ghz)<br>3GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM / recently upgraded to 8GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM<br>2x320GB 7200RPM drives<br>1GB Western Digital MyBook external drive (connected via Firewire)<br>nVisia 8500GT video card</p><p>The only time things seem to freeze is when I access the external drive and I have to wait for it to spin up.  Which is, unfortunately, every time I access an Open or Save dialog and navigate to the Computer section.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months , I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution .
( I 've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux ) .
I have a pretty powerful desktop machine , with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7 , 6GB of fast RAM , two Velociraptors and an SSD .
This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2 , and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged " Not Responding " ( and living right up to that ) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85 \ % of the time.It 's funny , my desktop 's hardware is not as good as your desktop 's , and yet I 've never experienced problems like these.To be more exact , my computer has : Vista x64 SP1Intel Q6600 ( pre-i7 Quad Core 2.4Ghz ) 3GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM / recently upgraded to 8GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM2x320GB 7200RPM drives1GB Western Digital MyBook external drive ( connected via Firewire ) nVisia 8500GT video cardThe only time things seem to freeze is when I access the external drive and I have to wait for it to spin up .
Which is , unfortunately , every time I access an Open or Save dialog and navigate to the Computer section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months, I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution.
(I've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux).
I have a pretty powerful desktop machine, with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7, 6GB of fast RAM, two Velociraptors and an SSD.
This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2, and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged "Not Responding" (and living right up to that) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85\% of the time.It's funny, my desktop's hardware is not as good as your desktop's, and yet I've never experienced problems like these.To be more exact, my computer has:Vista x64 SP1Intel Q6600 (pre-i7 Quad Core 2.4Ghz)3GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM / recently upgraded to 8GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM2x320GB 7200RPM drives1GB Western Digital MyBook external drive (connected via Firewire)nVisia 8500GT video cardThe only time things seem to freeze is when I access the external drive and I have to wait for it to spin up.
Which is, unfortunately, every time I access an Open or Save dialog and navigate to the Computer section.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138515</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1243610340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7, and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/22/windows-7-put-up-against-vista-and-xp-in-hardcore-multicore-benc/" title="engadget.com">got its ass kicked</a> [engadget.com], I am really not surprised they didn't run against XP. I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores, that after that Vista and Win7 should win. Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon? </p><p>Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks. What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills? When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed. It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $34. So while I think Win7 looks purty, I think I'll just sit this one out, thanks. To anyone who hasn't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it. And with all the bells and whistles, along with a real firewall and AV, I'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM, leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run, you know, things other than the OS. </p><p>Add to that the fact that XP X64 doesn't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did, along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW, and I think I've found a winner. Question to you Win7 users: Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it? Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP?</p></div><p>The benchmarks in your link found that in terms of accessing 10 concurrent instances of a SQL database, running transactions against 10 concurrent instances of an Outlook<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pst file simultaneously, and playing 10<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.asf files ALL simultaneously, XP achieved more operations per clock cycle than Windows 7.</p><p>This is the only benchmark that has found 7 to be slower than XP.  It's obviously not what a consumer OS is optimized to run.  As we've seen in several other benchmarks, 7 is equivalent to XP for gaming, and faster than it for the vast majority of real world (run a handful of programs, do some photoshop editing, open a web browser, use Office, etc) tasks.  Windows 7 has traded away its speed in simultaneously running the 30 absurd tasks in your benchmark, and in return it's faster in doing pretty much everything that a user who isn't using it as a server is going to do.</p><p>And you think this is bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7 , and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it got its ass kicked [ engadget.com ] , I am really not surprised they did n't run against XP .
I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores , that after that Vista and Win7 should win .
Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon ?
Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks .
What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills ?
When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed .
It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $ 34 .
So while I think Win7 looks purty , I think I 'll just sit this one out , thanks .
To anyone who has n't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it .
And with all the bells and whistles , along with a real firewall and AV , I 'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM , leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run , you know , things other than the OS .
Add to that the fact that XP X64 does n't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did , along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW , and I think I 've found a winner .
Question to you Win7 users : Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it ?
Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP ? The benchmarks in your link found that in terms of accessing 10 concurrent instances of a SQL database , running transactions against 10 concurrent instances of an Outlook .pst file simultaneously , and playing 10 .asf files ALL simultaneously , XP achieved more operations per clock cycle than Windows 7.This is the only benchmark that has found 7 to be slower than XP .
It 's obviously not what a consumer OS is optimized to run .
As we 've seen in several other benchmarks , 7 is equivalent to XP for gaming , and faster than it for the vast majority of real world ( run a handful of programs , do some photoshop editing , open a web browser , use Office , etc ) tasks .
Windows 7 has traded away its speed in simultaneously running the 30 absurd tasks in your benchmark , and in return it 's faster in doing pretty much everything that a user who is n't using it as a server is going to do.And you think this is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7, and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it got its ass kicked [engadget.com], I am really not surprised they didn't run against XP.
I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores, that after that Vista and Win7 should win.
Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon?
Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks.
What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?
When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed.
It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $34.
So while I think Win7 looks purty, I think I'll just sit this one out, thanks.
To anyone who hasn't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it.
And with all the bells and whistles, along with a real firewall and AV, I'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM, leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run, you know, things other than the OS.
Add to that the fact that XP X64 doesn't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did, along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW, and I think I've found a winner.
Question to you Win7 users: Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it?
Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP?The benchmarks in your link found that in terms of accessing 10 concurrent instances of a SQL database, running transactions against 10 concurrent instances of an Outlook .pst file simultaneously, and playing 10 .asf files ALL simultaneously, XP achieved more operations per clock cycle than Windows 7.This is the only benchmark that has found 7 to be slower than XP.
It's obviously not what a consumer OS is optimized to run.
As we've seen in several other benchmarks, 7 is equivalent to XP for gaming, and faster than it for the vast majority of real world (run a handful of programs, do some photoshop editing, open a web browser, use Office, etc) tasks.
Windows 7 has traded away its speed in simultaneously running the 30 absurd tasks in your benchmark, and in return it's faster in doing pretty much everything that a user who isn't using it as a server is going to do.And you think this is bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137199</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're a fucking idiot. Vista is faster than XP already, it's not 35\% behind. Vista is already at SP2, this isn't release day any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a fucking idiot .
Vista is faster than XP already , it 's not 35 \ % behind .
Vista is already at SP2 , this is n't release day any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a fucking idiot.
Vista is faster than XP already, it's not 35\% behind.
Vista is already at SP2, this isn't release day any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136593</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243597140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?</p></div><p>Just don't try to delete lots of small files. I have an old app which is based on a thousands of tiny text files.</p><p>Tried to delete a backup on a USB disk. Win7 came up with "Deleting... Estimated time remaining: 4 <b>days</b>".</p><p>Gave it 5 minutes to ensure it was not a bad initial estimate. Stopped the process, plugged into XP machine, deleted same files in 4 minutes.</p><p>My impression is that the overhead on each file operation is huge compared to XP. In that specific case, a big enough problem to be a deal-breaker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This information is irrelevant to many of us ; for a frame of reference , how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP ? Just do n't try to delete lots of small files .
I have an old app which is based on a thousands of tiny text files.Tried to delete a backup on a USB disk .
Win7 came up with " Deleting... Estimated time remaining : 4 days " .Gave it 5 minutes to ensure it was not a bad initial estimate .
Stopped the process , plugged into XP machine , deleted same files in 4 minutes.My impression is that the overhead on each file operation is huge compared to XP .
In that specific case , a big enough problem to be a deal-breaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?Just don't try to delete lots of small files.
I have an old app which is based on a thousands of tiny text files.Tried to delete a backup on a USB disk.
Win7 came up with "Deleting... Estimated time remaining: 4 days".Gave it 5 minutes to ensure it was not a bad initial estimate.
Stopped the process, plugged into XP machine, deleted same files in 4 minutes.My impression is that the overhead on each file operation is huge compared to XP.
In that specific case, a big enough problem to be a deal-breaker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137315</id>
	<title>Of course it is faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The biggest change from Vista, is that Microsoft has stripped most of the bloated DRM and security features from the installation version.
</p><p>
Anyone remember <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html" title="epic.org" rel="nofollow">Palladium ?</a> [epic.org] </p><p>
Well, it <a href="http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating\_systems/microsoft\_palladium\_is\_still\_alive\_and\_kicking.htmll" title="microsoft-watch.com" rel="nofollow">never actually went anywhere,</a> [microsoft-watch.com]  Microsoft just changed the name to "Secure Computing Base", this was the cause for most of the slowdown in Vista.  Like checking the integrity of the running display drivers 100 times per second while watching a DVD.
</p><p>
So, of course Windows 7 will be faster that Vista, out-of-the-box, but just try to install a flat-scren monitor with HDMI connector, a printer, scanner, a BluRay drive and watch a BluRay movie and, ** blam !!**, you will get a good bit of the crap back on your desktop,
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest change from Vista , is that Microsoft has stripped most of the bloated DRM and security features from the installation version .
Anyone remember Palladium ?
[ epic.org ] Well , it never actually went anywhere , [ microsoft-watch.com ] Microsoft just changed the name to " Secure Computing Base " , this was the cause for most of the slowdown in Vista .
Like checking the integrity of the running display drivers 100 times per second while watching a DVD .
So , of course Windows 7 will be faster that Vista , out-of-the-box , but just try to install a flat-scren monitor with HDMI connector , a printer , scanner , a BluRay drive and watch a BluRay movie and , * * blam ! !
* * , you will get a good bit of the crap back on your desktop ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The biggest change from Vista, is that Microsoft has stripped most of the bloated DRM and security features from the installation version.
Anyone remember Palladium ?
[epic.org] 
Well, it never actually went anywhere, [microsoft-watch.com]  Microsoft just changed the name to "Secure Computing Base", this was the cause for most of the slowdown in Vista.
Like checking the integrity of the running display drivers 100 times per second while watching a DVD.
So, of course Windows 7 will be faster that Vista, out-of-the-box, but just try to install a flat-scren monitor with HDMI connector, a printer, scanner, a BluRay drive and watch a BluRay movie and, ** blam !!
**, you will get a good bit of the crap back on your desktop,
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</id>
	<title>Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Archtech</author>
	<datestamp>1243593060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months, I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution. (I've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux). I have a pretty powerful desktop machine, with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7, 6GB of fast RAM, two Velociraptors and an SSD. This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2, and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged "Not Responding" (and living right up to that) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85\% of the time. My laptop, a ThinkPad T61 with 2GB RAM, shows similar symptoms but (oddly enough) doesn't tend to stay out to lunch quite as often or as long.</p><p>So I glommed right on to this review, hoping to see some impressive figures. But it seems to me they aren't. Improvements in disk read performance of around 10\% might not change overall user responsiveness enough for you to notice it.</p><p>Why can't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle: when the user wants to do something, everything else must get out of the way? Their trouble is that they just don't agree with what seems to obvious to me. It's MY computer, not theirs. I paid for it, I own it, I use it. So I want it to pay attention to ME, first, last, and foremost. Not some unnecessary housekeeping task that seem Microsoft developer or marketing chum decided to impose on me. It's ironic that an IBM mainframe should be so much more responsive than a supposedly end-user-centric "personal" computer whose OS is completely dominated by its UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months , I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution .
( I 've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux ) .
I have a pretty powerful desktop machine , with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7 , 6GB of fast RAM , two Velociraptors and an SSD .
This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2 , and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged " Not Responding " ( and living right up to that ) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85 \ % of the time .
My laptop , a ThinkPad T61 with 2GB RAM , shows similar symptoms but ( oddly enough ) does n't tend to stay out to lunch quite as often or as long.So I glommed right on to this review , hoping to see some impressive figures .
But it seems to me they are n't .
Improvements in disk read performance of around 10 \ % might not change overall user responsiveness enough for you to notice it.Why ca n't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle : when the user wants to do something , everything else must get out of the way ?
Their trouble is that they just do n't agree with what seems to obvious to me .
It 's MY computer , not theirs .
I paid for it , I own it , I use it .
So I want it to pay attention to ME , first , last , and foremost .
Not some unnecessary housekeeping task that seem Microsoft developer or marketing chum decided to impose on me .
It 's ironic that an IBM mainframe should be so much more responsive than a supposedly end-user-centric " personal " computer whose OS is completely dominated by its UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months, I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution.
(I've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux).
I have a pretty powerful desktop machine, with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7, 6GB of fast RAM, two Velociraptors and an SSD.
This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2, and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged "Not Responding" (and living right up to that) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85\% of the time.
My laptop, a ThinkPad T61 with 2GB RAM, shows similar symptoms but (oddly enough) doesn't tend to stay out to lunch quite as often or as long.So I glommed right on to this review, hoping to see some impressive figures.
But it seems to me they aren't.
Improvements in disk read performance of around 10\% might not change overall user responsiveness enough for you to notice it.Why can't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle: when the user wants to do something, everything else must get out of the way?
Their trouble is that they just don't agree with what seems to obvious to me.
It's MY computer, not theirs.
I paid for it, I own it, I use it.
So I want it to pay attention to ME, first, last, and foremost.
Not some unnecessary housekeeping task that seem Microsoft developer or marketing chum decided to impose on me.
It's ironic that an IBM mainframe should be so much more responsive than a supposedly end-user-centric "personal" computer whose OS is completely dominated by its UI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145117</id>
	<title>Re:Incomplete half-nerds...</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1243598160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You bunch of idiots.</p><p>Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista, especially when compared to anything else.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, right.  If you can't tell that your computer is running slow on Vista, you've no idea what a modern computer can do with good software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You bunch of idiots.Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista , especially when compared to anything else.Yeah , right .
If you ca n't tell that your computer is running slow on Vista , you 've no idea what a modern computer can do with good software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bunch of idiots.Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista, especially when compared to anything else.Yeah, right.
If you can't tell that your computer is running slow on Vista, you've no idea what a modern computer can do with good software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136699</id>
	<title>Incomplete half-nerds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243598700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bunch of idiots.</p><p>Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista, especially when compared to anything else.</p><p>Stop trying to run it on hardware you bought in the late 90's...</p><p>When will you fools stop perpetuating such ridiculous exaggerations?  I thought this was news for nerds.  It's news for superficial idiots who have an incomplete understanding of just about everything.</p><p>I'll be the first to admit that I may not be a good person on the inside.  With that said, I hope you people die.  You won't but I will hope for it every moment I can.  It's because of this mob mentality that our scientific progress is so retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bunch of idiots.Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista , especially when compared to anything else.Stop trying to run it on hardware you bought in the late 90 's...When will you fools stop perpetuating such ridiculous exaggerations ?
I thought this was news for nerds .
It 's news for superficial idiots who have an incomplete understanding of just about everything.I 'll be the first to admit that I may not be a good person on the inside .
With that said , I hope you people die .
You wo n't but I will hope for it every moment I can .
It 's because of this mob mentality that our scientific progress is so retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bunch of idiots.Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista, especially when compared to anything else.Stop trying to run it on hardware you bought in the late 90's...When will you fools stop perpetuating such ridiculous exaggerations?
I thought this was news for nerds.
It's news for superficial idiots who have an incomplete understanding of just about everything.I'll be the first to admit that I may not be a good person on the inside.
With that said, I hope you people die.
You won't but I will hope for it every moment I can.
It's because of this mob mentality that our scientific progress is so retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137949</id>
	<title>activation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who in the right state of a brain use that software... anythink you touch that was produced by those guys has to suck... have fun runing it and let me know how is the activation going for ya</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who in the right state of a brain use that software... anythink you touch that was produced by those guys has to suck... have fun runing it and let me know how is the activation going for ya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who in the right state of a brain use that software... anythink you touch that was produced by those guys has to suck... have fun runing it and let me know how is the activation going for ya</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135397</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1243538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>noop scheduler != support for SSDs.</p><p>Sequential writes in common Flash SSDs are faster than random writes. Sequential reads are also usually faster than random reads.</p><p>See: <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531" title="anandtech.com">http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531</a> [anandtech.com]</p><p>For RAM + battery based SSDs, while there's still a difference the difference should be unnoticeable for drive workloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>noop scheduler ! = support for SSDs.Sequential writes in common Flash SSDs are faster than random writes .
Sequential reads are also usually faster than random reads.See : http : //www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx ? i = 3531 [ anandtech.com ] For RAM + battery based SSDs , while there 's still a difference the difference should be unnoticeable for drive workloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>noop scheduler != support for SSDs.Sequential writes in common Flash SSDs are faster than random writes.
Sequential reads are also usually faster than random reads.See: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531 [anandtech.com]For RAM + battery based SSDs, while there's still a difference the difference should be unnoticeable for drive workloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135637</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243628400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>noop scheduler isn't SSD support.  Seems like you didn't RTFA, which means that you didn't understand what TRIM is.</p><p>From the article, page 4:</p><p>"If the drive broadcasts itself as a solid state drive (which can be done through the latest ATA specification), Windows 7 can make adjustments to ensure that the drive performs at its best. For example, if Windows 7 can verify that you're running a solid state disk, it will disable defragmentation for that drive (as defragging puts un-necessary wear on SSD's and doesn't help performance). Windows 7 will also enable support for "TRIM", also known as DisableDeleteNotify, an add-on to the ATA specification which allows for enhanced performance and decreased strain on the drive. According to Microsoft, here's what TRIM brings to the table.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all deleted data blocks<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Making early garbage collection possible for fast write<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Keeping device&#226;(TM)s unused storage area as much as possible; more room for device wear leveling.</p><p>Basically, Windows 7 will send TRIM commands down the storage chain, but it's up to the drive to accept the commands and utilize them. In order for TRIM to work, you not only need Windows 7, but you'll need a solid state hard disk which has support for TRIM via its Firmware."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>noop scheduler is n't SSD support .
Seems like you did n't RTFA , which means that you did n't understand what TRIM is.From the article , page 4 : " If the drive broadcasts itself as a solid state drive ( which can be done through the latest ATA specification ) , Windows 7 can make adjustments to ensure that the drive performs at its best .
For example , if Windows 7 can verify that you 're running a solid state disk , it will disable defragmentation for that drive ( as defragging puts un-necessary wear on SSD 's and does n't help performance ) .
Windows 7 will also enable support for " TRIM " , also known as DisableDeleteNotify , an add-on to the ATA specification which allows for enhanced performance and decreased strain on the drive .
According to Microsoft , here 's what TRIM brings to the table .
        * Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all deleted data blocks         * Making early garbage collection possible for fast write         * Keeping device   ( TM ) s unused storage area as much as possible ; more room for device wear leveling.Basically , Windows 7 will send TRIM commands down the storage chain , but it 's up to the drive to accept the commands and utilize them .
In order for TRIM to work , you not only need Windows 7 , but you 'll need a solid state hard disk which has support for TRIM via its Firmware .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>noop scheduler isn't SSD support.
Seems like you didn't RTFA, which means that you didn't understand what TRIM is.From the article, page 4:"If the drive broadcasts itself as a solid state drive (which can be done through the latest ATA specification), Windows 7 can make adjustments to ensure that the drive performs at its best.
For example, if Windows 7 can verify that you're running a solid state disk, it will disable defragmentation for that drive (as defragging puts un-necessary wear on SSD's and doesn't help performance).
Windows 7 will also enable support for "TRIM", also known as DisableDeleteNotify, an add-on to the ATA specification which allows for enhanced performance and decreased strain on the drive.
According to Microsoft, here's what TRIM brings to the table.
        * Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all deleted data blocks
        * Making early garbage collection possible for fast write
        * Keeping deviceâ(TM)s unused storage area as much as possible; more room for device wear leveling.Basically, Windows 7 will send TRIM commands down the storage chain, but it's up to the drive to accept the commands and utilize them.
In order for TRIM to work, you not only need Windows 7, but you'll need a solid state hard disk which has support for TRIM via its Firmware.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134991</id>
	<title>Buy it, please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243534260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of <b>your checkbook</b>.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh , new light , especially in terms of your checkbook.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of your checkbook.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138651</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243611000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle: when the user wants to do something, everything else must get out of the way? Their trouble is that they just don't agree with what seems to obvious to me. It's MY computer, not theirs. I paid for it, I own it, I use it.</p> </div><p>Thank you for reiterating a point I've made here often. Network tasks are the most grievous offenders. A special place in hell awaits whoever decided to put the user tasks behind OS tasks in importance, and another right beside it for the first to practice stealing focus from an active user task for mindless OS messages.</p><p>"You just unplugged a USB device! "</p><p>"You elected to run run Windows Upgrade and we'll let you keep working after forcing you to acknowledge this message that you just elected to run Windows Upgrade!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle : when the user wants to do something , everything else must get out of the way ?
Their trouble is that they just do n't agree with what seems to obvious to me .
It 's MY computer , not theirs .
I paid for it , I own it , I use it .
Thank you for reiterating a point I 've made here often .
Network tasks are the most grievous offenders .
A special place in hell awaits whoever decided to put the user tasks behind OS tasks in importance , and another right beside it for the first to practice stealing focus from an active user task for mindless OS messages .
" You just unplugged a USB device !
" " You elected to run run Windows Upgrade and we 'll let you keep working after forcing you to acknowledge this message that you just elected to run Windows Upgrade !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle: when the user wants to do something, everything else must get out of the way?
Their trouble is that they just don't agree with what seems to obvious to me.
It's MY computer, not theirs.
I paid for it, I own it, I use it.
Thank you for reiterating a point I've made here often.
Network tasks are the most grievous offenders.
A special place in hell awaits whoever decided to put the user tasks behind OS tasks in importance, and another right beside it for the first to practice stealing focus from an active user task for mindless OS messages.
"You just unplugged a USB device!
""You elected to run run Windows Upgrade and we'll let you keep working after forcing you to acknowledge this message that you just elected to run Windows Upgrade!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135499</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Henk Poley</author>
	<datestamp>1243540440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You lose I/O prioritisation going from CFQ to something else. Also, writes should be as sequential as possible on most SSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You lose I/O prioritisation going from CFQ to something else .
Also , writes should be as sequential as possible on most SSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lose I/O prioritisation going from CFQ to something else.
Also, writes should be as sequential as possible on most SSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138673</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1243611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious....  Did you do re-formats and fresh installs of RC1, or did you try to upgrade from build 7000 to 7100?</p><p>I've heard other people say Win 7 RC1 got slower than the beta builds, but I didn't notice that at all on 3 machines I've used both on so far.  (The thing is though, all 3 systems I've tried had at least 4GB of RAM in them - so I can't speak for performance in lesser RAM configurations.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious.... Did you do re-formats and fresh installs of RC1 , or did you try to upgrade from build 7000 to 7100 ? I 've heard other people say Win 7 RC1 got slower than the beta builds , but I did n't notice that at all on 3 machines I 've used both on so far .
( The thing is though , all 3 systems I 've tried had at least 4GB of RAM in them - so I ca n't speak for performance in lesser RAM configurations .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious....  Did you do re-formats and fresh installs of RC1, or did you try to upgrade from build 7000 to 7100?I've heard other people say Win 7 RC1 got slower than the beta builds, but I didn't notice that at all on 3 machines I've used both on so far.
(The thing is though, all 3 systems I've tried had at least 4GB of RAM in them - so I can't speak for performance in lesser RAM configurations.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28141353</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Matje</author>
	<datestamp>1243624380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anyway</p></div></blockquote><p>no we didn't. I happen to think Vista is a big usability improvement over XP, and I'm certain I've seen like minded statements here.</p><p>As much as you might want it, this place is not a hive mind. Please post your opinions but make clear they're your own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anywayno we did n't .
I happen to think Vista is a big usability improvement over XP , and I 'm certain I 've seen like minded statements here.As much as you might want it , this place is not a hive mind .
Please post your opinions but make clear they 're your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anywayno we didn't.
I happen to think Vista is a big usability improvement over XP, and I'm certain I've seen like minded statements here.As much as you might want it, this place is not a hive mind.
Please post your opinions but make clear they're your own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465</id>
	<title>Windows XP does not support SSDs like this..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243540020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The large problem with Windows XP and SSD's is that Windows XP does not properly handle SSDs similar to how Windows Vista does not. You have to go in and manually disable these things to fix performance and increase longevity while it is handled automatically in Windows 7. You cannot expect end users to "tweak" their systems to properly handle these drives, so the real world benefit of paring Windows 7 and an SSD is there that beats out both Vista and XP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The large problem with Windows XP and SSD 's is that Windows XP does not properly handle SSDs similar to how Windows Vista does not .
You have to go in and manually disable these things to fix performance and increase longevity while it is handled automatically in Windows 7 .
You can not expect end users to " tweak " their systems to properly handle these drives , so the real world benefit of paring Windows 7 and an SSD is there that beats out both Vista and XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The large problem with Windows XP and SSD's is that Windows XP does not properly handle SSDs similar to how Windows Vista does not.
You have to go in and manually disable these things to fix performance and increase longevity while it is handled automatically in Windows 7.
You cannot expect end users to "tweak" their systems to properly handle these drives, so the real world benefit of paring Windows 7 and an SSD is there that beats out both Vista and XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</id>
	<title>Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243533720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35\% improvement in read performance and up to a 23\% boost in write performance</p></div><p>About as much after as Vista was slower than XP. Perhaps a very marginal improvement. At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting  performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.</p></div><p>Nope. Same old reason to hate them. They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.</p><p>We should be jeering not cheering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives , all run faster on Windows 7 .
Solid state drives see the largest performance boost , which showed up to a 35 \ % improvement in read performance and up to a 23 \ % boost in write performanceAbout as much after as Vista was slower than XP .
Perhaps a very marginal improvement .
At most a third faster reading , and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7 , as low , machine-halting performance wo n't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.Nope .
Same old reason to hate them .
They set back operating systems on the majority of the world 's PCs by half a decade.We should be jeering not cheering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7.
Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35\% improvement in read performance and up to a 23\% boost in write performanceAbout as much after as Vista was slower than XP.
Perhaps a very marginal improvement.
At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting  performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.Nope.
Same old reason to hate them.
They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.We should be jeering not cheering.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28143009</id>
	<title>Or deleting temp files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243587840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you try to clean up your temp folder and select-all, delete, it won't go past the first "in-use" error to delete the rest. You have to manually choose them so it won't fail.</p><p>What kind of a cocksucker created that design? Do they specifically seek out and hire motherfuckers who never heard of graceful exception handling or User Experience at Microsoft?</p><p>Phew. Feel So Much Better Now.</p><p>Dickwads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you try to clean up your temp folder and select-all , delete , it wo n't go past the first " in-use " error to delete the rest .
You have to manually choose them so it wo n't fail.What kind of a cocksucker created that design ?
Do they specifically seek out and hire motherfuckers who never heard of graceful exception handling or User Experience at Microsoft ? Phew .
Feel So Much Better Now.Dickwads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you try to clean up your temp folder and select-all, delete, it won't go past the first "in-use" error to delete the rest.
You have to manually choose them so it won't fail.What kind of a cocksucker created that design?
Do they specifically seek out and hire motherfuckers who never heard of graceful exception handling or User Experience at Microsoft?Phew.
Feel So Much Better Now.Dickwads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140447</id>
	<title>As Seen on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1243620180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An Anonymous Coward writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of accessing your wallet for no compelling reason. With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of subsytsems perform under Windows 7, ginning up a bunch of vague and ambiguous statistics for this or that functionality. Overall performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using boxes that have been carefully tweaked to favor Windows 7. Performance with and without cheating enabled is tested. Application performance is also tested on a variety of other boxes. Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 performance, particularly with regard to the carefully skewed hardware."<p>
Conclusion: Look into my eyes. You are going to sleep. Your eyelids are falling, falling. The numbers, they look good. Computer, it go faster, faster. You are going deeper and deeper to sleep. Way down, to sleep. Oh Windows 7! So fast, so good! Ah yes, soft, warm, moist, so so good. So deep into delicious sleep. Your body tingles, the kundalini rises, slowly at first then quickly, with all its rousing power, a release that causes you to cry out unintentionally in your dreams. Then, peace, satisfaction, oneness. When I snap my fingers, you will awaken, refreshed and satiated. You will take out your wallet. You will take out your credit card. You will buy the first Windows 7 box you see, no questions asked. You will love it. You will tell your friends what a great computer it is. You will help them buy one as soon as possible. You will feel warm and happy, as if your skin glowed with a golden spiritual light. You will be happy. You will then buy the newest release of Microsoft Office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An Anonymous Coward writes " Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista , Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh , new light , especially in terms of accessing your wallet for no compelling reason .
With that in mind , this article looks at how various types of subsytsems perform under Windows 7 , ginning up a bunch of vague and ambiguous statistics for this or that functionality .
Overall performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using boxes that have been carefully tweaked to favor Windows 7 .
Performance with and without cheating enabled is tested .
Application performance is also tested on a variety of other boxes .
Looking at the performance data , it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 performance , particularly with regard to the carefully skewed hardware .
" Conclusion : Look into my eyes .
You are going to sleep .
Your eyelids are falling , falling .
The numbers , they look good .
Computer , it go faster , faster .
You are going deeper and deeper to sleep .
Way down , to sleep .
Oh Windows 7 !
So fast , so good !
Ah yes , soft , warm , moist , so so good .
So deep into delicious sleep .
Your body tingles , the kundalini rises , slowly at first then quickly , with all its rousing power , a release that causes you to cry out unintentionally in your dreams .
Then , peace , satisfaction , oneness .
When I snap my fingers , you will awaken , refreshed and satiated .
You will take out your wallet .
You will take out your credit card .
You will buy the first Windows 7 box you see , no questions asked .
You will love it .
You will tell your friends what a great computer it is .
You will help them buy one as soon as possible .
You will feel warm and happy , as if your skin glowed with a golden spiritual light .
You will be happy .
You will then buy the newest release of Microsoft Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An Anonymous Coward writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of accessing your wallet for no compelling reason.
With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of subsytsems perform under Windows 7, ginning up a bunch of vague and ambiguous statistics for this or that functionality.
Overall performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using boxes that have been carefully tweaked to favor Windows 7.
Performance with and without cheating enabled is tested.
Application performance is also tested on a variety of other boxes.
Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 performance, particularly with regard to the carefully skewed hardware.
"
Conclusion: Look into my eyes.
You are going to sleep.
Your eyelids are falling, falling.
The numbers, they look good.
Computer, it go faster, faster.
You are going deeper and deeper to sleep.
Way down, to sleep.
Oh Windows 7!
So fast, so good!
Ah yes, soft, warm, moist, so so good.
So deep into delicious sleep.
Your body tingles, the kundalini rises, slowly at first then quickly, with all its rousing power, a release that causes you to cry out unintentionally in your dreams.
Then, peace, satisfaction, oneness.
When I snap my fingers, you will awaken, refreshed and satiated.
You will take out your wallet.
You will take out your credit card.
You will buy the first Windows 7 box you see, no questions asked.
You will love it.
You will tell your friends what a great computer it is.
You will help them buy one as soon as possible.
You will feel warm and happy, as if your skin glowed with a golden spiritual light.
You will be happy.
You will then buy the newest release of Microsoft Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138119</id>
	<title>Re:Windows XP does not support SSDs like this..</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1243608600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that so? Anybody got a link to a guide of some kind? I've got a netbook running on an SSD, and I (and I'm sure many others) would love to know how what tweaks to apply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that so ?
Anybody got a link to a guide of some kind ?
I 've got a netbook running on an SSD , and I ( and I 'm sure many others ) would love to know how what tweaks to apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that so?
Anybody got a link to a guide of some kind?
I've got a netbook running on an SSD, and I (and I'm sure many others) would love to know how what tweaks to apply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139185</id>
	<title>Re:Buy it, please?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243613700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, my checkbook wasn't a light source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , my checkbook was n't a light source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, my checkbook wasn't a light source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135843</id>
	<title>Caching, caching, and more caching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this really just tweaks to caching systems in Windows?  I wonder if these performance gains also come at the price of an increased likelihood of disk corruption when the power suddenly cuts out?  You might wanna buy a good UPS at the same time you install Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this really just tweaks to caching systems in Windows ?
I wonder if these performance gains also come at the price of an increased likelihood of disk corruption when the power suddenly cuts out ?
You might wan na buy a good UPS at the same time you install Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this really just tweaks to caching systems in Windows?
I wonder if these performance gains also come at the price of an increased likelihood of disk corruption when the power suddenly cuts out?
You might wanna buy a good UPS at the same time you install Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139961</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1243617840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the RAM is empty, what's the point? RAM should always be used. It makes things faster... if a new app needs it, the OS can overwrite file caches. But unused RAM is a sign of a badly tuned system.
<br> <br>
As for older games and apps, I dunno. How old? I've only installed Civilization 4 so far, and only confirmed that it starts up, not played anything on it. I typically use Linux, I'm just using Windows 7 for a free game starting app until March.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the RAM is empty , what 's the point ?
RAM should always be used .
It makes things faster... if a new app needs it , the OS can overwrite file caches .
But unused RAM is a sign of a badly tuned system .
As for older games and apps , I dunno .
How old ?
I 've only installed Civilization 4 so far , and only confirmed that it starts up , not played anything on it .
I typically use Linux , I 'm just using Windows 7 for a free game starting app until March .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the RAM is empty, what's the point?
RAM should always be used.
It makes things faster... if a new app needs it, the OS can overwrite file caches.
But unused RAM is a sign of a badly tuned system.
As for older games and apps, I dunno.
How old?
I've only installed Civilization 4 so far, and only confirmed that it starts up, not played anything on it.
I typically use Linux, I'm just using Windows 7 for a free game starting app until March.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140265</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>not already in use</author>
	<datestamp>1243619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.</p></div><p>Disgruntled slashdotters are so cuuuute!  <br> <br>Microsoft is on top of their game right now.  You do your own platform no favors by ignoring Microsoft's innovations and deluding yourself into thinking your platform is superior.  Desktop Linux is failing because of people like you, who fail to see its shortcomings.  It's quite the paradox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world 's PCs by half a decade.Disgruntled slashdotters are so cuuuute !
Microsoft is on top of their game right now .
You do your own platform no favors by ignoring Microsoft 's innovations and deluding yourself into thinking your platform is superior .
Desktop Linux is failing because of people like you , who fail to see its shortcomings .
It 's quite the paradox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.Disgruntled slashdotters are so cuuuute!
Microsoft is on top of their game right now.
You do your own platform no favors by ignoring Microsoft's innovations and deluding yourself into thinking your platform is superior.
Desktop Linux is failing because of people like you, who fail to see its shortcomings.
It's quite the paradox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138575</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-O hoover</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-O hoover</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-O hoover</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1243594260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7, and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/22/windows-7-put-up-against-vista-and-xp-in-hardcore-multicore-benc/" title="engadget.com">got its ass kicked</a> [engadget.com], I am really not surprised they didn't run against XP. I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores, that after that Vista and Win7 should win. Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon? </p><p>Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks. What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills? When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed. It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $34. So while I think Win7 looks purty, I think I'll just sit this one out, thanks. To anyone who hasn't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it. And with all the bells and whistles, along with a real firewall and AV, I'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM, leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run, you know, things other than the OS. </p><p>

Add to that the fact that XP X64 doesn't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did, along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW, and I think I've found a winner. Question to you Win7 users: Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it? Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7 , and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it got its ass kicked [ engadget.com ] , I am really not surprised they did n't run against XP .
I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores , that after that Vista and Win7 should win .
Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon ?
Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks .
What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills ?
When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed .
It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $ 34 .
So while I think Win7 looks purty , I think I 'll just sit this one out , thanks .
To anyone who has n't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it .
And with all the bells and whistles , along with a real firewall and AV , I 'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM , leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run , you know , things other than the OS .
Add to that the fact that XP X64 does n't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did , along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW , and I think I 've found a winner .
Question to you Win7 users : Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it ?
Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7, and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it got its ass kicked [engadget.com], I am really not surprised they didn't run against XP.
I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores, that after that Vista and Win7 should win.
Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon?
Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks.
What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?
When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed.
It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $34.
So while I think Win7 looks purty, I think I'll just sit this one out, thanks.
To anyone who hasn't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it.
And with all the bells and whistles, along with a real firewall and AV, I'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM, leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run, you know, things other than the OS.
Add to that the fact that XP X64 doesn't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did, along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW, and I think I've found a winner.
Question to you Win7 users: Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it?
Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763</id>
	<title>Moving off-topic a little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does windows still abandon file-copying operations when one single file out of a huge directory structure one is trying to copy from one volume to another fails?</p><p>This always annoyed me. I would fantasise about paying for my microsoft products thusly "&pound;200? No problem. Here's the first penny, here's the second penny, here's the third penny, Ooops! I dropped the third penny! Well, that is the transaction completed, goodbye."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does windows still abandon file-copying operations when one single file out of a huge directory structure one is trying to copy from one volume to another fails ? This always annoyed me .
I would fantasise about paying for my microsoft products thusly "   200 ?
No problem .
Here 's the first penny , here 's the second penny , here 's the third penny , Ooops !
I dropped the third penny !
Well , that is the transaction completed , goodbye .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does windows still abandon file-copying operations when one single file out of a huge directory structure one is trying to copy from one volume to another fails?This always annoyed me.
I would fantasise about paying for my microsoft products thusly "£200?
No problem.
Here's the first penny, here's the second penny, here's the third penny, Ooops!
I dropped the third penny!
Well, that is the transaction completed, goodbye.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135741</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1243629480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its good enough to get first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its good enough to get first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its good enough to get first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139151</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was!</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243613520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.</p></div></blockquote><p>er... I thought they were comparing it with Vista, not Windows ME.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At most a third faster reading , and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.er... I thought they were comparing it with Vista , not Windows ME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.er... I thought they were comparing it with Vista, not Windows ME.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</id>
	<title>Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Saba</author>
	<datestamp>1243533720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux already supports SSD's and other flash media by having a noop scheduler. The basic premise is that devices that don't depend on mechanical movement to access data don't need reordering of requests. This is also the scheduler you use if you have an advanced controller (RAID, etc) that is capable of doing it's own I/O rescheduling.<br> <br>

To see what scheduler you are running (on this case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sda):<br> <br>

# cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler<br>
noop anticipatory deadline [cfq]<br> <br>

Here the completely fair scheduler is currently running. To swap to the noop scheduler:<br> <br>

# echo noop &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler<br>
[noop] anticipatory deadline cfq</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux already supports SSD 's and other flash media by having a noop scheduler .
The basic premise is that devices that do n't depend on mechanical movement to access data do n't need reordering of requests .
This is also the scheduler you use if you have an advanced controller ( RAID , etc ) that is capable of doing it 's own I/O rescheduling .
To see what scheduler you are running ( on this case /dev/sda ) : # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler noop anticipatory deadline [ cfq ] Here the completely fair scheduler is currently running .
To swap to the noop scheduler : # echo noop &gt; /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler [ noop ] anticipatory deadline cfq</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux already supports SSD's and other flash media by having a noop scheduler.
The basic premise is that devices that don't depend on mechanical movement to access data don't need reordering of requests.
This is also the scheduler you use if you have an advanced controller (RAID, etc) that is capable of doing it's own I/O rescheduling.
To see what scheduler you are running (on this case /dev/sda): 

# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
noop anticipatory deadline [cfq] 

Here the completely fair scheduler is currently running.
To swap to the noop scheduler: 

# echo noop &gt; /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
[noop] anticipatory deadline cfq</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139817</id>
	<title>Re:Moving off-topic a little</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that was fixed in Vista. It will ask you to skip the file now and continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that was fixed in Vista .
It will ask you to skip the file now and continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that was fixed in Vista.
It will ask you to skip the file now and continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137689</id>
	<title>Better hold out for SATA3.0 SSDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243606740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There now might be a push of SATA2 SSDs soon replaced with SATA3, so that manufacturers can sold SSDs \_twice\_ to power hungry users. That article could also be a part of the supposed SATA2SSD push. Not necessarily Win7 advert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There now might be a push of SATA2 SSDs soon replaced with SATA3 , so that manufacturers can sold SSDs \ _twice \ _ to power hungry users .
That article could also be a part of the supposed SATA2SSD push .
Not necessarily Win7 advert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There now might be a push of SATA2 SSDs soon replaced with SATA3, so that manufacturers can sold SSDs \_twice\_ to power hungry users.
That article could also be a part of the supposed SATA2SSD push.
Not necessarily Win7 advert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1243590900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Build 7000 (beta) was notably faster and slimmer than Build 7100 (RC) when we tried it here - 7000 was highly responsive and usable in 512MB, 7100 thrashes and is slow in 1GB. We were horrified. So forget 7000's admirable speed - it appears the RC was compiled with <tt>-fsuck-like-a-dyson-on-steroids</tt> enabled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Build 7000 ( beta ) was notably faster and slimmer than Build 7100 ( RC ) when we tried it here - 7000 was highly responsive and usable in 512MB , 7100 thrashes and is slow in 1GB .
We were horrified .
So forget 7000 's admirable speed - it appears the RC was compiled with -fsuck-like-a-dyson-on-steroids enabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build 7000 (beta) was notably faster and slimmer than Build 7100 (RC) when we tried it here - 7000 was highly responsive and usable in 512MB, 7100 thrashes and is slow in 1GB.
We were horrified.
So forget 7000's admirable speed - it appears the RC was compiled with -fsuck-like-a-dyson-on-steroids enabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136925</id>
	<title>Does Linux support TRIM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243601520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Linux support TRIM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Linux support TRIM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Linux support TRIM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137509</id>
	<title>No drives have TRIM yet, not even the Vertex.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too funny.  They claim to be testing/measuring TRIM on Win7-RC.</p><p>(1) The Win7-Rc1 does *not* have TRIM.<br>(2) The OCZ Vertext drives (firmware 1370/1.10) also do NOT have TRIM (though they do have a proprietary command and a proprietary offline app called "wiper" that will "trim" free sectors while the drive is unmounted/notinuse).</p><p>The lack of tech-savy in "reviews" is hardly amazing.</p><p>-ml</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too funny .
They claim to be testing/measuring TRIM on Win7-RC .
( 1 ) The Win7-Rc1 does * not * have TRIM .
( 2 ) The OCZ Vertext drives ( firmware 1370/1.10 ) also do NOT have TRIM ( though they do have a proprietary command and a proprietary offline app called " wiper " that will " trim " free sectors while the drive is unmounted/notinuse ) .The lack of tech-savy in " reviews " is hardly amazing.-ml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too funny.
They claim to be testing/measuring TRIM on Win7-RC.
(1) The Win7-Rc1 does *not* have TRIM.
(2) The OCZ Vertext drives (firmware 1370/1.10) also do NOT have TRIM (though they do have a proprietary command and a proprietary offline app called "wiper" that will "trim" free sectors while the drive is unmounted/notinuse).The lack of tech-savy in "reviews" is hardly amazing.-ml</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135281</id>
	<title>Re:Linux already has this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243537080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being that the world runs primarily on Windows for desktop PC's, nobody really gives a shit about Linux.  Well, except for slashdud nerds.  Keep on topic please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that the world runs primarily on Windows for desktop PC 's , nobody really gives a shit about Linux .
Well , except for slashdud nerds .
Keep on topic please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that the world runs primarily on Windows for desktop PC's, nobody really gives a shit about Linux.
Well, except for slashdud nerds.
Keep on topic please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136213</id>
	<title>What about other programs?</title>
	<author>irp</author>
	<datestamp>1243592040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about programs that continuously access the hard drive. My pet peeve is the ZoneAlarm software firewall. For some reasons it reads the same file repeatedly over and over again. Not only that, but it also continuously write a completely unusable log-file (every time I actually could use a log file, it has turned out not to record the particular information I needed to debug whatever network problem I had).</p><p>In the end I've stopped using ZoneAlarm, I couldn't take the never ending "tick-tick-tick" of the hdd. Now I'm relying on my router (And XP's own "firewall").</p><p>(I did try to create a RAM disk and set ZoneAlarm to log to that - it didn't work - I seem to remember the reason being twofold, first the repeated reading of the datafile, and second, that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ini file containing the path to the log file was written on the same drive as the log file, i.e. whenever I rebooted it would reset to the default place on the harddrive...)</p><p>It would be nice to have some kind of 'override' - "whatever this program is writing, it is of so low importance that it can be kept in the cache for +5 minutes before written to disk, regardless of what the program claims"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about programs that continuously access the hard drive .
My pet peeve is the ZoneAlarm software firewall .
For some reasons it reads the same file repeatedly over and over again .
Not only that , but it also continuously write a completely unusable log-file ( every time I actually could use a log file , it has turned out not to record the particular information I needed to debug whatever network problem I had ) .In the end I 've stopped using ZoneAlarm , I could n't take the never ending " tick-tick-tick " of the hdd .
Now I 'm relying on my router ( And XP 's own " firewall " ) .
( I did try to create a RAM disk and set ZoneAlarm to log to that - it did n't work - I seem to remember the reason being twofold , first the repeated reading of the datafile , and second , that the .ini file containing the path to the log file was written on the same drive as the log file , i.e .
whenever I rebooted it would reset to the default place on the harddrive... ) It would be nice to have some kind of 'override ' - " whatever this program is writing , it is of so low importance that it can be kept in the cache for + 5 minutes before written to disk , regardless of what the program claims "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about programs that continuously access the hard drive.
My pet peeve is the ZoneAlarm software firewall.
For some reasons it reads the same file repeatedly over and over again.
Not only that, but it also continuously write a completely unusable log-file (every time I actually could use a log file, it has turned out not to record the particular information I needed to debug whatever network problem I had).In the end I've stopped using ZoneAlarm, I couldn't take the never ending "tick-tick-tick" of the hdd.
Now I'm relying on my router (And XP's own "firewall").
(I did try to create a RAM disk and set ZoneAlarm to log to that - it didn't work - I seem to remember the reason being twofold, first the repeated reading of the datafile, and second, that the .ini file containing the path to the log file was written on the same drive as the log file, i.e.
whenever I rebooted it would reset to the default place on the harddrive...)It would be nice to have some kind of 'override' - "whatever this program is writing, it is of so low importance that it can be kept in the cache for +5 minutes before written to disk, regardless of what the program claims"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>R4nneko</author>
	<datestamp>1243535400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I admit this isn't the newest test, but <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&amp;page=2" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">Win 7 was already beating XP in build 7000</a> [zdnet.com], heck it is worth noting that Vista vs XP comparison is not particularly bad either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I admit this is n't the newest test , but Win 7 was already beating XP in build 7000 [ zdnet.com ] , heck it is worth noting that Vista vs XP comparison is not particularly bad either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I admit this isn't the newest test, but Win 7 was already beating XP in build 7000 [zdnet.com], heck it is worth noting that Vista vs XP comparison is not particularly bad either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136971</id>
	<title>Re:Caching, caching, and more caching</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1243602000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.  I know this is slashdot but if you're going to try to woo the crowd with a stunningly concise and accurate insight into the topic at hand, you might consider reading the first few lines of the article.  It's not caching.  No UPS required.  Nice try, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I know this is slashdot but if you 're going to try to woo the crowd with a stunningly concise and accurate insight into the topic at hand , you might consider reading the first few lines of the article .
It 's not caching .
No UPS required .
Nice try , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I know this is slashdot but if you're going to try to woo the crowd with a stunningly concise and accurate insight into the topic at hand, you might consider reading the first few lines of the article.
It's not caching.
No UPS required.
Nice try, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134893</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love you Janey</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love you Janey</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love you Janey</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136715</id>
	<title>Vista is not slow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista myth #426:
<div><p>Windows Vista was, and still is, perceived as a slow operating system in the minds of most power users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista myth # 426 : Windows Vista was , and still is , perceived as a slow operating system in the minds of most power users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista myth #426:
Windows Vista was, and still is, perceived as a slow operating system in the minds of most power users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136985</id>
	<title>Re:Unconvincing</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1243602180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's something seriously wrong with your setup.  I run Vista on a Core 2 2.6 with 4GB of ram and it flies.  It seems my anecdotal evidence has cancelled yours out.  Oops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something seriously wrong with your setup .
I run Vista on a Core 2 2.6 with 4GB of ram and it flies .
It seems my anecdotal evidence has cancelled yours out .
Oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something seriously wrong with your setup.
I run Vista on a Core 2 2.6 with 4GB of ram and it flies.
It seems my anecdotal evidence has cancelled yours out.
Oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28284019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28143009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28141353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_0254255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28143009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28284019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28141353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28134889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136111
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139901
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28135163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28140647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28145389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136379
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28139961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28136959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28138183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_0254255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_0254255.28137315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
