<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_1443248</id>
	<title>FreeDOS Turns 15 Years Old Today</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246201320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.freedos.org/jhall/" rel="nofollow">Jim Hall</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://www.freedos.org/">The FreeDOS Project</a> turns 15 years old today! PD-DOS (later, 'FreeDOS') was announced to the world on June 28 1994 as a free replacement for MS-DOS, which Microsoft had announced would go away the following year, with the next release of Windows. There's <a href="http://www.freedos.org/freedos/about/">more history available at the FreeDOS 'About' page</a> and <a href="http://www.freedos.org/jhall/">my blog</a>. Today, FreeDOS is used by people all around the world. You can find FreeDOS in many different places: emulators, playing old DOS games, business, ... even <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/06/23/hps-mini-5101-netbook-deluxe-with-all-the-trimmings/">bundled with laptops and netbooks</a>. FreeDOS is still under active development, and recently released a new version of its kernel. A 'FreeDOS 1.1' distribution is planned."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jim Hall writes " The FreeDOS Project turns 15 years old today !
PD-DOS ( later , 'FreeDOS ' ) was announced to the world on June 28 1994 as a free replacement for MS-DOS , which Microsoft had announced would go away the following year , with the next release of Windows .
There 's more history available at the FreeDOS 'About ' page and my blog .
Today , FreeDOS is used by people all around the world .
You can find FreeDOS in many different places : emulators , playing old DOS games , business , ... even bundled with laptops and netbooks .
FreeDOS is still under active development , and recently released a new version of its kernel .
A 'FreeDOS 1.1 ' distribution is planned .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jim Hall writes "The FreeDOS Project turns 15 years old today!
PD-DOS (later, 'FreeDOS') was announced to the world on June 28 1994 as a free replacement for MS-DOS, which Microsoft had announced would go away the following year, with the next release of Windows.
There's more history available at the FreeDOS 'About' page and my blog.
Today, FreeDOS is used by people all around the world.
You can find FreeDOS in many different places: emulators, playing old DOS games, business, ... even bundled with laptops and netbooks.
FreeDOS is still under active development, and recently released a new version of its kernel.
A 'FreeDOS 1.1' distribution is planned.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007</id>
	<title>Start FreeWindows7 emulator now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since moving away from MS DOS (and gui they called windows 95/98/me) compatibility with legacy software has been dreadful - Microsoft practically forced the whole world into rewriting most of their applications for several times now! Since this is (kinda) happening again, they should start FreeWindows7 emulator now, so that it's ready in cca 2018 when Microsoft decides that its way too old and it needs to be replaced with whatever brand spanking new OS they are forcing on the world by then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since moving away from MS DOS ( and gui they called windows 95/98/me ) compatibility with legacy software has been dreadful - Microsoft practically forced the whole world into rewriting most of their applications for several times now !
Since this is ( kinda ) happening again , they should start FreeWindows7 emulator now , so that it 's ready in cca 2018 when Microsoft decides that its way too old and it needs to be replaced with whatever brand spanking new OS they are forcing on the world by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since moving away from MS DOS (and gui they called windows 95/98/me) compatibility with legacy software has been dreadful - Microsoft practically forced the whole world into rewriting most of their applications for several times now!
Since this is (kinda) happening again, they should start FreeWindows7 emulator now, so that it's ready in cca 2018 when Microsoft decides that its way too old and it needs to be replaced with whatever brand spanking new OS they are forcing on the world by then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505971</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1246218660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for...</p>  </div><p>No more puzzled than I am about why it is that the ability to grasp sarcasm is so elusive to so many slashdotters, not to mention why moderators would find such dimness (in an AC, no less) "insightful".
<br>
(shakes head)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely puzzled by the people who ca n't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for... No more puzzled than I am about why it is that the ability to grasp sarcasm is so elusive to so many slashdotters , not to mention why moderators would find such dimness ( in an AC , no less ) " insightful " .
( shakes head )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for...  No more puzzled than I am about why it is that the ability to grasp sarcasm is so elusive to so many slashdotters, not to mention why moderators would find such dimness (in an AC, no less) "insightful".
(shakes head)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504943</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1246212060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the 64-bit version can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the 64-bit version can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the 64-bit version can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505133</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DOSBox is an emulator.  It emulates a PC running DOS.  By modern standards, DOS barely qualifies as an operating system.  One big omission, for example, is device drivers.  When you want to interact with the display or sound hardware on a modern OS, you interact with some hardware-independent interface to the OS, and the OS then sends hardware-specific commands to the device.  With DOS, you just accessed the framebuffer's memory directly or wrote sound samples directly to the soundcard.  You only interacted with DOS for a small number of things, such as reserving a chunk of memory and interacting with the filesystem.  Most of the code in DOSBox is related to emulating devices, like SoundBlaster 16s, that a lot of DOS programs expect.  Very little of it is related to handling DOS system calls.  DOSBox also doesn't provide a real filesystem.  Instead, it turns DOS system calls related to filesystem operations into operations on the host platform's filesystem.</p><p>
In contrast, FreeDOS is a reimplementation of DOS.  While DOSBox runs as an emulator on top of another operating system, FreeDOS runs directly on top of the hardware, or in a third-party VM application.  While DOSBox aims to allow you to run DOS programs, FreeDOS is an updated version of DOS.  The last stand-alone version of MS-DOS was 6.22.  FreeDOS provides a number of features not supported by this version of DOS, including:
</p><ul>
<li>Support for FAT32 filesystems.</li>
<li>LBA disks (MS-DOS was limited to seeing only 504MB of a disk, unless a third-party driver was installed.  In this case, the boot partition was generally still limited to 504MB).</li>
<li>UDMA support for newer disks.</li>
<li>Better support for memory over the 640KB boundary.</li>
<li>Power management support.</li>
</ul><p>
Basically, FreeDOS is a logical extension of DOS in the same way that Linux or BSD is a logical extension of UNIX, while DOSBox is an emulator for running legacy DOS programs (with a focus on games) on a modern OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DOSBox is an emulator .
It emulates a PC running DOS .
By modern standards , DOS barely qualifies as an operating system .
One big omission , for example , is device drivers .
When you want to interact with the display or sound hardware on a modern OS , you interact with some hardware-independent interface to the OS , and the OS then sends hardware-specific commands to the device .
With DOS , you just accessed the framebuffer 's memory directly or wrote sound samples directly to the soundcard .
You only interacted with DOS for a small number of things , such as reserving a chunk of memory and interacting with the filesystem .
Most of the code in DOSBox is related to emulating devices , like SoundBlaster 16s , that a lot of DOS programs expect .
Very little of it is related to handling DOS system calls .
DOSBox also does n't provide a real filesystem .
Instead , it turns DOS system calls related to filesystem operations into operations on the host platform 's filesystem .
In contrast , FreeDOS is a reimplementation of DOS .
While DOSBox runs as an emulator on top of another operating system , FreeDOS runs directly on top of the hardware , or in a third-party VM application .
While DOSBox aims to allow you to run DOS programs , FreeDOS is an updated version of DOS .
The last stand-alone version of MS-DOS was 6.22 .
FreeDOS provides a number of features not supported by this version of DOS , including : Support for FAT32 filesystems .
LBA disks ( MS-DOS was limited to seeing only 504MB of a disk , unless a third-party driver was installed .
In this case , the boot partition was generally still limited to 504MB ) .
UDMA support for newer disks .
Better support for memory over the 640KB boundary .
Power management support .
Basically , FreeDOS is a logical extension of DOS in the same way that Linux or BSD is a logical extension of UNIX , while DOSBox is an emulator for running legacy DOS programs ( with a focus on games ) on a modern OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOSBox is an emulator.
It emulates a PC running DOS.
By modern standards, DOS barely qualifies as an operating system.
One big omission, for example, is device drivers.
When you want to interact with the display or sound hardware on a modern OS, you interact with some hardware-independent interface to the OS, and the OS then sends hardware-specific commands to the device.
With DOS, you just accessed the framebuffer's memory directly or wrote sound samples directly to the soundcard.
You only interacted with DOS for a small number of things, such as reserving a chunk of memory and interacting with the filesystem.
Most of the code in DOSBox is related to emulating devices, like SoundBlaster 16s, that a lot of DOS programs expect.
Very little of it is related to handling DOS system calls.
DOSBox also doesn't provide a real filesystem.
Instead, it turns DOS system calls related to filesystem operations into operations on the host platform's filesystem.
In contrast, FreeDOS is a reimplementation of DOS.
While DOSBox runs as an emulator on top of another operating system, FreeDOS runs directly on top of the hardware, or in a third-party VM application.
While DOSBox aims to allow you to run DOS programs, FreeDOS is an updated version of DOS.
The last stand-alone version of MS-DOS was 6.22.
FreeDOS provides a number of features not supported by this version of DOS, including:

Support for FAT32 filesystems.
LBA disks (MS-DOS was limited to seeing only 504MB of a disk, unless a third-party driver was installed.
In this case, the boot partition was generally still limited to 504MB).
UDMA support for newer disks.
Better support for memory over the 640KB boundary.
Power management support.
Basically, FreeDOS is a logical extension of DOS in the same way that Linux or BSD is a logical extension of UNIX, while DOSBox is an emulator for running legacy DOS programs (with a focus on games) on a modern OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505923</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>atomic-penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1246218300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have mentioned DOSBox is a DOS API emulator, not a complete Operating System as FreeDOS.  For unknown reasons many hardware vendors and OEMs still rely on DOS boot disks to flash firmware on RAID controllers, BIOS, and Fiber Channel or iSCSI Host Bus Adapters.  I could speculate that it has something to do with modern Operating Systems having greater or more complex abstraction between the hardware and the software.  Either that, or there is just no reason to re-invent a wheel, when the wheel you have works just fine on DOS.</p><p>So while FreeDOS is not something that many people use everyday, it is something that many people heavily rely on to create bootable images for floppy disks or PXE-booting.  Unlike other DOS implementations (DRDOS/PCDOS/MSDOS) there are not licensing costs associated with redistributing a bootable floppy image generated from FreeDOS.  So FreeDOS allows hardware, software, and OEM vendors to pre-generate images of bootable floppy based utilities, and redistribute the images without fear of making a copyright violation.</p><p>I personally have dozens of floppy images built on FreeDOS, that I use to PXE-boot things like Ghost, SpinRite, BIOS and flash utilities, etc.  Some of those images were pre-generated by vendors, some of them were generated by myself using the FreeDOS 'sysx' command on Linux or Windows.  I would not be surprised if people are still using FreeDOS for these same things in another 15 years from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned DOSBox is a DOS API emulator , not a complete Operating System as FreeDOS .
For unknown reasons many hardware vendors and OEMs still rely on DOS boot disks to flash firmware on RAID controllers , BIOS , and Fiber Channel or iSCSI Host Bus Adapters .
I could speculate that it has something to do with modern Operating Systems having greater or more complex abstraction between the hardware and the software .
Either that , or there is just no reason to re-invent a wheel , when the wheel you have works just fine on DOS.So while FreeDOS is not something that many people use everyday , it is something that many people heavily rely on to create bootable images for floppy disks or PXE-booting .
Unlike other DOS implementations ( DRDOS/PCDOS/MSDOS ) there are not licensing costs associated with redistributing a bootable floppy image generated from FreeDOS .
So FreeDOS allows hardware , software , and OEM vendors to pre-generate images of bootable floppy based utilities , and redistribute the images without fear of making a copyright violation.I personally have dozens of floppy images built on FreeDOS , that I use to PXE-boot things like Ghost , SpinRite , BIOS and flash utilities , etc .
Some of those images were pre-generated by vendors , some of them were generated by myself using the FreeDOS 'sysx ' command on Linux or Windows .
I would not be surprised if people are still using FreeDOS for these same things in another 15 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned DOSBox is a DOS API emulator, not a complete Operating System as FreeDOS.
For unknown reasons many hardware vendors and OEMs still rely on DOS boot disks to flash firmware on RAID controllers, BIOS, and Fiber Channel or iSCSI Host Bus Adapters.
I could speculate that it has something to do with modern Operating Systems having greater or more complex abstraction between the hardware and the software.
Either that, or there is just no reason to re-invent a wheel, when the wheel you have works just fine on DOS.So while FreeDOS is not something that many people use everyday, it is something that many people heavily rely on to create bootable images for floppy disks or PXE-booting.
Unlike other DOS implementations (DRDOS/PCDOS/MSDOS) there are not licensing costs associated with redistributing a bootable floppy image generated from FreeDOS.
So FreeDOS allows hardware, software, and OEM vendors to pre-generate images of bootable floppy based utilities, and redistribute the images without fear of making a copyright violation.I personally have dozens of floppy images built on FreeDOS, that I use to PXE-boot things like Ghost, SpinRite, BIOS and flash utilities, etc.
Some of those images were pre-generated by vendors, some of them were generated by myself using the FreeDOS 'sysx' command on Linux or Windows.
I would not be surprised if people are still using FreeDOS for these same things in another 15 years from now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504313</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246208160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for. Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates? Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</p> </div><p>That's a trivial application for an operating system. Where you'll find DOS-level OSes still being used is primarily in embedded systems of various sorts. DOS has a lot of advantages there, if you're running on Intel-compatible hardware. Lots of development tools and utilities, support for Flash-based devices, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely puzzled by the people who ca n't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for .
Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ?
That 's a trivial application for an operating system .
Where you 'll find DOS-level OSes still being used is primarily in embedded systems of various sorts .
DOS has a lot of advantages there , if you 're running on Intel-compatible hardware .
Lots of development tools and utilities , support for Flash-based devices , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.
Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?
That's a trivial application for an operating system.
Where you'll find DOS-level OSes still being used is primarily in embedded systems of various sorts.
DOS has a lot of advantages there, if you're running on Intel-compatible hardware.
Lots of development tools and utilities, support for Flash-based devices, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979</id>
	<title>In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you do that?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>These days, there are three main uses for FreeDOS:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Running classic DOS games<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Running business software that only supports DOS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Supporting embedded DOS systems, such as a computerized cash register or till</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you do that ? These days , there are three main uses for FreeDOS :       1 .
Running classic DOS games       2 .
Running business software that only supports DOS       3 .
Supporting embedded DOS systems , such as a computerized cash register or till</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you do that?These days, there are three main uses for FreeDOS:
      1.
Running classic DOS games
      2.
Running business software that only supports DOS
      3.
Supporting embedded DOS systems, such as a computerized cash register or till
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941</id>
	<title>What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1246205460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And can it run Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And can it run Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And can it run Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28517307</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246303740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates? Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</i></p><p>Yes, and neither of those requires DOS. My motherboard (an Asus P6T Deluxe v2) has a BIOS-flashing utility built into the BIOS, which is capable of loading the ROM file right off existing media (like my NTFS hard disk, although Linux users may need to use a FAT32 USB stick or something).</p><p>As for disk utilities, most are either Linux-based or use their own booting solution. Admittedly, some manufacturer utilities cling to the old DOS ways, and I do believe I needed to use DOS to update the firmware on my Intel SSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ? Yes , and neither of those requires DOS .
My motherboard ( an Asus P6T Deluxe v2 ) has a BIOS-flashing utility built into the BIOS , which is capable of loading the ROM file right off existing media ( like my NTFS hard disk , although Linux users may need to use a FAT32 USB stick or something ) .As for disk utilities , most are either Linux-based or use their own booting solution .
Admittedly , some manufacturer utilities cling to the old DOS ways , and I do believe I needed to use DOS to update the firmware on my Intel SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?Yes, and neither of those requires DOS.
My motherboard (an Asus P6T Deluxe v2) has a BIOS-flashing utility built into the BIOS, which is capable of loading the ROM file right off existing media (like my NTFS hard disk, although Linux users may need to use a FAT32 USB stick or something).As for disk utilities, most are either Linux-based or use their own booting solution.
Admittedly, some manufacturer utilities cling to the old DOS ways, and I do believe I needed to use DOS to update the firmware on my Intel SSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508515</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak for others, but personally my main use for freedos is hardware hacking.  Running motor controllers, data collection, and interfacing with other random bits of homemade electronic gadgetry... this is one time that I just want to be able to say "put 5 volts on pin x of the parallel port, read back from pin y" without having fight my way past a heavy-weight OS, rely on a bunch of not-quite compatible APIs, and generally deal with a host of potential points of failure.  And while Freedos might not be great for most things when it comes to being a simple, reliable, bare-bones OS that doesn't get in the way it is without peer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak for others , but personally my main use for freedos is hardware hacking .
Running motor controllers , data collection , and interfacing with other random bits of homemade electronic gadgetry... this is one time that I just want to be able to say " put 5 volts on pin x of the parallel port , read back from pin y " without having fight my way past a heavy-weight OS , rely on a bunch of not-quite compatible APIs , and generally deal with a host of potential points of failure .
And while Freedos might not be great for most things when it comes to being a simple , reliable , bare-bones OS that does n't get in the way it is without peer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak for others, but personally my main use for freedos is hardware hacking.
Running motor controllers, data collection, and interfacing with other random bits of homemade electronic gadgetry... this is one time that I just want to be able to say "put 5 volts on pin x of the parallel port, read back from pin y" without having fight my way past a heavy-weight OS, rely on a bunch of not-quite compatible APIs, and generally deal with a host of potential points of failure.
And while Freedos might not be great for most things when it comes to being a simple, reliable, bare-bones OS that doesn't get in the way it is without peer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504557</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone know how to update the BIOS on a MacBook that is not running OSX? (running Linux).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know how to update the BIOS on a MacBook that is not running OSX ?
( running Linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know how to update the BIOS on a MacBook that is not running OSX?
(running Linux).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505941</id>
	<title>Wine if you want to run Windows apps under Linux</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1246218420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.winehq.org/" title="winehq.org">http://www.winehq.org/</a> [winehq.org] While it does not run everything, it is always worth a try. Probably more capable at this point than ReactOS (although I have not tried ReactOS myself).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.winehq.org/ [ winehq.org ] While it does not run everything , it is always worth a try .
Probably more capable at this point than ReactOS ( although I have not tried ReactOS myself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.winehq.org/ [winehq.org] While it does not run everything, it is always worth a try.
Probably more capable at this point than ReactOS (although I have not tried ReactOS myself).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28519353</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day, I used PC's running DOS to build automated test equipment.  I really liked the way DOS, unlike most multitasking, timesharing operating systems, would load up your program and then give you virtually complete control of the machine.  I could write timing-critical routines in assembly and reliably calculate the number of clock cycles used and thus the time elapsed.</p><p>That kind of predictability was an important factor.  If I were still in the test engineering business, I'd probably still be using DOS, albeit on newer, faster hardware.  I just wouldn't be using one of the pipelined microprocessor, because they make it harder to predict what they're going to be doing at any point in time.</p><p>So, yeah, I can see a niche for FreeDOS in the embedded world, and not only on ancient hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , I used PC 's running DOS to build automated test equipment .
I really liked the way DOS , unlike most multitasking , timesharing operating systems , would load up your program and then give you virtually complete control of the machine .
I could write timing-critical routines in assembly and reliably calculate the number of clock cycles used and thus the time elapsed.That kind of predictability was an important factor .
If I were still in the test engineering business , I 'd probably still be using DOS , albeit on newer , faster hardware .
I just would n't be using one of the pipelined microprocessor , because they make it harder to predict what they 're going to be doing at any point in time.So , yeah , I can see a niche for FreeDOS in the embedded world , and not only on ancient hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, I used PC's running DOS to build automated test equipment.
I really liked the way DOS, unlike most multitasking, timesharing operating systems, would load up your program and then give you virtually complete control of the machine.
I could write timing-critical routines in assembly and reliably calculate the number of clock cycles used and thus the time elapsed.That kind of predictability was an important factor.
If I were still in the test engineering business, I'd probably still be using DOS, albeit on newer, faster hardware.
I just wouldn't be using one of the pipelined microprocessor, because they make it harder to predict what they're going to be doing at any point in time.So, yeah, I can see a niche for FreeDOS in the embedded world, and not only on ancient hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504255</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.  <b>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?  Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</b></p> </div><p>Yes and? Most motherboard vendors provide either executable files you can run from within Windows or floppy/cdrom images you just burn and then boot from. Same for hard drive diagnostic software. Making my own dos bootable disk hasn't come into equation for 5+ years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely puzzled by the people who ca n't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for .
Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ?
Yes and ?
Most motherboard vendors provide either executable files you can run from within Windows or floppy/cdrom images you just burn and then boot from .
Same for hard drive diagnostic software .
Making my own dos bootable disk has n't come into equation for 5 + years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.
Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?
Yes and?
Most motherboard vendors provide either executable files you can run from within Windows or floppy/cdrom images you just burn and then boot from.
Same for hard drive diagnostic software.
Making my own dos bootable disk hasn't come into equation for 5+ years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504135</id>
	<title>not exactly great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>15 years and their disk partitioning utility still can't partition a disk properly. Guys, an MBR partition scheme is fucking simple, and you have every OS on the planet to test your results against. Please get it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>15 years and their disk partitioning utility still ca n't partition a disk properly .
Guys , an MBR partition scheme is fucking simple , and you have every OS on the planet to test your results against .
Please get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>15 years and their disk partitioning utility still can't partition a disk properly.
Guys, an MBR partition scheme is fucking simple, and you have every OS on the planet to test your results against.
Please get it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506287</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDos and hacking</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1246221060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you have to reboot, this implies that you have physical access. Ok, great... but they could still have locked the boot sector and BIOS boot order, encrypted individual files (EFS) or the whole volume (BitLocker), or restricted access in other ways (standard users can't actually write anywhere on my C drive, although not for paranoid security reasons).</p><p>That said, short of something like BitLocker, if you have physical access it's generally game over anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you have to reboot , this implies that you have physical access .
Ok , great... but they could still have locked the boot sector and BIOS boot order , encrypted individual files ( EFS ) or the whole volume ( BitLocker ) , or restricted access in other ways ( standard users ca n't actually write anywhere on my C drive , although not for paranoid security reasons ) .That said , short of something like BitLocker , if you have physical access it 's generally game over anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you have to reboot, this implies that you have physical access.
Ok, great... but they could still have locked the boot sector and BIOS boot order, encrypted individual files (EFS) or the whole volume (BitLocker), or restricted access in other ways (standard users can't actually write anywhere on my C drive, although not for paranoid security reasons).That said, short of something like BitLocker, if you have physical access it's generally game over anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</id>
	<title>What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.  <b>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?  Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</b> <br>
<br>
In other discussions I've actually seen people comment that an inability to apply BIOS updates is a big drawback for Linux ('cause the update applications they refer to are Windows based)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and I'm sitting there shaking my head, wondering how they overlooked the alternate, DOS-based updater provided by the motherboard manufacturer (or whatever), and how the hell they can't know about FreeDOS.<br>
<br>
If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?<br>
<br>
Now, that said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is anyone having a hard time getting FreeDOS to work with SATA optical drives?  I never had a problem with parallel ATA, but I'm not sure I've ever managed to get FreeDOS to find and work with a SATA CD/DVD-ROM drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely puzzled by the people who ca n't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for .
Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ?
In other discussions I 've actually seen people comment that an inability to apply BIOS updates is a big drawback for Linux ( 'cause the update applications they refer to are Windows based ) ... and I 'm sitting there shaking my head , wondering how they overlooked the alternate , DOS-based updater provided by the motherboard manufacturer ( or whatever ) , and how the hell they ca n't know about FreeDOS .
If you know about Linux , how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS ?
Now , that said ... is anyone having a hard time getting FreeDOS to work with SATA optical drives ?
I never had a problem with parallel ATA , but I 'm not sure I 've ever managed to get FreeDOS to find and work with a SATA CD/DVD-ROM drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.
Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?
In other discussions I've actually seen people comment that an inability to apply BIOS updates is a big drawback for Linux ('cause the update applications they refer to are Windows based) ... and I'm sitting there shaking my head, wondering how they overlooked the alternate, DOS-based updater provided by the motherboard manufacturer (or whatever), and how the hell they can't know about FreeDOS.
If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?
Now, that said ... is anyone having a hard time getting FreeDOS to work with SATA optical drives?
I never had a problem with parallel ATA, but I'm not sure I've ever managed to get FreeDOS to find and work with a SATA CD/DVD-ROM drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504927</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246212000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my HP DL360 G5s, I can update the BIOS from a running Linux system. Yes HP's tools are a pain to install for no good reason. But it would be a bigger pain to boot into a different OS just to upgrade the BIOS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my HP DL360 G5s , I can update the BIOS from a running Linux system .
Yes HP 's tools are a pain to install for no good reason .
But it would be a bigger pain to boot into a different OS just to upgrade the BIOS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my HP DL360 G5s, I can update the BIOS from a running Linux system.
Yes HP's tools are a pain to install for no good reason.
But it would be a bigger pain to boot into a different OS just to upgrade the BIOS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505907</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1246218180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, the move to EFI may reduce the need for DOS-compatible OSes in the future, as EFI can do much more than any DOS-compatible OS can do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the move to EFI may reduce the need for DOS-compatible OSes in the future , as EFI can do much more than any DOS-compatible OS can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the move to EFI may reduce the need for DOS-compatible OSes in the future, as EFI can do much more than any DOS-compatible OS can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739</id>
	<title>FreeDos and hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly. Anyone can download it, install it  into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly .
Anyone can download it , install it into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly.
Anyone can download it, install it  into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508291</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1246195260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a new Biostar MB for my server.</p><p>It has a neat feature in the bios, where you select a floppy drive OR USB key, and it will format it for a BIOS update. You download the bios update, place it on the drive, and reboot. You hit a magic key combination, and the BIOS updates itself.</p><p>No OS needed beyond putting the file on the drive.</p><p>This is the way to go. If you are at the point where this wouldn't work, well the board is bricked past DOS being useful anyways.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>My point, is relying on an OS to update the bios is just retarded. I'm glad someone's figured that out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a new Biostar MB for my server.It has a neat feature in the bios , where you select a floppy drive OR USB key , and it will format it for a BIOS update .
You download the bios update , place it on the drive , and reboot .
You hit a magic key combination , and the BIOS updates itself.No OS needed beyond putting the file on the drive.This is the way to go .
If you are at the point where this would n't work , well the board is bricked past DOS being useful anyways .
...My point , is relying on an OS to update the bios is just retarded .
I 'm glad someone 's figured that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a new Biostar MB for my server.It has a neat feature in the bios, where you select a floppy drive OR USB key, and it will format it for a BIOS update.
You download the bios update, place it on the drive, and reboot.
You hit a magic key combination, and the BIOS updates itself.No OS needed beyond putting the file on the drive.This is the way to go.
If you are at the point where this wouldn't work, well the board is bricked past DOS being useful anyways.
...My point, is relying on an OS to update the bios is just retarded.
I'm glad someone's figured that out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504805</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246211160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes,  Windows 3.1 has been verified to work on FreeDOS</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Windows 3.1 has been verified to work on FreeDOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes,  Windows 3.1 has been verified to work on FreeDOS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505695</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1246216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates? Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</p></div><p>No, the average person doesn't need to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ? No , the average person does n't need to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?No, the average person doesn't need to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504657</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>KingJ</author>
	<datestamp>1246210440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?</b></p> </div><p>My motherboard (Asus P5Q) allows me to place the BIOS update file onto a USB drive (or floppy, if you wish) and then you just enter the flash tool from the BIOS. No messing around with DOS. Most modern motherboards appear to have this functionality now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
My motherboard ( Asus P5Q ) allows me to place the BIOS update file onto a USB drive ( or floppy , if you wish ) and then you just enter the flash tool from the BIOS .
No messing around with DOS .
Most modern motherboards appear to have this functionality now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
My motherboard (Asus P5Q) allows me to place the BIOS update file onto a USB drive (or floppy, if you wish) and then you just enter the flash tool from the BIOS.
No messing around with DOS.
Most modern motherboards appear to have this functionality now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504301</id>
	<title>FreeDOS is indispensible when you need it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And frankly, I also love this:</p><p><a href="http://www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/modboot/" title="nu2.nu">http://www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/modboot/</a> [nu2.nu]</p><p>I would love to see someone take up development of this and to update the network drivers collection and the like.  There are still times when a tech needs DOS if for no other reason than to flash a BIOS or to run Ghost over the network or with a local USB storage device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And frankly , I also love this : http : //www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/modboot/ [ nu2.nu ] I would love to see someone take up development of this and to update the network drivers collection and the like .
There are still times when a tech needs DOS if for no other reason than to flash a BIOS or to run Ghost over the network or with a local USB storage device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And frankly, I also love this:http://www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/modboot/ [nu2.nu]I would love to see someone take up development of this and to update the network drivers collection and the like.
There are still times when a tech needs DOS if for no other reason than to flash a BIOS or to run Ghost over the network or with a local USB storage device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506163</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDos and hacking</title>
	<author>Marcos Eliziario</author>
	<datestamp>1246219980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh really? I didn't know FreeDOS had NTFS support. But it's good to know, knowledge is never too much!!!!

Well, in that case I am not moving away from Linux. I was scared that all I needed to gain access to a machine was booting into single mode, mounting the root partition and changing the root password. I mean, just by powercycling the machine and passing a boot option!!!!

Thanks for your well informed and knowledgeable post!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh really ?
I did n't know FreeDOS had NTFS support .
But it 's good to know , knowledge is never too much ! ! ! !
Well , in that case I am not moving away from Linux .
I was scared that all I needed to gain access to a machine was booting into single mode , mounting the root partition and changing the root password .
I mean , just by powercycling the machine and passing a boot option ! ! ! !
Thanks for your well informed and knowledgeable post ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh really?
I didn't know FreeDOS had NTFS support.
But it's good to know, knowledge is never too much!!!!
Well, in that case I am not moving away from Linux.
I was scared that all I needed to gain access to a machine was booting into single mode, mounting the root partition and changing the root password.
I mean, just by powercycling the machine and passing a boot option!!!!
Thanks for your well informed and knowledgeable post!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506261</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have run DBASE III+ under dosbox without any problems.<br>The only problems that I had have under doxbox is that it doesn't recognize new directories (created from windows) without remounting the drive and some annoying key-mapping issues. You can use the<br>forward slash instead of the backslash if you must.</p><p>Even some modern programs prefer the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dbf file format to windows office program formats that change<br>every 2 years. (open propriety vs closed propriety)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have run DBASE III + under dosbox without any problems.The only problems that I had have under doxbox is that it does n't recognize new directories ( created from windows ) without remounting the drive and some annoying key-mapping issues .
You can use theforward slash instead of the backslash if you must.Even some modern programs prefer the .dbf file format to windows office program formats that changeevery 2 years .
( open propriety vs closed propriety )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have run DBASE III+ under dosbox without any problems.The only problems that I had have under doxbox is that it doesn't recognize new directories (created from windows) without remounting the drive and some annoying key-mapping issues.
You can use theforward slash instead of the backslash if you must.Even some modern programs prefer the .dbf file format to windows office program formats that changeevery 2 years.
(open propriety vs closed propriety)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28512775</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I do it directly from Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do it directly from Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I do it directly from Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504459</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>dosius</author>
	<datestamp>1246209180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With difficulty Windows 3.x does run on FreeDOS, or did last time I checked.</p><p>-uso.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With difficulty Windows 3.x does run on FreeDOS , or did last time I checked.-uso .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With difficulty Windows 3.x does run on FreeDOS, or did last time I checked.-uso.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506379</id>
	<title>Re:Best multiplayer on 1 keyboard game EVER!</title>
	<author>argiedot</author>
	<datestamp>1246221600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I've always loved Marshmallow Duel. Was loads of fun to play with my brother when we were young.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 've always loved Marshmallow Duel .
Was loads of fun to play with my brother when we were young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I've always loved Marshmallow Duel.
Was loads of fun to play with my brother when we were young.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504097</id>
	<title>Re:Start FreeWindows7 emulator now</title>
	<author>meow27</author>
	<datestamp>1246206540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple hasn't been any better</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has n't been any better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple hasn't been any better</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28507163</id>
	<title>But what about GLaDOS?</title>
	<author>ThePeeWeeMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246185360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't anyone commemorating its anniversary?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't anyone commemorating its anniversary ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't anyone commemorating its anniversary?
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504679</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1246210560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether or not the Linux reference was actually flamebait or a reference to half-baked Linux distros, he has a point about the reasons for FreeDOS's inclusion.<br> <br>
FreeDOS was a decent idea at the time (pre-Windows 95). I suspect that it still serves- or could serve- a useful purpose for a small proportion of users running legacy software/hardware setups. That's probably a notable amount of people in absolute terms, but small compared to the total computer market.<br> <br>
But it's incredibly unlikely that the vast majority of modern users would consider an MS-DOS workalike an acceptable substitute for Windows. As the guy says, FreeDOS's inclusion in those cases is a technicality, nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not the Linux reference was actually flamebait or a reference to half-baked Linux distros , he has a point about the reasons for FreeDOS 's inclusion .
FreeDOS was a decent idea at the time ( pre-Windows 95 ) .
I suspect that it still serves- or could serve- a useful purpose for a small proportion of users running legacy software/hardware setups .
That 's probably a notable amount of people in absolute terms , but small compared to the total computer market .
But it 's incredibly unlikely that the vast majority of modern users would consider an MS-DOS workalike an acceptable substitute for Windows .
As the guy says , FreeDOS 's inclusion in those cases is a technicality , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not the Linux reference was actually flamebait or a reference to half-baked Linux distros, he has a point about the reasons for FreeDOS's inclusion.
FreeDOS was a decent idea at the time (pre-Windows 95).
I suspect that it still serves- or could serve- a useful purpose for a small proportion of users running legacy software/hardware setups.
That's probably a notable amount of people in absolute terms, but small compared to the total computer market.
But it's incredibly unlikely that the vast majority of modern users would consider an MS-DOS workalike an acceptable substitute for Windows.
As the guy says, FreeDOS's inclusion in those cases is a technicality, nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508417</id>
	<title>Yeah, mods are on crack</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1246196400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I come back to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and see this...</p><p>Of course it is about horribly broken distros/installs (what else?...). Benq, for example, used to ship with their laptops some Asian Linux distro (in the vein of Linpus)...that booted into pure textmode and didn't have drivers for the laptops it was shipping with. Toshiba used to ship with DVD of Knoppix; sligthly better, still no drivers. And HP...yeah, they were often shipping with FreeDOS on theiur cheapest laptops.</p><p><b>All</b> of them (with the exceptions withing staistical error) were ending up with pirated copy of Windows XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I come back to / .
and see this...Of course it is about horribly broken distros/installs ( what else ? ... ) .
Benq , for example , used to ship with their laptops some Asian Linux distro ( in the vein of Linpus ) ...that booted into pure textmode and did n't have drivers for the laptops it was shipping with .
Toshiba used to ship with DVD of Knoppix ; sligthly better , still no drivers .
And HP...yeah , they were often shipping with FreeDOS on theiur cheapest laptops.All of them ( with the exceptions withing staistical error ) were ending up with pirated copy of Windows XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I come back to /.
and see this...Of course it is about horribly broken distros/installs (what else?...).
Benq, for example, used to ship with their laptops some Asian Linux distro (in the vein of Linpus)...that booted into pure textmode and didn't have drivers for the laptops it was shipping with.
Toshiba used to ship with DVD of Knoppix; sligthly better, still no drivers.
And HP...yeah, they were often shipping with FreeDOS on theiur cheapest laptops.All of them (with the exceptions withing staistical error) were ending up with pirated copy of Windows XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505071</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1246213080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have you tried using them together?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have you tried using them together ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you tried using them together?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503893</id>
	<title>First Post turns first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>suck my cock, you homos.  Heterosexual power!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck my cock , you homos .
Heterosexual power ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck my cock, you homos.
Heterosexual power!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28509629</id>
	<title>The blond boy's name is Linux</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246208400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?</p></div><p>For one thing, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2094360/" title="slate.com">the old IBM commercials with the little blond boy</a> [slate.com] talked about Linux, but not FreeDOS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know about Linux , how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS ? For one thing , the old IBM commercials with the little blond boy [ slate.com ] talked about Linux , but not FreeDOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?For one thing, the old IBM commercials with the little blond boy [slate.com] talked about Linux, but not FreeDOS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037</id>
	<title>Re:What is this "DOS" of which you speak?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1246206120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But...does it run Windows?</p><p>(yeah, I'm going to hell for this one)</p><p>PS. I really wouldn't mention computers with FreeDOS as succes stories; in many cases it is made simply to ship them with anything, it will be wiped out and replaced with XP anyway (and since FreeDOS is smaller and doesn't even pretend to require needed functionality like horribly broken Linux installs, the better)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But...does it run Windows ?
( yeah , I 'm going to hell for this one ) PS .
I really would n't mention computers with FreeDOS as succes stories ; in many cases it is made simply to ship them with anything , it will be wiped out and replaced with XP anyway ( and since FreeDOS is smaller and does n't even pretend to require needed functionality like horribly broken Linux installs , the better )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But...does it run Windows?
(yeah, I'm going to hell for this one)PS.
I really wouldn't mention computers with FreeDOS as succes stories; in many cases it is made simply to ship them with anything, it will be wiped out and replaced with XP anyway (and since FreeDOS is smaller and doesn't even pretend to require needed functionality like horribly broken Linux installs, the better)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504377</id>
	<title>Party on Wayne!</title>
	<author>cyberspittle</author>
	<datestamp>1246208640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Party on Garth!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Party on Garth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Party on Garth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504289</id>
	<title>Good Business Intro to Free Software</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1246208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago I used FreeDOS to make dedicated hardware test stations. These were super cheap boxes with text only displays, an ISA extender card for the DUT, and a floppy. FreeDOS was a great way to use our existing DOS test code on the cheap. We had a floppy for each product type. Boot off the floppy, insert a card to test, hit one key and get an easy pass/fail indication. We had total control and the price was right.</p><p>In the age of PCI/PCIe I now do the same thing using Linux and a CD-ROM. You have a wealth of development tools, support for modern bus types and larger address space, and still no expensive per box software license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago I used FreeDOS to make dedicated hardware test stations .
These were super cheap boxes with text only displays , an ISA extender card for the DUT , and a floppy .
FreeDOS was a great way to use our existing DOS test code on the cheap .
We had a floppy for each product type .
Boot off the floppy , insert a card to test , hit one key and get an easy pass/fail indication .
We had total control and the price was right.In the age of PCI/PCIe I now do the same thing using Linux and a CD-ROM .
You have a wealth of development tools , support for modern bus types and larger address space , and still no expensive per box software license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago I used FreeDOS to make dedicated hardware test stations.
These were super cheap boxes with text only displays, an ISA extender card for the DUT, and a floppy.
FreeDOS was a great way to use our existing DOS test code on the cheap.
We had a floppy for each product type.
Boot off the floppy, insert a card to test, hit one key and get an easy pass/fail indication.
We had total control and the price was right.In the age of PCI/PCIe I now do the same thing using Linux and a CD-ROM.
You have a wealth of development tools, support for modern bus types and larger address space, and still no expensive per box software license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506147</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246219920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?</p><p>It's pretty simple, really: Not everyone has used Windows.</p><p>Some are longtime Unix users; most are Mac users, interested in Linux, who simply never crossed over to the Dark Side.</p><p>Is everyone in your world white?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you know about Linux , how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS ? It 's pretty simple , really : Not everyone has used Windows.Some are longtime Unix users ; most are Mac users , interested in Linux , who simply never crossed over to the Dark Side.Is everyone in your world white ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If you know about Linux, how the hell can you NOT know about FreeDOS?It's pretty simple, really: Not everyone has used Windows.Some are longtime Unix users; most are Mac users, interested in Linux, who simply never crossed over to the Dark Side.Is everyone in your world white?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506213</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDos and hacking</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1246220460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly. Anyone can download it, install it into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.</p></div><p>Well, no. The FreeDOS kernel doesn't have NTFS support built-in, so it does nothing with Windows partitions formatted with NTFS. To read those, you need to use a TSR like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFSDOS" title="wikipedia.org">NTFSDOS</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>If your Windows partition used some version of FAT, then FreeDOS would read that, no problem. But so would any other OS, including Linux, or another version of Windows.</p><p>-jh</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly .
Anyone can download it , install it into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.Well , no .
The FreeDOS kernel does n't have NTFS support built-in , so it does nothing with Windows partitions formatted with NTFS .
To read those , you need to use a TSR like NTFSDOS [ wikipedia.org ] .If your Windows partition used some version of FAT , then FreeDOS would read that , no problem .
But so would any other OS , including Linux , or another version of Windows.-jh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeDos is a great way to root a windows machine almost instantly.
Anyone can download it, install it into a user accessible directory and gain access to ALL local files simply because it mounts the existing file system.Well, no.
The FreeDOS kernel doesn't have NTFS support built-in, so it does nothing with Windows partitions formatted with NTFS.
To read those, you need to use a TSR like NTFSDOS [wikipedia.org].If your Windows partition used some version of FAT, then FreeDOS would read that, no problem.
But so would any other OS, including Linux, or another version of Windows.-jh
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505037</id>
	<title>Usefullness of old DOS</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1246212780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to tinker...  For some of this, FreeDOS is a ideal solution:  I recently bought a box of old thin clients.  They're all VIA x86 based with flash drive on CF cards.  They all have serial ports, legacy parallel ports, USB and ethernet.  They are small, don't draw much power, and are only like $15 each when you're willing to buy more than 5 at a time.  That's cheaper than any dev kit based on any embedded processor that I know of, and certainly cheaper than using a dedicated PC.  </p><p>Free-DOS is perfect for these...  with an old DOS C compiler you can quickly whip up small programs that can do all kinds of things (Think parallel port = 8 bit DIO with dedicated control channels).  If the job gets too big for FreeDOS to handle, I punt and install linux; but, for most simple things, DOS is really all you need.  </p><p>I could write code to run on a microcontroller like a PIC or ARM, or anything in between.  I could also write the code in LabView or a Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET language to run on a PC.  Why go to all the trouble and expense? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to tinker... For some of this , FreeDOS is a ideal solution : I recently bought a box of old thin clients .
They 're all VIA x86 based with flash drive on CF cards .
They all have serial ports , legacy parallel ports , USB and ethernet .
They are small , do n't draw much power , and are only like $ 15 each when you 're willing to buy more than 5 at a time .
That 's cheaper than any dev kit based on any embedded processor that I know of , and certainly cheaper than using a dedicated PC .
Free-DOS is perfect for these... with an old DOS C compiler you can quickly whip up small programs that can do all kinds of things ( Think parallel port = 8 bit DIO with dedicated control channels ) .
If the job gets too big for FreeDOS to handle , I punt and install linux ; but , for most simple things , DOS is really all you need .
I could write code to run on a microcontroller like a PIC or ARM , or anything in between .
I could also write the code in LabView or a Microsoft .NET language to run on a PC .
Why go to all the trouble and expense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to tinker...  For some of this, FreeDOS is a ideal solution:  I recently bought a box of old thin clients.
They're all VIA x86 based with flash drive on CF cards.
They all have serial ports, legacy parallel ports, USB and ethernet.
They are small, don't draw much power, and are only like $15 each when you're willing to buy more than 5 at a time.
That's cheaper than any dev kit based on any embedded processor that I know of, and certainly cheaper than using a dedicated PC.
Free-DOS is perfect for these...  with an old DOS C compiler you can quickly whip up small programs that can do all kinds of things (Think parallel port = 8 bit DIO with dedicated control channels).
If the job gets too big for FreeDOS to handle, I punt and install linux; but, for most simple things, DOS is really all you need.
I could write code to run on a microcontroller like a PIC or ARM, or anything in between.
I could also write the code in LabView or a Microsoft .NET language to run on a PC.
Why go to all the trouble and expense? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503971</id>
	<title>Best multiplayer on 1 keyboard game EVER!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dyna, and the last time I played it was about 1 month ago<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dyna , and the last time I played it was about 1 month ago : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dyna, and the last time I played it was about 1 month ago :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441</id>
	<title>FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I discovered DOSBox, I never used FreeDOS again. My experience is that DOSBox supports way more DOS software and games than FreeDOS. Can someone explain to me the (exact) differences between these two packages and why anyone would pick FreeDOS? (Is FreeDOS is faster, maybe?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I discovered DOSBox , I never used FreeDOS again .
My experience is that DOSBox supports way more DOS software and games than FreeDOS .
Can someone explain to me the ( exact ) differences between these two packages and why anyone would pick FreeDOS ?
( Is FreeDOS is faster , maybe ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I discovered DOSBox, I never used FreeDOS again.
My experience is that DOSBox supports way more DOS software and games than FreeDOS.
Can someone explain to me the (exact) differences between these two packages and why anyone would pick FreeDOS?
(Is FreeDOS is faster, maybe?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504221</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1246207680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because  of one of my favorite star trek games won't run correctly in 64 bit Windows 7<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek:\_The\_Next\_Generation\_-\_A\_Final\_Unity" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek:\_The\_Next\_Generation\_-\_A\_Final\_Unity</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of one of my favorite star trek games wo n't run correctly in 64 bit Windows 7 : -P http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star \ _Trek : \ _The \ _Next \ _Generation \ _- \ _A \ _Final \ _Unity [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because  of one of my favorite star trek games won't run correctly in 64 bit Windows 7 :-P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek:\_The\_Next\_Generation\_-\_A\_Final\_Unity [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone is puzzled as I was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My main use for FreeDOS is BIOS-updates for mainboards. Works beautifully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My main use for FreeDOS is BIOS-updates for mainboards .
Works beautifully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main use for FreeDOS is BIOS-updates for mainboards.
Works beautifully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504139</id>
	<title>Re:Start FreeWindows7 emulator now</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1246206900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can find such a project here:  <a href="http://www.reactos.org/" title="reactos.org">http://www.reactos.org/</a> [reactos.org]</p><p>As far as I can see, Microsoft's track record at supporting legacy software is better than most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find such a project here : http : //www.reactos.org/ [ reactos.org ] As far as I can see , Microsoft 's track record at supporting legacy software is better than most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find such a project here:  http://www.reactos.org/ [reactos.org]As far as I can see, Microsoft's track record at supporting legacy software is better than most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504699</id>
	<title>Re:FreeDOS vs DOSBox?</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1246210620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DOSbox is for running games, not necessarily for business applications. To quote <a href="http://dosbox.com/wiki/Main\_Page" title="dosbox.com" rel="nofollow">the DOSBox wiki</a> [dosbox.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>In theory, any MS-DOS or PC-DOS (referred to commonly as "DOS") application should run in DOSBox, but the emphasis has been on getting DOS games to run smoothly, which means that communication, networking and printer support are still in early development.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DOSbox is for running games , not necessarily for business applications .
To quote the DOSBox wiki [ dosbox.com ] : In theory , any MS-DOS or PC-DOS ( referred to commonly as " DOS " ) application should run in DOSBox , but the emphasis has been on getting DOS games to run smoothly , which means that communication , networking and printer support are still in early development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOSbox is for running games, not necessarily for business applications.
To quote the DOSBox wiki [dosbox.com]:In theory, any MS-DOS or PC-DOS (referred to commonly as "DOS") application should run in DOSBox, but the emphasis has been on getting DOS games to run smoothly, which means that communication, networking and printer support are still in early development. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28512655</id>
	<title>But does it....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But does it run Windows? Oh wait....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does it run Windows ?
Oh wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does it run Windows?
Oh wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504189</id>
	<title>Bios Upgrades</title>
	<author>joeflies</author>
	<datestamp>1246207380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one requirement I have for DOS is to do bios upgrades to older laptops which still requiring booting to dos. This seems to be one use case which I didn't have much luck with FreeDOS. Is that intentional part of the design (perhaps freedos protects the bios?)  or was it just an incompatibility of the bios upgrade tool I have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one requirement I have for DOS is to do bios upgrades to older laptops which still requiring booting to dos .
This seems to be one use case which I did n't have much luck with FreeDOS .
Is that intentional part of the design ( perhaps freedos protects the bios ?
) or was it just an incompatibility of the bios upgrade tool I have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one requirement I have for DOS is to do bios upgrades to older laptops which still requiring booting to dos.
This seems to be one use case which I didn't have much luck with FreeDOS.
Is that intentional part of the design (perhaps freedos protects the bios?
)  or was it just an incompatibility of the bios upgrade tool I have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504277</id>
	<title>Re:What's it good for?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246207980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.  <b>Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?  Or run hard drive diagnostic software?</b></p><p>*snip*</p></div><p>Having been around before Microsoft and understanding what DOS is, i totally agree with you. However, with modern tools like Bart, you can get by with a dos box in 'winders' to even flash a bios, tho a bit overkill.</p><p>There still a lot more embedded "DOS" machines out there then people realize. Not just POS type of machines, but in manufacturing as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely puzzled by the people who ca n't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for .
Do n't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates ?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software ?
* snip * Having been around before Microsoft and understanding what DOS is , i totally agree with you .
However , with modern tools like Bart , you can get by with a dos box in 'winders ' to even flash a bios , tho a bit overkill.There still a lot more embedded " DOS " machines out there then people realize .
Not just POS type of machines , but in manufacturing as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely puzzled by the people who can't figure out what a DOS-compatible OS is good for.
Don't you people ever need to apply BIOS updates?
Or run hard drive diagnostic software?
*snip*Having been around before Microsoft and understanding what DOS is, i totally agree with you.
However, with modern tools like Bart, you can get by with a dos box in 'winders' to even flash a bios, tho a bit overkill.There still a lot more embedded "DOS" machines out there then people realize.
Not just POS type of machines, but in manufacturing as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28512775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28517307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28519353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28509629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_1443248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28519353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28517307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28509629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504679
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508417
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28506379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28505941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_1443248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28503979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28504071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28512775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_1443248.28508291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
