<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1237236</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Free AV App May Be a Non-Starter</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244813580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/computerworld" rel="nofollow">CWmike</a> writes <i>"Microsoft is <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134254">preparing to launch a public beta of Morro</a>, the free anti-malware it announced last November, according to reports. Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare, the software that the free software will replace and Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package. OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134237">along with finance app Microsoft Money</a>). John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner, has questioned whether users would step up to Morro even if it was free. 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' he said. 'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?' Not surprisingly, competitors have dismissed Morro's threat to their business. 'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Microsoft is preparing to launch a public beta of Morro , the free anti-malware it announced last November , according to reports .
Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare , the software that the free software will replace and Microsoft 's first consumer-grade antivirus package .
OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 ( along with finance app Microsoft Money ) .
John Pescatore , an analyst at Gartner , has questioned whether users would step up to Morro even if it was free .
'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products, ' he said .
'Think of it this way .
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said , " Sure , we can remove that , but it will cost you $ 50 .
" Would you buy it ?
' Not surprisingly , competitors have dismissed Morro 's threat to their business .
'We like our chances, ' Todd Gebhart , vice president in charge of McAfee 's consumer line , said when it was announced OneCare was a goner .
'Consumers have already rejected OneCare, ' added Rowan Trollope , senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec .
'Making that same substandard security technology free wo n't change that equation .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Microsoft is preparing to launch a public beta of Morro, the free anti-malware it announced last November, according to reports.
Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare, the software that the free software will replace and Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package.
OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (along with finance app Microsoft Money).
John Pescatore, an analyst at Gartner, has questioned whether users would step up to Morro even if it was free.
'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' he said.
'Think of it this way.
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.
" Would you buy it?
' Not surprisingly, competitors have dismissed Morro's threat to their business.
'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner.
'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec.
'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309789</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1244827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</p></div><p>easy there big boy! recent success? give them a few months until the "new" wears off before declaring it a success. Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor, Surge, Clear Pepsi, OK, Mt. Dew Livewire, [insert freaky ass flavor here], etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it. now where are they at?</p></div><p>Yes, yes, Bing has been a BIG success man! Come on, and join the MS funboys party, they serve the coolaid at the entrance!<br>
And this Morro thing, is going to be even bigger than Bing. Based on a technology that has already been rejected by the market, the success will be certain.<br>
I can just picture the meeting:<br>
<br>
A: What do we do with this noOneCare? Nobody is buying it, and it costs us money. We fire everyone?<br>
B: Why is it?<br>
A: The technology suck, and people stopped buying into the Mafia Approach (sell fear and protection) long time ago.<br>
B: Let's try to give it for free for one year, then we fire everyone.<br>
<br>
If you would have asked me, in 1996 or so, that MS would have become so uncool that no new software they try to push would fail, and that they'll be actually forced to give stuff for free, I certainly wouldn't have believed you.<br>
Oh well, here we are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance.easy there big boy !
recent success ?
give them a few months until the " new " wears off before declaring it a success .
Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor , Surge , Clear Pepsi , OK , Mt .
Dew Livewire , [ insert freaky ass flavor here ] , etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it .
now where are they at ? Yes , yes , Bing has been a BIG success man !
Come on , and join the MS funboys party , they serve the coolaid at the entrance !
And this Morro thing , is going to be even bigger than Bing .
Based on a technology that has already been rejected by the market , the success will be certain .
I can just picture the meeting : A : What do we do with this noOneCare ?
Nobody is buying it , and it costs us money .
We fire everyone ?
B : Why is it ?
A : The technology suck , and people stopped buying into the Mafia Approach ( sell fear and protection ) long time ago .
B : Let 's try to give it for free for one year , then we fire everyone .
If you would have asked me , in 1996 or so , that MS would have become so uncool that no new software they try to push would fail , and that they 'll be actually forced to give stuff for free , I certainly would n't have believed you .
Oh well , here we are .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.easy there big boy!
recent success?
give them a few months until the "new" wears off before declaring it a success.
Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor, Surge, Clear Pepsi, OK, Mt.
Dew Livewire, [insert freaky ass flavor here], etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it.
now where are they at?Yes, yes, Bing has been a BIG success man!
Come on, and join the MS funboys party, they serve the coolaid at the entrance!
And this Morro thing, is going to be even bigger than Bing.
Based on a technology that has already been rejected by the market, the success will be certain.
I can just picture the meeting:

A: What do we do with this noOneCare?
Nobody is buying it, and it costs us money.
We fire everyone?
B: Why is it?
A: The technology suck, and people stopped buying into the Mafia Approach (sell fear and protection) long time ago.
B: Let's try to give it for free for one year, then we fire everyone.
If you would have asked me, in 1996 or so, that MS would have become so uncool that no new software they try to push would fail, and that they'll be actually forced to give stuff for free, I certainly wouldn't have believed you.
Oh well, here we are ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309841</id>
	<title>Re:Bad analogy</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244828040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Almost all Widows-targetting malware, whether it works by directly compromising a Windows component or through compromising an app running on Windows, exploits fundamental holes in the Windows security model which make it so that compromising any bit of software is equivalent to compromising the user account that runs the software, which is almost always either a regular user account or the system account.</p><p>Of course, this is a fairly common feature of OS structure that's far from unique to Windows, but its not the only way to do things, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days .
Almost all Widows-targetting malware , whether it works by directly compromising a Windows component or through compromising an app running on Windows , exploits fundamental holes in the Windows security model which make it so that compromising any bit of software is equivalent to compromising the user account that runs the software , which is almost always either a regular user account or the system account.Of course , this is a fairly common feature of OS structure that 's far from unique to Windows , but its not the only way to do things , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days.
Almost all Widows-targetting malware, whether it works by directly compromising a Windows component or through compromising an app running on Windows, exploits fundamental holes in the Windows security model which make it so that compromising any bit of software is equivalent to compromising the user account that runs the software, which is almost always either a regular user account or the system account.Of course, this is a fairly common feature of OS structure that's far from unique to Windows, but its not the only way to do things, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318317</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1244886300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you're looking for is <p> <a href="http://www.free-av.com/" title="free-av.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.free-av.com/</a> [free-av.com] </p><p> Easy , free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're looking for is http : //www.free-av.com/ [ free-av.com ] Easy , free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're looking for is  http://www.free-av.com/ [free-av.com]  Easy , free</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311219</id>
	<title>Re:Bad analogy</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1244833380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?'</p></div><p>Additionally, this isn't correct. Microsoft isn't charging you to remove the sulfur smell -- it's free. If the water company offered to do it for free, I'd say sign me up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sure , we can remove that , but it will cost you $ 50 .
" Would you buy it ?
'Additionally , this is n't correct .
Microsoft is n't charging you to remove the sulfur smell -- it 's free .
If the water company offered to do it for free , I 'd say sign me up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.
" Would you buy it?
'Additionally, this isn't correct.
Microsoft isn't charging you to remove the sulfur smell -- it's free.
If the water company offered to do it for free, I'd say sign me up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</id>
	<title>Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Raindance</author>
	<datestamp>1244817480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but this summary feels a little over the top.</p><p><i>'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"</i></p><p>How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</p><p>Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee. I'm reminded of <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/10/1923240/Security-Firms-Fined-Over-Never-Ending-Subscriptions" title="slashdot.org">this</a> [slashdot.org] recent slashdot story-</p><p><i>"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent. The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA."</i></p><p>I think something that's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.</p><p>p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there , but this summary feels a little over the top .
'We like our chances, ' Todd Gebhart , vice president in charge of McAfee 's consumer line , said when it was announced OneCare was a goner .
'Consumers have already rejected OneCare, ' added Rowan Trollope , senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec .
'Making that same substandard security technology free wo n't change that equation .
' " How can you say that with a straight face ?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge .
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance.Personally , I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee .
I 'm reminded of this [ slashdot.org ] recent slashdot story- " 'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $ 375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers ' subscriptions without their consent .
' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent .
The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA .
" I think something that 's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.p.s .
anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible ?
Either he 's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but this summary feels a little over the top.
'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner.
'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec.
'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.
'"How can you say that with a straight face?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge.
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.
I'm reminded of this [slashdot.org] recent slashdot story-"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.
' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent.
The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA.
"I think something that's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.p.s.
anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible?
Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308141</id>
	<title>Latest AV-Comparatives report..</title>
	<author>Henk Poley</author>
	<datestamp>1244821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much I would like to bash Microsoft from time to time. <a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc\_report22.pdf" title="av-comparatives.org">latest AV-Comparatives report</a> [av-comparatives.org] has them up there with ESET NOD32. With Microsoft you never know if that included some sums of money, but yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much I would like to bash Microsoft from time to time .
latest AV-Comparatives report [ av-comparatives.org ] has them up there with ESET NOD32 .
With Microsoft you never know if that included some sums of money , but yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much I would like to bash Microsoft from time to time.
latest AV-Comparatives report [av-comparatives.org] has them up there with ESET NOD32.
With Microsoft you never know if that included some sums of money, but yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308383</id>
	<title>Beware the closed source</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1244822280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe the biggest focus out of all this is on the "evolution" (or whatever) of their anti-virus, with little mention of the end of the Money product line.
<br> <br>
I feel for all the people who have been locked in to MS money, like the one in the article. Hopefully it will drive him to open source... however I haven't really been able to find a good alternative to Money and/or Quicken for Home/SMB finance.. any suggestions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the biggest focus out of all this is on the " evolution " ( or whatever ) of their anti-virus , with little mention of the end of the Money product line .
I feel for all the people who have been locked in to MS money , like the one in the article .
Hopefully it will drive him to open source... however I have n't really been able to find a good alternative to Money and/or Quicken for Home/SMB finance.. any suggestions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the biggest focus out of all this is on the "evolution" (or whatever) of their anti-virus, with little mention of the end of the Money product line.
I feel for all the people who have been locked in to MS money, like the one in the article.
Hopefully it will drive him to open source... however I haven't really been able to find a good alternative to Money and/or Quicken for Home/SMB finance.. any suggestions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28313729</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244799240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just read that report you linked. They gave Symantec 5 stars out of 5 in performance. That fact alone completely discredits the entire report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just read that report you linked .
They gave Symantec 5 stars out of 5 in performance .
That fact alone completely discredits the entire report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just read that report you linked.
They gave Symantec 5 stars out of 5 in performance.
That fact alone completely discredits the entire report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308315</id>
	<title>I've got a question for McAfee, Symantec, et al...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1244821980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was unwilling to pay Microsoft $50 to buy a product that detected and fixed problems with their other products, what makes you think I'd find it any more palatable to be buying a similar product from you folks?

</p><p>Don't bother answering, guys. Your response would only make me laugh. You see my desktop hasn't needed any of your products for a good number of years now. In fact, the only Microsoft product loaded on any of our computers is a semi-broken version of XP that now wants to be re-authorized because I added an old SCSI controller to the system. Like that's ever going to happen. (When I get the time, another 80GB of disk space will be available for my daughters to use on Linux.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was unwilling to pay Microsoft $ 50 to buy a product that detected and fixed problems with their other products , what makes you think I 'd find it any more palatable to be buying a similar product from you folks ?
Do n't bother answering , guys .
Your response would only make me laugh .
You see my desktop has n't needed any of your products for a good number of years now .
In fact , the only Microsoft product loaded on any of our computers is a semi-broken version of XP that now wants to be re-authorized because I added an old SCSI controller to the system .
Like that 's ever going to happen .
( When I get the time , another 80GB of disk space will be available for my daughters to use on Linux .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was unwilling to pay Microsoft $50 to buy a product that detected and fixed problems with their other products, what makes you think I'd find it any more palatable to be buying a similar product from you folks?
Don't bother answering, guys.
Your response would only make me laugh.
You see my desktop hasn't needed any of your products for a good number of years now.
In fact, the only Microsoft product loaded on any of our computers is a semi-broken version of XP that now wants to be re-authorized because I added an old SCSI controller to the system.
Like that's ever going to happen.
(When I get the time, another 80GB of disk space will be available for my daughters to use on Linux.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316675</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244819580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best free AV is: Avira (http://www.free-av.com/), Panda as lunch is own free antivirus "CloudAntivirus" (http://www.cloudantivirus.com/)... many people don't like Panda, but Panda Security is having lately good results in comparisons.... much good that ClamWin...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best free AV is : Avira ( http : //www.free-av.com/ ) , Panda as lunch is own free antivirus " CloudAntivirus " ( http : //www.cloudantivirus.com/ ) ... many people do n't like Panda , but Panda Security is having lately good results in comparisons.... much good that ClamWin.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best free AV is: Avira (http://www.free-av.com/), Panda as lunch is own free antivirus "CloudAntivirus" (http://www.cloudantivirus.com/)... many people don't like Panda, but Panda Security is having lately good results in comparisons.... much good that ClamWin...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308863</id>
	<title>It's about time.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1244824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you create a product that spawns a multi-billion dollar market focused on protecting people from the flaws in your product, you've done something wrong.  This is something that should have happened years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you create a product that spawns a multi-billion dollar market focused on protecting people from the flaws in your product , you 've done something wrong .
This is something that should have happened years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you create a product that spawns a multi-billion dollar market focused on protecting people from the flaws in your product, you've done something wrong.
This is something that should have happened years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318879</id>
	<title>Re:Money? Damn!</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1244896620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform. There's nothing like it for Linux.</p></div><p>Well if you really want to run Linux on your PC and still want to lock yourself into products that only run under an Microsoft OS there are two ways of approaching this problem. Obviously the first step is to install a recent Linux distribution on your PC then.
</p><ol>
<li> Run Microsoft Money under Wine (it does work) or</li>
<li> Run a (cough!) legitimate version of MS Windows under virtualisation such as Vmware or Virtualbox (there are others as well) and install MS Money as normal. At least the installed MS Windows will be sand boxed.</li>
</ol><p>
The total cost of installing MS Money under Linux is exactly the same as if you installed it under MS Windows and the same is true for all MS Windows centric software. <br>
<br>
Of course a quick Google <a href="http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Linux\_software\_equivalent\_to\_Windows\_software" title="linuxquestions.org"> search </a> [linuxquestions.org] will display Linux software equivalents to MS Windows software. In the case of MS Money you have GnuCash, KMyMoney, jGnash, MoneyDance, Grisbi, PLCash, CrossOver Office with Quicken, lazy8ledger. All run natively under Linux on the Intel architecture and if you don't like the free solutions you can pay for a proprietary solution that will work under Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform .
There 's nothing like it for Linux.Well if you really want to run Linux on your PC and still want to lock yourself into products that only run under an Microsoft OS there are two ways of approaching this problem .
Obviously the first step is to install a recent Linux distribution on your PC then .
Run Microsoft Money under Wine ( it does work ) or Run a ( cough !
) legitimate version of MS Windows under virtualisation such as Vmware or Virtualbox ( there are others as well ) and install MS Money as normal .
At least the installed MS Windows will be sand boxed .
The total cost of installing MS Money under Linux is exactly the same as if you installed it under MS Windows and the same is true for all MS Windows centric software .
Of course a quick Google search [ linuxquestions.org ] will display Linux software equivalents to MS Windows software .
In the case of MS Money you have GnuCash , KMyMoney , jGnash , MoneyDance , Grisbi , PLCash , CrossOver Office with Quicken , lazy8ledger .
All run natively under Linux on the Intel architecture and if you do n't like the free solutions you can pay for a proprietary solution that will work under Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform.
There's nothing like it for Linux.Well if you really want to run Linux on your PC and still want to lock yourself into products that only run under an Microsoft OS there are two ways of approaching this problem.
Obviously the first step is to install a recent Linux distribution on your PC then.
Run Microsoft Money under Wine (it does work) or
 Run a (cough!
) legitimate version of MS Windows under virtualisation such as Vmware or Virtualbox (there are others as well) and install MS Money as normal.
At least the installed MS Windows will be sand boxed.
The total cost of installing MS Money under Linux is exactly the same as if you installed it under MS Windows and the same is true for all MS Windows centric software.
Of course a quick Google  search  [linuxquestions.org] will display Linux software equivalents to MS Windows software.
In the case of MS Money you have GnuCash, KMyMoney, jGnash, MoneyDance, Grisbi, PLCash, CrossOver Office with Quicken, lazy8ledger.
All run natively under Linux on the Intel architecture and if you don't like the free solutions you can pay for a proprietary solution that will work under Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308967</id>
	<title>Bing! Morro!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got Kermit the Frog and Big Bird naming their products now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got Kermit the Frog and Big Bird naming their products now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got Kermit the Frog and Big Bird naming their products now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308033</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</p></div><p>
You forgot to mention bundling.  If MS includes Morro by default with Windows 7, then they're instantly going to have the largest AV/AntiMalware share on Windows 7.  Just like IE and the browser war.  Anyone who wants to compete with free and bundled has to offer a similar product for free -- don't believe me?  The last time anyone actually paid for a browser on Windows was probably about 6 months after IE came out for free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you say that with a straight face ?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge .
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance .
You forgot to mention bundling .
If MS includes Morro by default with Windows 7 , then they 're instantly going to have the largest AV/AntiMalware share on Windows 7 .
Just like IE and the browser war .
Anyone who wants to compete with free and bundled has to offer a similar product for free -- do n't believe me ?
The last time anyone actually paid for a browser on Windows was probably about 6 months after IE came out for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you say that with a straight face?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge.
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.
You forgot to mention bundling.
If MS includes Morro by default with Windows 7, then they're instantly going to have the largest AV/AntiMalware share on Windows 7.
Just like IE and the browser war.
Anyone who wants to compete with free and bundled has to offer a similar product for free -- don't believe me?
The last time anyone actually paid for a browser on Windows was probably about 6 months after IE came out for free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28315345</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1244808240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own, they've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.</i> <br> <br>

Uhm, <a href="http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/03/28/pwn-to-own-final-day-and-wrap-up" title="tippingpoint.com">last year</a> [tippingpoint.com] Vista SP1 fell.  Ubuntu got out of the contest unscathed.<br>
<br>
You're talking about an OS which allows the machine to be compromised, not through idiot users or social engineering, but by <i>reading an email</i> or <i>looking at a website</i> in many cases, and where the <i>normal, expected</i> means of installing new applications is to download and run untrusted executables from wherever.  They have plenty to worry about on the technical side of things.  <br>
<br>
After two decades of exploit after exploit after exploit, it's amazing to me that anyone seriously tries to defend Windows security anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own , they 've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things .
Uhm , last year [ tippingpoint.com ] Vista SP1 fell .
Ubuntu got out of the contest unscathed .
You 're talking about an OS which allows the machine to be compromised , not through idiot users or social engineering , but by reading an email or looking at a website in many cases , and where the normal , expected means of installing new applications is to download and run untrusted executables from wherever .
They have plenty to worry about on the technical side of things .
After two decades of exploit after exploit after exploit , it 's amazing to me that anyone seriously tries to defend Windows security anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own, they've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.
Uhm, last year [tippingpoint.com] Vista SP1 fell.
Ubuntu got out of the contest unscathed.
You're talking about an OS which allows the machine to be compromised, not through idiot users or social engineering, but by reading an email or looking at a website in many cases, and where the normal, expected means of installing new applications is to download and run untrusted executables from wherever.
They have plenty to worry about on the technical side of things.
After two decades of exploit after exploit after exploit, it's amazing to me that anyone seriously tries to defend Windows security anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308757</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244823660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analogy would hold much more water (no pun intended) if you smelled a rotten egg in your pipes and call a plumber because appearantly the water company isn't able to keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes.</p><p>Now the water company employs their own plumbers. They come to you for free, but then... if they're working for the water company, and they can't keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes, should I trust them with mine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy would hold much more water ( no pun intended ) if you smelled a rotten egg in your pipes and call a plumber because appearantly the water company is n't able to keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes.Now the water company employs their own plumbers .
They come to you for free , but then... if they 're working for the water company , and they ca n't keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes , should I trust them with mine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy would hold much more water (no pun intended) if you smelled a rotten egg in your pipes and call a plumber because appearantly the water company isn't able to keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes.Now the water company employs their own plumbers.
They come to you for free, but then... if they're working for the water company, and they can't keep the rotten eggs out of their pipes, should I trust them with mine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</id>
	<title>Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244817720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50." Would you buy it?'</p><p>This analogy is just dumb.  This is a free product.  Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying, "Sure, we can remove that for free."</p><p>Not to mention 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' which is a stupid point to make about a free product.</p><p>Furthermore, MS's security "problems" are over a billion installs.  As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own, they've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.</p><p>And finally, "added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation'" is pretty funny from a guy representing a company that actually charges for substandard security technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Think of it this way .
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said , " Sure , we can remove that , but it will cost you $ 50 .
" Would you buy it ?
'This analogy is just dumb .
This is a free product .
Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying , " Sure , we can remove that for free .
" Not to mention 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products, ' which is a stupid point to make about a free product.Furthermore , MS 's security " problems " are over a billion installs .
As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own , they 've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.And finally , " added Rowan Trollope , senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec .
'Making that same substandard security technology free wo n't change that equation ' " is pretty funny from a guy representing a company that actually charges for substandard security technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Think of it this way.
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.
" Would you buy it?
'This analogy is just dumb.
This is a free product.
Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying, "Sure, we can remove that for free.
"Not to mention 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' which is a stupid point to make about a free product.Furthermore, MS's security "problems" are over a billion installs.
As we see every year when they tie Linux as the most secure system in pwn2own, they've got nothing to be upset about on the technical side of things.And finally, "added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec.
'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation'" is pretty funny from a guy representing a company that actually charges for substandard security technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310639</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1244831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Believe it or not, Symantec Corporate AV running on Vista 64 bit has a really small footprint. I really couldn't believe it at first, because on XP 32 bit it took up a lot of memory, even when doing nothing. On Vista 64 bit, the resident apps are all mostly under 5 MB of memory.  I was shocked as I had just become resigned to the fact that it usually had much more bloat. That said I would still never use anything but the corporate version - it seems to do better than the home versions with memory/CPU management.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , Symantec Corporate AV running on Vista 64 bit has a really small footprint .
I really could n't believe it at first , because on XP 32 bit it took up a lot of memory , even when doing nothing .
On Vista 64 bit , the resident apps are all mostly under 5 MB of memory .
I was shocked as I had just become resigned to the fact that it usually had much more bloat .
That said I would still never use anything but the corporate version - it seems to do better than the home versions with memory/CPU management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, Symantec Corporate AV running on Vista 64 bit has a really small footprint.
I really couldn't believe it at first, because on XP 32 bit it took up a lot of memory, even when doing nothing.
On Vista 64 bit, the resident apps are all mostly under 5 MB of memory.
I was shocked as I had just become resigned to the fact that it usually had much more bloat.
That said I would still never use anything but the corporate version - it seems to do better than the home versions with memory/CPU management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309255</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta love it</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1244826000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is where linux has several inherent advantages over windows....</p><p>A trusted package repository - if you can, try to get all your software from the repository, it will be signed by your distro and therefore somewhat trusted, and is much easier to maintain (update) etc... Users are far less likely to be downloading and running random arbitrary binaries.</p><p>Files being executable are based on file permissions rather than the name, a malicious file being delivered by a website can easily control the filename, but it cannot control whether your system gives it execution rights or not, that you have to do yourself creating an extra step in the process.</p><p>Extra to the above, linux does not hide file extensions in the same way windows does by default, on windows icons are stored in the executables themselves, so its possible to create an executable with the same icon as a more innocuous file, eg a jpeg picture... then you can call it "blah.jpg.exe" and windows will hide the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe part by default, making it look exactly like a jpeg picture in explorer.</p><p>Linux users won't have root privileges by default, so a piece of malware needs to elevate privileges first before it can do serious damage or try to hide itself thoroughly, windows (and shoddy third party apps) has always encouraged users to run as admin, although vista is trying to address this.</p><p>Linux has no concept of autorun, windows will automatically execute files on inserted media by default, some malware takes advantage of this to spread.</p><p>Diversity - there are many versions of linux with various differences between them, even including processor differences (linux/ppc on ps3 or old macs, arm or mips based netbooks etc), meaning that a piece of malware written for ubuntu/x86 may not operate correctly on fedora/x86 and certainly won't run on yellowdog/ppc... for instance the init scripts differ between fedora and ubuntu, so the malware may have difficulty configuring itself to start at boot....</p><p>This isn't a comprehensive list, and it certainly isn't flawless, but it highlights several things that make linux a tougher proposition than windows for malware authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is where linux has several inherent advantages over windows....A trusted package repository - if you can , try to get all your software from the repository , it will be signed by your distro and therefore somewhat trusted , and is much easier to maintain ( update ) etc... Users are far less likely to be downloading and running random arbitrary binaries.Files being executable are based on file permissions rather than the name , a malicious file being delivered by a website can easily control the filename , but it can not control whether your system gives it execution rights or not , that you have to do yourself creating an extra step in the process.Extra to the above , linux does not hide file extensions in the same way windows does by default , on windows icons are stored in the executables themselves , so its possible to create an executable with the same icon as a more innocuous file , eg a jpeg picture... then you can call it " blah.jpg.exe " and windows will hide the .exe part by default , making it look exactly like a jpeg picture in explorer.Linux users wo n't have root privileges by default , so a piece of malware needs to elevate privileges first before it can do serious damage or try to hide itself thoroughly , windows ( and shoddy third party apps ) has always encouraged users to run as admin , although vista is trying to address this.Linux has no concept of autorun , windows will automatically execute files on inserted media by default , some malware takes advantage of this to spread.Diversity - there are many versions of linux with various differences between them , even including processor differences ( linux/ppc on ps3 or old macs , arm or mips based netbooks etc ) , meaning that a piece of malware written for ubuntu/x86 may not operate correctly on fedora/x86 and certainly wo n't run on yellowdog/ppc... for instance the init scripts differ between fedora and ubuntu , so the malware may have difficulty configuring itself to start at boot....This is n't a comprehensive list , and it certainly is n't flawless , but it highlights several things that make linux a tougher proposition than windows for malware authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is where linux has several inherent advantages over windows....A trusted package repository - if you can, try to get all your software from the repository, it will be signed by your distro and therefore somewhat trusted, and is much easier to maintain (update) etc... Users are far less likely to be downloading and running random arbitrary binaries.Files being executable are based on file permissions rather than the name, a malicious file being delivered by a website can easily control the filename, but it cannot control whether your system gives it execution rights or not, that you have to do yourself creating an extra step in the process.Extra to the above, linux does not hide file extensions in the same way windows does by default, on windows icons are stored in the executables themselves, so its possible to create an executable with the same icon as a more innocuous file, eg a jpeg picture... then you can call it "blah.jpg.exe" and windows will hide the .exe part by default, making it look exactly like a jpeg picture in explorer.Linux users won't have root privileges by default, so a piece of malware needs to elevate privileges first before it can do serious damage or try to hide itself thoroughly, windows (and shoddy third party apps) has always encouraged users to run as admin, although vista is trying to address this.Linux has no concept of autorun, windows will automatically execute files on inserted media by default, some malware takes advantage of this to spread.Diversity - there are many versions of linux with various differences between them, even including processor differences (linux/ppc on ps3 or old macs, arm or mips based netbooks etc), meaning that a piece of malware written for ubuntu/x86 may not operate correctly on fedora/x86 and certainly won't run on yellowdog/ppc... for instance the init scripts differ between fedora and ubuntu, so the malware may have difficulty configuring itself to start at boot....This isn't a comprehensive list, and it certainly isn't flawless, but it highlights several things that make linux a tougher proposition than windows for malware authors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310511</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new version of Norton AV is much faster than older versions; they've really worked on cleaning up that problem.  As for removing it, if the uninstall fails for some reason, the Symantec Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT) will definitely get rid of it.</p><p>I understand that you're looking for something free (I'm running AVG on my Windows 7 box at home), but for those who don't mind paying a subscription fee, you should definitely <a href="http://shop.symantecstore.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=AddItemToRequisition&amp;SiteID=symnahho&amp;Locale=en\_US&amp;ThemeID=106300&amp;Env=BASE&amp;productID=108122700&amp;quantity=1" title="symantecstore.com">download the free 2-week trial</a> [symantecstore.com].  NAV2006 was a horrible steaming pile of crap, but this isn't that.  I have no affiliation to Symantec and do NOT recommend any of their other software (360, Internet Security, SystemWorks), but NAV is what I recommend to my clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new version of Norton AV is much faster than older versions ; they 've really worked on cleaning up that problem .
As for removing it , if the uninstall fails for some reason , the Symantec Norton Removal Tool ( SymNRT ) will definitely get rid of it.I understand that you 're looking for something free ( I 'm running AVG on my Windows 7 box at home ) , but for those who do n't mind paying a subscription fee , you should definitely download the free 2-week trial [ symantecstore.com ] .
NAV2006 was a horrible steaming pile of crap , but this is n't that .
I have no affiliation to Symantec and do NOT recommend any of their other software ( 360 , Internet Security , SystemWorks ) , but NAV is what I recommend to my clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new version of Norton AV is much faster than older versions; they've really worked on cleaning up that problem.
As for removing it, if the uninstall fails for some reason, the Symantec Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT) will definitely get rid of it.I understand that you're looking for something free (I'm running AVG on my Windows 7 box at home), but for those who don't mind paying a subscription fee, you should definitely download the free 2-week trial [symantecstore.com].
NAV2006 was a horrible steaming pile of crap, but this isn't that.
I have no affiliation to Symantec and do NOT recommend any of their other software (360, Internet Security, SystemWorks), but NAV is what I recommend to my clients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307721</id>
	<title>!Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244819820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to pay for it.  Pay as in speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to pay for it .
Pay as in speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to pay for it.
Pay as in speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314341</id>
	<title>I'll definitely try it</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1244802300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>1. I don't normally worry about viruses or malwares. Running one is just a precaution, especially after downloading stuff from net.<br>2. Symantec and McAfee just SUCK. I don't know why they are still in business. Their business model is to spread FUD so people will buy their shitty products that do more harm than good.<br>3. I've had much more success with free AV software than non-free ones. Microsoft Defender is actually pretty good. There is also a Chinese malware product called 360safe (http://www.360safe.com) that I use. On the contrary S/M never cleaned a malware for me once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? 1 .
I do n't normally worry about viruses or malwares .
Running one is just a precaution , especially after downloading stuff from net.2 .
Symantec and McAfee just SUCK .
I do n't know why they are still in business .
Their business model is to spread FUD so people will buy their shitty products that do more harm than good.3 .
I 've had much more success with free AV software than non-free ones .
Microsoft Defender is actually pretty good .
There is also a Chinese malware product called 360safe ( http : //www.360safe.com ) that I use .
On the contrary S/M never cleaned a malware for me once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?1.
I don't normally worry about viruses or malwares.
Running one is just a precaution, especially after downloading stuff from net.2.
Symantec and McAfee just SUCK.
I don't know why they are still in business.
Their business model is to spread FUD so people will buy their shitty products that do more harm than good.3.
I've had much more success with free AV software than non-free ones.
Microsoft Defender is actually pretty good.
There is also a Chinese malware product called 360safe (http://www.360safe.com) that I use.
On the contrary S/M never cleaned a malware for me once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307669</id>
	<title>The Microsoft Ethical Problem</title>
	<author>artgeeq</author>
	<datestamp>1244819580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,"'

Well, yes. But it is not just that. We already pay for Microsoft product defects in other ways too. Let's say you are doing a major rollout of Active Directory or Exchange. Sometimes, the only way you get a bug fix is to get a support contract from Microsoft or hire a company that has a support contract. Any Exchange administrator of a good size organization can tell you that Exchange has more than its fair share of bugs, and this new one, Exchange 2007, is no exception.

Which leads to the question, where is the incentive on the part of Microsoft to produce really good software? Why not just produce mediocre software and then ask people to pay more money to fix it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products , " ' Well , yes .
But it is not just that .
We already pay for Microsoft product defects in other ways too .
Let 's say you are doing a major rollout of Active Directory or Exchange .
Sometimes , the only way you get a bug fix is to get a support contract from Microsoft or hire a company that has a support contract .
Any Exchange administrator of a good size organization can tell you that Exchange has more than its fair share of bugs , and this new one , Exchange 2007 , is no exception .
Which leads to the question , where is the incentive on the part of Microsoft to produce really good software ?
Why not just produce mediocre software and then ask people to pay more money to fix it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,"'

Well, yes.
But it is not just that.
We already pay for Microsoft product defects in other ways too.
Let's say you are doing a major rollout of Active Directory or Exchange.
Sometimes, the only way you get a bug fix is to get a support contract from Microsoft or hire a company that has a support contract.
Any Exchange administrator of a good size organization can tell you that Exchange has more than its fair share of bugs, and this new one, Exchange 2007, is no exception.
Which leads to the question, where is the incentive on the part of Microsoft to produce really good software?
Why not just produce mediocre software and then ask people to pay more money to fix it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314327</id>
	<title>Something wrong with this picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has it occurred to anyone that if Microsoft is not going to make money from this anti-malware product because they choose not to charge users for it. Wouldn't it have made more sense to invest the money spent in the development of this into doing a better job of patching Windows, and generally making it more secure from malware? For the same company that makes such an insecure operating system to also make a piece of software put a "security band-aid" over it makes no sense at all. The Microsoft programmers have access to the Windows source code right to do this right? It's just a matter of upper management making a smart decision with money spent on R&amp;D.</p><p>Peace</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it occurred to anyone that if Microsoft is not going to make money from this anti-malware product because they choose not to charge users for it .
Would n't it have made more sense to invest the money spent in the development of this into doing a better job of patching Windows , and generally making it more secure from malware ?
For the same company that makes such an insecure operating system to also make a piece of software put a " security band-aid " over it makes no sense at all .
The Microsoft programmers have access to the Windows source code right to do this right ?
It 's just a matter of upper management making a smart decision with money spent on R&amp;D.Peace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it occurred to anyone that if Microsoft is not going to make money from this anti-malware product because they choose not to charge users for it.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to invest the money spent in the development of this into doing a better job of patching Windows, and generally making it more secure from malware?
For the same company that makes such an insecure operating system to also make a piece of software put a "security band-aid" over it makes no sense at all.
The Microsoft programmers have access to the Windows source code right to do this right?
It's just a matter of upper management making a smart decision with money spent on R&amp;D.Peace</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244818320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The secret to Malware is suckering people into installing what they "think" is legitimate software.  It's easier than you think it is and it doesn't matter which OS you are using, but since Windows has the largest market share it's the optimum target.  It is not that Linux can't run Malware, it can, but to write such software for such a small target is not worth the effort.  Nice troll though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The secret to Malware is suckering people into installing what they " think " is legitimate software .
It 's easier than you think it is and it does n't matter which OS you are using , but since Windows has the largest market share it 's the optimum target .
It is not that Linux ca n't run Malware , it can , but to write such software for such a small target is not worth the effort .
Nice troll though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The secret to Malware is suckering people into installing what they "think" is legitimate software.
It's easier than you think it is and it doesn't matter which OS you are using, but since Windows has the largest market share it's the optimum target.
It is not that Linux can't run Malware, it can, but to write such software for such a small target is not worth the effort.
Nice troll though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307267</id>
	<title>Missing something?</title>
	<author>terbo</author>
	<datestamp>1244817660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"</p><p>Hmm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Making that same substandard security technology free wo n't change that equation .
' " Hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.
'"Hmm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311199</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's disjointed AntiVirus strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Malicious Software Removal Tool" is pushed through Windows Update.  It's not meant to be a full-blown virus scanner, just an install script that will neuter a few of this month's viruses.  It's created for the computer illiterates with no virus scanner in the hopes that they left Automatic Updates on.</p><p>Windows Defender was supposed to be a very basic, lightweight application to provide some warning that you're infected  It's part of Windows Vista, installable on Windows XP, and has some nifty functions that fall between msconfig and HijackThis.  I can't speak to it's detection rate, but our help desk has gotten a few calls from people who didn't realize they were infected until Windows Defender told them so.</p><p>Windows Live OneCare was their attempt at competing with Symantec or Network Associates.  They bought the basic engine from some other company, saw that the entire thing was written in VB 6, facepalmed, and rewrote it as OneCare.  It also helps with remote backups and whatnot.</p><p>They really shouldn't be all one product, as they serve completely different purposes.  Although if they made Windows Defender a bit more powerful, they'd have an uninstallable version of Live Care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Malicious Software Removal Tool " is pushed through Windows Update .
It 's not meant to be a full-blown virus scanner , just an install script that will neuter a few of this month 's viruses .
It 's created for the computer illiterates with no virus scanner in the hopes that they left Automatic Updates on.Windows Defender was supposed to be a very basic , lightweight application to provide some warning that you 're infected It 's part of Windows Vista , installable on Windows XP , and has some nifty functions that fall between msconfig and HijackThis .
I ca n't speak to it 's detection rate , but our help desk has gotten a few calls from people who did n't realize they were infected until Windows Defender told them so.Windows Live OneCare was their attempt at competing with Symantec or Network Associates .
They bought the basic engine from some other company , saw that the entire thing was written in VB 6 , facepalmed , and rewrote it as OneCare .
It also helps with remote backups and whatnot.They really should n't be all one product , as they serve completely different purposes .
Although if they made Windows Defender a bit more powerful , they 'd have an uninstallable version of Live Care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Malicious Software Removal Tool" is pushed through Windows Update.
It's not meant to be a full-blown virus scanner, just an install script that will neuter a few of this month's viruses.
It's created for the computer illiterates with no virus scanner in the hopes that they left Automatic Updates on.Windows Defender was supposed to be a very basic, lightweight application to provide some warning that you're infected  It's part of Windows Vista, installable on Windows XP, and has some nifty functions that fall between msconfig and HijackThis.
I can't speak to it's detection rate, but our help desk has gotten a few calls from people who didn't realize they were infected until Windows Defender told them so.Windows Live OneCare was their attempt at competing with Symantec or Network Associates.
They bought the basic engine from some other company, saw that the entire thing was written in VB 6, facepalmed, and rewrote it as OneCare.
It also helps with remote backups and whatnot.They really shouldn't be all one product, as they serve completely different purposes.
Although if they made Windows Defender a bit more powerful, they'd have an uninstallable version of Live Care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335</id>
	<title>Money?  Damn!</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1244822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (along with finance app Microsoft Money).</p></div><p>
Man--I have mixed emotions about this one.<br>
Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform.  There's nothing like it for Linux.<br>
I occasionally think about settings up a virtual machine to run Money--but I cringe about paying $125 for an XP license to run a $50 program.<br>
<br>
But thank God I'm free from the curse.  Now I never have to think wistfully about any app on the Microsoft platform...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 ( along with finance app Microsoft Money ) .
Man--I have mixed emotions about this one .
Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform .
There 's nothing like it for Linux .
I occasionally think about settings up a virtual machine to run Money--but I cringe about paying $ 125 for an XP license to run a $ 50 program .
But thank God I 'm free from the curse .
Now I never have to think wistfully about any app on the Microsoft platform.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OneCare is to get the boot as of June 30 (along with finance app Microsoft Money).
Man--I have mixed emotions about this one.
Microsoft Money is the one app I still miss from the Microsoft platform.
There's nothing like it for Linux.
I occasionally think about settings up a virtual machine to run Money--but I cringe about paying $125 for an XP license to run a $50 program.
But thank God I'm free from the curse.
Now I never have to think wistfully about any app on the Microsoft platform...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314577</id>
	<title>Re:Money? Damn!</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1244803320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS Money running in virtual box is the best finance app for the macintosh, too.  Actually, I use 2004 since when I tried 2005 I didn't like the UI as much, but I'm still a little sad to see it go, even if I wasn't planning on upgrading.
</p><p>
Does it work with Wine?
</p><p>
This does show the problem with closed source software (and closed source file formats).  If microsoft is killing a product, they should release the file format specs so users can migrate their data.  exporting as QIF loses information in the translation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS Money running in virtual box is the best finance app for the macintosh , too .
Actually , I use 2004 since when I tried 2005 I did n't like the UI as much , but I 'm still a little sad to see it go , even if I was n't planning on upgrading .
Does it work with Wine ?
This does show the problem with closed source software ( and closed source file formats ) .
If microsoft is killing a product , they should release the file format specs so users can migrate their data .
exporting as QIF loses information in the translation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS Money running in virtual box is the best finance app for the macintosh, too.
Actually, I use 2004 since when I tried 2005 I didn't like the UI as much, but I'm still a little sad to see it go, even if I wasn't planning on upgrading.
Does it work with Wine?
This does show the problem with closed source software (and closed source file formats).
If microsoft is killing a product, they should release the file format specs so users can migrate their data.
exporting as QIF loses information in the translation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308289</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why doesn't MS just spend the time building an OS that is not as vulnerable to viruses and malware?

Since they won't do that, why not just build the AV stuff in at a lower lever so that it is not obvious to the user that they are even running AV?  MS likes to sneak stuff in under your nose anyway, why not something that will make the OS safer and more stable?

Oh yeah, it's probably because of some conspiricy like they are the major shareholder in Symantec or Norton...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't MS just spend the time building an OS that is not as vulnerable to viruses and malware ?
Since they wo n't do that , why not just build the AV stuff in at a lower lever so that it is not obvious to the user that they are even running AV ?
MS likes to sneak stuff in under your nose anyway , why not something that will make the OS safer and more stable ?
Oh yeah , it 's probably because of some conspiricy like they are the major shareholder in Symantec or Norton.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't MS just spend the time building an OS that is not as vulnerable to viruses and malware?
Since they won't do that, why not just build the AV stuff in at a lower lever so that it is not obvious to the user that they are even running AV?
MS likes to sneak stuff in under your nose anyway, why not something that will make the OS safer and more stable?
Oh yeah, it's probably because of some conspiricy like they are the major shareholder in Symantec or Norton...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310601</id>
	<title>Hilarious</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1244831100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that it was McAfee saying that makes me laugh... but even so, it's likely their product will be better than any Microsoft AV will be. Why? Not that Microsoft will make the worst AV, but it's about dedication. "Internet Security" companies like Norton and McAfee only control a niche market (firewall/AV software), so they will prop up their flagship products as much as they can, because without them, they're sunk. A company like Microsoft won't have to maintain it out of necessity, and this could easily go the way of FrontPage, OneCare, Money (as mentioned in TFS), Picture It!, and other products that it shed like excess skin as the years went on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that it was McAfee saying that makes me laugh... but even so , it 's likely their product will be better than any Microsoft AV will be .
Why ? Not that Microsoft will make the worst AV , but it 's about dedication .
" Internet Security " companies like Norton and McAfee only control a niche market ( firewall/AV software ) , so they will prop up their flagship products as much as they can , because without them , they 're sunk .
A company like Microsoft wo n't have to maintain it out of necessity , and this could easily go the way of FrontPage , OneCare , Money ( as mentioned in TFS ) , Picture It ! , and other products that it shed like excess skin as the years went on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that it was McAfee saying that makes me laugh... but even so, it's likely their product will be better than any Microsoft AV will be.
Why? Not that Microsoft will make the worst AV, but it's about dedication.
"Internet Security" companies like Norton and McAfee only control a niche market (firewall/AV software), so they will prop up their flagship products as much as they can, because without them, they're sunk.
A company like Microsoft won't have to maintain it out of necessity, and this could easily go the way of FrontPage, OneCare, Money (as mentioned in TFS), Picture It!, and other products that it shed like excess skin as the years went on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308819</id>
	<title>whoever smelt it dealt it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be true, Mcaffe and Symantec have been making  "substandard security technology"  for years now.  The ol  "takes one to know one" is irrefutable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be true , Mcaffe and Symantec have been making " substandard security technology " for years now .
The ol " takes one to know one " is irrefutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be true, Mcaffe and Symantec have been making  "substandard security technology"  for years now.
The ol  "takes one to know one" is irrefutable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307351</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1244818020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It gets confusing when Norton and McAffe are the evil entrenched duopoly, and Microsoft is the plucky young upstart.  Reminds me of the early 80s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets confusing when Norton and McAffe are the evil entrenched duopoly , and Microsoft is the plucky young upstart .
Reminds me of the early 80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets confusing when Norton and McAffe are the evil entrenched duopoly, and Microsoft is the plucky young upstart.
Reminds me of the early 80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314567</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's disjointed AntiVirus strategy</title>
	<author>InsertWittyNameHere</author>
	<datestamp>1244803260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget about Forefront Client Security. It's also free for home use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget about Forefront Client Security .
It 's also free for home use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget about Forefront Client Security.
It's also free for home use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307487</id>
	<title>ClamWin is ghey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244818740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuff said</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309277</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1244826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analogy would be...</p><p>What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that by supplying you with a free filter"....</p><p>Having the free filter to remove the rotten egg odor would still not be preferable to simply not having the rotten egg odor at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy would be...What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said , " Sure , we can remove that by supplying you with a free filter " ....Having the free filter to remove the rotten egg odor would still not be preferable to simply not having the rotten egg odor at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy would be...What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that by supplying you with a free filter"....Having the free filter to remove the rotten egg odor would still not be preferable to simply not having the rotten egg odor at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309435</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with you there on the Norton 360 product. But I must say, Norton Internet Security product has been really good. It also got some good reviews from cnet and pcmag. Symantec seems to have done a good job recently. I run it on my laptop and desktop computer and its pretty good so far.</p><p>http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667\_7-33246586.html<br>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with you there on the Norton 360 product .
But I must say , Norton Internet Security product has been really good .
It also got some good reviews from cnet and pcmag .
Symantec seems to have done a good job recently .
I run it on my laptop and desktop computer and its pretty good so far.http : //reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667 \ _7-33246586.htmlhttp : //www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with you there on the Norton 360 product.
But I must say, Norton Internet Security product has been really good.
It also got some good reviews from cnet and pcmag.
Symantec seems to have done a good job recently.
I run it on my laptop and desktop computer and its pretty good so far.http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667\_7-33246586.htmlhttp://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307789</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they ingore you.
<br> <br>Then they watch as you abuse your monopoly position to take them out.<br> <br>Then you pay the right government officials to get a slap on the wrist.<br> <br>Then you win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they ingore you .
Then they watch as you abuse your monopoly position to take them out .
Then you pay the right government officials to get a slap on the wrist .
Then you win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they ingore you.
Then they watch as you abuse your monopoly position to take them out.
Then you pay the right government officials to get a slap on the wrist.
Then you win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308711</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This analogy is just dumb.  This is a free product.  Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying, "Sure, we can remove that for free."</p></div><p>Well, if this free AV product resembles any of the for-pay AV products I've used, I'd have to modify the analogy some more.  In that case, the water company would say, "Sure, we'll come install a device in your house to remove the odor.  It will only take up a couple hundred square feet of your house, and it has some moving parts that will only get in your way a few times a day while you're trying to go about your daily activities.  But, hey, it's free!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This analogy is just dumb .
This is a free product .
Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying , " Sure , we can remove that for free .
" Well , if this free AV product resembles any of the for-pay AV products I 've used , I 'd have to modify the analogy some more .
In that case , the water company would say , " Sure , we 'll come install a device in your house to remove the odor .
It will only take up a couple hundred square feet of your house , and it has some moving parts that will only get in your way a few times a day while you 're trying to go about your daily activities .
But , hey , it 's free !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analogy is just dumb.
This is a free product.
Obviously the analogy would have the water company saying, "Sure, we can remove that for free.
"Well, if this free AV product resembles any of the for-pay AV products I've used, I'd have to modify the analogy some more.
In that case, the water company would say, "Sure, we'll come install a device in your house to remove the odor.
It will only take up a couple hundred square feet of your house, and it has some moving parts that will only get in your way a few times a day while you're trying to go about your daily activities.
But, hey, it's free!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310053</id>
	<title>it's about time!</title>
	<author>yanyan</author>
	<datestamp>1244828820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time MS released an AV product! All those i've tried (Clamwin, AVG, Symantec, etc.) can't detect my viruses. I know for a fact they're called "kernel32", "UAC", "svchost", and the dreaded "taskman." Who knows, there might be more of them gallivanting around my computer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time MS released an AV product !
All those i 've tried ( Clamwin , AVG , Symantec , etc .
) ca n't detect my viruses .
I know for a fact they 're called " kernel32 " , " UAC " , " svchost " , and the dreaded " taskman .
" Who knows , there might be more of them gallivanting around my computer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time MS released an AV product!
All those i've tried (Clamwin, AVG, Symantec, etc.
) can't detect my viruses.
I know for a fact they're called "kernel32", "UAC", "svchost", and the dreaded "taskman.
" Who knows, there might be more of them gallivanting around my computer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310449</id>
	<title>Windows should have had AV included long ago.</title>
	<author>darkjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1244830440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cynic in me doesn't trust any of the big AV security companies.  They have a clear motive to make sure their products are needed.

An OS manufacturer on the other hand is motivated to produce a secure environment, and in this case where Apple has been hammering Microsoft about this issue, there is even more motivation.

I'll certainly be giving this free offering a try.

BTW- The rotten egg analogy was pretty lame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cynic in me does n't trust any of the big AV security companies .
They have a clear motive to make sure their products are needed .
An OS manufacturer on the other hand is motivated to produce a secure environment , and in this case where Apple has been hammering Microsoft about this issue , there is even more motivation .
I 'll certainly be giving this free offering a try .
BTW- The rotten egg analogy was pretty lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cynic in me doesn't trust any of the big AV security companies.
They have a clear motive to make sure their products are needed.
An OS manufacturer on the other hand is motivated to produce a secure environment, and in this case where Apple has been hammering Microsoft about this issue, there is even more motivation.
I'll certainly be giving this free offering a try.
BTW- The rotten egg analogy was pretty lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307593</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>skornenicholas</author>
	<datestamp>1244819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the true analogy of a water company handing out a free water filter to all of their customers due to their acknowledged water contamination issue probably wouldn't have gotten the "Micro$soft Sucks!" crowd riled up enough. Honesty, we could all use a little more of it. Oh, and to those of you suggesting Microsoft should just "Fix Windows," they would if ALL third party vendors would work with the Evil Empire and submit all code for review 12 months before releasing it for bug testing AND if virus writers would stop writing new exploits every five minutes, getting the point here sparky?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::Not a fanboy, converted his entire local office to open source and writing this on Fedora::</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the true analogy of a water company handing out a free water filter to all of their customers due to their acknowledged water contamination issue probably would n't have gotten the " Micro $ soft Sucks !
" crowd riled up enough .
Honesty , we could all use a little more of it .
Oh , and to those of you suggesting Microsoft should just " Fix Windows , " they would if ALL third party vendors would work with the Evil Empire and submit all code for review 12 months before releasing it for bug testing AND if virus writers would stop writing new exploits every five minutes , getting the point here sparky ?
: : Not a fanboy , converted his entire local office to open source and writing this on Fedora : :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the true analogy of a water company handing out a free water filter to all of their customers due to their acknowledged water contamination issue probably wouldn't have gotten the "Micro$soft Sucks!
" crowd riled up enough.
Honesty, we could all use a little more of it.
Oh, and to those of you suggesting Microsoft should just "Fix Windows," they would if ALL third party vendors would work with the Evil Empire and submit all code for review 12 months before releasing it for bug testing AND if virus writers would stop writing new exploits every five minutes, getting the point here sparky?
::Not a fanboy, converted his entire local office to open source and writing this on Fedora::</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308151</id>
	<title>Very funny name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how they got the name, sounds a bit like tomorrow or something Spanish..</p><p>I found it funny as the word morro in Japanese is how you describe getting a fatal sword thrust to your heart / neck, i.e. "to suffer a fatal blow that hits you right in a critical place" is a way to translate it.</p><p>Of course as others note, M$ selling AV is itself a funny proposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how they got the name , sounds a bit like tomorrow or something Spanish..I found it funny as the word morro in Japanese is how you describe getting a fatal sword thrust to your heart / neck , i.e .
" to suffer a fatal blow that hits you right in a critical place " is a way to translate it.Of course as others note , M $ selling AV is itself a funny proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how they got the name, sounds a bit like tomorrow or something Spanish..I found it funny as the word morro in Japanese is how you describe getting a fatal sword thrust to your heart / neck, i.e.
"to suffer a fatal blow that hits you right in a critical place" is a way to translate it.Of course as others note, M$ selling AV is itself a funny proposition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308455</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1244822520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The results from AV Comparatives are not the whole story. Livecare tends to take a while to get updated with the latest viruses. It's heuristics are not that good either, and it often fails to remove malware it finds.</p><p>Norton is actually one of the best of detection rates, but again suffers from not being able to remove a lot of stuff. It used to be dog slow, and to be fair the latest version isn't exactly quick but it's a vast improvement. It looks like they re-wrote the interface from scratch.</p><p>On the free side, AVG is the best. Avast is okay too. AntiVir's detection rates are not quite as good as AVG's, but it does have the advantage of being capable of running in an "on-demand" only mode (i.e. no realtime scanning, no background tasks etc, just loads when you right click scan things).</p><p>Get Spybot too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The results from AV Comparatives are not the whole story .
Livecare tends to take a while to get updated with the latest viruses .
It 's heuristics are not that good either , and it often fails to remove malware it finds.Norton is actually one of the best of detection rates , but again suffers from not being able to remove a lot of stuff .
It used to be dog slow , and to be fair the latest version is n't exactly quick but it 's a vast improvement .
It looks like they re-wrote the interface from scratch.On the free side , AVG is the best .
Avast is okay too .
AntiVir 's detection rates are not quite as good as AVG 's , but it does have the advantage of being capable of running in an " on-demand " only mode ( i.e .
no realtime scanning , no background tasks etc , just loads when you right click scan things ) .Get Spybot too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The results from AV Comparatives are not the whole story.
Livecare tends to take a while to get updated with the latest viruses.
It's heuristics are not that good either, and it often fails to remove malware it finds.Norton is actually one of the best of detection rates, but again suffers from not being able to remove a lot of stuff.
It used to be dog slow, and to be fair the latest version isn't exactly quick but it's a vast improvement.
It looks like they re-wrote the interface from scratch.On the free side, AVG is the best.
Avast is okay too.
AntiVir's detection rates are not quite as good as AVG's, but it does have the advantage of being capable of running in an "on-demand" only mode (i.e.
no realtime scanning, no background tasks etc, just loads when you right click scan things).Get Spybot too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28319073</id>
	<title>been there, done that</title>
	<author>bnjf</author>
	<datestamp>1244899740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Anti-Virus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Anti-Virus</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Have we forgot that MS already tried to bundle AV with their OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft \ _Anti-Virus [ wikipedia.org ] Have we forgot that MS already tried to bundle AV with their OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Anti-Virus [wikipedia.org]Have we forgot that MS already tried to bundle AV with their OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308333</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, to give Norton some credit, they've been working on their removal procedure and it's now easier to remove.</p><p>So (since my boss once said "if you can't say anything good about your competitor, say nothing"), I can now not only say "Norton has a good looking box", I can also say "It's fairly easy to remove it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to give Norton some credit , they 've been working on their removal procedure and it 's now easier to remove.So ( since my boss once said " if you ca n't say anything good about your competitor , say nothing " ) , I can now not only say " Norton has a good looking box " , I can also say " It 's fairly easy to remove it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to give Norton some credit, they've been working on their removal procedure and it's now easier to remove.So (since my boss once said "if you can't say anything good about your competitor, say nothing"), I can now not only say "Norton has a good looking box", I can also say "It's fairly easy to remove it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314807</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the statements in this article quite hilarious, considering how much Symantec and McAfee were crying back when Microsoft first announced OneCare.</p><p>Antitrust! Lawsuit! Unfairness! Well gee, looks like they did okay. Now they're just smug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the statements in this article quite hilarious , considering how much Symantec and McAfee were crying back when Microsoft first announced OneCare.Antitrust !
Lawsuit ! Unfairness !
Well gee , looks like they did okay .
Now they 're just smug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the statements in this article quite hilarious, considering how much Symantec and McAfee were crying back when Microsoft first announced OneCare.Antitrust!
Lawsuit! Unfairness!
Well gee, looks like they did okay.
Now they're just smug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307255</id>
	<title>Shouldn't they just fix Windows?</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1244817600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft make shitty pay for software do you really want to trust their free software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft make shitty pay for software do you really want to trust their free software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft make shitty pay for software do you really want to trust their free software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308427</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still suck at proactive detection and detection of variants (i.e. the critical new version of malware that might hit before you update your scanner). It tells me that they're probably working with CRC checks for known malware packages instead of a behavioristic approach (as many high profile AV suits do today).</p><p>That wouldn't be SO bad if their response time to new threats wasn't likewise abysmal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still suck at proactive detection and detection of variants ( i.e .
the critical new version of malware that might hit before you update your scanner ) .
It tells me that they 're probably working with CRC checks for known malware packages instead of a behavioristic approach ( as many high profile AV suits do today ) .That would n't be SO bad if their response time to new threats was n't likewise abysmal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still suck at proactive detection and detection of variants (i.e.
the critical new version of malware that might hit before you update your scanner).
It tells me that they're probably working with CRC checks for known malware packages instead of a behavioristic approach (as many high profile AV suits do today).That wouldn't be SO bad if their response time to new threats wasn't likewise abysmal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309883</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244828220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For AVG, 8.5 has been a much smoother experience than 8.0 was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For AVG , 8.5 has been a much smoother experience than 8.0 was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For AVG, 8.5 has been a much smoother experience than 8.0 was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316503</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>theaceoffire</author>
	<datestamp>1244817720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I can't speak for all OS's, but I have a theory.</p><p>In Ubuntu (And other OS's that use a repository), Almost all programs are available from a central location, and have been checked and confirmed as safe and working. You also get all updates from that repository, so that removes a lot of vectors for attack.</p><p>Instead of running a random exe off a random site and hoping it does what it says, you can safely add/remove dozens of apps at once, and they add anything they need to work to the download list from a safe and reliable source.</p><p>So, *can* you get a special exe that runs a virus? Yeah, I have no doubt. But since Ubuntu users are trained to install from a pre-approved massive list, it is less likely to happen as often as with a Windows OS.</p><p>Also, a large number of Virus writers are lazy. They copy/steal each others works, they assume that Windows is on the "C:" drive, they assume IE is available. Since most linux OS's don't conform to this, that is one extra layer of security by obscurity. ^\_^ We are only vulnerable to patched/new viruses that target Linux, so a lot of the old stuff is harmless to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I ca n't speak for all OS 's , but I have a theory.In Ubuntu ( And other OS 's that use a repository ) , Almost all programs are available from a central location , and have been checked and confirmed as safe and working .
You also get all updates from that repository , so that removes a lot of vectors for attack.Instead of running a random exe off a random site and hoping it does what it says , you can safely add/remove dozens of apps at once , and they add anything they need to work to the download list from a safe and reliable source.So , * can * you get a special exe that runs a virus ?
Yeah , I have no doubt .
But since Ubuntu users are trained to install from a pre-approved massive list , it is less likely to happen as often as with a Windows OS.Also , a large number of Virus writers are lazy .
They copy/steal each others works , they assume that Windows is on the " C : " drive , they assume IE is available .
Since most linux OS 's do n't conform to this , that is one extra layer of security by obscurity .
^ \ _ ^ We are only vulnerable to patched/new viruses that target Linux , so a lot of the old stuff is harmless to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I can't speak for all OS's, but I have a theory.In Ubuntu (And other OS's that use a repository), Almost all programs are available from a central location, and have been checked and confirmed as safe and working.
You also get all updates from that repository, so that removes a lot of vectors for attack.Instead of running a random exe off a random site and hoping it does what it says, you can safely add/remove dozens of apps at once, and they add anything they need to work to the download list from a safe and reliable source.So, *can* you get a special exe that runs a virus?
Yeah, I have no doubt.
But since Ubuntu users are trained to install from a pre-approved massive list, it is less likely to happen as often as with a Windows OS.Also, a large number of Virus writers are lazy.
They copy/steal each others works, they assume that Windows is on the "C:" drive, they assume IE is available.
Since most linux OS's don't conform to this, that is one extra layer of security by obscurity.
^\_^ We are only vulnerable to patched/new viruses that target Linux, so a lot of the old stuff is harmless to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>homes32</author>
	<datestamp>1244818320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</p></div><p>easy there big boy! recent success? give them a few months until the "new" wears off before declaring it a success. Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor, Surge, Clear Pepsi, OK, Mt. Dew Livewire, [insert freaky ass flavor here], etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it. now where are they at?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance.easy there big boy !
recent success ?
give them a few months until the " new " wears off before declaring it a success .
Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor , Surge , Clear Pepsi , OK , Mt .
Dew Livewire , [ insert freaky ass flavor here ] , etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it .
now where are they at ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.easy there big boy!
recent success?
give them a few months until the "new" wears off before declaring it a success.
Its just like the soda companies releasing a new flavor, Surge, Clear Pepsi, OK, Mt.
Dew Livewire, [insert freaky ass flavor here], etc... were all a big hit for about 3 months while everyone had to try it.
now where are they at?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307651</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>emurphy42</author>
	<datestamp>1244819520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/6704" title="realtechnews.com">This page</a> [realtechnews.com] places it in more coherent context:</p><blockquote><div><p>After Microsoft's announcement last year, John Pescatore, a Gartner analyst, wasn't betting that consumers users would use Morro even if it was free, due to the fact that you would be installing one MS product to fix the security issues in another MS product (the OS). And that also, he indicated, was on reason why OneCare wasn't doing so well, either.</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products. Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.' Would you buy it?"</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>p.s .
anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible ?
Either he 's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted .
This page [ realtechnews.com ] places it in more coherent context : After Microsoft 's announcement last year , John Pescatore , a Gartner analyst , was n't betting that consumers users would use Morro even if it was free , due to the fact that you would be installing one MS product to fix the security issues in another MS product ( the OS ) .
And that also , he indicated , was on reason why OneCare was n't doing so well , either .
" Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products .
Think of it this way .
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said , 'Sure , we can remove that , but it will cost you $ 50 .
' Would you buy it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>p.s.
anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible?
Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.
This page [realtechnews.com] places it in more coherent context:After Microsoft's announcement last year, John Pescatore, a Gartner analyst, wasn't betting that consumers users would use Morro even if it was free, due to the fact that you would be installing one MS product to fix the security issues in another MS product (the OS).
And that also, he indicated, was on reason why OneCare wasn't doing so well, either.
"Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products.
Think of it this way.
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, 'Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.
' Would you buy it?
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307739</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1244819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what bothers me most about this article is this line</p><p><i>'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' </i></p><p>At this point, most malware doesn't hack Windows, it hacks your brain. It tricks you into executing it. The only vector that is even being used extensively anymore is Office, Acrobat, and Flash, MS has been phasing out older formats and patching up the holes and Adobe is finally waking up and doing something about their security issues. even in those programs, most of the time a Trojan file is involved.</p><p>On top of that, the most recent malware doesn't even need administrative privlages. It simply installs in your user account directory and starts up when you login. I see absoletly no reason why this method of execution wouldn't work in any other OS, Be it Linux, OSX, or BSD regardless of security settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what bothers me most about this article is this line'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products, ' At this point , most malware does n't hack Windows , it hacks your brain .
It tricks you into executing it .
The only vector that is even being used extensively anymore is Office , Acrobat , and Flash , MS has been phasing out older formats and patching up the holes and Adobe is finally waking up and doing something about their security issues .
even in those programs , most of the time a Trojan file is involved.On top of that , the most recent malware does n't even need administrative privlages .
It simply installs in your user account directory and starts up when you login .
I see absoletly no reason why this method of execution would n't work in any other OS , Be it Linux , OSX , or BSD regardless of security settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what bothers me most about this article is this line'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,' At this point, most malware doesn't hack Windows, it hacks your brain.
It tricks you into executing it.
The only vector that is even being used extensively anymore is Office, Acrobat, and Flash, MS has been phasing out older formats and patching up the holes and Adobe is finally waking up and doing something about their security issues.
even in those programs, most of the time a Trojan file is involved.On top of that, the most recent malware doesn't even need administrative privlages.
It simply installs in your user account directory and starts up when you login.
I see absoletly no reason why this method of execution wouldn't work in any other OS, Be it Linux, OSX, or BSD regardless of security settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308197</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>jbeale53</author>
	<datestamp>1244821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mountain Dew Livewire rocked.  I know that it was really just a sunkist, but it had that over-the-top sugar taste and caffeine of Mountain Dew.  I found it in Virginia a while back, but that's a 70 mile drive just for a soft drink.

Now, the grape Dew?  I forgot what it was called, but it was ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mountain Dew Livewire rocked .
I know that it was really just a sunkist , but it had that over-the-top sugar taste and caffeine of Mountain Dew .
I found it in Virginia a while back , but that 's a 70 mile drive just for a soft drink .
Now , the grape Dew ?
I forgot what it was called , but it was ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mountain Dew Livewire rocked.
I know that it was really just a sunkist, but it had that over-the-top sugar taste and caffeine of Mountain Dew.
I found it in Virginia a while back, but that's a 70 mile drive just for a soft drink.
Now, the grape Dew?
I forgot what it was called, but it was ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308201</id>
	<title>Symantec is no longer credible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped using Symantec products after they failed miserably in supporting Vista.</p><p>They tried to blame Microsoft, and yet their competitors (like Kaspersky) already had vully featured Vista-compatible versions out already.</p><p>Symantec's solution was to ship out their broken application and hope nobody noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped using Symantec products after they failed miserably in supporting Vista.They tried to blame Microsoft , and yet their competitors ( like Kaspersky ) already had vully featured Vista-compatible versions out already.Symantec 's solution was to ship out their broken application and hope nobody noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped using Symantec products after they failed miserably in supporting Vista.They tried to blame Microsoft, and yet their competitors (like Kaspersky) already had vully featured Vista-compatible versions out already.Symantec's solution was to ship out their broken application and hope nobody noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308669</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</i></p><p>Bing is, technically, far superior to Live Search. It's not just a re-branding.</p><p>(With one exception: people raving about Bing's image search UI obviously never used Live Image Search, which is nearly identical UI-wise. Bing still returns better, more relevant, results though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance.Bing is , technically , far superior to Live Search .
It 's not just a re-branding .
( With one exception : people raving about Bing 's image search UI obviously never used Live Image Search , which is nearly identical UI-wise .
Bing still returns better , more relevant , results though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.Bing is, technically, far superior to Live Search.
It's not just a re-branding.
(With one exception: people raving about Bing's image search UI obviously never used Live Image Search, which is nearly identical UI-wise.
Bing still returns better, more relevant, results though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308445</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>jwslash</author>
	<datestamp>1244822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regarding Pescatore's water analogy: I think he's saying that it is bad business for a company to peddle a solution to their own defective product. Why would you trust the solution? Instead of creating AV software, shouldn't they be trying to get rid of the problem? Let us not forget: Windows is not insecure because viruses exist, it is insecure because of a fundamentally substandard software architecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding Pescatore 's water analogy : I think he 's saying that it is bad business for a company to peddle a solution to their own defective product .
Why would you trust the solution ?
Instead of creating AV software , should n't they be trying to get rid of the problem ?
Let us not forget : Windows is not insecure because viruses exist , it is insecure because of a fundamentally substandard software architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding Pescatore's water analogy: I think he's saying that it is bad business for a company to peddle a solution to their own defective product.
Why would you trust the solution?
Instead of creating AV software, shouldn't they be trying to get rid of the problem?
Let us not forget: Windows is not insecure because viruses exist, it is insecure because of a fundamentally substandard software architecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310163</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1244829240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  If I come across a GOOD antivirus program that I don't have to pay for, I'll be sticking with that for a good while.</p><p>$70+ for an antivirus program on my $2xx+ Windows partition just so I can play games?  It's a tad ridiculous...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
If I come across a GOOD antivirus program that I do n't have to pay for , I 'll be sticking with that for a good while. $ 70 + for an antivirus program on my $ 2xx + Windows partition just so I can play games ?
It 's a tad ridiculous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
If I come across a GOOD antivirus program that I don't have to pay for, I'll be sticking with that for a good while.$70+ for an antivirus program on my $2xx+ Windows partition just so I can play games?
It's a tad ridiculous...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1244824560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you looked into what your ISP might offer?</p><p>Around here Shaw gives all subscribers "Shaw Secure" for free which uses the F-Secure engine. I highly recommend it to people around here on Shaw -- its decent software, with decent support, no ads or nagware component, and its already bundled with your internet service.</p><p>Telus also offers an antivirus package with their high speed ADSL. I have less experience with it, and don't know what engine it uses, but you can use it for free with up to 5 PCs, and again tech support is relatively good.</p><p>I used to recommend Avast and AVG, but the nagware direction the free versions have taken have put me off.</p><p>Roadrunner seems has a deal with Computer Associates for their EZ Armor antivirus stuff, free to all high speed subscribers.</p><p>Verizon for example doesn't have anything free... but $61/year will get you a suite from them for 3 PCs, which isn't that bad. ($1.70/month/pc) assuming you have 3.</p><p>So even if you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. users out there don't want this stuff yourself, you might want to consider it as an option to recommend to your less technical friends. I'd rather my Uncle run Shaw Secure than AVG Free because its just simpler for both of us. He has a number he can call -other than mine- when he has a question about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you looked into what your ISP might offer ? Around here Shaw gives all subscribers " Shaw Secure " for free which uses the F-Secure engine .
I highly recommend it to people around here on Shaw -- its decent software , with decent support , no ads or nagware component , and its already bundled with your internet service.Telus also offers an antivirus package with their high speed ADSL .
I have less experience with it , and do n't know what engine it uses , but you can use it for free with up to 5 PCs , and again tech support is relatively good.I used to recommend Avast and AVG , but the nagware direction the free versions have taken have put me off.Roadrunner seems has a deal with Computer Associates for their EZ Armor antivirus stuff , free to all high speed subscribers.Verizon for example does n't have anything free... but $ 61/year will get you a suite from them for 3 PCs , which is n't that bad .
( $ 1.70/month/pc ) assuming you have 3.So even if you / .
users out there do n't want this stuff yourself , you might want to consider it as an option to recommend to your less technical friends .
I 'd rather my Uncle run Shaw Secure than AVG Free because its just simpler for both of us .
He has a number he can call -other than mine- when he has a question about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you looked into what your ISP might offer?Around here Shaw gives all subscribers "Shaw Secure" for free which uses the F-Secure engine.
I highly recommend it to people around here on Shaw -- its decent software, with decent support, no ads or nagware component, and its already bundled with your internet service.Telus also offers an antivirus package with their high speed ADSL.
I have less experience with it, and don't know what engine it uses, but you can use it for free with up to 5 PCs, and again tech support is relatively good.I used to recommend Avast and AVG, but the nagware direction the free versions have taken have put me off.Roadrunner seems has a deal with Computer Associates for their EZ Armor antivirus stuff, free to all high speed subscribers.Verizon for example doesn't have anything free... but $61/year will get you a suite from them for 3 PCs, which isn't that bad.
($1.70/month/pc) assuming you have 3.So even if you /.
users out there don't want this stuff yourself, you might want to consider it as an option to recommend to your less technical friends.
I'd rather my Uncle run Shaw Secure than AVG Free because its just simpler for both of us.
He has a number he can call -other than mine- when he has a question about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309061</id>
	<title>Don't underestimate the power of FREE!</title>
	<author>scott1110</author>
	<datestamp>1244825100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a ton of people that will use it because it is free-  As will I, but I will at keep a regular back-up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a ton of people that will use it because it is free- As will I , but I will at keep a regular back-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a ton of people that will use it because it is free-  As will I, but I will at keep a regular back-up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308257</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The paid product being referred to was OneCare. What was that about being dumb?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paid product being referred to was OneCare .
What was that about being dumb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paid product being referred to was OneCare.
What was that about being dumb?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307713</id>
	<title>Dog saves family from fire, then perishes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244819820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/dog-alerts-local-family-to-fire-dies-in-blaze-159051.html" title="daytondailynews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/dog-alerts-local-family-to-fire-dies-in-blaze-159051.html</a> [daytondailynews.com]</p><p>Somehow this is George Bush's fault.  Hopefully Obama will correct the situation via his favorite method: legislating by fiat and declaring all fires illegal.  All hail King Obama!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/dog-alerts-local-family-to-fire-dies-in-blaze-159051.html [ daytondailynews.com ] Somehow this is George Bush 's fault .
Hopefully Obama will correct the situation via his favorite method : legislating by fiat and declaring all fires illegal .
All hail King Obama !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/dog-alerts-local-family-to-fire-dies-in-blaze-159051.html [daytondailynews.com]Somehow this is George Bush's fault.
Hopefully Obama will correct the situation via his favorite method: legislating by fiat and declaring all fires illegal.
All hail King Obama!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311749</id>
	<title>Giant Antispware--Windows Defender</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1244835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe their choice of source product isn't as good this time, but they previously made (I think) a good choice in bringing Giant AntiSpyware into the fold as Windows Defender.  Giant was at the time one of the better scanners, which would make a good addition particularly for people who don't want to buy/install 3rd party apps.  It's only appropriate that windows had both spyware and virus removal built in (note that there's already the malware removal component of windows update).
<br> <br>
This leaves the door open (or maybe sets the bar higher) for 3rd party apps to compete,  but at least gives the average users (who don't do their due dilligence in cleaning the PC) a fighting chance of having a non-zombie pc.
<br> <br>
On a more pessimistic note, all that correct posturing will turn to dust if the product really does route all data through microsoft, because I'll be blocking it right out of the gate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe their choice of source product is n't as good this time , but they previously made ( I think ) a good choice in bringing Giant AntiSpyware into the fold as Windows Defender .
Giant was at the time one of the better scanners , which would make a good addition particularly for people who do n't want to buy/install 3rd party apps .
It 's only appropriate that windows had both spyware and virus removal built in ( note that there 's already the malware removal component of windows update ) .
This leaves the door open ( or maybe sets the bar higher ) for 3rd party apps to compete , but at least gives the average users ( who do n't do their due dilligence in cleaning the PC ) a fighting chance of having a non-zombie pc .
On a more pessimistic note , all that correct posturing will turn to dust if the product really does route all data through microsoft , because I 'll be blocking it right out of the gate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe their choice of source product isn't as good this time, but they previously made (I think) a good choice in bringing Giant AntiSpyware into the fold as Windows Defender.
Giant was at the time one of the better scanners, which would make a good addition particularly for people who don't want to buy/install 3rd party apps.
It's only appropriate that windows had both spyware and virus removal built in (note that there's already the malware removal component of windows update).
This leaves the door open (or maybe sets the bar higher) for 3rd party apps to compete,  but at least gives the average users (who don't do their due dilligence in cleaning the PC) a fighting chance of having a non-zombie pc.
On a more pessimistic note, all that correct posturing will turn to dust if the product really does route all data through microsoft, because I'll be blocking it right out of the gate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310001</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1244828520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll probably get modded down for this, but the latest versions of Norton aren't slow anymore.  I used to be dead set against Norton, but 2009 came with my laptop and it is easily the least intrusive AV I've ever come across.  It's never picked up a virus, so I can't comment on detection, but I've never gotten viruses in the past anyway.</p><p>I suggest you use it before regurgitating the old Norton issues.</p><p><a href="http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/review-norton-internet-security-2009-not-ready-2008101/" title="geek.com">http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/review-norton-internet-security-2009-not-ready-2008101/</a> [geek.com]<br><a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp" title="pcmag.com">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp</a> [pcmag.com]<br><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667\_7-33246586.html?tag=api&amp;subj=re" title="cnet.com">http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667\_7-33246586.html?tag=api&amp;subj=re</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>Even Newegg customer reviews are overwhelmingly fives.  Yes, I know there aren't a ton of reviews, but it's interesting nonetheless.<br><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832108387" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832108387</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>I can't comment on Microsoft's offering, but I am a bit skeptical.  If it's free, I'll probably try it at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll probably get modded down for this , but the latest versions of Norton are n't slow anymore .
I used to be dead set against Norton , but 2009 came with my laptop and it is easily the least intrusive AV I 've ever come across .
It 's never picked up a virus , so I ca n't comment on detection , but I 've never gotten viruses in the past anyway.I suggest you use it before regurgitating the old Norton issues.http : //www.geek.com/articles/chips/review-norton-internet-security-2009-not-ready-2008101/ [ geek.com ] http : //www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp [ pcmag.com ] http : //reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667 \ _7-33246586.html ? tag = api&amp;subj = re [ cnet.com ] Even Newegg customer reviews are overwhelmingly fives .
Yes , I know there are n't a ton of reviews , but it 's interesting nonetheless.http : //www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx ? Item = N82E16832108387 [ newegg.com ] I ca n't comment on Microsoft 's offering , but I am a bit skeptical .
If it 's free , I 'll probably try it at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll probably get modded down for this, but the latest versions of Norton aren't slow anymore.
I used to be dead set against Norton, but 2009 came with my laptop and it is easily the least intrusive AV I've ever come across.
It's never picked up a virus, so I can't comment on detection, but I've never gotten viruses in the past anyway.I suggest you use it before regurgitating the old Norton issues.http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/review-norton-internet-security-2009-not-ready-2008101/ [geek.com]http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330018,00.asp [pcmag.com]http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/norton-internet-security-2009/4505-3667\_7-33246586.html?tag=api&amp;subj=re [cnet.com]Even Newegg customer reviews are overwhelmingly fives.
Yes, I know there aren't a ton of reviews, but it's interesting nonetheless.http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832108387 [newegg.com]I can't comment on Microsoft's offering, but I am a bit skeptical.
If it's free, I'll probably try it at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308419</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>JSmooth</author>
	<datestamp>1244822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>go look at norton 360 v3.  It installed in less than 90 seconds and has almost 0 impact on system performance on my father-in-laws very messy XP workstation with 512MB of RAM (about 4 year old pc)</p><p>Norton has come ALONG way in the last 2 years.</p><p>disclaimer: I no longer work for Symantec but I do still own some of their stock</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>go look at norton 360 v3 .
It installed in less than 90 seconds and has almost 0 impact on system performance on my father-in-laws very messy XP workstation with 512MB of RAM ( about 4 year old pc ) Norton has come ALONG way in the last 2 years.disclaimer : I no longer work for Symantec but I do still own some of their stock</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go look at norton 360 v3.
It installed in less than 90 seconds and has almost 0 impact on system performance on my father-in-laws very messy XP workstation with 512MB of RAM (about 4 year old pc)Norton has come ALONG way in the last 2 years.disclaimer: I no longer work for Symantec but I do still own some of their stock</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309503</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's disjointed AntiVirus strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool</p></div></blockquote><p>Whenever I see that name, my mind initially takes it as a Software Removal Tool that is Malicious rather than a tool for removing malicious software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal ToolWhenever I see that name , my mind initially takes it as a Software Removal Tool that is Malicious rather than a tool for removing malicious software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal ToolWhenever I see that name, my mind initially takes it as a Software Removal Tool that is Malicious rather than a tool for removing malicious software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314509</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta love it</title>
	<author>cristjs</author>
	<datestamp>1244803020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it completely remove Windows, or just quarantine it??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it completely remove Windows , or just quarantine it ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it completely remove Windows, or just quarantine it?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310195</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Analogy</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1244829360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS's Security problems are that the average user is not running the most secure and locked down system and so is open to all the malware</p><p>pwn2own  tests a normally setup but basically secure system,  this is *Not* how most people have their systems configured and the majority of people are still running an older version of windows that is less secure, and are running it in a less than ideal security state, behind an inexpertly configured firewall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so the malware propagates</p><p>Windows is also a monoculture the average user runs IE and Outlook and so is an easy target for anything exploiting the flaws in these products, the average Linux user is likely to be running one of a huge number of different combination of products and so is a much harder target</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS 's Security problems are that the average user is not running the most secure and locked down system and so is open to all the malwarepwn2own tests a normally setup but basically secure system , this is * Not * how most people have their systems configured and the majority of people are still running an older version of windows that is less secure , and are running it in a less than ideal security state , behind an inexpertly configured firewall ... so the malware propagatesWindows is also a monoculture the average user runs IE and Outlook and so is an easy target for anything exploiting the flaws in these products , the average Linux user is likely to be running one of a huge number of different combination of products and so is a much harder target</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS's Security problems are that the average user is not running the most secure and locked down system and so is open to all the malwarepwn2own  tests a normally setup but basically secure system,  this is *Not* how most people have their systems configured and the majority of people are still running an older version of windows that is less secure, and are running it in a less than ideal security state, behind an inexpertly configured firewall ... so the malware propagatesWindows is also a monoculture the average user runs IE and Outlook and so is an easy target for anything exploiting the flaws in these products, the average Linux user is likely to be running one of a huge number of different combination of products and so is a much harder target</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310455</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft's disjointed AntiVirus strategy</title>
	<author>a-zarkon!</author>
	<datestamp>1244830440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That link for the Windows Live One Care is AWESOME.  Where do I sign up for that kind of service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That link for the Windows Live One Care is AWESOME .
Where do I sign up for that kind of service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That link for the Windows Live One Care is AWESOME.
Where do I sign up for that kind of service?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307705</id>
	<title>And to top it off</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1244819760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a type in the product name - they forgot the 'n' at the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a type in the product name - they forgot the 'n ' at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a type in the product name - they forgot the 'n' at the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309343</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what universe is Bing/Kumo/Live!/MSN/.Net Search successful?  It's in the same place it's always been...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what universe is Bing/Kumo/Live ! /MSN/.Net Search successful ?
It 's in the same place it 's always been.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what universe is Bing/Kumo/Live!/MSN/.Net Search successful?
It's in the same place it's always been...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307677</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1244819640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i thought morro was supposed to be free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought morro was supposed to be free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought morro was supposed to be free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307809</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta love it</title>
	<author>mrsurb</author>
	<datestamp>1244820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are times when a steep learning curve is an advantage - I have recently set up Ubuntu on my wife's laptop and I doubt that she would be able to work out how to run malware on her system, even if she were suckered into trying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are times when a steep learning curve is an advantage - I have recently set up Ubuntu on my wife 's laptop and I doubt that she would be able to work out how to run malware on her system , even if she were suckered into trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are times when a steep learning curve is an advantage - I have recently set up Ubuntu on my wife's laptop and I doubt that she would be able to work out how to run malware on her system, even if she were suckered into trying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309329</id>
	<title>First?</title>
	<author>KeX3</author>
	<datestamp>1244826240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package</p></div><p>Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package? Oooh, you must mean MSAV, released once, updated never. The most useless antivirus software in the history of antivirus software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare , Microsoft 's first consumer-grade antivirus packageMicrosoft 's first consumer-grade antivirus package ?
Oooh , you must mean MSAV , released once , updated never .
The most useless antivirus software in the history of antivirus software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Morro will use the same scanning engine as Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft's first consumer-grade antivirus packageMicrosoft's first consumer-grade antivirus package?
Oooh, you must mean MSAV, released once, updated never.
The most useless antivirus software in the history of antivirus software.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28312937</id>
	<title>Never Lark nor Eagle...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244839560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carl "Bing" Morro is the protagonist of the novel "Never Lark Nor Eagle" by Ray Castagnaro.</p><p>Microsoft "Bing"<br>Microsoft "Morro"<br>If the next one is Microsoft "Carl" I think Ray needs to talk to his lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carl " Bing " Morro is the protagonist of the novel " Never Lark Nor Eagle " by Ray Castagnaro.Microsoft " Bing " Microsoft " Morro " If the next one is Microsoft " Carl " I think Ray needs to talk to his lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carl "Bing" Morro is the protagonist of the novel "Never Lark Nor Eagle" by Ray Castagnaro.Microsoft "Bing"Microsoft "Morro"If the next one is Microsoft "Carl" I think Ray needs to talk to his lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310641</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe Comcast has a McAfee based anti-virus application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Comcast has a McAfee based anti-virus application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Comcast has a McAfee based anti-virus application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307733</id>
	<title>The discussion misses the point (maybe)</title>
	<author>MarcAuslander</author>
	<datestamp>1244819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Infected windows machines are a plague on the internet.  Many of these presumably have no useful anti-malware running.  Microsoft takes lots of heat, as the comments above prove.

So Microsoft decides that trying to sell anti-malware won't work, but maybe giving it away, and I assume bundling it, will get it widely deployed.  And take some heat off Microsoft for shipping vulnerable stuff.

If this happens,  and it works at all,  it will be a great improvement to the current mess.

To put it differently - it's clearly impossible to make an OS bug proof - so an OS ought to contain defenses against malware out of the box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Infected windows machines are a plague on the internet .
Many of these presumably have no useful anti-malware running .
Microsoft takes lots of heat , as the comments above prove .
So Microsoft decides that trying to sell anti-malware wo n't work , but maybe giving it away , and I assume bundling it , will get it widely deployed .
And take some heat off Microsoft for shipping vulnerable stuff .
If this happens , and it works at all , it will be a great improvement to the current mess .
To put it differently - it 's clearly impossible to make an OS bug proof - so an OS ought to contain defenses against malware out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infected windows machines are a plague on the internet.
Many of these presumably have no useful anti-malware running.
Microsoft takes lots of heat, as the comments above prove.
So Microsoft decides that trying to sell anti-malware won't work, but maybe giving it away, and I assume bundling it, will get it widely deployed.
And take some heat off Microsoft for shipping vulnerable stuff.
If this happens,  and it works at all,  it will be a great improvement to the current mess.
To put it differently - it's clearly impossible to make an OS bug proof - so an OS ought to contain defenses against malware out of the box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307947</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1244820600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  It's one thing to call out Microsoft for their many mistakes, but it's comepletely different to be so rabidly anti-MS that you start making yourself appear stupid.  I really thought this statement kind of shows what kind of an idiot this guy is:<p><div class="quote"><p>'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,'</p></div><p>
Most malware is not something that exploits vulnerabilities inherent in the product, they exploit the easiest vulnerability of all: the user.  A lot of what AV programs do is protect stupid users from infecting their own PCs.  Really, it doesn't remove any problems in other products...the patches and updates available for free do that.  It will look for known malware that exploits those vulnerabilities if left unpatched, however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
It 's one thing to call out Microsoft for their many mistakes , but it 's comepletely different to be so rabidly anti-MS that you start making yourself appear stupid .
I really thought this statement kind of shows what kind of an idiot this guy is : 'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products, ' Most malware is not something that exploits vulnerabilities inherent in the product , they exploit the easiest vulnerability of all : the user .
A lot of what AV programs do is protect stupid users from infecting their own PCs .
Really , it does n't remove any problems in other products...the patches and updates available for free do that .
It will look for known malware that exploits those vulnerabilities if left unpatched , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
It's one thing to call out Microsoft for their many mistakes, but it's comepletely different to be so rabidly anti-MS that you start making yourself appear stupid.
I really thought this statement kind of shows what kind of an idiot this guy is:'Consumers are hesitant to pay for a Microsoft security product that will remove problems in other Microsoft products,'
Most malware is not something that exploits vulnerabilities inherent in the product, they exploit the easiest vulnerability of all: the user.
A lot of what AV programs do is protect stupid users from infecting their own PCs.
Really, it doesn't remove any problems in other products...the patches and updates available for free do that.
It will look for known malware that exploits those vulnerabilities if left unpatched, however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309109</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1244825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between a software vulnerability and malware/viruses.</p><p>Even in a perfect OS, where there are no software vulnerabilities, you can still have malware and viruses.  They'd just exploit human stupidity and not software flaws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between a software vulnerability and malware/viruses.Even in a perfect OS , where there are no software vulnerabilities , you can still have malware and viruses .
They 'd just exploit human stupidity and not software flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between a software vulnerability and malware/viruses.Even in a perfect OS, where there are no software vulnerabilities, you can still have malware and viruses.
They'd just exploit human stupidity and not software flaws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308661</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Psiren</author>
	<datestamp>1244823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.</p></div><p>Damn straight. Our students use McAfee because our parent institution has a site license. Frankly, it's the biggest pile of crap going. It takes ages to scan, uses huge amounts of resources, and then proceeds to do fuck all about most of the infections. Those that it does claim to remove are actually still there afterwards. Frankly, I wouldn't install McAfee if they were paying me. Given the choice between that and Microsoft, I know which way I'd go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.Damn straight .
Our students use McAfee because our parent institution has a site license .
Frankly , it 's the biggest pile of crap going .
It takes ages to scan , uses huge amounts of resources , and then proceeds to do fuck all about most of the infections .
Those that it does claim to remove are actually still there afterwards .
Frankly , I would n't install McAfee if they were paying me .
Given the choice between that and Microsoft , I know which way I 'd go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee.Damn straight.
Our students use McAfee because our parent institution has a site license.
Frankly, it's the biggest pile of crap going.
It takes ages to scan, uses huge amounts of resources, and then proceeds to do fuck all about most of the infections.
Those that it does claim to remove are actually still there afterwards.
Frankly, I wouldn't install McAfee if they were paying me.
Given the choice between that and Microsoft, I know which way I'd go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599</id>
	<title>Re:As long as..</title>
	<author>PhracturedBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1244819340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to a-v comparatives:<br><a href="http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/corporate-reviews" title="av-comparatives.org">http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/corporate-reviews</a> [av-comparatives.org]</p><p>Microsoft's AV software is very good.  It has low false-positives and generally scored quite well.  If the same capability is free, I don't see a reason not to recommend its use.  I certainly don't work for a-v comparatives, but they were around before Microsoft was in AV business, and their top rated software changes pretty freqeuntly.  I'd call them reasonably unbiased, but judge for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a-v comparatives : http : //www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/corporate-reviews [ av-comparatives.org ] Microsoft 's AV software is very good .
It has low false-positives and generally scored quite well .
If the same capability is free , I do n't see a reason not to recommend its use .
I certainly do n't work for a-v comparatives , but they were around before Microsoft was in AV business , and their top rated software changes pretty freqeuntly .
I 'd call them reasonably unbiased , but judge for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a-v comparatives:http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/corporate-reviews [av-comparatives.org]Microsoft's AV software is very good.
It has low false-positives and generally scored quite well.
If the same capability is free, I don't see a reason not to recommend its use.
I certainly don't work for a-v comparatives, but they were around before Microsoft was in AV business, and their top rated software changes pretty freqeuntly.
I'd call them reasonably unbiased, but judge for yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851</id>
	<title>Microsoft's disjointed AntiVirus strategy</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1244824140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has, for years, maintained three separate tools in this space (that I know of, there might be others).  They change the names of them periodically, to confuse their hapless victims.
<br> <br>

<a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/890830" title="microsoft.com"> Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool </a> [microsoft.com] <br>
You gotta read this page. They release a new version every month.  It apparently cannot remove viruses which are not actively running.  Why is this tool not built in to Microsoft Windows Defender?
<br> <br>

<a href="http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/onecareanti-virus/thread/8e96b843-642c-4931-bb35-d3dfb0efd8c0" title="microsoft.com">Windows Live One Care</a> [microsoft.com] <br>
This link shows a forum moderator, chastising a poor infested user for asking a question about a different Microsoft antivirus product -- Microsoft Windows Defender.  Why are these separate products, again?
<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/defender/default.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Windows Defender</a> [microsoft.com] <br>
Formerly known as Microsoft AntiSpyware.
<br> <br>
These should be one product. The fact that Microsoft maintains three separate products to deal with this problem is, itself, an indication of a very serious ongoing problem at Microsoft.  As a company, they still don't take this seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has , for years , maintained three separate tools in this space ( that I know of , there might be others ) .
They change the names of them periodically , to confuse their hapless victims .
Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool [ microsoft.com ] You got ta read this page .
They release a new version every month .
It apparently can not remove viruses which are not actively running .
Why is this tool not built in to Microsoft Windows Defender ?
Windows Live One Care [ microsoft.com ] This link shows a forum moderator , chastising a poor infested user for asking a question about a different Microsoft antivirus product -- Microsoft Windows Defender .
Why are these separate products , again ?
Microsoft Windows Defender [ microsoft.com ] Formerly known as Microsoft AntiSpyware .
These should be one product .
The fact that Microsoft maintains three separate products to deal with this problem is , itself , an indication of a very serious ongoing problem at Microsoft .
As a company , they still do n't take this seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has, for years, maintained three separate tools in this space (that I know of, there might be others).
They change the names of them periodically, to confuse their hapless victims.
Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool  [microsoft.com] 
You gotta read this page.
They release a new version every month.
It apparently cannot remove viruses which are not actively running.
Why is this tool not built in to Microsoft Windows Defender?
Windows Live One Care [microsoft.com] 
This link shows a forum moderator, chastising a poor infested user for asking a question about a different Microsoft antivirus product -- Microsoft Windows Defender.
Why are these separate products, again?
Microsoft Windows Defender [microsoft.com] 
Formerly known as Microsoft AntiSpyware.
These should be one product.
The fact that Microsoft maintains three separate products to deal with this problem is, itself, an indication of a very serious ongoing problem at Microsoft.
As a company, they still don't take this seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727</id>
	<title>Bad analogy</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1244819880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'Think of it this way. What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50."</p></div><p>I think that analogy is broken. Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days. Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc. MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software. Obligatory car analogy, car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra. Why not pay for it if the deal is good?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Think of it this way .
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said , " Sure , we can remove that , but it will cost you $ 50 .
" I think that analogy is broken .
Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days .
Most of the viruses spread by user error , email , IM , flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc .
MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software .
Obligatory car analogy , car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra .
Why not pay for it if the deal is good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Think of it this way.
What if you smelled a rotten egg odor in your water and the water company said, "Sure, we can remove that, but it will cost you $50.
"I think that analogy is broken.
Very few malware use the holes in MS software these days.
Most of the viruses spread by user error, email, IM, flaws in Flash/Acrobat etc.
MS is offering a service to clean them up and does provide free fixes for bugs in their software.
Obligatory car analogy, car company sells insurance for breakins and accidents and charges extra.
Why not pay for it if the deal is good?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307625</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1244819460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.</p></div><p>Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference.  It depends on the buyer, and what the "for-pay" gets you.  There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product.  In addition to that, there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered.  By the looks of this move, since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died, then chances are Morro will follow.  If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up, then it'd be a different story.<br> <br>

Besides, for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor, it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right?  We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee, but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good.  So, it's up to us (IT personnel) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have.  I'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro...  But it being free doesn't give it much credit to me. I want something that works, works well (yes, there's a difference), doesn't bog down the host, has support, and can be managed.  Once the products are identified that fit those criteria, then price becomes a factor.<br> <br>

If Morro can't deliver in the first round (like OneCare), then it'll die too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you say that with a straight face ?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge .
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing , for instance.Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference .
It depends on the buyer , and what the " for-pay " gets you .
There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product .
In addition to that , there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered .
By the looks of this move , since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died , then chances are Morro will follow .
If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up , then it 'd be a different story .
Besides , for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor , it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right ?
We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee , but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good .
So , it 's up to us ( IT personnel ) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have .
I 'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro... But it being free does n't give it much credit to me .
I want something that works , works well ( yes , there 's a difference ) , does n't bog down the host , has support , and can be managed .
Once the products are identified that fit those criteria , then price becomes a factor .
If Morro ca n't deliver in the first round ( like OneCare ) , then it 'll die too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you say that with a straight face?
The difference between for-pay and free is huge.
And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.Not going to argue with Bing... but in the business market for-pay and free are not always that huge a difference.
It depends on the buyer, and what the "for-pay" gets you.
There are plenty of companies that absolutely require some sort of support for a given product.
In addition to that, there are minimum requirements that the software must meet just to be considered.
By the looks of this move, since Morro is going to use an engine from a product that absolutely flopped and died, then chances are Morro will follow.
If they announced that Morro was rewritten from the ground up, then it'd be a different story.
Besides, for a company to consider changing the Anti-malware vendor, it would certainly be in their best interest to consider every option possible right?
We all know our gripes about Symantec and McAfee, but there are plenty of options out there that are quite good.
So, it's up to us (IT personnel) to do fair evaluations for our businesses and to identify the needs we have.
I'd be more than happy to evaluate Morro...  But it being free doesn't give it much credit to me.
I want something that works, works well (yes, there's a difference), doesn't bog down the host, has support, and can be managed.
Once the products are identified that fit those criteria, then price becomes a factor.
If Morro can't deliver in the first round (like OneCare), then it'll die too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201</id>
	<title>As long as..</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244817360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as it doesn't suck as much as Norton (slow, hard to remove), I'll take a look at it. Right now I'm running ClamWin, and I'm looking for a better (free) anti-virus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it does n't suck as much as Norton ( slow , hard to remove ) , I 'll take a look at it .
Right now I 'm running ClamWin , and I 'm looking for a better ( free ) anti-virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it doesn't suck as much as Norton (slow, hard to remove), I'll take a look at it.
Right now I'm running ClamWin, and I'm looking for a better (free) anti-virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229</id>
	<title>You gotta love it</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1244817480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft, the virtual inventor of buggy bananaware and OS monoculture that enables mass distributable malware gets into the A/V market. Sounds like Typhoid Mary selling antibiotics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , the virtual inventor of buggy bananaware and OS monoculture that enables mass distributable malware gets into the A/V market .
Sounds like Typhoid Mary selling antibiotics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, the virtual inventor of buggy bananaware and OS monoculture that enables mass distributable malware gets into the A/V market.
Sounds like Typhoid Mary selling antibiotics...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314191</id>
	<title>Examine the track record...</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1244801580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given how good they've been at filtering SPAM from my hotmail account (about as good as a deranged chimpanzee using a dartboard), I wouldn't go near this thing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given how good they 've been at filtering SPAM from my hotmail account ( about as good as a deranged chimpanzee using a dartboard ) , I would n't go near this thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given how good they've been at filtering SPAM from my hotmail account (about as good as a deranged chimpanzee using a dartboard), I wouldn't go near this thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308473</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are good reasons not to use a MS antivirus suit. First and foremost the "same vendor" reason: Why should I trust a vendor to plug a security hole he himself opened up, and by applying an additional layer of defense instead of plugging the hole in the first place?</p><p>Would you trust your plumber if he told you "I can't fix this leaking pipe, but here's a bucket."</p><p>Now, I wouldn't go to Norton or McAfee either for protection, but there are alternatives, and by far better alternatives. For private and corporate users. "Free and easy to use" isn't the end-all when it comes to security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are good reasons not to use a MS antivirus suit .
First and foremost the " same vendor " reason : Why should I trust a vendor to plug a security hole he himself opened up , and by applying an additional layer of defense instead of plugging the hole in the first place ? Would you trust your plumber if he told you " I ca n't fix this leaking pipe , but here 's a bucket .
" Now , I would n't go to Norton or McAfee either for protection , but there are alternatives , and by far better alternatives .
For private and corporate users .
" Free and easy to use " is n't the end-all when it comes to security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are good reasons not to use a MS antivirus suit.
First and foremost the "same vendor" reason: Why should I trust a vendor to plug a security hole he himself opened up, and by applying an additional layer of defense instead of plugging the hole in the first place?Would you trust your plumber if he told you "I can't fix this leaking pipe, but here's a bucket.
"Now, I wouldn't go to Norton or McAfee either for protection, but there are alternatives, and by far better alternatives.
For private and corporate users.
"Free and easy to use" isn't the end-all when it comes to security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314241</id>
	<title>Will it warn you that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244801760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are running the worst piece of malware ever created- namely a M$ OS?  I doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are running the worst piece of malware ever created- namely a M $ OS ?
I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are running the worst piece of malware ever created- namely a M$ OS?
I doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307723</id>
	<title>Re:Am I missing something?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1244819820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, have never paid for an anti-virus. I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs, and when their free grace period runs out, I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.</p><p>Also, I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it. To the mass consumer, MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good (if not overpriced) products. They assume that if MS puts their name on something, it can't be complete crap because the company wouldn't risk taking a hit to their reputation. The mass consumer (read: non-nerd) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , have never paid for an anti-virus .
I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs , and when their free grace period runs out , I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.Also , I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it .
To the mass consumer , MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good ( if not overpriced ) products .
They assume that if MS puts their name on something , it ca n't be complete crap because the company would n't risk taking a hit to their reputation .
The mass consumer ( read : non-nerd ) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, have never paid for an anti-virus.
I have used a wide variety of pre-installed programs, and when their free grace period runs out, I download AVG or Avira or a myriad of others that have since come and gone.Also, I think it would be foolish for anyone at McAfee or Symantec to dismiss the weight that the Microsoft name carries behind it.
To the mass consumer, MS is a known commodity and is known for putting out relatively good (if not overpriced) products.
They assume that if MS puts their name on something, it can't be complete crap because the company wouldn't risk taking a hit to their reputation.
The mass consumer (read: non-nerd) would be more likely to try out a free security program from Microsoft than try out something free from a relatively unknown company like AVG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308267</id>
	<title>fuckeR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244821740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">If you move a table Slashdot 'BSD is 7uck I''l find OpenBSD wanker Theo there are get how people can</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you move a table Slashdot 'BSD is 7uck I''l find OpenBSD wanker Theo there are get how people can [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you move a table Slashdot 'BSD is 7uck I''l find OpenBSD wanker Theo there are get how people can [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28313729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28315345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1237236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28315345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28318317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28313729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310455
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309503
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28311219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28314509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1237236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28310163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28309109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28316503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28308201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1237236.28307625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
