<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_1244240</id>
	<title>Sun Kills Rock CPU, Says NYT Report</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245157500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BBCWatcher writes <i>"Despite Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1137256/oracle-sun-hardware-business">recent statement</a> that his company will continue Sun's hardware business, it won't be with Sun processors (and associated engineering jobs). The New York Times reports that <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/sun-is-said-to-cancel-big-chip-project/">Sun has canceled its long-delayed Rock processor</a>, the next generation SPARC CPU. Instead, the Times says Sun/Oracle will have to rely on Fujitsu for SPARCs (and Intel otherwise). Unfortunately Fujitsu <a href="http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/IR/finance/2008Full/pdf/all.pdf">is decreasing its R&amp;D budget and is unprofitable</a> at present. Sun's cancellation of Rock comes just after Intel <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13556\_3-10246293-61.html">announced yet another delay for Tukwila</a>, the next generation Itanium, now pushed to 2010. HP is the sole major Itanium vendor. Primary beneficiaries of this CPU turmoil: IBM and Intel's Nehalem X86 CPU business."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBCWatcher writes " Despite Oracle CEO Larry Ellison 's recent statement that his company will continue Sun 's hardware business , it wo n't be with Sun processors ( and associated engineering jobs ) .
The New York Times reports that Sun has canceled its long-delayed Rock processor , the next generation SPARC CPU .
Instead , the Times says Sun/Oracle will have to rely on Fujitsu for SPARCs ( and Intel otherwise ) .
Unfortunately Fujitsu is decreasing its R&amp;D budget and is unprofitable at present .
Sun 's cancellation of Rock comes just after Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila , the next generation Itanium , now pushed to 2010 .
HP is the sole major Itanium vendor .
Primary beneficiaries of this CPU turmoil : IBM and Intel 's Nehalem X86 CPU business .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBCWatcher writes "Despite Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's recent statement that his company will continue Sun's hardware business, it won't be with Sun processors (and associated engineering jobs).
The New York Times reports that Sun has canceled its long-delayed Rock processor, the next generation SPARC CPU.
Instead, the Times says Sun/Oracle will have to rely on Fujitsu for SPARCs (and Intel otherwise).
Unfortunately Fujitsu is decreasing its R&amp;D budget and is unprofitable at present.
Sun's cancellation of Rock comes just after Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila, the next generation Itanium, now pushed to 2010.
HP is the sole major Itanium vendor.
Primary beneficiaries of this CPU turmoil: IBM and Intel's Nehalem X86 CPU business.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</id>
	<title>RPS</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1245161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sun Kills Rock CPU, Says NYT Report</p></div><p>Sun has instead moved on to develop the superior Paper CPU while critics argue about the hypothetical "Scissors CPU" that competitors may be secretly developing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun Kills Rock CPU , Says NYT ReportSun has instead moved on to develop the superior Paper CPU while critics argue about the hypothetical " Scissors CPU " that competitors may be secretly developing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun Kills Rock CPU, Says NYT ReportSun has instead moved on to develop the superior Paper CPU while critics argue about the hypothetical "Scissors CPU" that competitors may be secretly developing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28357311</id>
	<title>The Rock</title>
	<author>mrbugjacobs</author>
	<datestamp>1245169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHAT ? They killed "The Rock" ? You bastards !!!

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne\_Johnson/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne\_Johnson/</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT ?
They killed " The Rock " ?
You bastards ! ! !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne \ _Johnson/ [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT ?
They killed "The Rock" ?
You bastards !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne\_Johnson/ [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811</id>
	<title>Wow, there's not much left then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the CNET article, Tukwilla is pushed until 2010, <b>and</b> it's going to be 65nm instead of 45 nm.  Since <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/10/intel-demos-first-ever-32nm-processors/" title="engadget.com">Intel has already demonstrated 32nm chips,</a> [engadget.com] that means Tukwilla will already be at least two generations behind when it's released.  No new chip designs from Sun and Fujitsu decreasing the R&amp;D budget.  Sounds like this market is falling behind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the CNET article , Tukwilla is pushed until 2010 , and it 's going to be 65nm instead of 45 nm .
Since Intel has already demonstrated 32nm chips , [ engadget.com ] that means Tukwilla will already be at least two generations behind when it 's released .
No new chip designs from Sun and Fujitsu decreasing the R&amp;D budget .
Sounds like this market is falling behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the CNET article, Tukwilla is pushed until 2010, and it's going to be 65nm instead of 45 nm.
Since Intel has already demonstrated 32nm chips, [engadget.com] that means Tukwilla will already be at least two generations behind when it's released.
No new chip designs from Sun and Fujitsu decreasing the R&amp;D budget.
Sounds like this market is falling behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346883</id>
	<title>Utter nonsense</title>
	<author>Nobo</author>
	<datestamp>1245163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nonsense.  Everyone knows that paper kills rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Everyone knows that paper kills rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Everyone knows that paper kills rock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346665</id>
	<title>Can they please just kill Itanium already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the point of having a long slow death for Itanium. It is a turkey. It doesn't have the backing to be the number 5 player much less number 2. Kill it and stop wasting everyone's time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the point of having a long slow death for Itanium .
It is a turkey .
It does n't have the backing to be the number 5 player much less number 2 .
Kill it and stop wasting everyone 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the point of having a long slow death for Itanium.
It is a turkey.
It doesn't have the backing to be the number 5 player much less number 2.
Kill it and stop wasting everyone's time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347555</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>1stvamp</author>
	<datestamp>1245167160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly I'm awaiting the Lizard revision..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly I 'm awaiting the Lizard revision. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly I'm awaiting the Lizard revision..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347013</id>
	<title>Re:More likely reason</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245164040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Rock is an amazing chip on paper.  It runs an extra fetch/decode part of the pipeline a few cycles ahead so that it is always loading the needed data into the cache before it's needed.</p><p>
If this technology doesn't work, however, Rock is a pretty unimpressive chip and there is no evidence that it does actually work (for example, it doesn't predict across computed jumps, which accounts for a lot of cache misses in current chips).  Even if it does work, Rock looked like it would perform best on the kind of workloads where the T2 does well, but probably not as well as the T2.  Out of the SPARC64 series, Rock, and the T2 and successors, Rock is by far the weakest.  The SPARC64 does well on traditional workloads, the T2 on heavily-parallel workloads.  Between the two, Sun already has processors for pretty much any market they want to be in - Rock just doesn't fit commercially.  Note that the summary's comment, there is no indication that they are killing off the Niagara line - they aren't exiting the CPU business, just killing one failed experiment.  Not the first, and probably not the last, time Sun has killed off an almost-finished CPU because there was no market for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Rock is an amazing chip on paper .
It runs an extra fetch/decode part of the pipeline a few cycles ahead so that it is always loading the needed data into the cache before it 's needed .
If this technology does n't work , however , Rock is a pretty unimpressive chip and there is no evidence that it does actually work ( for example , it does n't predict across computed jumps , which accounts for a lot of cache misses in current chips ) .
Even if it does work , Rock looked like it would perform best on the kind of workloads where the T2 does well , but probably not as well as the T2 .
Out of the SPARC64 series , Rock , and the T2 and successors , Rock is by far the weakest .
The SPARC64 does well on traditional workloads , the T2 on heavily-parallel workloads .
Between the two , Sun already has processors for pretty much any market they want to be in - Rock just does n't fit commercially .
Note that the summary 's comment , there is no indication that they are killing off the Niagara line - they are n't exiting the CPU business , just killing one failed experiment .
Not the first , and probably not the last , time Sun has killed off an almost-finished CPU because there was no market for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Rock is an amazing chip on paper.
It runs an extra fetch/decode part of the pipeline a few cycles ahead so that it is always loading the needed data into the cache before it's needed.
If this technology doesn't work, however, Rock is a pretty unimpressive chip and there is no evidence that it does actually work (for example, it doesn't predict across computed jumps, which accounts for a lot of cache misses in current chips).
Even if it does work, Rock looked like it would perform best on the kind of workloads where the T2 does well, but probably not as well as the T2.
Out of the SPARC64 series, Rock, and the T2 and successors, Rock is by far the weakest.
The SPARC64 does well on traditional workloads, the T2 on heavily-parallel workloads.
Between the two, Sun already has processors for pretty much any market they want to be in - Rock just doesn't fit commercially.
Note that the summary's comment, there is no indication that they are killing off the Niagara line - they aren't exiting the CPU business, just killing one failed experiment.
Not the first, and probably not the last, time Sun has killed off an almost-finished CPU because there was no market for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347733</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1245168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you say is often, but not exclusively, true.  The main reason people buy SPARC:</p><ul>
<li>The CoolThreads servers are genuinely different than others.  Radically low power consumption and a bajillion threads.  That doesn't mean they're good for everything, but in the app space they're marketed for, they're exceptional.</li><li>If I have millions of lines of code written for Solaris on SPARC, I might want to run SPARC.  Sun has a large presence in many markets and compatibility (left over from the days when x86 was nowhere near SPARC) is important.</li><li>Above a certain level, x86 can't compete.  You can say "yet" if you want.  Sun, IBM, etc.'s high-end gear is the closest you can get to a mainframe, in terms of RAIDed memory (one bad chip doesn't bring down the system), hot-swapping CPUs, hardware partitioning, etc.  There are a lot of people in love with clustered x86 boxes, but they do not scale as well.  A single box with 32 CPUs will perform better than 16 boxes with 2 CPUs, every single time.  The 16x2 might be cheaper, but there are a lot of apps that don't run as well that way.  To take a very common example, Oracle RAC scales about as well as anything on "wide and small commodity," but Oracle certainly runs better on a 32-CPU box rather than 16x2.</li></ul><p>I agree that in many cases, proprietary kit is overpriced and unnecessary.  Which is why it's on the decline...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say is often , but not exclusively , true .
The main reason people buy SPARC : The CoolThreads servers are genuinely different than others .
Radically low power consumption and a bajillion threads .
That does n't mean they 're good for everything , but in the app space they 're marketed for , they 're exceptional.If I have millions of lines of code written for Solaris on SPARC , I might want to run SPARC .
Sun has a large presence in many markets and compatibility ( left over from the days when x86 was nowhere near SPARC ) is important.Above a certain level , x86 ca n't compete .
You can say " yet " if you want .
Sun , IBM , etc .
's high-end gear is the closest you can get to a mainframe , in terms of RAIDed memory ( one bad chip does n't bring down the system ) , hot-swapping CPUs , hardware partitioning , etc .
There are a lot of people in love with clustered x86 boxes , but they do not scale as well .
A single box with 32 CPUs will perform better than 16 boxes with 2 CPUs , every single time .
The 16x2 might be cheaper , but there are a lot of apps that do n't run as well that way .
To take a very common example , Oracle RAC scales about as well as anything on " wide and small commodity , " but Oracle certainly runs better on a 32-CPU box rather than 16x2.I agree that in many cases , proprietary kit is overpriced and unnecessary .
Which is why it 's on the decline.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say is often, but not exclusively, true.
The main reason people buy SPARC:
The CoolThreads servers are genuinely different than others.
Radically low power consumption and a bajillion threads.
That doesn't mean they're good for everything, but in the app space they're marketed for, they're exceptional.If I have millions of lines of code written for Solaris on SPARC, I might want to run SPARC.
Sun has a large presence in many markets and compatibility (left over from the days when x86 was nowhere near SPARC) is important.Above a certain level, x86 can't compete.
You can say "yet" if you want.
Sun, IBM, etc.
's high-end gear is the closest you can get to a mainframe, in terms of RAIDed memory (one bad chip doesn't bring down the system), hot-swapping CPUs, hardware partitioning, etc.
There are a lot of people in love with clustered x86 boxes, but they do not scale as well.
A single box with 32 CPUs will perform better than 16 boxes with 2 CPUs, every single time.
The 16x2 might be cheaper, but there are a lot of apps that don't run as well that way.
To take a very common example, Oracle RAC scales about as well as anything on "wide and small commodity," but Oracle certainly runs better on a 32-CPU box rather than 16x2.I agree that in many cases, proprietary kit is overpriced and unnecessary.
Which is why it's on the decline...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346791</id>
	<title>Title is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paper covers Rock. I don't think the sun even enters into it. I mean, you can use scissors at night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paper covers Rock .
I do n't think the sun even enters into it .
I mean , you can use scissors at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paper covers Rock.
I don't think the sun even enters into it.
I mean, you can use scissors at night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347677</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't really benefit IBM</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1245167760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it does benefit IBM.  It's another piece of information their sales force can use in their campaign to convert Sun customers to IBM, whether it be on Power or on x86-64.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it does benefit IBM .
It 's another piece of information their sales force can use in their campaign to convert Sun customers to IBM , whether it be on Power or on x86-64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it does benefit IBM.
It's another piece of information their sales force can use in their campaign to convert Sun customers to IBM, whether it be on Power or on x86-64.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</id>
	<title>Very Interesting...</title>
	<author>rehtonAesoohC</author>
	<datestamp>1245162060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this had anything to do with Sun being purchased by IBM just recently.<br> <br>Who knows, maybe that was the whole point of IBM buying them out? Muscle out the competition before they even produce a competing product! Who wants to bet that in the next two weeks IBM will announce the "New IBM SPARC chip!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this had anything to do with Sun being purchased by IBM just recently .
Who knows , maybe that was the whole point of IBM buying them out ?
Muscle out the competition before they even produce a competing product !
Who wants to bet that in the next two weeks IBM will announce the " New IBM SPARC chip !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this had anything to do with Sun being purchased by IBM just recently.
Who knows, maybe that was the whole point of IBM buying them out?
Muscle out the competition before they even produce a competing product!
Who wants to bet that in the next two weeks IBM will announce the "New IBM SPARC chip!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347159</id>
	<title>The summary is misleading....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock was Sun's effort to develop a processor with high single thread performance.  Single thread performance doesn't help the database performance of Sun' s new Oracle Over Lords.  What databases need is high multi-thread performance.</p><p>The Niagara line ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC\_T1" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC\_T1</a> [wikipedia.org] ) provides the proper architecture for improving database performance, and this effort by Sun has the added benefit of actually producing shipping products (Unlike Rock).</p><p>At this time, Oracle/Sun has NOT announced the killing off of further Niagara development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock was Sun 's effort to develop a processor with high single thread performance .
Single thread performance does n't help the database performance of Sun ' s new Oracle Over Lords .
What databases need is high multi-thread performance.The Niagara line ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC \ _T1 [ wikipedia.org ] ) provides the proper architecture for improving database performance , and this effort by Sun has the added benefit of actually producing shipping products ( Unlike Rock ) .At this time , Oracle/Sun has NOT announced the killing off of further Niagara development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock was Sun's effort to develop a processor with high single thread performance.
Single thread performance doesn't help the database performance of Sun' s new Oracle Over Lords.
What databases need is high multi-thread performance.The Niagara line ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC\_T1 [wikipedia.org] ) provides the proper architecture for improving database performance, and this effort by Sun has the added benefit of actually producing shipping products (Unlike Rock).At this time, Oracle/Sun has NOT announced the killing off of further Niagara development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350137</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245176880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not joking, but betting that your business parallelizes wonderfully, so you can break up your transaction processing over a Beowulf cluster.

Alas, large transaction processing tends to require something like a POWER or SPARC, to get 128 cores with a common locking architecture working on driving a large database.

</p><p>This is the traditional IBM/SUN/H-P space, and fits, in rough order of difficulty, large manufacturing, large on-line retail, medium and higher regular retail, banks and telcos.

Not my personal favorite businesses, but definitely where the majority of my income comes from (I'm a capacity planner).

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not joking , but betting that your business parallelizes wonderfully , so you can break up your transaction processing over a Beowulf cluster .
Alas , large transaction processing tends to require something like a POWER or SPARC , to get 128 cores with a common locking architecture working on driving a large database .
This is the traditional IBM/SUN/H-P space , and fits , in rough order of difficulty , large manufacturing , large on-line retail , medium and higher regular retail , banks and telcos .
Not my personal favorite businesses , but definitely where the majority of my income comes from ( I 'm a capacity planner ) .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not joking, but betting that your business parallelizes wonderfully, so you can break up your transaction processing over a Beowulf cluster.
Alas, large transaction processing tends to require something like a POWER or SPARC, to get 128 cores with a common locking architecture working on driving a large database.
This is the traditional IBM/SUN/H-P space, and fits, in rough order of difficulty, large manufacturing, large on-line retail, medium and higher regular retail, banks and telcos.
Not my personal favorite businesses, but definitely where the majority of my income comes from (I'm a capacity planner).
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28358103</id>
	<title>Re:So, basically,...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault. WinNT was originally written for the i860 and MIPS architectures, and only ported to x86 sometime later. It released simultaneously in 1993 for x86, MIPS, and Alpha. In 1995, the PPC version shipped, and the Itanium version shipped some years later. The reason MIPS, Alpha, and PPC were discontinued is that OEMs stopped building workstations that supported it. You can hardly fault MS for that!</p><p>If MS never gave you a choice, you could argue that it's their fault we have a monoculture, but it's clearly not the case. People run x86 because it's cheap for the performance you get and everything is already compiled for it. Just look at Linux: it runs on 30 different platforms, but 99\% of its users run x86. Why? Because it's cheap and everything is already compiled for it. Can you blame them?</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is Microsoft 's fault .
WinNT was originally written for the i860 and MIPS architectures , and only ported to x86 sometime later .
It released simultaneously in 1993 for x86 , MIPS , and Alpha .
In 1995 , the PPC version shipped , and the Itanium version shipped some years later .
The reason MIPS , Alpha , and PPC were discontinued is that OEMs stopped building workstations that supported it .
You can hardly fault MS for that ! If MS never gave you a choice , you could argue that it 's their fault we have a monoculture , but it 's clearly not the case .
People run x86 because it 's cheap for the performance you get and everything is already compiled for it .
Just look at Linux : it runs on 30 different platforms , but 99 \ % of its users run x86 .
Why ? Because it 's cheap and everything is already compiled for it .
Can you blame them ? dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault.
WinNT was originally written for the i860 and MIPS architectures, and only ported to x86 sometime later.
It released simultaneously in 1993 for x86, MIPS, and Alpha.
In 1995, the PPC version shipped, and the Itanium version shipped some years later.
The reason MIPS, Alpha, and PPC were discontinued is that OEMs stopped building workstations that supported it.
You can hardly fault MS for that!If MS never gave you a choice, you could argue that it's their fault we have a monoculture, but it's clearly not the case.
People run x86 because it's cheap for the performance you get and everything is already compiled for it.
Just look at Linux: it runs on 30 different platforms, but 99\% of its users run x86.
Why? Because it's cheap and everything is already compiled for it.
Can you blame them?dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347193</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245165060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the real problem is that Rock CPU faced off with Guts CPU, Bomb CPU, Fire CPU, and Ice CPU, but hasn't been able to handle Cut CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the real problem is that Rock CPU faced off with Guts CPU , Bomb CPU , Fire CPU , and Ice CPU , but has n't been able to handle Cut CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the real problem is that Rock CPU faced off with Guts CPU, Bomb CPU, Fire CPU, and Ice CPU, but hasn't been able to handle Cut CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347775</id>
	<title>The whole *article* is misleading....</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article reads a lot like FUD written
by Microsoft about particularly threatening Linux advances.

<br>I just benchmarked a huge Oracle
configuration on T5240/T5440, M5000s and M9000s, and it really made my little
heart beat fonder (;-))

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article reads a lot like FUD written by Microsoft about particularly threatening Linux advances .
I just benchmarked a huge Oracle configuration on T5240/T5440 , M5000s and M9000s , and it really made my little heart beat fonder ( ; - ) ) --dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article reads a lot like FUD written
by Microsoft about particularly threatening Linux advances.
I just benchmarked a huge Oracle
configuration on T5240/T5440, M5000s and M9000s, and it really made my little
heart beat fonder (;-))

--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28480373</id>
	<title>Oracle will jettison the entire hardware division.</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1246023000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh G-d, please let it happen! I also sincerely hope Apple will be able to pick it up, and together they will have good  UI and good servers!</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh G-d , please let it happen !
I also sincerely hope Apple will be able to pick it up , and together they will have good UI and good servers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh G-d, please let it happen!
I also sincerely hope Apple will be able to pick it up, and together they will have good  UI and good servers!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346761</id>
	<title>Sun kills rock!</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but paper beats rock... and scissors beats paper! Kiff, we have a conundrum!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but paper beats rock... and scissors beats paper !
Kiff , we have a conundrum !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but paper beats rock... and scissors beats paper!
Kiff, we have a conundrum!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347317</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1245165900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome. Mod parent up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome .
Mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome.
Mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28352481</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't really benefit IBM</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1245185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun's hardware is hardly Oracle's biggest-selling product.</p><p>And, remember, Ellison explained the purchase of Sun entirely in terms of Sun's software (Java and Solaris), making no reference to its hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun 's hardware is hardly Oracle 's biggest-selling product.And , remember , Ellison explained the purchase of Sun entirely in terms of Sun 's software ( Java and Solaris ) , making no reference to its hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun's hardware is hardly Oracle's biggest-selling product.And, remember, Ellison explained the purchase of Sun entirely in terms of Sun's software (Java and Solaris), making no reference to its hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348851</id>
	<title>Re:Um, Opteron?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1245172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True. But Sun also make Nehalem servers. And lately Nehalem has been getting a lot more interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
But Sun also make Nehalem servers .
And lately Nehalem has been getting a lot more interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
But Sun also make Nehalem servers.
And lately Nehalem has been getting a lot more interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1245166620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What keeps this SPARC space alive?</p></div></blockquote><p>Same as with all proprietary <i>high end</i> solutions: customer ignorance.  The customer goes to the vendors and says: "Here's my shopping list of business requirements.  Please bid a solution that meets those needs".   The vendor salesman (after wiping the drool from his/her chin) comes back with an <i>Enterprise Class</i> solution using propietary <i>high end</i> kit at the highest price the saleman thinks he/she can get away with to win the bid but beat off the competition.  The whole thing is wrapped up in smoke and mirrors to make the customer feel valued and special with the assurance that they're getting the best in class.  The whole thing is topped off with generous dollop of FUD dissing any other vendor solution.   Things like: "The x86 space is too aggressive and its 3 year turnover cycle is bad for your business.  Use our  systems which have a 5 year life cycle and get a better return on your investment".   Or here's another one: "Our  chips are built with advanced RAS features.  They're [self healing] and crash less often than x86".   Oh and lets not forget that to buy one of their   enterprise solutions, you usually also have to buy their proprietary enterprise OS and pay their enterprise software license fees at their inflated enterprise prices.</p><p>Perhaps you think I'm joking !</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What keeps this SPARC space alive ? Same as with all proprietary high end solutions : customer ignorance .
The customer goes to the vendors and says : " Here 's my shopping list of business requirements .
Please bid a solution that meets those needs " .
The vendor salesman ( after wiping the drool from his/her chin ) comes back with an Enterprise Class solution using propietary high end kit at the highest price the saleman thinks he/she can get away with to win the bid but beat off the competition .
The whole thing is wrapped up in smoke and mirrors to make the customer feel valued and special with the assurance that they 're getting the best in class .
The whole thing is topped off with generous dollop of FUD dissing any other vendor solution .
Things like : " The x86 space is too aggressive and its 3 year turnover cycle is bad for your business .
Use our systems which have a 5 year life cycle and get a better return on your investment " .
Or here 's another one : " Our chips are built with advanced RAS features .
They 're [ self healing ] and crash less often than x86 " .
Oh and lets not forget that to buy one of their enterprise solutions , you usually also have to buy their proprietary enterprise OS and pay their enterprise software license fees at their inflated enterprise prices.Perhaps you think I 'm joking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What keeps this SPARC space alive?Same as with all proprietary high end solutions: customer ignorance.
The customer goes to the vendors and says: "Here's my shopping list of business requirements.
Please bid a solution that meets those needs".
The vendor salesman (after wiping the drool from his/her chin) comes back with an Enterprise Class solution using propietary high end kit at the highest price the saleman thinks he/she can get away with to win the bid but beat off the competition.
The whole thing is wrapped up in smoke and mirrors to make the customer feel valued and special with the assurance that they're getting the best in class.
The whole thing is topped off with generous dollop of FUD dissing any other vendor solution.
Things like: "The x86 space is too aggressive and its 3 year turnover cycle is bad for your business.
Use our  systems which have a 5 year life cycle and get a better return on your investment".
Or here's another one: "Our  chips are built with advanced RAS features.
They're [self healing] and crash less often than x86".
Oh and lets not forget that to buy one of their   enterprise solutions, you usually also have to buy their proprietary enterprise OS and pay their enterprise software license fees at their inflated enterprise prices.Perhaps you think I'm joking !
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346919</id>
	<title>I'm sorry, what?</title>
	<author>kurtmckee</author>
	<datestamp>1245163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Intel announced yet another delay for <strong>Tukwila</strong>, the next generation Itanium</em> </p><p>Please tell me that's not an actual product name. (<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1226313&amp;cid=27870407" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">apologies</a> [slashdot.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila , the next generation Itanium Please tell me that 's not an actual product name .
( apologies [ slashdot.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila, the next generation Itanium Please tell me that's not an actual product name.
(apologies [slashdot.org])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347585</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't really benefit IBM</title>
	<author>peppepz</author>
	<datestamp>1245167340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fiscal year 2008, Sun sold 4,532 $ millions in SPARC servers, and only 707 millions in x64 servers (<a href="http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/investor/earnings\_releases/Q209\_SLD.pdf" title="sun.com">source</a> [sun.com]).<br>
I don&rsquo;t think it would have been wise for them to kill their biggest-selling product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fiscal year 2008 , Sun sold 4,532 $ millions in SPARC servers , and only 707 millions in x64 servers ( source [ sun.com ] ) .
I don    t think it would have been wise for them to kill their biggest-selling product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fiscal year 2008, Sun sold 4,532 $ millions in SPARC servers, and only 707 millions in x64 servers (source [sun.com]).
I don’t think it would have been wise for them to kill their biggest-selling product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855</id>
	<title>It doesn't really benefit IBM</title>
	<author>mzito</author>
	<datestamp>1245162960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly, it just benefits Intel and AMD.  Sun loses their high-end chip, which theoretically hurts their high-end offerings, but their high-end servers are an rapidly declining piece of their revenue.  I've thought that Sun should drop SPARC entirely, except for supporting legacy customers.  The niagara chip is an interesting concept, but most people today just want Intel/AMD chips in their servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly , it just benefits Intel and AMD .
Sun loses their high-end chip , which theoretically hurts their high-end offerings , but their high-end servers are an rapidly declining piece of their revenue .
I 've thought that Sun should drop SPARC entirely , except for supporting legacy customers .
The niagara chip is an interesting concept , but most people today just want Intel/AMD chips in their servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly, it just benefits Intel and AMD.
Sun loses their high-end chip, which theoretically hurts their high-end offerings, but their high-end servers are an rapidly declining piece of their revenue.
I've thought that Sun should drop SPARC entirely, except for supporting legacy customers.
The niagara chip is an interesting concept, but most people today just want Intel/AMD chips in their servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28359089</id>
	<title>Re:More likely reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245233220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!<br>I hope Oracle makes Sun profitable. I do not see T1 or T2 adv on TV or in newspapers. Not a lot people knows about them. BTW HP-ORACLE and Intel adv is almost in every Wall Street Journal newspaper (on the first page).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ! I hope Oracle makes Sun profitable .
I do not see T1 or T2 adv on TV or in newspapers .
Not a lot people knows about them .
BTW HP-ORACLE and Intel adv is almost in every Wall Street Journal newspaper ( on the first page ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!I hope Oracle makes Sun profitable.
I do not see T1 or T2 adv on TV or in newspapers.
Not a lot people knows about them.
BTW HP-ORACLE and Intel adv is almost in every Wall Street Journal newspaper (on the first page).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28349599</id>
	<title>frlist stop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245175200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">my bedpost u"p my get how people can</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>my bedpost u " p my get how people can [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my bedpost u"p my get how people can [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28356987</id>
	<title>Re:Read this ...</title>
	<author>dlb</author>
	<datestamp>1245166680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That should all be in past tense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That should all be in past tense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That should all be in past tense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348783</id>
	<title>Re:Sun kills Rock?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245172560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as paper covers rock, Burns covers sun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as paper covers rock , Burns covers sun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as paper covers rock, Burns covers sun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347229</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245165300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people believe that for a truly stable and robust database infrastructure, enterprise grade, you cannot use anything other than SPARC/Solaris and Oracle.  I don't necessarily believe this, but if it is good enough for Microsoft then it is good enough for me and my infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people believe that for a truly stable and robust database infrastructure , enterprise grade , you can not use anything other than SPARC/Solaris and Oracle .
I do n't necessarily believe this , but if it is good enough for Microsoft then it is good enough for me and my infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people believe that for a truly stable and robust database infrastructure, enterprise grade, you cannot use anything other than SPARC/Solaris and Oracle.
I don't necessarily believe this, but if it is good enough for Microsoft then it is good enough for me and my infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347651</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245167580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but what kills Sun? Seems like a pretty unbalanced game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but what kills Sun ?
Seems like a pretty unbalanced game of Rock , Paper , Scissors , Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but what kills Sun?
Seems like a pretty unbalanced game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28349979</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't really benefit IBM</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock is the high-clock-speed chip, while the Ultra VII and future variants are the high-end chips, which are absolutely necessary for things like the transaction processing loads of an eBay, much less a bank or large retailer.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock is the high-clock-speed chip , while the Ultra VII and future variants are the high-end chips , which are absolutely necessary for things like the transaction processing loads of an eBay , much less a bank or large retailer .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock is the high-clock-speed chip, while the Ultra VII and future variants are the high-end chips, which are absolutely necessary for things like the transaction processing loads of an eBay, much less a bank or large retailer.
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348627</id>
	<title>Most exciting architectural development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a grad student studying computer architecture, Sun's Rock processor was one of the most exciting new architectures in the past few years.</p><p>Scout Threads offer a lot of potential performance for single threaded applications. A T2 can provide great throughput for a database, but the latency of individual requests is relatively high because of the very simple architecture. Rock offers the possibility for lower latency requests, although this comes at the cost of using more power.</p><p>Rock also includes support for Transactional Memory, which has been a hot-topic in research for many years. T2 is great for applications that are highly parallel, but if you don't know how to write parallel programs, all those threads are wasted. Transactional Memory provides a simple paradigm for writing parallel applications more easily than traditional paradigms.</p><p>The fact that Rock includes both of these features made it very exciting and interesting. I think it's unfortunate and disappointing that Rock is getting killed before we get to see what it can really do. The first Itanium chip was terrible, but Itanium II was much better, and actually does a good job in a specific niche. The first Rock might not be perfect, but it represents a significant departure from previous designs, and I think it deserves a chance to prove itself and find its niche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a grad student studying computer architecture , Sun 's Rock processor was one of the most exciting new architectures in the past few years.Scout Threads offer a lot of potential performance for single threaded applications .
A T2 can provide great throughput for a database , but the latency of individual requests is relatively high because of the very simple architecture .
Rock offers the possibility for lower latency requests , although this comes at the cost of using more power.Rock also includes support for Transactional Memory , which has been a hot-topic in research for many years .
T2 is great for applications that are highly parallel , but if you do n't know how to write parallel programs , all those threads are wasted .
Transactional Memory provides a simple paradigm for writing parallel applications more easily than traditional paradigms.The fact that Rock includes both of these features made it very exciting and interesting .
I think it 's unfortunate and disappointing that Rock is getting killed before we get to see what it can really do .
The first Itanium chip was terrible , but Itanium II was much better , and actually does a good job in a specific niche .
The first Rock might not be perfect , but it represents a significant departure from previous designs , and I think it deserves a chance to prove itself and find its niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a grad student studying computer architecture, Sun's Rock processor was one of the most exciting new architectures in the past few years.Scout Threads offer a lot of potential performance for single threaded applications.
A T2 can provide great throughput for a database, but the latency of individual requests is relatively high because of the very simple architecture.
Rock offers the possibility for lower latency requests, although this comes at the cost of using more power.Rock also includes support for Transactional Memory, which has been a hot-topic in research for many years.
T2 is great for applications that are highly parallel, but if you don't know how to write parallel programs, all those threads are wasted.
Transactional Memory provides a simple paradigm for writing parallel applications more easily than traditional paradigms.The fact that Rock includes both of these features made it very exciting and interesting.
I think it's unfortunate and disappointing that Rock is getting killed before we get to see what it can really do.
The first Itanium chip was terrible, but Itanium II was much better, and actually does a good job in a specific niche.
The first Rock might not be perfect, but it represents a significant departure from previous designs, and I think it deserves a chance to prove itself and find its niche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347865</id>
	<title>This Was Always Going to Happen</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1245168720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as a group of people got into Sun, looked at the costs of maintaining and pumping research and development into their hardware, looked at the relative performance from SPARC versus competitors using x86 and ultimately looked at the bottom line objectively without being stupidly protectionist, then the next step was going to be shutting down Sun's production of Rock and SPARC and moving it to Fujitsu as a supplier to save money. However, even that probably won't be enough as I'm not sure Fujitsu will be able to keep SPARC viable themselves. SPARC has had two, possibly three, options written on the wall for the past ten years:<br> <br>

1. Catch up to x86 platforms in terms of raw performance as most SPARC systems have tended to overlap with workloads x86 systems have taken over. Papering over cracks by promoting 'CoolThreads' and parallel processing as a way around this performance gap was never going to work. I can remember almost ten years ago working somewhere where a person discovered that their Athlon 1.4GHz desktop system had several times the performance of their UltraSPARC III server and could complete tasks several times sooner. Cue lots of panic as UltraSPARC was justified because it was 'enterprise' reliable.<br> <br>

2. Accept the inevitable and throw the towel in.<br> <br>

3. The third way: Do what IBM has done with Power and push it into a high-end and high premium niche. This is difficult because IBM itself can only cover Power by selling mainframe packages and a whole bunch of add-ons to make it pay. Sun have had difficulty with this because their hardware division has always relied on hardware sales themselves.<br> <br>

Option 2 has clearly become the only way out once Sun's difficulties resulted in a takeover and as poor as Oracle might be at some things they are extremely successful at judging bottom lines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as a group of people got into Sun , looked at the costs of maintaining and pumping research and development into their hardware , looked at the relative performance from SPARC versus competitors using x86 and ultimately looked at the bottom line objectively without being stupidly protectionist , then the next step was going to be shutting down Sun 's production of Rock and SPARC and moving it to Fujitsu as a supplier to save money .
However , even that probably wo n't be enough as I 'm not sure Fujitsu will be able to keep SPARC viable themselves .
SPARC has had two , possibly three , options written on the wall for the past ten years : 1 .
Catch up to x86 platforms in terms of raw performance as most SPARC systems have tended to overlap with workloads x86 systems have taken over .
Papering over cracks by promoting 'CoolThreads ' and parallel processing as a way around this performance gap was never going to work .
I can remember almost ten years ago working somewhere where a person discovered that their Athlon 1.4GHz desktop system had several times the performance of their UltraSPARC III server and could complete tasks several times sooner .
Cue lots of panic as UltraSPARC was justified because it was 'enterprise ' reliable .
2. Accept the inevitable and throw the towel in .
3. The third way : Do what IBM has done with Power and push it into a high-end and high premium niche .
This is difficult because IBM itself can only cover Power by selling mainframe packages and a whole bunch of add-ons to make it pay .
Sun have had difficulty with this because their hardware division has always relied on hardware sales themselves .
Option 2 has clearly become the only way out once Sun 's difficulties resulted in a takeover and as poor as Oracle might be at some things they are extremely successful at judging bottom lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as a group of people got into Sun, looked at the costs of maintaining and pumping research and development into their hardware, looked at the relative performance from SPARC versus competitors using x86 and ultimately looked at the bottom line objectively without being stupidly protectionist, then the next step was going to be shutting down Sun's production of Rock and SPARC and moving it to Fujitsu as a supplier to save money.
However, even that probably won't be enough as I'm not sure Fujitsu will be able to keep SPARC viable themselves.
SPARC has had two, possibly three, options written on the wall for the past ten years: 

1.
Catch up to x86 platforms in terms of raw performance as most SPARC systems have tended to overlap with workloads x86 systems have taken over.
Papering over cracks by promoting 'CoolThreads' and parallel processing as a way around this performance gap was never going to work.
I can remember almost ten years ago working somewhere where a person discovered that their Athlon 1.4GHz desktop system had several times the performance of their UltraSPARC III server and could complete tasks several times sooner.
Cue lots of panic as UltraSPARC was justified because it was 'enterprise' reliable.
2. Accept the inevitable and throw the towel in.
3. The third way: Do what IBM has done with Power and push it into a high-end and high premium niche.
This is difficult because IBM itself can only cover Power by selling mainframe packages and a whole bunch of add-ons to make it pay.
Sun have had difficulty with this because their hardware division has always relied on hardware sales themselves.
Option 2 has clearly become the only way out once Sun's difficulties resulted in a takeover and as poor as Oracle might be at some things they are extremely successful at judging bottom lines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350329</id>
	<title>Oblig.</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1245177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We won't, we won't rock you!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We wo n't , we wo n't rock you ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We won't, we won't rock you!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28349509</id>
	<title>I don't think that's right--</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1245174900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Sun kills rock--I think sun burns paper, paper covers rock and rock blots out sun..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Sun kills rock--I think sun burns paper , paper covers rock and rock blots out sun. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Sun kills rock--I think sun burns paper, paper covers rock and rock blots out sun..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346887</id>
	<title>To summarise the article:</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1245163140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To summarise the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary article, all computing hardware companies are going bankrupt, with the exception of Intel, who are delaying projects as well.
 <p>How I love this industry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To summarise the / .
summary article , all computing hardware companies are going bankrupt , with the exception of Intel , who are delaying projects as well .
How I love this industry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To summarise the /.
summary article, all computing hardware companies are going bankrupt, with the exception of Intel, who are delaying projects as well.
How I love this industry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346669</id>
	<title>Actually it was crap</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1245161700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it was crap. Not for nothing was it known as <i>"The Turd Rock from the Sun"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it was crap .
Not for nothing was it known as " The Turd Rock from the Sun "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it was crap.
Not for nothing was it known as "The Turd Rock from the Sun"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346877</id>
	<title>Tukwila?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; <em>Intel announced yet another delay for <strong>Tukwila</strong> </em> </p><p>Please tell me that's not an actual product name. (<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1226313&amp;cid=27870407" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">apologies</a> [slashdot.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila Please tell me that 's not an actual product name .
( apologies [ slashdot.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Intel announced yet another delay for Tukwila  Please tell me that's not an actual product name.
(apologies [slashdot.org])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347849</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock CPU, Paper CPU, Scissors CPU, Lizard CPU, Spock CPU - Note: I always choose Spock CPU when I play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock CPU , Paper CPU , Scissors CPU , Lizard CPU , Spock CPU - Note : I always choose Spock CPU when I play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock CPU, Paper CPU, Scissors CPU, Lizard CPU, Spock CPU - Note: I always choose Spock CPU when I play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347639</id>
	<title>Re:Um, Opteron?</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1245167520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also use Intel (in fact, IMO they seem to like more their intel partnership, probably due to the fact that AMD these days suck). So I don't see how this would benefit AMD alone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also use Intel ( in fact , IMO they seem to like more their intel partnership , probably due to the fact that AMD these days suck ) .
So I do n't see how this would benefit AMD alone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also use Intel (in fact, IMO they seem to like more their intel partnership, probably due to the fact that AMD these days suck).
So I don't see how this would benefit AMD alone...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28362055</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>~/Desktop$ uname -a<br>Linux node34 <b>2.6.30</b>-9-generic #10-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 12 13:08:18 UTC 2009 <b>x86\_64</b> GNU/Linux<br>~/Desktop$ file <b>debian-1.1</b>/bin/gzip<br>debian-1.1/bin/gzip: ELF <b>32-bit</b> LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped<br>~/Desktop$ sudo chroot debian-1.1/<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/gzip --version<br>gzip 1.2.4 (<b>18 Aug 93</b>)<br>Compilation options:<br>DIRENT UTIME STDC\_HEADERS HAVE\_UNISTD\_H ASMV<br>~/Desktop$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>~ /Desktop $ uname -aLinux node34 2.6.30-9-generic # 10-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 12 13 : 08 : 18 UTC 2009 x86 \ _64 GNU/Linux ~ /Desktop $ file debian-1.1/bin/gzipdebian-1.1/bin/gzip : ELF 32-bit LSB executable , Intel 80386 , version 1 ( SYSV ) , dynamically linked ( uses shared libs ) , stripped ~ /Desktop $ sudo chroot debian-1.1/ /bin/gzip --versiongzip 1.2.4 ( 18 Aug 93 ) Compilation options : DIRENT UTIME STDC \ _HEADERS HAVE \ _UNISTD \ _H ASMV ~ /Desktop $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>~/Desktop$ uname -aLinux node34 2.6.30-9-generic #10-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jun 12 13:08:18 UTC 2009 x86\_64 GNU/Linux~/Desktop$ file debian-1.1/bin/gzipdebian-1.1/bin/gzip: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped~/Desktop$ sudo chroot debian-1.1/ /bin/gzip --versiongzip 1.2.4 (18 Aug 93)Compilation options:DIRENT UTIME STDC\_HEADERS HAVE\_UNISTD\_H ASMV~/Desktop$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346743</id>
	<title>IBM bought Sun?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1245162240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle is gonna be pissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle is gon na be pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle is gonna be pissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347217</id>
	<title>good night,</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1245165180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sweet prince...</htmltext>
<tokenext>sweet prince.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sweet prince...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347417</id>
	<title>Re:Um, Opteron?</title>
	<author>vil3nr0b</author>
	<datestamp>1245166500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no price/performance contest in comparing AMD Phenom Sexcore processors versus competitors.  You could build a whole system around DDR3/i7 architecture, but it is unaffordable in large clusters.  BTW, I am an AMD fanboy, especially after upgrading a cluster to the new Phenom chips.  It was able to work perfect with DDR2 and saved a fortune just upgrading CPU's to get about a 15 percent performance increase.
This only helps AMD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no price/performance contest in comparing AMD Phenom Sexcore processors versus competitors .
You could build a whole system around DDR3/i7 architecture , but it is unaffordable in large clusters .
BTW , I am an AMD fanboy , especially after upgrading a cluster to the new Phenom chips .
It was able to work perfect with DDR2 and saved a fortune just upgrading CPU 's to get about a 15 percent performance increase .
This only helps AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no price/performance contest in comparing AMD Phenom Sexcore processors versus competitors.
You could build a whole system around DDR3/i7 architecture, but it is unaffordable in large clusters.
BTW, I am an AMD fanboy, especially after upgrading a cluster to the new Phenom chips.
It was able to work perfect with DDR2 and saved a fortune just upgrading CPU's to get about a 15 percent performance increase.
This only helps AMD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28358191</id>
	<title>Another x86 casuality</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1245180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please let Itanic be next!</p><p>No one can stop the x86 train!<br>Not even Intel!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please let Itanic be next ! No one can stop the x86 train ! Not even Intel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please let Itanic be next!No one can stop the x86 train!Not even Intel!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346621</id>
	<title>another one bites the dust! x86 uber alles!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yuck.</p><p>Some days I hate this industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yuck.Some days I hate this industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yuck.Some days I hate this industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28355141</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>isj</author>
	<datestamp>1245154500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I am not dissing linux. The linux system administration tools have caught up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I am not dissing linux .
The linux system administration tools have caught up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I am not dissing linux.
The linux system administration tools have caught up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28354815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347175</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>Ender\_Stonebender</author>
	<datestamp>1245164940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock\_Paper\_Scissors#Additional\_weapons" title="wikipedia.org">forgot</a> [wikipedia.org] the low-cost, low-power Lizard CPU (being developed by the designers of ARM CPUs) and the highly logical Spock CPU (from AMD, of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot [ wikipedia.org ] the low-cost , low-power Lizard CPU ( being developed by the designers of ARM CPUs ) and the highly logical Spock CPU ( from AMD , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot [wikipedia.org] the low-cost, low-power Lizard CPU (being developed by the designers of ARM CPUs) and the highly logical Spock CPU (from AMD, of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347661</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll find that any office supply company can provide scissors which beat Sun's CPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that any office supply company can provide scissors which beat Sun 's CPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that any office supply company can provide scissors which beat Sun's CPUs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346779</id>
	<title>Re:Very Interesting...</title>
	<author>patch0</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p>"Despite <b>Oracle</b> CEO Larry Ellison's recent statement that his company will continue Sun's hardware business"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Despite Oracle CEO Larry Ellison 's recent statement that his company will continue Sun 's hardware business "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

"Despite Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's recent statement that his company will continue Sun's hardware business"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351947</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's not much left then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tukwila: a low-budget, low-end town whose claims to fame are Southcenter Mall, an Embassy Suites, TWO Marriott Courtyards, a Macy's furniture clearance warehouse and one of the most dangerous bus stops (at the mall on the edge of the parking lot) in King County outside of Seattle.  Heck of a name for a high-end chip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tukwila : a low-budget , low-end town whose claims to fame are Southcenter Mall , an Embassy Suites , TWO Marriott Courtyards , a Macy 's furniture clearance warehouse and one of the most dangerous bus stops ( at the mall on the edge of the parking lot ) in King County outside of Seattle .
Heck of a name for a high-end chip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tukwila: a low-budget, low-end town whose claims to fame are Southcenter Mall, an Embassy Suites, TWO Marriott Courtyards, a Macy's furniture clearance warehouse and one of the most dangerous bus stops (at the mall on the edge of the parking lot) in King County outside of Seattle.
Heck of a name for a high-end chip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28354815</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1245152880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not seriously attempting to take a back handed swipe at Linux by bigging up Solaris's command line admin tools are you?  I mean, have you actually looked a recent release of Redhat or SuSE?  You must be barking mad.  Linux has a very rich and comprehensive set of command like tools at its disposal.  Your few examples are easily matched:</p><p>dtrace = systemtap<br>truss = strace<br>ptree = pstree<br>prstat, prset = taskset</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not seriously attempting to take a back handed swipe at Linux by bigging up Solaris 's command line admin tools are you ?
I mean , have you actually looked a recent release of Redhat or SuSE ?
You must be barking mad .
Linux has a very rich and comprehensive set of command like tools at its disposal .
Your few examples are easily matched : dtrace = systemtaptruss = straceptree = pstreeprstat , prset = taskset      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not seriously attempting to take a back handed swipe at Linux by bigging up Solaris's command line admin tools are you?
I mean, have you actually looked a recent release of Redhat or SuSE?
You must be barking mad.
Linux has a very rich and comprehensive set of command like tools at its disposal.
Your few examples are easily matched:dtrace = systemtaptruss = straceptree = pstreeprstat, prset = taskset
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347359</id>
	<title>Re:Sun kills rock!</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1245166080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uggggh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uggggh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uggggh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347149</id>
	<title>MySQL</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1245164820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't care too much about a over delayed processor, as long as they don't get rid of MySQL or make it a paid service I will be happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care too much about a over delayed processor , as long as they do n't get rid of MySQL or make it a paid service I will be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care too much about a over delayed processor, as long as they don't get rid of MySQL or make it a paid service I will be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348921</id>
	<title>R.I.P. SPARC</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1245172980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will be missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will be missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will be missed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346741</id>
	<title>Re:Very Interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sun is in the process of being purchased by Oracle, retard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun is in the process of being purchased by Oracle , retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun is in the process of being purchased by Oracle, retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347907</id>
	<title>Perhaps Fujitsu's SPARC line</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1245168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>will return to profitability and be able to support more R&amp;D because of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>will return to profitability and be able to support more R&amp;D because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will return to profitability and be able to support more R&amp;D because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725</id>
	<title>So, basically,...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1245168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the entire world is to be forced onto the X86 monoculture (except perhaps for a few ARMs at the low end).  Something else for which we can thank Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the entire world is to be forced onto the X86 monoculture ( except perhaps for a few ARMs at the low end ) .
Something else for which we can thank Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the entire world is to be forced onto the X86 monoculture (except perhaps for a few ARMs at the low end).
Something else for which we can thank Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28353323</id>
	<title>Re:This Was Always Going to Happen</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245145560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Sun's been doing 3) for years, designing chips to work with a big fast backplane (ex-CRAY, at one time), and which Fujitsu has specialized in.

</p><p>The Rock is their high-clock-speed box, not their big database box.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Sun 's been doing 3 ) for years , designing chips to work with a big fast backplane ( ex-CRAY , at one time ) , and which Fujitsu has specialized in .
The Rock is their high-clock-speed box , not their big database box .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Sun's been doing 3) for years, designing chips to work with a big fast backplane (ex-CRAY, at one time), and which Fujitsu has specialized in.
The Rock is their high-clock-speed box, not their big database box.
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347197</id>
	<title>Re:RPS</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1245165120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>critics argue about the hypothetical "Scissors CPU" that competitors may be secretly developing</p></div><p>I've seen the supposed specs for the scissors cpu, and I can attest that rock would have absolutely crushed it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>critics argue about the hypothetical " Scissors CPU " that competitors may be secretly developingI 've seen the supposed specs for the scissors cpu , and I can attest that rock would have absolutely crushed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>critics argue about the hypothetical "Scissors CPU" that competitors may be secretly developingI've seen the supposed specs for the scissors cpu, and I can attest that rock would have absolutely crushed it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346765</id>
	<title>Re:Very Interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confused. Sun was purchased by Oracle. IBM withdrew their bid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confused .
Sun was purchased by Oracle .
IBM withdrew their bid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confused.
Sun was purchased by Oracle.
IBM withdrew their bid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346793</id>
	<title>Re:Very Interesting...</title>
	<author>Agronomist Cowherd</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm sure IBM's purchase of Sun had a HUGE amount to do with this.  Those IBM bastards, canceling competing projects left and right.  I'm sure this was their secret plan all along.  Killing SPARC because it's such a good competitor to Power and xSeries.</p><p>Oh wait, IBM DIDN'T purchase Sun.  Oracle purchased Sun.  The summary hinted as much.</p><p>You're really out of date.  At least have a fact to add to your conspiracy theory.  One fact is a big help.</p><p>Idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm sure IBM 's purchase of Sun had a HUGE amount to do with this .
Those IBM bastards , canceling competing projects left and right .
I 'm sure this was their secret plan all along .
Killing SPARC because it 's such a good competitor to Power and xSeries.Oh wait , IBM DID N'T purchase Sun .
Oracle purchased Sun .
The summary hinted as much.You 're really out of date .
At least have a fact to add to your conspiracy theory .
One fact is a big help.Idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm sure IBM's purchase of Sun had a HUGE amount to do with this.
Those IBM bastards, canceling competing projects left and right.
I'm sure this was their secret plan all along.
Killing SPARC because it's such a good competitor to Power and xSeries.Oh wait, IBM DIDN'T purchase Sun.
Oracle purchased Sun.
The summary hinted as much.You're really out of date.
At least have a fact to add to your conspiracy theory.
One fact is a big help.Idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351389</id>
	<title>Resignation</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1245181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one, welcome the continued occupation of our x86 overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one , welcome the continued occupation of our x86 overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one, welcome the continued occupation of our x86 overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351749</id>
	<title>Linux not Microsoft.</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1245182460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're talking about companies going from SPARC to x86, Linux is far more responsible for that than Microsoft.<br><br>Linux+x86 is Solaris+SPARC's main competitor. Not Microsoft Windows+x86.<br><br>The stuff people would want to run on SPARC machines, can usually be run on Linux+x86 with decent performance (and often better price/performance).<br><br>And if they really wanted they could also do Solaris+x86. So Sun's also responsible for that...<br><br>If people like vmware manage to provide \_seamless\_ high availability features that are less buggy than good hardware, the x86 stuff will crush the high end HA server market too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're talking about companies going from SPARC to x86 , Linux is far more responsible for that than Microsoft.Linux + x86 is Solaris + SPARC 's main competitor .
Not Microsoft Windows + x86.The stuff people would want to run on SPARC machines , can usually be run on Linux + x86 with decent performance ( and often better price/performance ) .And if they really wanted they could also do Solaris + x86 .
So Sun 's also responsible for that...If people like vmware manage to provide \ _seamless \ _ high availability features that are less buggy than good hardware , the x86 stuff will crush the high end HA server market too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're talking about companies going from SPARC to x86, Linux is far more responsible for that than Microsoft.Linux+x86 is Solaris+SPARC's main competitor.
Not Microsoft Windows+x86.The stuff people would want to run on SPARC machines, can usually be run on Linux+x86 with decent performance (and often better price/performance).And if they really wanted they could also do Solaris+x86.
So Sun's also responsible for that...If people like vmware manage to provide \_seamless\_ high availability features that are less buggy than good hardware, the x86 stuff will crush the high end HA server market too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073</id>
	<title>What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>astonish</author>
	<datestamp>1245164340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm totally ignorant of the sun/enterprise space of computing hardware. What are these architectures good at that x64/GPGPU aren't going to cover? I've seen in my own career things like SGI Oynx and even high-end rendering cards go to the wayside in favor of standard COTS hardware that is more agile, refreshes more frequently and is blazing fast...</p><p>What keeps this SPARC space alive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm totally ignorant of the sun/enterprise space of computing hardware .
What are these architectures good at that x64/GPGPU are n't going to cover ?
I 've seen in my own career things like SGI Oynx and even high-end rendering cards go to the wayside in favor of standard COTS hardware that is more agile , refreshes more frequently and is blazing fast...What keeps this SPARC space alive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm totally ignorant of the sun/enterprise space of computing hardware.
What are these architectures good at that x64/GPGPU aren't going to cover?
I've seen in my own career things like SGI Oynx and even high-end rendering cards go to the wayside in favor of standard COTS hardware that is more agile, refreshes more frequently and is blazing fast...What keeps this SPARC space alive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350261</id>
	<title>Read this ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock, Sun's third-generation chip-multithreading processor, contains 16 high-performance cores, each of which can support two software threads. Rock uses a novel checkpoint-based architecture to support automatic hardware scouting under a load miss, speculative out-of-order retirement of instructions, and aggressive dynamic hardware parallelization of a sequential instruction stream. It is also the first processor to support transactional memory in hardware.</p><p>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs\_all.jsp?isnumber=4812126&amp;arnumber=4812132</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock , Sun 's third-generation chip-multithreading processor , contains 16 high-performance cores , each of which can support two software threads .
Rock uses a novel checkpoint-based architecture to support automatic hardware scouting under a load miss , speculative out-of-order retirement of instructions , and aggressive dynamic hardware parallelization of a sequential instruction stream .
It is also the first processor to support transactional memory in hardware.http : //ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs \ _all.jsp ? isnumber = 4812126&amp;arnumber = 4812132</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock, Sun's third-generation chip-multithreading processor, contains 16 high-performance cores, each of which can support two software threads.
Rock uses a novel checkpoint-based architecture to support automatic hardware scouting under a load miss, speculative out-of-order retirement of instructions, and aggressive dynamic hardware parallelization of a sequential instruction stream.
It is also the first processor to support transactional memory in hardware.http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs\_all.jsp?isnumber=4812126&amp;arnumber=4812132</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346783</id>
	<title>More likely reason</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is more likely that Sun compared the Rock to Fuji's new SPARC CPU and realized that it could not compare for the price/performance.  Frankly, looking at the two, Sun made the wise move, killed off a weaker chip, and will likely push forward the SPARC64 VVIfx, which is further along in development and will be ready sooner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is more likely that Sun compared the Rock to Fuji 's new SPARC CPU and realized that it could not compare for the price/performance .
Frankly , looking at the two , Sun made the wise move , killed off a weaker chip , and will likely push forward the SPARC64 VVIfx , which is further along in development and will be ready sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is more likely that Sun compared the Rock to Fuji's new SPARC CPU and realized that it could not compare for the price/performance.
Frankly, looking at the two, Sun made the wise move, killed off a weaker chip, and will likely push forward the SPARC64 VVIfx, which is further along in development and will be ready sooner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347787</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's not much left then.</title>
	<author>raftpeople</author>
	<datestamp>1245168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think Itanium being pushed out is a sign of anything other than that Intel would probably like to just kill Itanium and put all resources in x86 as they are creating very impressive procs lately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Itanium being pushed out is a sign of anything other than that Intel would probably like to just kill Itanium and put all resources in x86 as they are creating very impressive procs lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Itanium being pushed out is a sign of anything other than that Intel would probably like to just kill Itanium and put all resources in x86 as they are creating very impressive procs lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347471</id>
	<title>N N O O o o . . . .</title>
	<author>jamesswift</author>
	<datestamp>1245166800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really wanted to see someone succeed with HTM <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_memory" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_memory</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:'(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wanted to see someone succeed with HTM http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional \ _memory [ wikipedia.org ] : ' (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wanted to see someone succeed with HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_memory [wikipedia.org] :'(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773</id>
	<title>Um, Opteron?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245162420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I am an AMD fanboy, but, my dual opteron PC just ordered me to remind you all that AMD will also benefit from this choice. Indeed, Sun already uses AMD Opteron parts for some of its servers....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I am an AMD fanboy , but , my dual opteron PC just ordered me to remind you all that AMD will also benefit from this choice .
Indeed , Sun already uses AMD Opteron parts for some of its servers... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I am an AMD fanboy, but, my dual opteron PC just ordered me to remind you all that AMD will also benefit from this choice.
Indeed, Sun already uses AMD Opteron parts for some of its servers....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347285</id>
	<title>Mistake in tags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245165720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I am reading this, I can't help but be saddened at the mistaken tag 'paperrocksun'.  Obviously, rock is defeated by both paper and sun, which is contrary to the paradigm of the game.  A better tag would have been: rocksunscissors.</p><p>Shame on you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>Shame</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I am reading this , I ca n't help but be saddened at the mistaken tag 'paperrocksun' .
Obviously , rock is defeated by both paper and sun , which is contrary to the paradigm of the game .
A better tag would have been : rocksunscissors.Shame on you /.Shame</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I am reading this, I can't help but be saddened at the mistaken tag 'paperrocksun'.
Obviously, rock is defeated by both paper and sun, which is contrary to the paradigm of the game.
A better tag would have been: rocksunscissors.Shame on you /.Shame</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821</id>
	<title>Re:What are these architectures good for...</title>
	<author>isj</author>
	<datestamp>1245168480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What keeps this SPARC space alive?</i></p><p>Solaris.<br>Sun has maintained backward compatibility for applications for decades. You rarely encounter "oops, you need libc.2.0, but that is not supported on the newer kernels.". Also, the command-line system administration tools (especially for troubleshooting) are comprehensive (dtrace, truss, ptree, prstat, psrset,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What keeps this SPARC space alive ? Solaris.Sun has maintained backward compatibility for applications for decades .
You rarely encounter " oops , you need libc.2.0 , but that is not supported on the newer kernels. " .
Also , the command-line system administration tools ( especially for troubleshooting ) are comprehensive ( dtrace , truss , ptree , prstat , psrset , ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What keeps this SPARC space alive?Solaris.Sun has maintained backward compatibility for applications for decades.
You rarely encounter "oops, you need libc.2.0, but that is not supported on the newer kernels.".
Also, the command-line system administration tools (especially for troubleshooting) are comprehensive (dtrace, truss, ptree, prstat, psrset, ...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346763</id>
	<title>Sun kills Rock?</title>
	<author>SailorSpork</author>
	<datestamp>1245162360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, so if sun kills rock, sun burns paper, and sun melts scissors... SUN IS INVINCIBLE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , so if sun kills rock , sun burns paper , and sun melts scissors... SUN IS INVINCIBLE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, so if sun kills rock, sun burns paper, and sun melts scissors... SUN IS INVINCIBLE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28359089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28355141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28354815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28356987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28358103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28349979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28352481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28353323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1244240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28362055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28356987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28353323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28359089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28348627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28351749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28358103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28346855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28349979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28352481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1244240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28362055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28354815
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28355141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28350137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1244240.28347229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
