<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_09_220216</id>
	<title>Classilla, a New Port of Mozilla To Mac OS 9</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247135460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:oberon@consoleia.co.uk" rel="nofollow">oberondarksoul</a> writes <i>"Every now and then, you hear about a new port of Mozilla to one of the lesser-used platforms. Recently, a <a href="http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/">new version of Mozilla has been released for Mac OS 9</a> &mdash; an operating system no longer sold or supported, and with no new hardware available to buy. Dubbed Classilla, it aims to provide 'a modern web browser running again on classic Macs,' and the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400 &mdash; despite being a little memory-hungry."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>oberondarksoul writes " Every now and then , you hear about a new port of Mozilla to one of the lesser-used platforms .
Recently , a new version of Mozilla has been released for Mac OS 9    an operating system no longer sold or supported , and with no new hardware available to buy .
Dubbed Classilla , it aims to provide 'a modern web browser running again on classic Macs, ' and the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400    despite being a little memory-hungry .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oberondarksoul writes "Every now and then, you hear about a new port of Mozilla to one of the lesser-used platforms.
Recently, a new version of Mozilla has been released for Mac OS 9 — an operating system no longer sold or supported, and with no new hardware available to buy.
Dubbed Classilla, it aims to provide 'a modern web browser running again on classic Macs,' and the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400 — despite being a little memory-hungry.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645015</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Insightfill</author>
	<datestamp>1247148720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids
(Sid the Science Kid, Sesame Street, and several other PBS, Disney and Nick JR. shows)</p></div></blockquote><p>
I tried pressing a tangerine iMac G3 (450MHz, I think) into service and found that those PBS sites - frankly: any Flash stuff - would bring it to its knees.  I had tried a fresh install of 10.3 (debated 10.4) and even tried a Ubuntu installation, but Gnash wasn't quite up to their Flash version detection tricks.</p><p>
But: even under Mac OSes, the Flash sites would kill the poor thing.  CPU would be completely pinned and the screen still couldn't update fast enough to make some of the games playable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids ( Sid the Science Kid , Sesame Street , and several other PBS , Disney and Nick JR. shows ) I tried pressing a tangerine iMac G3 ( 450MHz , I think ) into service and found that those PBS sites - frankly : any Flash stuff - would bring it to its knees .
I had tried a fresh install of 10.3 ( debated 10.4 ) and even tried a Ubuntu installation , but Gnash was n't quite up to their Flash version detection tricks .
But : even under Mac OSes , the Flash sites would kill the poor thing .
CPU would be completely pinned and the screen still could n't update fast enough to make some of the games playable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids
(Sid the Science Kid, Sesame Street, and several other PBS, Disney and Nick JR. shows)
I tried pressing a tangerine iMac G3 (450MHz, I think) into service and found that those PBS sites - frankly: any Flash stuff - would bring it to its knees.
I had tried a fresh install of 10.3 (debated 10.4) and even tried a Ubuntu installation, but Gnash wasn't quite up to their Flash version detection tricks.
But: even under Mac OSes, the Flash sites would kill the poor thing.
CPU would be completely pinned and the screen still couldn't update fast enough to make some of the games playable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644955</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>mrgiles</author>
	<datestamp>1247148180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Quark, to put it bluntly, sucks.</i>
<br> <br>
There. Fixed that for ya.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quark , to put it bluntly , sucks .
There. Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quark, to put it bluntly, sucks.
There. Fixed that for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647543</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247225460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of which, has anyone found a good solution for running Classic Mac OS apps on an Intel Mac?<br>
<br>
The SheepShaver and Basilisk II emulators were pretty impressive a few years ago, but are a less stable and a less elegant solution than Apple's built-in Classic support in OS X which was dropped in the switch to Intel (for obvious hardware reasons).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of which , has anyone found a good solution for running Classic Mac OS apps on an Intel Mac ?
The SheepShaver and Basilisk II emulators were pretty impressive a few years ago , but are a less stable and a less elegant solution than Apple 's built-in Classic support in OS X which was dropped in the switch to Intel ( for obvious hardware reasons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of which, has anyone found a good solution for running Classic Mac OS apps on an Intel Mac?
The SheepShaver and Basilisk II emulators were pretty impressive a few years ago, but are a less stable and a less elegant solution than Apple's built-in Classic support in OS X which was dropped in the switch to Intel (for obvious hardware reasons).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647821</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1247229660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've not used Quark myself, but I have a friend who claims two rocks and a piece of string would be a reasonable substitute for it.  Yes, he's a Mac user, and yes, he works in the publication industry (for a publisher that specializes in the ancient near east -- so among other job duties he gets to typeset ancient languages, e.g., Akkadian).  I think the biggest complaint he has about Quark is that it appears to have been designed to make you go through all the steps you'd have to go through if you were working directly on paper, which apparently creates a lot of extra unnecessary work compared to a modern, computer-oriented way of doing things.  Like I said, I've not used it myself, so I don't know the details.  (Also, I haven't seen a Mac for several years.  A former boss was a mac fan, but she retired several years ago.  The three people who have held the position since are all Windows users, so the Macs have all been phased out.  Not my choice: I'd have preferred to keep at least a couple of them around, for the diversity.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not used Quark myself , but I have a friend who claims two rocks and a piece of string would be a reasonable substitute for it .
Yes , he 's a Mac user , and yes , he works in the publication industry ( for a publisher that specializes in the ancient near east -- so among other job duties he gets to typeset ancient languages , e.g. , Akkadian ) .
I think the biggest complaint he has about Quark is that it appears to have been designed to make you go through all the steps you 'd have to go through if you were working directly on paper , which apparently creates a lot of extra unnecessary work compared to a modern , computer-oriented way of doing things .
Like I said , I 've not used it myself , so I do n't know the details .
( Also , I have n't seen a Mac for several years .
A former boss was a mac fan , but she retired several years ago .
The three people who have held the position since are all Windows users , so the Macs have all been phased out .
Not my choice : I 'd have preferred to keep at least a couple of them around , for the diversity .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not used Quark myself, but I have a friend who claims two rocks and a piece of string would be a reasonable substitute for it.
Yes, he's a Mac user, and yes, he works in the publication industry (for a publisher that specializes in the ancient near east -- so among other job duties he gets to typeset ancient languages, e.g., Akkadian).
I think the biggest complaint he has about Quark is that it appears to have been designed to make you go through all the steps you'd have to go through if you were working directly on paper, which apparently creates a lot of extra unnecessary work compared to a modern, computer-oriented way of doing things.
Like I said, I've not used it myself, so I don't know the details.
(Also, I haven't seen a Mac for several years.
A former boss was a mac fan, but she retired several years ago.
The three people who have held the position since are all Windows users, so the Macs have all been phased out.
Not my choice: I'd have preferred to keep at least a couple of them around, for the diversity.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645331</id>
	<title>Re:Not going back to OS 8/9 thank you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, thank you.  Amongst the worst operating systems ever.  My roommate was a CS major and told me that his OS prof told the class that if someone turned in MacOS  for their final project, he would fail them, because they clearly didn't understand how a modern operating system should work.  This was in 1993.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , thank you .
Amongst the worst operating systems ever .
My roommate was a CS major and told me that his OS prof told the class that if someone turned in MacOS for their final project , he would fail them , because they clearly did n't understand how a modern operating system should work .
This was in 1993 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, thank you.
Amongst the worst operating systems ever.
My roommate was a CS major and told me that his OS prof told the class that if someone turned in MacOS  for their final project, he would fail them, because they clearly didn't understand how a modern operating system should work.
This was in 1993.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643671</id>
	<title>Wasilla</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A New port for quitters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A New port for quitters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A New port for quitters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644921</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1247147940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying it's possible that a Slashdot 2.0 feature is broken?  Nonsense!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying it 's possible that a Slashdot 2.0 feature is broken ?
Nonsense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying it's possible that a Slashdot 2.0 feature is broken?
Nonsense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645689</id>
	<title>Re:The Answer Lies In Your Web Server Log Files</title>
	<author>merreborn</author>
	<datestamp>1247154960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of 2.9 million hits from IE browsers on our most active site since the beginning of the month, roughly 5200 are from versions of IE older than 6.  That's about 0.1\% of our IE users, and 0.05\% of our total users.</p><p>Also, I've caught obvious UA spoofing in our logs -- one script reported a different, random UA with every request -- many of which were browsers you'll never actually see in the wild -- like "Lotus Notes web client"</p><p>What's more, even the biggest sites don't offer an A-grade experience for older browsers.  Hell; I remember not being able to access microsoft.com using IE 3 in <i>1998</i>!  If microsoft dropped IE 3 support a decade ago, surely most of the web can as well.  Even Yahoo offers a <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/" title="yahoo.com">limited experience</a> [yahoo.com] to users using old browsers, and facebook throws "get a better browser" messages up if you visit with IE6.</p><p>In the end, it's just not economically feasible, in many cases, for developers to spend time supporting 0.05\% of browsers, especially when those browsers are so old that they support only a fraction of modern standards.  I salute your efforts to make your properties accessible to \_absolutely\_ everyone, and I'd love to do the same, but we just can't justify the development cost, for the sites we run.  We'd be spending thousands of dollars to support a number of users we can count on one hand, to the detriment of our tens of thousands of users on modern platforms.  Frankly, if any of our frequent contributors are on older platforms, it's almost more cost effective for us to buy those few stragglers modern netbooks.</p><p>This is true of all software.  Sure, we could write everything to run on DOS and Mac OS 7, but it'd be expensive to develop and test on so many platforms; there'd be minimal, if any gain in adoption; and we wouldn't be able to take advantage of more recent technology.  In the end, taking the "support absolutely everything" philosophy just isn't a sound business decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of 2.9 million hits from IE browsers on our most active site since the beginning of the month , roughly 5200 are from versions of IE older than 6 .
That 's about 0.1 \ % of our IE users , and 0.05 \ % of our total users.Also , I 've caught obvious UA spoofing in our logs -- one script reported a different , random UA with every request -- many of which were browsers you 'll never actually see in the wild -- like " Lotus Notes web client " What 's more , even the biggest sites do n't offer an A-grade experience for older browsers .
Hell ; I remember not being able to access microsoft.com using IE 3 in 1998 !
If microsoft dropped IE 3 support a decade ago , surely most of the web can as well .
Even Yahoo offers a limited experience [ yahoo.com ] to users using old browsers , and facebook throws " get a better browser " messages up if you visit with IE6.In the end , it 's just not economically feasible , in many cases , for developers to spend time supporting 0.05 \ % of browsers , especially when those browsers are so old that they support only a fraction of modern standards .
I salute your efforts to make your properties accessible to \ _absolutely \ _ everyone , and I 'd love to do the same , but we just ca n't justify the development cost , for the sites we run .
We 'd be spending thousands of dollars to support a number of users we can count on one hand , to the detriment of our tens of thousands of users on modern platforms .
Frankly , if any of our frequent contributors are on older platforms , it 's almost more cost effective for us to buy those few stragglers modern netbooks.This is true of all software .
Sure , we could write everything to run on DOS and Mac OS 7 , but it 'd be expensive to develop and test on so many platforms ; there 'd be minimal , if any gain in adoption ; and we would n't be able to take advantage of more recent technology .
In the end , taking the " support absolutely everything " philosophy just is n't a sound business decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of 2.9 million hits from IE browsers on our most active site since the beginning of the month, roughly 5200 are from versions of IE older than 6.
That's about 0.1\% of our IE users, and 0.05\% of our total users.Also, I've caught obvious UA spoofing in our logs -- one script reported a different, random UA with every request -- many of which were browsers you'll never actually see in the wild -- like "Lotus Notes web client"What's more, even the biggest sites don't offer an A-grade experience for older browsers.
Hell; I remember not being able to access microsoft.com using IE 3 in 1998!
If microsoft dropped IE 3 support a decade ago, surely most of the web can as well.
Even Yahoo offers a limited experience [yahoo.com] to users using old browsers, and facebook throws "get a better browser" messages up if you visit with IE6.In the end, it's just not economically feasible, in many cases, for developers to spend time supporting 0.05\% of browsers, especially when those browsers are so old that they support only a fraction of modern standards.
I salute your efforts to make your properties accessible to \_absolutely\_ everyone, and I'd love to do the same, but we just can't justify the development cost, for the sites we run.
We'd be spending thousands of dollars to support a number of users we can count on one hand, to the detriment of our tens of thousands of users on modern platforms.
Frankly, if any of our frequent contributors are on older platforms, it's almost more cost effective for us to buy those few stragglers modern netbooks.This is true of all software.
Sure, we could write everything to run on DOS and Mac OS 7, but it'd be expensive to develop and test on so many platforms; there'd be minimal, if any gain in adoption; and we wouldn't be able to take advantage of more recent technology.
In the end, taking the "support absolutely everything" philosophy just isn't a sound business decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647855</id>
	<title>Re:The Answer Lies In Your Web Server Log Files</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1247230080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; you'll find that a significant number of your web sites'<br>&gt; visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions<br>&gt; 3 or 4. At least that's what I find for my sites<br><br>I don't find that for our website at work (public library).  I see a lot of browsers, but I don't see those.<br><br>&gt; Some people cannot afford the new hardware<br><br>People who can't afford three-year-old used hardware typically also don't have internet access at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; you 'll find that a significant number of your web sites ' &gt; visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions &gt; 3 or 4 .
At least that 's what I find for my sitesI do n't find that for our website at work ( public library ) .
I see a lot of browsers , but I do n't see those. &gt; Some people can not afford the new hardwarePeople who ca n't afford three-year-old used hardware typically also do n't have internet access at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; you'll find that a significant number of your web sites'&gt; visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions&gt; 3 or 4.
At least that's what I find for my sitesI don't find that for our website at work (public library).
I see a lot of browsers, but I don't see those.&gt; Some people cannot afford the new hardwarePeople who can't afford three-year-old used hardware typically also don't have internet access at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645441</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>deepdarkhole</author>
	<datestamp>1247152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got a souped up Performa 6360, upgraded with a 400 MHz G3, 136 whopping MB of RAM, 80 GB HD, 32 MB Radeon 7000 PCI video card, external SCSI CD burner, 19" LCD monitor, and MacOS 9.2.2. So I care since Netscape 7 for Classic sucks, Opera is kinda usuable but really drags ass, and I don't care for iCab much at all. I'm looking forward to this. MacOS Classic sure ain't OS X but 9.2.2 is not that bad to use for a less used system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a souped up Performa 6360 , upgraded with a 400 MHz G3 , 136 whopping MB of RAM , 80 GB HD , 32 MB Radeon 7000 PCI video card , external SCSI CD burner , 19 " LCD monitor , and MacOS 9.2.2 .
So I care since Netscape 7 for Classic sucks , Opera is kinda usuable but really drags ass , and I do n't care for iCab much at all .
I 'm looking forward to this .
MacOS Classic sure ai n't OS X but 9.2.2 is not that bad to use for a less used system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a souped up Performa 6360, upgraded with a 400 MHz G3, 136 whopping MB of RAM, 80 GB HD, 32 MB Radeon 7000 PCI video card, external SCSI CD burner, 19" LCD monitor, and MacOS 9.2.2.
So I care since Netscape 7 for Classic sucks, Opera is kinda usuable but really drags ass, and I don't care for iCab much at all.
I'm looking forward to this.
MacOS Classic sure ain't OS X but 9.2.2 is not that bad to use for a less used system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</id>
	<title>Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Diabolus Advocatus</author>
	<datestamp>1247139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously though, does anyone even use it? If I still had a Mac that old, I'd rather run 8.6 to be honest. 9 added nothing much more than bugs while running slower...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , does anyone even use it ?
If I still had a Mac that old , I 'd rather run 8.6 to be honest .
9 added nothing much more than bugs while running slower.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, does anyone even use it?
If I still had a Mac that old, I'd rather run 8.6 to be honest.
9 added nothing much more than bugs while running slower...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644275</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Pandrake</author>
	<datestamp>1247143080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got three MacOS 8.6 that are the main production line for our company. Nice to know I still can use a web browser on those machines for solutions made to be used by all other computers (WinME, WinXP, MacOS X, etc..) since IE 5 crapped out a long time ago and nothing else would run half as well as it on the old Macs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got three MacOS 8.6 that are the main production line for our company .
Nice to know I still can use a web browser on those machines for solutions made to be used by all other computers ( WinME , WinXP , MacOS X , etc.. ) since IE 5 crapped out a long time ago and nothing else would run half as well as it on the old Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got three MacOS 8.6 that are the main production line for our company.
Nice to know I still can use a web browser on those machines for solutions made to be used by all other computers (WinME, WinXP, MacOS X, etc..) since IE 5 crapped out a long time ago and nothing else would run half as well as it on the old Macs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645071</id>
	<title>To the "Just Install Linux" Crowd...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've never tried to install Linux on an Old World Mac (any PowerPC,PCI based mac older than a Blue and White G3 or iMac G3) then you're in for a treat.  Think slamming your balls in a car door fun.  Almost all the modern Linux distributions have dropped support for BootX (the MacOS Linux loader) and Oldworld machines.  Why not boot from Openfirmware you ask?  Because it flat dosen't f*****g work.  The details of why escape me, and I don't care enough to look it up.  Throw hardware upgrades into the mix (like a modern IDE controller, and a decent graphics card) and really pull your hair out.  Needless to say, I dumped the Powermac 6400 off at the recycling center years ago, picked up a cheap, stripped and working Blue and White G3 and never looked back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've never tried to install Linux on an Old World Mac ( any PowerPC,PCI based mac older than a Blue and White G3 or iMac G3 ) then you 're in for a treat .
Think slamming your balls in a car door fun .
Almost all the modern Linux distributions have dropped support for BootX ( the MacOS Linux loader ) and Oldworld machines .
Why not boot from Openfirmware you ask ?
Because it flat dose n't f * * * * * g work .
The details of why escape me , and I do n't care enough to look it up .
Throw hardware upgrades into the mix ( like a modern IDE controller , and a decent graphics card ) and really pull your hair out .
Needless to say , I dumped the Powermac 6400 off at the recycling center years ago , picked up a cheap , stripped and working Blue and White G3 and never looked back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've never tried to install Linux on an Old World Mac (any PowerPC,PCI based mac older than a Blue and White G3 or iMac G3) then you're in for a treat.
Think slamming your balls in a car door fun.
Almost all the modern Linux distributions have dropped support for BootX (the MacOS Linux loader) and Oldworld machines.
Why not boot from Openfirmware you ask?
Because it flat dosen't f*****g work.
The details of why escape me, and I don't care enough to look it up.
Throw hardware upgrades into the mix (like a modern IDE controller, and a decent graphics card) and really pull your hair out.
Needless to say, I dumped the Powermac 6400 off at the recycling center years ago, picked up a cheap, stripped and working Blue and White G3 and never looked back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648109</id>
	<title>Roadmap missing Tracemonkey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247232480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised their roadmap doesn't mention upgrading the javascript engine ahead of the other browser components.</p><p>Tracemonkey had, and I'm sure will have again, a JIT to emit native PPC code.  That will be a MAJOR performance increase across the whole browser (recall, Mozilla is held together with bailing wire and JavaScript).  The embedder-facing JS API has only had one incompatible change that I know of in the last bajillion years, and I'd be willing to bet the "JS\_FRIEND"ly stuff wouldn't be too bad either.</p><p>Tracing only appeared with 1.9.1, but I see no reason why it couldn't be backported. It would be like getting free CPU cycles, which most of the machines in the target audience probably desparately need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised their roadmap does n't mention upgrading the javascript engine ahead of the other browser components.Tracemonkey had , and I 'm sure will have again , a JIT to emit native PPC code .
That will be a MAJOR performance increase across the whole browser ( recall , Mozilla is held together with bailing wire and JavaScript ) .
The embedder-facing JS API has only had one incompatible change that I know of in the last bajillion years , and I 'd be willing to bet the " JS \ _FRIEND " ly stuff would n't be too bad either.Tracing only appeared with 1.9.1 , but I see no reason why it could n't be backported .
It would be like getting free CPU cycles , which most of the machines in the target audience probably desparately need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised their roadmap doesn't mention upgrading the javascript engine ahead of the other browser components.Tracemonkey had, and I'm sure will have again, a JIT to emit native PPC code.
That will be a MAJOR performance increase across the whole browser (recall, Mozilla is held together with bailing wire and JavaScript).
The embedder-facing JS API has only had one incompatible change that I know of in the last bajillion years, and I'd be willing to bet the "JS\_FRIEND"ly stuff wouldn't be too bad either.Tracing only appeared with 1.9.1, but I see no reason why it couldn't be backported.
It would be like getting free CPU cycles, which most of the machines in the target audience probably desparately need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649639</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1247240100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying this isn't a repost? I didn't even know that was possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying this is n't a repost ?
I did n't even know that was possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying this isn't a repost?
I didn't even know that was possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1247140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I mean, seriously, who cares?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Not everybody can afford to throw away old computers and buy new hardware. If you're a teacher at an elementary school in Mexico, and all you have in your classroom is an old mac, then this could be very important to you. It turns that mac from something that can't surf the web (or can't do so securely) to something that can.
</p><p>
No, I'm not an Apple fanboy. I run linux.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , seriously , who cares ?
Not everybody can afford to throw away old computers and buy new hardware .
If you 're a teacher at an elementary school in Mexico , and all you have in your classroom is an old mac , then this could be very important to you .
It turns that mac from something that ca n't surf the web ( or ca n't do so securely ) to something that can .
No , I 'm not an Apple fanboy .
I run linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, seriously, who cares?
Not everybody can afford to throw away old computers and buy new hardware.
If you're a teacher at an elementary school in Mexico, and all you have in your classroom is an old mac, then this could be very important to you.
It turns that mac from something that can't surf the web (or can't do so securely) to something that can.
No, I'm not an Apple fanboy.
I run linux.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644009</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1247141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ironically enough, I was running Classic mode on my PowerBook G4 just a few hours ago. There are a handful of old games that don't run natively on OS X that I still like to play from time to time (in fact, my two favorite games ever are in this category). But I don't use it on a day-to-day basis by any means.

As for booting into OS 9, the last time I would've done that would have been a year or two ago, I should think. Probably around the time I upgraded from an even older PowerBook G4 to this one, and I was running a few applications and utilities on the old one to test them out before sending them over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically enough , I was running Classic mode on my PowerBook G4 just a few hours ago .
There are a handful of old games that do n't run natively on OS X that I still like to play from time to time ( in fact , my two favorite games ever are in this category ) .
But I do n't use it on a day-to-day basis by any means .
As for booting into OS 9 , the last time I would 've done that would have been a year or two ago , I should think .
Probably around the time I upgraded from an even older PowerBook G4 to this one , and I was running a few applications and utilities on the old one to test them out before sending them over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically enough, I was running Classic mode on my PowerBook G4 just a few hours ago.
There are a handful of old games that don't run natively on OS X that I still like to play from time to time (in fact, my two favorite games ever are in this category).
But I don't use it on a day-to-day basis by any means.
As for booting into OS 9, the last time I would've done that would have been a year or two ago, I should think.
Probably around the time I upgraded from an even older PowerBook G4 to this one, and I was running a few applications and utilities on the old one to test them out before sending them over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644519</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who fucking cares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who fucking cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who fucking cares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650867</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>joposer</author>
	<datestamp>1247244840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't that the Digital Audio?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that the Digital Audio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that the Digital Audio?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643767</id>
	<title>Old Mozilla not Firefox</title>
	<author>PineHall</author>
	<datestamp>1247140200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is old code.  From the FAQ:<br> <i>the decision was made to split Gecko off at 1.3.1</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is old code .
From the FAQ : the decision was made to split Gecko off at 1.3.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is old code.
From the FAQ: the decision was made to split Gecko off at 1.3.1 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647333</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>muszek</author>
	<datestamp>1247222040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a friend who's primary computer (over 10 years old) still runs OS9 .  Not only that - he's hooked via a 128 (or was it 256) kbps line that costs him more than a 30Mbps cable that's available in his area.  He works in graphics and every time I hear "it works for me", I'm crying a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend who 's primary computer ( over 10 years old ) still runs OS9 .
Not only that - he 's hooked via a 128 ( or was it 256 ) kbps line that costs him more than a 30Mbps cable that 's available in his area .
He works in graphics and every time I hear " it works for me " , I 'm crying a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend who's primary computer (over 10 years old) still runs OS9 .
Not only that - he's hooked via a 128 (or was it 256) kbps line that costs him more than a 30Mbps cable that's available in his area.
He works in graphics and every time I hear "it works for me", I'm crying a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647993</id>
	<title>Re:weird</title>
	<author>NJRoadfan</author>
	<datestamp>1247231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS?</p></div><p>Not going to happen without some sort of C++ compiler and decent graphics. Even then one would likely need a Transwarp GS/Zip GS card for a page to render faster then a weekend. After all, it takes the machine a couple of minutes just to decompress a small JPEG image!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS ? Not going to happen without some sort of C + + compiler and decent graphics .
Even then one would likely need a Transwarp GS/Zip GS card for a page to render faster then a weekend .
After all , it takes the machine a couple of minutes just to decompress a small JPEG image !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS?Not going to happen without some sort of C++ compiler and decent graphics.
Even then one would likely need a Transwarp GS/Zip GS card for a page to render faster then a weekend.
After all, it takes the machine a couple of minutes just to decompress a small JPEG image!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648313</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1247233920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's either giving that to my sister or letting her use my laptop.</p><p>Just kidding. iMac G3 seems to run OSX 10.2.8 very well, so we've got that. But to run OS9 software, you need OS9, and that's it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's either giving that to my sister or letting her use my laptop.Just kidding .
iMac G3 seems to run OSX 10.2.8 very well , so we 've got that .
But to run OS9 software , you need OS9 , and that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's either giving that to my sister or letting her use my laptop.Just kidding.
iMac G3 seems to run OSX 10.2.8 very well, so we've got that.
But to run OS9 software, you need OS9, and that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28653799</id>
	<title>Re:The Answer Lies In Your Web Server Log Files</title>
	<author>arantius</author>
	<datestamp>1247257500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Bull plop.</p><p>On my site, with 7211530 "hits" as reported by AWStats:</p><p>6,096 (0.0845\%) Used *any* version of IE before 6.0.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 812 (0.0113\%) Used any 3.x or 4.x version of IE.<br>5,721 (0.0793\%) Used *any* version of Netscape.<br>2,588 (0.0359\%) Used Netscape 3.x or 4.x.</p><p>You have to add together all of IE  6.0 and Netscape to even break one tenth of one percent.</p><p>In fact, only:</p><p>138,957 (1.9269\%) Used any version of *Firefox* before 3.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... significant number of your web sites ' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4 ...Bull plop.On my site , with 7211530 " hits " as reported by AWStats : 6,096 ( 0.0845 \ % ) Used * any * version of IE before 6.0 .
    812 ( 0.0113 \ % ) Used any 3.x or 4.x version of IE.5,721 ( 0.0793 \ % ) Used * any * version of Netscape.2,588 ( 0.0359 \ % ) Used Netscape 3.x or 4.x.You have to add together all of IE 6.0 and Netscape to even break one tenth of one percent.In fact , only : 138,957 ( 1.9269 \ % ) Used any version of * Firefox * before 3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ... significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4 ...Bull plop.On my site, with 7211530 "hits" as reported by AWStats:6,096 (0.0845\%) Used *any* version of IE before 6.0.
    812 (0.0113\%) Used any 3.x or 4.x version of IE.5,721 (0.0793\%) Used *any* version of Netscape.2,588 (0.0359\%) Used Netscape 3.x or 4.x.You have to add together all of IE  6.0 and Netscape to even break one tenth of one percent.In fact, only:138,957 (1.9269\%) Used any version of *Firefox* before 3.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644063</id>
	<title>From TFA: Runs on 8.6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247142000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Classilla requires any Power Macintosh with at least 64MB of RAM (virtual or physical), 50MB of free hard disk space and OS 8.6 or higher. A G3 with 128MB of physical RAM and OS 9.1 is the recommended minimum. (It will run on OS 8.5, but due to various bugs in that release we strongly advise updating to 8.6.)"</p><p>This actually makes me happy.  I'd like to make use of my Rev. A Bondi iMac, but openSUSE 10.3 is being a scrum-bum.</p><p>I have two joysticks and a build of MacMAME.  This will seal the deal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Classilla requires any Power Macintosh with at least 64MB of RAM ( virtual or physical ) , 50MB of free hard disk space and OS 8.6 or higher .
A G3 with 128MB of physical RAM and OS 9.1 is the recommended minimum .
( It will run on OS 8.5 , but due to various bugs in that release we strongly advise updating to 8.6 .
) " This actually makes me happy .
I 'd like to make use of my Rev .
A Bondi iMac , but openSUSE 10.3 is being a scrum-bum.I have two joysticks and a build of MacMAME .
This will seal the deal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Classilla requires any Power Macintosh with at least 64MB of RAM (virtual or physical), 50MB of free hard disk space and OS 8.6 or higher.
A G3 with 128MB of physical RAM and OS 9.1 is the recommended minimum.
(It will run on OS 8.5, but due to various bugs in that release we strongly advise updating to 8.6.
)"This actually makes me happy.
I'd like to make use of my Rev.
A Bondi iMac, but openSUSE 10.3 is being a scrum-bum.I have two joysticks and a build of MacMAME.
This will seal the deal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646583</id>
	<title>Classilla ?</title>
	<author>frenchbedroom</author>
	<datestamp>1247169420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why did I immediatly translate this name as <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=clbuttic" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Clbuttilla ?</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did I immediatly translate this name as Clbuttilla ?
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did I immediatly translate this name as Clbuttilla ?
[google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644491</id>
	<title>It's also old, but Netscape 7.01 for OS 9?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be the latest and most fantastic of browsers, but Netscape 7.01 is still available from evolt.org, works on OS 9 (and earlier), and does a better job of rendering most pages than IE 6 does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be the latest and most fantastic of browsers , but Netscape 7.01 is still available from evolt.org , works on OS 9 ( and earlier ) , and does a better job of rendering most pages than IE 6 does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be the latest and most fantastic of browsers, but Netscape 7.01 is still available from evolt.org, works on OS 9 (and earlier), and does a better job of rendering most pages than IE 6 does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644445</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>SizzlinSaguaro</author>
	<datestamp>1247143980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My boss and two other engineers where I work all use os9 daily.  They use a ancient CAD program called Ashlar Vellum (reminds me of a glorified verison of MS Paint) to make engineering drawings all day long.  Up until a year ago they even used netscape 4 for www and email and seem to be content in their own little world.  They now have PC's sitting next to them for internet use, but they still use their os9 mac's for "real" work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My boss and two other engineers where I work all use os9 daily .
They use a ancient CAD program called Ashlar Vellum ( reminds me of a glorified verison of MS Paint ) to make engineering drawings all day long .
Up until a year ago they even used netscape 4 for www and email and seem to be content in their own little world .
They now have PC 's sitting next to them for internet use , but they still use their os9 mac 's for " real " work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My boss and two other engineers where I work all use os9 daily.
They use a ancient CAD program called Ashlar Vellum (reminds me of a glorified verison of MS Paint) to make engineering drawings all day long.
Up until a year ago they even used netscape 4 for www and email and seem to be content in their own little world.
They now have PC's sitting next to them for internet use, but they still use their os9 mac's for "real" work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643681</id>
	<title>macbook 180</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will it run on my macbook 180?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will it run on my macbook 180 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will it run on my macbook 180?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644571</id>
	<title>Not going back to OS 8/9 thank you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I spent enough time with;

-OpenDoc
-Desktop Printing
-Chooser
-Extension Manager
-Cleaning out corrupted preferences
-Playing with RAM allocation for Adobe apps for clients
-PPP dial-up accounts with hacks

No thanks. I don't think my fingers have ever healed from putting memory into the PPC 7100s or 8100s and getting continually sliced-up. Ugh! Bad memories indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent enough time with ; -OpenDoc -Desktop Printing -Chooser -Extension Manager -Cleaning out corrupted preferences -Playing with RAM allocation for Adobe apps for clients -PPP dial-up accounts with hacks No thanks .
I do n't think my fingers have ever healed from putting memory into the PPC 7100s or 8100s and getting continually sliced-up .
Ugh ! Bad memories indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent enough time with;

-OpenDoc
-Desktop Printing
-Chooser
-Extension Manager
-Cleaning out corrupted preferences
-Playing with RAM allocation for Adobe apps for clients
-PPP dial-up accounts with hacks

No thanks.
I don't think my fingers have ever healed from putting memory into the PPC 7100s or 8100s and getting continually sliced-up.
Ugh! Bad memories indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28656459</id>
	<title>Re:weird</title>
	<author>ChristTrekker</author>
	<datestamp>1247231760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone want to port Gecko (or WebKit, I'm not picky) to use a ncurses UI?  That ought to speed it up, and be pretty useful too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone want to port Gecko ( or WebKit , I 'm not picky ) to use a ncurses UI ?
That ought to speed it up , and be pretty useful too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone want to port Gecko (or WebKit, I'm not picky) to use a ncurses UI?
That ought to speed it up, and be pretty useful too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646151</id>
	<title>I could have really used this...</title>
	<author>daemonc</author>
	<datestamp>1247163060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about 4 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about 4 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about 4 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647837</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1247229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating system<br><br>For single dedicated apps, PC-DOS 3.3 was a robust operating system.  But, except maybe for the occasional kiosk, who uses single dedicated apps these days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating systemFor single dedicated apps , PC-DOS 3.3 was a robust operating system .
But , except maybe for the occasional kiosk , who uses single dedicated apps these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating systemFor single dedicated apps, PC-DOS 3.3 was a robust operating system.
But, except maybe for the occasional kiosk, who uses single dedicated apps these days?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647865</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Chris L. Mason</author>
	<datestamp>1247230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it was the second Quicksilver model that added support for +128 ATA drives, not the MDD model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it was the second Quicksilver model that added support for + 128 ATA drives , not the MDD model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it was the second Quicksilver model that added support for +128 ATA drives, not the MDD model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985</id>
	<title>The Answer Lies In Your Web Server Log Files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247141400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you analyzer your logs with a tool such as <a href="http://analog.cx/" title="analog.cx">Analog</a> [analog.cx], you'll find that a significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4.  At least that's what I find for my sites - and it's been that way for a long time.<p>

There are lots of reasons for this.  Some people cannot afford the new hardware required for Mac OS X.  Some of those who could buy the hardware have a big investment in software that uses Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) dongles that wouldn't work on OS X even if the newer Macs were equipped with ADB - they haven't been for years.</p><p>

Some software has been discontinued, with the vendors out of business, and so will never be ported to OS X-native.  If the software is useful enough to the end user, then they'll keep running Mac OS 9.</p><p>

Finally, some people simply don't know how to upgrade.  Until very recently a relative of mine was running Internet Explorer 5.0 on Mac OS X 10.2 - no doubt riddled with well-known security holes, but she simply didn't know better.  I bought her Mac OS X Tiger for Christmas (Leopard won't run on her G3), then visited soon after and installed it for her, then downloaded and installed all the updates. </p><p>

All of these are reasons that I plan for <a href="http://www.oggfrog.com/free-music-software/" title="oggfrog.com">Ogg Frog</a> [oggfrog.com] to support the Classic Mac OS.</p><p>

(And there are many Macs out there that are too old to run Mac OS 9; they'll be running 8.6 or some such.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you analyzer your logs with a tool such as Analog [ analog.cx ] , you 'll find that a significant number of your web sites ' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4 .
At least that 's what I find for my sites - and it 's been that way for a long time .
There are lots of reasons for this .
Some people can not afford the new hardware required for Mac OS X. Some of those who could buy the hardware have a big investment in software that uses Apple Desktop Bus ( ADB ) dongles that would n't work on OS X even if the newer Macs were equipped with ADB - they have n't been for years .
Some software has been discontinued , with the vendors out of business , and so will never be ported to OS X-native .
If the software is useful enough to the end user , then they 'll keep running Mac OS 9 .
Finally , some people simply do n't know how to upgrade .
Until very recently a relative of mine was running Internet Explorer 5.0 on Mac OS X 10.2 - no doubt riddled with well-known security holes , but she simply did n't know better .
I bought her Mac OS X Tiger for Christmas ( Leopard wo n't run on her G3 ) , then visited soon after and installed it for her , then downloaded and installed all the updates .
All of these are reasons that I plan for Ogg Frog [ oggfrog.com ] to support the Classic Mac OS .
( And there are many Macs out there that are too old to run Mac OS 9 ; they 'll be running 8.6 or some such .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you analyzer your logs with a tool such as Analog [analog.cx], you'll find that a significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4.
At least that's what I find for my sites - and it's been that way for a long time.
There are lots of reasons for this.
Some people cannot afford the new hardware required for Mac OS X.  Some of those who could buy the hardware have a big investment in software that uses Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) dongles that wouldn't work on OS X even if the newer Macs were equipped with ADB - they haven't been for years.
Some software has been discontinued, with the vendors out of business, and so will never be ported to OS X-native.
If the software is useful enough to the end user, then they'll keep running Mac OS 9.
Finally, some people simply don't know how to upgrade.
Until very recently a relative of mine was running Internet Explorer 5.0 on Mac OS X 10.2 - no doubt riddled with well-known security holes, but she simply didn't know better.
I bought her Mac OS X Tiger for Christmas (Leopard won't run on her G3), then visited soon after and installed it for her, then downloaded and installed all the updates.
All of these are reasons that I plan for Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com] to support the Classic Mac OS.
(And there are many Macs out there that are too old to run Mac OS 9; they'll be running 8.6 or some such.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645079</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>pauljlucas</author>
	<datestamp>1247149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I [don't have] to worry about what she could get into on my computer
(she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Why didn't you give her her own user account?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I [ do n't have ] to worry about what she could get into on my computer ( she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer ) .
Why did n't you give her her own user account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I [don't have] to worry about what she could get into on my computer
(she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer).
Why didn't you give her her own user account?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>sugarbomb</author>
	<datestamp>1247140440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>schools<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you would be surprised at the number of elementary school class rooms that still have OS 9 apps and machines that run them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>schools ... you would be surprised at the number of elementary school class rooms that still have OS 9 apps and machines that run them .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schools ... you would be surprised at the number of elementary school class rooms that still have OS 9 apps and machines that run them ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647827</id>
	<title>OT:1680x1050 etc. from PowerMac 8500</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247229720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this thread might have some people still using PowerMac 8500 and related machines, I've recently hacked the <a href="http://vision.nyu.edu/VideoToolbox/Download.html#Driver" title="nyu.edu">7300/7500/7600/8500/8600 Graphics Driver</a> [nyu.edu] to support resolutions in the 1600x1200 range on a stock PowerMac 8500 (probably works on the other models as well). I now have a 20" 1680x1050 LCD connected and working <i>perfectly</i>, locking on to the analog signal with perfect pixels. I figured out where the timing parameters are stored in the driver, allowing other new resolutions as well (like 1440x900), and fine-tuning of the pixel rate. Even with a CRT, this allows higher resolutions. <a href="mailto:noidentity.3kc@gishpuppy.com" title="mailto">Contact me</a> [mailto] if you'd like try the driver or have a different resolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this thread might have some people still using PowerMac 8500 and related machines , I 've recently hacked the 7300/7500/7600/8500/8600 Graphics Driver [ nyu.edu ] to support resolutions in the 1600x1200 range on a stock PowerMac 8500 ( probably works on the other models as well ) .
I now have a 20 " 1680x1050 LCD connected and working perfectly , locking on to the analog signal with perfect pixels .
I figured out where the timing parameters are stored in the driver , allowing other new resolutions as well ( like 1440x900 ) , and fine-tuning of the pixel rate .
Even with a CRT , this allows higher resolutions .
Contact me [ mailto ] if you 'd like try the driver or have a different resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this thread might have some people still using PowerMac 8500 and related machines, I've recently hacked the 7300/7500/7600/8500/8600 Graphics Driver [nyu.edu] to support resolutions in the 1600x1200 range on a stock PowerMac 8500 (probably works on the other models as well).
I now have a 20" 1680x1050 LCD connected and working perfectly, locking on to the analog signal with perfect pixels.
I figured out where the timing parameters are stored in the driver, allowing other new resolutions as well (like 1440x900), and fine-tuning of the pixel rate.
Even with a CRT, this allows higher resolutions.
Contact me [mailto] if you'd like try the driver or have a different resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649655</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1247240160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying that this isn't a repost? I wasn't even aware that was possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that this is n't a repost ?
I was n't even aware that was possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that this isn't a repost?
I wasn't even aware that was possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648483</id>
	<title>Re:Look and Feel</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try OSX for a few weeks.  "animated" features like expos&#195;&#169; might seem useless at first but after a while you'll find you can't live without the feature.  With a screen-corner gesture you can display all windows, all windows a given type and/or even drag them between virtual desktops by adding another screen-corner gesture.  After a while you never "lose" any windows and moving them around becomes a very intuitive and physical experience, like moving pieces of paper.  Anything you don't like you can generally turn off anyway.  Critics of OSX often point and say "that's a gimmick" without actually bothering to use the feature.  And don't bother claiming it eats CPU cycles.  The fancy stuff is done on the GPU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try OSX for a few weeks .
" animated " features like expos     might seem useless at first but after a while you 'll find you ca n't live without the feature .
With a screen-corner gesture you can display all windows , all windows a given type and/or even drag them between virtual desktops by adding another screen-corner gesture .
After a while you never " lose " any windows and moving them around becomes a very intuitive and physical experience , like moving pieces of paper .
Anything you do n't like you can generally turn off anyway .
Critics of OSX often point and say " that 's a gimmick " without actually bothering to use the feature .
And do n't bother claiming it eats CPU cycles .
The fancy stuff is done on the GPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try OSX for a few weeks.
"animated" features like exposÃ© might seem useless at first but after a while you'll find you can't live without the feature.
With a screen-corner gesture you can display all windows, all windows a given type and/or even drag them between virtual desktops by adding another screen-corner gesture.
After a while you never "lose" any windows and moving them around becomes a very intuitive and physical experience, like moving pieces of paper.
Anything you don't like you can generally turn off anyway.
Critics of OSX often point and say "that's a gimmick" without actually bothering to use the feature.
And don't bother claiming it eats CPU cycles.
The fancy stuff is done on the GPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647771</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Little\_Professor</author>
	<datestamp>1247229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either that, or you don't know how to do searches:

<a href="http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=os9" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=os9</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that , or you do n't know how to do searches : http : //slashdot.org/index2.pl ? fhfilter = os9 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that, or you don't know how to do searches:

http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=os9 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647943</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>zsau</author>
	<datestamp>1247231100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the olden days, this place was much more of a free software place, ISTR. Now it's just general computery stuff. Also, Mac OS X is in some ways the continuation of Mac OS, but in other ways it's very much not; the userbase nowadays is a lot more diverse. Mac OSwas used relatively little by the target audience of this place, that changed when Apple appeared to "get it" by putting Unix underneath a sparkly gui (but the command line's never been the reason Iuse GNU/Linux on my computers, except for about eight months when I had a computer that was too slow to run contemporary guis as my main box).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the olden days , this place was much more of a free software place , ISTR .
Now it 's just general computery stuff .
Also , Mac OS X is in some ways the continuation of Mac OS , but in other ways it 's very much not ; the userbase nowadays is a lot more diverse .
Mac OSwas used relatively little by the target audience of this place , that changed when Apple appeared to " get it " by putting Unix underneath a sparkly gui ( but the command line 's never been the reason Iuse GNU/Linux on my computers , except for about eight months when I had a computer that was too slow to run contemporary guis as my main box ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the olden days, this place was much more of a free software place, ISTR.
Now it's just general computery stuff.
Also, Mac OS X is in some ways the continuation of Mac OS, but in other ways it's very much not; the userbase nowadays is a lot more diverse.
Mac OSwas used relatively little by the target audience of this place, that changed when Apple appeared to "get it" by putting Unix underneath a sparkly gui (but the command line's never been the reason Iuse GNU/Linux on my computers, except for about eight months when I had a computer that was too slow to run contemporary guis as my main box).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643731</id>
	<title>good news for faggots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>they got a new web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they got a new web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they got a new web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644875</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do, since I have an original 233MHz Bondi Blue iMac with 64MB RAM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do , since I have an original 233MHz Bondi Blue iMac with 64MB RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do, since I have an original 233MHz Bondi Blue iMac with 64MB RAM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644321</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1247143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the fact is, for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating system.  heck 8.1 even 7.5.5 were dang good!   I still have one 68K box I run 7.5 on
but mainly that is to provide a network path for an older Apple IIgs I use for certain dedicated tasks (Yes Apple IIs still live)</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact is , for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating system .
heck 8.1 even 7.5.5 were dang good !
I still have one 68K box I run 7.5 on but mainly that is to provide a network path for an older Apple IIgs I use for certain dedicated tasks ( Yes Apple IIs still live )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact is, for single dedicated apps OS 9 was a robust operating system.
heck 8.1 even 7.5.5 were dang good!
I still have one 68K box I run 7.5 on
but mainly that is to provide a network path for an older Apple IIgs I use for certain dedicated tasks (Yes Apple IIs still live)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247144100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I care.</p><p>My daughter is getting old enough now to use a computer, and I've dug out an old iMac G3 DV that was given to us by a friend, and loaded several older pre-school games my mom had lying around from when my brothers were little.<br>Now, not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her, but it can also be used online in a pinch.<br>Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids<br>(Sid the Science Kid, Sesame Street, and several other PBS, Disney and Nick JR. shows)</p><p>I could now let her go to those, without having to worry about what she could get into on my computer.<br>(she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer)</p><p>Bottom line:<br>Is it state of the art, the next big thing? of course not.<br>but it did just make some older equipment just that much more useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I care.My daughter is getting old enough now to use a computer , and I 've dug out an old iMac G3 DV that was given to us by a friend , and loaded several older pre-school games my mom had lying around from when my brothers were little.Now , not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her , but it can also be used online in a pinch.Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids ( Sid the Science Kid , Sesame Street , and several other PBS , Disney and Nick JR. shows ) I could now let her go to those , without having to worry about what she could get into on my computer .
( she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer ) Bottom line : Is it state of the art , the next big thing ?
of course not.but it did just make some older equipment just that much more useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I care.My daughter is getting old enough now to use a computer, and I've dug out an old iMac G3 DV that was given to us by a friend, and loaded several older pre-school games my mom had lying around from when my brothers were little.Now, not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her, but it can also be used online in a pinch.Or perhaps letting her have access to several of the show based sites that have content for the kids(Sid the Science Kid, Sesame Street, and several other PBS, Disney and Nick JR. shows)I could now let her go to those, without having to worry about what she could get into on my computer.
(she decided to rename a good chunk of my songs last time she sat on my computer)Bottom line:Is it state of the art, the next big thing?
of course not.but it did just make some older equipment just that much more useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643647</id>
	<title>May God Have Mercy on Our Souls</title>
	<author>penguinstorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What hath man wrought?</p><p>This seems likely to lend new fervor to the "Mac SE 30 was the best Mac ever" argument, one that I've been tired of every since...well...colour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What hath man wrought ? This seems likely to lend new fervor to the " Mac SE 30 was the best Mac ever " argument , one that I 've been tired of every since...well...colour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What hath man wrought?This seems likely to lend new fervor to the "Mac SE 30 was the best Mac ever" argument, one that I've been tired of every since...well...colour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</id>
	<title>First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247140920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. This is the first <a href="http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=macos9" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">OS9 story</a> [slashdot.org] on Slashdot since <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/02/01/0751226/Scalable-Font-Tools?art\_pos=3" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [slashdot.org] from February 2002. Incidentally, that one is the *only* other one.</p><p>Well, either that, or the Firehose is broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
This is the first OS9 story [ slashdot.org ] on Slashdot since this one [ slashdot.org ] from February 2002 .
Incidentally , that one is the * only * other one.Well , either that , or the Firehose is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
This is the first OS9 story [slashdot.org] on Slashdot since this one [slashdot.org] from February 2002.
Incidentally, that one is the *only* other one.Well, either that, or the Firehose is broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646645</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247256840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> That OS version only shipped with one Mac model, though (the mirrored doors G4).</p></div><p>Well, I think the MDD G4 was only the first Mac to ship it.<br>And I think it was the last change made to OS 9 before OS 9 booting support got discontinued in January 2003. And unfortunately it wasn't documented very well, though one thing about it that was documented was that Mac OS 9 partition sizes was still limited to 200 GB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That OS version only shipped with one Mac model , though ( the mirrored doors G4 ) .Well , I think the MDD G4 was only the first Mac to ship it.And I think it was the last change made to OS 9 before OS 9 booting support got discontinued in January 2003 .
And unfortunately it was n't documented very well , though one thing about it that was documented was that Mac OS 9 partition sizes was still limited to 200 GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That OS version only shipped with one Mac model, though (the mirrored doors G4).Well, I think the MDD G4 was only the first Mac to ship it.And I think it was the last change made to OS 9 before OS 9 booting support got discontinued in January 2003.
And unfortunately it wasn't documented very well, though one thing about it that was documented was that Mac OS 9 partition sizes was still limited to 200 GB.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644935</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247148060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, cause that machine will run Firefox the memory/cpu hog nice enough to actually be able to stand browsing.</p><p>Of course it won't, browsing even simple pages will be mind numbingly shitty because you're trying to shoehorn modern software into a machine far too old to run it.</p><p>The proper thing to do is use a browser from that machines age, no one is going to exploit your shitty old mac anyway, more so, you're not likely to find any of those exploits in existence now days, you're more likely to find a Linux exploit than a page exploiting a browser on that thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , cause that machine will run Firefox the memory/cpu hog nice enough to actually be able to stand browsing.Of course it wo n't , browsing even simple pages will be mind numbingly shitty because you 're trying to shoehorn modern software into a machine far too old to run it.The proper thing to do is use a browser from that machines age , no one is going to exploit your shitty old mac anyway , more so , you 're not likely to find any of those exploits in existence now days , you 're more likely to find a Linux exploit than a page exploiting a browser on that thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, cause that machine will run Firefox the memory/cpu hog nice enough to actually be able to stand browsing.Of course it won't, browsing even simple pages will be mind numbingly shitty because you're trying to shoehorn modern software into a machine far too old to run it.The proper thing to do is use a browser from that machines age, no one is going to exploit your shitty old mac anyway, more so, you're not likely to find any of those exploits in existence now days, you're more likely to find a Linux exploit than a page exploiting a browser on that thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646099</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>falcon5768</author>
	<datestamp>1247162220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My district till has well over 400 OS 9 iMacs. There are some education software packages with no PC equivalent, no OS X equivalent, and NO replacement. Most of my job in maintaining the districts macs is 60\% legacy support, 40\% new system support and server management.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My district till has well over 400 OS 9 iMacs .
There are some education software packages with no PC equivalent , no OS X equivalent , and NO replacement .
Most of my job in maintaining the districts macs is 60 \ % legacy support , 40 \ % new system support and server management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My district till has well over 400 OS 9 iMacs.
There are some education software packages with no PC equivalent, no OS X equivalent, and NO replacement.
Most of my job in maintaining the districts macs is 60\% legacy support, 40\% new system support and server management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1247140140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have the mirrored doors edition of 9, it added LBA48 support.  Now that the smallest drives on the market are about 160 gigs, being able to use the portion of your ATA drive above the first 128 binary gigs is a pretty significant benefit.  That OS version only shipped with one Mac model, though (the mirrored doors G4).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have the mirrored doors edition of 9 , it added LBA48 support .
Now that the smallest drives on the market are about 160 gigs , being able to use the portion of your ATA drive above the first 128 binary gigs is a pretty significant benefit .
That OS version only shipped with one Mac model , though ( the mirrored doors G4 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have the mirrored doors edition of 9, it added LBA48 support.
Now that the smallest drives on the market are about 160 gigs, being able to use the portion of your ATA drive above the first 128 binary gigs is a pretty significant benefit.
That OS version only shipped with one Mac model, though (the mirrored doors G4).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643899</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247140920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  I mean, when are they going to port Mozilla to the Commodore 64?  Oh, there'll be cheers that day...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
I mean , when are they going to port Mozilla to the Commodore 64 ?
Oh , there 'll be cheers that day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
I mean, when are they going to port Mozilla to the Commodore 64?
Oh, there'll be cheers that day...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644897</id>
	<title>What's old is new again - or maybe not</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247147760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400 -- despite being a little memory-hungry.</i> </p><p>Some things never change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400 -- despite being a little memory-hungry .
Some things never change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the currently-released build seems to work well on my old PowerBook 1400 -- despite being a little memory-hungry.
Some things never change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644307</id>
	<title>It is not as up to date as Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1247143200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and not supported by the Mozilla Foundation, but it is a Mozilla 1.3.1 based web browser.</p><p>Too bad it does not support the 68K MacOS 7.5.X environment, there are a lot of people running Mac 68K emulators and that is the version of Mac System that Apple allows to be downloaded legally for free.Usually the <a href="http://gwenole.beauchesne.online.fr/basilisk2/" title="online.fr">Basilisk II</a> [online.fr] Mac 68K emulator, which seems to be popular.</p><p>At least they try for PowerMac Mac OS 8.6 compatibility, which is good for those PowerMac users who cannot upgrade to Mac OS9.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and not supported by the Mozilla Foundation , but it is a Mozilla 1.3.1 based web browser.Too bad it does not support the 68K MacOS 7.5.X environment , there are a lot of people running Mac 68K emulators and that is the version of Mac System that Apple allows to be downloaded legally for free.Usually the Basilisk II [ online.fr ] Mac 68K emulator , which seems to be popular.At least they try for PowerMac Mac OS 8.6 compatibility , which is good for those PowerMac users who can not upgrade to Mac OS9 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and not supported by the Mozilla Foundation, but it is a Mozilla 1.3.1 based web browser.Too bad it does not support the 68K MacOS 7.5.X environment, there are a lot of people running Mac 68K emulators and that is the version of Mac System that Apple allows to be downloaded legally for free.Usually the Basilisk II [online.fr] Mac 68K emulator, which seems to be popular.At least they try for PowerMac Mac OS 8.6 compatibility, which is good for those PowerMac users who cannot upgrade to Mac OS9.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650159</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares? (you insensitive clod)</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1247242140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>schools are poor dude - the $1000 that it takes to buy a new CPU for a student or a teacher comes out of the budget for the teacher's salary - i was in a school this spring (2009) - they're still getting by with ancient 486 PCs running windows 98 and the 'new' machine was running windows 2000. yes - this was in southern ontario - which is a lot better off than schools in mexico (or many other parts of the world) -</p><p>so - yes - this makes a lot of old machines more useful for those that can afford to update the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>schools are poor dude - the $ 1000 that it takes to buy a new CPU for a student or a teacher comes out of the budget for the teacher 's salary - i was in a school this spring ( 2009 ) - they 're still getting by with ancient 486 PCs running windows 98 and the 'new ' machine was running windows 2000. yes - this was in southern ontario - which is a lot better off than schools in mexico ( or many other parts of the world ) -so - yes - this makes a lot of old machines more useful for those that can afford to update the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schools are poor dude - the $1000 that it takes to buy a new CPU for a student or a teacher comes out of the budget for the teacher's salary - i was in a school this spring (2009) - they're still getting by with ancient 486 PCs running windows 98 and the 'new' machine was running windows 2000. yes - this was in southern ontario - which is a lot better off than schools in mexico (or many other parts of the world) -so - yes - this makes a lot of old machines more useful for those that can afford to update the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648635</id>
	<title>How about a new port of Mozilla for Mac OS X?</title>
	<author>objekt</author>
	<datestamp>1247235780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox doesn't work the same as Mozilla did. Some people miss Netscape and Mozilla. I can't even find a place to download the last version of Mozilla for Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox does n't work the same as Mozilla did .
Some people miss Netscape and Mozilla .
I ca n't even find a place to download the last version of Mozilla for Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox doesn't work the same as Mozilla did.
Some people miss Netscape and Mozilla.
I can't even find a place to download the last version of Mozilla for Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646519</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1247168640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Now, not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her, but it can also be used<br>&gt; online in a pinch.</p><p>I wouldn't use Gecko 1.3.x (which is what this is) online unless you're ok with the machine being exploited.   Oh, and unless you're ok with a somewhat crappy user experience.  Just for comparison, Firefox 1 shipped on top of Gecko 1.7....</p><p>On the other hand, the chance of exploits actually targeting Mac OS Classic is pretty low, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now , not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her , but it can also be used &gt; online in a pinch.I would n't use Gecko 1.3.x ( which is what this is ) online unless you 're ok with the machine being exploited .
Oh , and unless you 're ok with a somewhat crappy user experience .
Just for comparison , Firefox 1 shipped on top of Gecko 1.7....On the other hand , the chance of exploits actually targeting Mac OS Classic is pretty low , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Now, not only can it be a great little preschool computer for her, but it can also be used&gt; online in a pinch.I wouldn't use Gecko 1.3.x (which is what this is) online unless you're ok with the machine being exploited.
Oh, and unless you're ok with a somewhat crappy user experience.
Just for comparison, Firefox 1 shipped on top of Gecko 1.7....On the other hand, the chance of exploits actually targeting Mac OS Classic is pretty low, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643669</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, seriously, who cares?</p></div><p>Somebody will. Most of the projects I work on at home come under the category of "because I want to". I am currently building a digital clock which has been in the planning process for twenty years.<br> <br>
The software I work on in my day job is much older than MacOS 9. A lot of my work involves shoehorning modern stuff into it so this type of project is of interest to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , seriously , who cares ? Somebody will .
Most of the projects I work on at home come under the category of " because I want to " .
I am currently building a digital clock which has been in the planning process for twenty years .
The software I work on in my day job is much older than MacOS 9 .
A lot of my work involves shoehorning modern stuff into it so this type of project is of interest to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, seriously, who cares?Somebody will.
Most of the projects I work on at home come under the category of "because I want to".
I am currently building a digital clock which has been in the planning process for twenty years.
The software I work on in my day job is much older than MacOS 9.
A lot of my work involves shoehorning modern stuff into it so this type of project is of interest to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647035</id>
	<title>Hallelujah!</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247218440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome! I know no one cares, but when you use Mac OS 8/9 (which is otherwise a great OS), the biggest problem you meet is an utter lack of a decent browser that can display a normal modern website normally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
I know no one cares , but when you use Mac OS 8/9 ( which is otherwise a great OS ) , the biggest problem you meet is an utter lack of a decent browser that can display a normal modern website normally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
I know no one cares, but when you use Mac OS 8/9 (which is otherwise a great OS), the biggest problem you meet is an utter lack of a decent browser that can display a normal modern website normally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646181</id>
	<title>Re:Look and Feel</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1247163540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shiny and hyper animated? I take it you haven't used Leopard or know where the preferences are? Currently, OS X is more neutral and minimalistic that OS 9, IMHO. And the animation is more informative than flashy (perhaps we can exclude the dock). The only really shiny parts left are the buttons and the dock (once again). But even so, it's been toned down a lot since the candy and pin-stripe days of 10.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shiny and hyper animated ?
I take it you have n't used Leopard or know where the preferences are ?
Currently , OS X is more neutral and minimalistic that OS 9 , IMHO .
And the animation is more informative than flashy ( perhaps we can exclude the dock ) .
The only really shiny parts left are the buttons and the dock ( once again ) .
But even so , it 's been toned down a lot since the candy and pin-stripe days of 10.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shiny and hyper animated?
I take it you haven't used Leopard or know where the preferences are?
Currently, OS X is more neutral and minimalistic that OS 9, IMHO.
And the animation is more informative than flashy (perhaps we can exclude the dock).
The only really shiny parts left are the buttons and the dock (once again).
But even so, it's been toned down a lot since the candy and pin-stripe days of 10.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646111</id>
	<title>Re:Look and Feel</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1247162340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Boring does not equal functional.  I'd say that the improvements made in OS X were all worthwhile.  Easier to use and easier on the eye.  It's like having air conditioning in your car.  It's not absolutely necessary but at the end of the day you feel so much less tired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boring does not equal functional .
I 'd say that the improvements made in OS X were all worthwhile .
Easier to use and easier on the eye .
It 's like having air conditioning in your car .
It 's not absolutely necessary but at the end of the day you feel so much less tired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Boring does not equal functional.
I'd say that the improvements made in OS X were all worthwhile.
Easier to use and easier on the eye.
It's like having air conditioning in your car.
It's not absolutely necessary but at the end of the day you feel so much less tired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644911</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're a teacher in Mexico using an old Mac, this  is of no interest to you.  You don't have Internet access anyway.  Nice try though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a teacher in Mexico using an old Mac , this is of no interest to you .
You do n't have Internet access anyway .
Nice try though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a teacher in Mexico using an old Mac, this  is of no interest to you.
You don't have Internet access anyway.
Nice try though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1247140260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do at my office (publishing)</p><p>Well, we're down to only having 3 computers that solely run OS9, and more that still run apps in classic though.</p><p>We use Quark Xpress 4.5 and a particular set of XTensions. Quark's upgrade path, to put it bluntly, sucks. Quark5 and 6 were IMHO utterly useless and Quark 7 is basically "as good as" Quark 4.5 in my book. We do use quark7 but the problem is that Quark7+the extensions we need run far SLOWER on the quadcore macs than on 800mhz g4s/g5s etc. Sad. Has nothing to do with the merits of OS9 versus OSX, it's just because the newer versions of the apps we need and use on a daily basis, well, suck.</p><p>The writing is on the wall though, we're one or two hardware failures away from being Os9/classic free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do at my office ( publishing ) Well , we 're down to only having 3 computers that solely run OS9 , and more that still run apps in classic though.We use Quark Xpress 4.5 and a particular set of XTensions .
Quark 's upgrade path , to put it bluntly , sucks .
Quark5 and 6 were IMHO utterly useless and Quark 7 is basically " as good as " Quark 4.5 in my book .
We do use quark7 but the problem is that Quark7 + the extensions we need run far SLOWER on the quadcore macs than on 800mhz g4s/g5s etc .
Sad. Has nothing to do with the merits of OS9 versus OSX , it 's just because the newer versions of the apps we need and use on a daily basis , well , suck.The writing is on the wall though , we 're one or two hardware failures away from being Os9/classic free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do at my office (publishing)Well, we're down to only having 3 computers that solely run OS9, and more that still run apps in classic though.We use Quark Xpress 4.5 and a particular set of XTensions.
Quark's upgrade path, to put it bluntly, sucks.
Quark5 and 6 were IMHO utterly useless and Quark 7 is basically "as good as" Quark 4.5 in my book.
We do use quark7 but the problem is that Quark7+the extensions we need run far SLOWER on the quadcore macs than on 800mhz g4s/g5s etc.
Sad. Has nothing to do with the merits of OS9 versus OSX, it's just because the newer versions of the apps we need and use on a daily basis, well, suck.The writing is on the wall though, we're one or two hardware failures away from being Os9/classic free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28736511</id>
	<title>Here You Go:</title>
	<author>forgot\_my\_nick</author>
	<datestamp>1247834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go:<br><a href="http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/" title="seamonkey-project.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/</a> [seamonkey-project.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go : http : //www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ [ seamonkey-project.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go:http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/ [seamonkey-project.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644265</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone even use classic anymore?</title>
	<author>m1ss1ontomars2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1247143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd just use iCab. It probably has just as good compatibility as Gecko 1.3.1 and it's been stable for a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just use iCab .
It probably has just as good compatibility as Gecko 1.3.1 and it 's been stable for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just use iCab.
It probably has just as good compatibility as Gecko 1.3.1 and it's been stable for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648813</id>
	<title>If they're porting to old platforms</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1247236800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking forward to the port to DOS 5.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to the port to DOS 5.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to the port to DOS 5.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645551</id>
	<title>Not with that computer</title>
	<author>CyberSnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1247153580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those sites use Flash extensively and it runs like a dog on my daughter's hand-me-down iBook G4.  I don't think you'll be happy with the results on a G3.  Flash isn't written well or at least with the same optimizations as the Windows version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those sites use Flash extensively and it runs like a dog on my daughter 's hand-me-down iBook G4 .
I do n't think you 'll be happy with the results on a G3 .
Flash is n't written well or at least with the same optimizations as the Windows version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those sites use Flash extensively and it runs like a dog on my daughter's hand-me-down iBook G4.
I don't think you'll be happy with the results on a G3.
Flash isn't written well or at least with the same optimizations as the Windows version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648953</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>lancejjj</author>
	<datestamp>1247237400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, schools run all this 10+ year old hardware because no one bothers to give them better old hardware.</p><p>My school just got thirty used 2005-vintage iMacs from a local business that upgraded their machines to the latest and greatest. Businesses swap out old hardware frequently, and we have a local volunteer that prepares the old machines for new uses.</p><p>They clean up the old hardware, test it, and install stock software (OS X, FireFox, Office, etc).</p><p>It's a hell of a lot better to spend money on teaching instead of equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , schools run all this 10 + year old hardware because no one bothers to give them better old hardware.My school just got thirty used 2005-vintage iMacs from a local business that upgraded their machines to the latest and greatest .
Businesses swap out old hardware frequently , and we have a local volunteer that prepares the old machines for new uses.They clean up the old hardware , test it , and install stock software ( OS X , FireFox , Office , etc ) .It 's a hell of a lot better to spend money on teaching instead of equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, schools run all this 10+ year old hardware because no one bothers to give them better old hardware.My school just got thirty used 2005-vintage iMacs from a local business that upgraded their machines to the latest and greatest.
Businesses swap out old hardware frequently, and we have a local volunteer that prepares the old machines for new uses.They clean up the old hardware, test it, and install stock software (OS X, FireFox, Office, etc).It's a hell of a lot better to spend money on teaching instead of equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1247139120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, seriously, who cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , seriously , who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, seriously, who cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645531</id>
	<title>Re:First OS9 story in 7 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247153460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac OS Classic was always under-reported on this site in the "olden days" (i.e. when it was relevant to everybody else.) I have no idea why, since it was the most successful non-Microsoft operating system for, what, 15 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS Classic was always under-reported on this site in the " olden days " ( i.e .
when it was relevant to everybody else .
) I have no idea why , since it was the most successful non-Microsoft operating system for , what , 15 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS Classic was always under-reported on this site in the "olden days" (i.e.
when it was relevant to everybody else.
) I have no idea why, since it was the most successful non-Microsoft operating system for, what, 15 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653</id>
	<title>weird</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a port of the gecko rendering engine would be great, but I'm dubious about the performance of a XUL-based browser on such an old platform.</p><p>Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a port of the gecko rendering engine would be great , but I 'm dubious about the performance of a XUL-based browser on such an old platform.Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a port of the gecko rendering engine would be great, but I'm dubious about the performance of a XUL-based browser on such an old platform.Maybe someone could port gecko to my System 6-based Apple IIGS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871</id>
	<title>Look and Feel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason might be that the people who can still run Mac OS 9 like the look and feel better than Mac OS X.  I certainly do - the new "shiny" / hyper-animated look and feel is one of the primary reasons why I have little current interest in getting a Mac.  I feel the same way about Vista, but at least there I can turn it off.</p><p>User interfaces should not be "exciting" - they should be functional, and minimize eye strain and unnecessary distractions, especially for the people that have to use them eight or more hours a day.</p><p>Of course few things are quite as bad as trying to read an online article when an animated ad is flashing away in the next column...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason might be that the people who can still run Mac OS 9 like the look and feel better than Mac OS X. I certainly do - the new " shiny " / hyper-animated look and feel is one of the primary reasons why I have little current interest in getting a Mac .
I feel the same way about Vista , but at least there I can turn it off.User interfaces should not be " exciting " - they should be functional , and minimize eye strain and unnecessary distractions , especially for the people that have to use them eight or more hours a day.Of course few things are quite as bad as trying to read an online article when an animated ad is flashing away in the next column.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason might be that the people who can still run Mac OS 9 like the look and feel better than Mac OS X.  I certainly do - the new "shiny" / hyper-animated look and feel is one of the primary reasons why I have little current interest in getting a Mac.
I feel the same way about Vista, but at least there I can turn it off.User interfaces should not be "exciting" - they should be functional, and minimize eye strain and unnecessary distractions, especially for the people that have to use them eight or more hours a day.Of course few things are quite as bad as trying to read an online article when an animated ad is flashing away in the next column...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28651061</id>
	<title>Some Questions &amp; Comments About Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247245620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately. The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits. I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th. (For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.5/releasenotes/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Firefox 3.5</a> [mozilla.com].</p><p>At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar. I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test. Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11. What the fuck? I manually invoked <i>Check for Updates</i> and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.</p><p>Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">Mozilla</a> [mozilla.com]. The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version. I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.</p><p>In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript? The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it <i>look</i> like they were working on something else. When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.</p><p>Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate. This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory. But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it. Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.</p><p>The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing. It's a mess and has been since version 1.0. If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area. Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it? Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.</p><p>And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!</p><p>I also have to mention memory use. On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open. <i>400 MB?!</i> I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats. Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare. (For a contrast, there's <a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Safari</a> [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.)</p><p>Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open. I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future. No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds. Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.</p><p>With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox/" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] and then on the <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/community/developer-forums.html" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Mozilla Development Forums</a> [mozilla.org]. It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs. The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.</p><p>For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process. This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years. So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck. You can't even switch tabs to another page! And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release? Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.</p><p>Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too. Sometimes <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">Bugzilla</a> [mozilla.org] rep</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately .
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits .
I installed the latest " big deal " Firefox update on June 30th .
( For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates , but whatever .
) Upon restarting , which took several minutes , I began using Firefox 3.5 [ mozilla.com ] .At first , Firefox seemed strangely familiar .
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test .
Lo and behold , I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11 .
What the fuck ?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find , upon restarting , the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [ mozilla.com ] .
The install ran surprisingly quickly and , after a few minutes , I was launched with the new version .
I had to check , though , because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact , did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript ?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all , but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else .
When the most noticeable improvement is the " Know Your Rights " button ( which everyone ignores ) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well , after the three tries it took to upgrade , I found my profile would n't migrate .
This was a mess , but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long , arcane file path in a hidden directory .
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it .
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing .
It 's a mess and has been since version 1.0 .
If a browser is meant to render and organize content , Firefox surely falls down in this area .
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it ?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar , which takes up too much damn space and ca n't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI , it 's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already ! I also have to mention memory use .
On my system , Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open .
400 MB ? !
I blame this on the Firefox team 's use of C + + , where memory management is about as easy as herding cats .
Likewise Firefox is a slow , bloated nightmare .
( For a contrast , there 's Safari [ apple.com ] , which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient .
) Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open .
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then , and I 'll be sure to check in the future .
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I 've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds .
Clearly , Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware , I started to dig a little , first on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [ mozilla.org ] .
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs .
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant , abusive shitheads.For starters , they 're still running all tabs in the same process .
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years .
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering , everything 's stuck .
You ca n't even switch tabs to another page !
And Firefox 3.5 is a " milestone " release ?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too , and process-per-tab is n't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too .
Sometimes Bugzilla [ mozilla.org ] rep</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that Firefox is getting a lot worse lately.
The user experience is in serious need of improvement and development is the pits.
I installed the latest "big deal" Firefox update on June 30th.
(For some reason they skipped a full four secondary updates, but whatever.
) Upon restarting, which took several minutes, I began using Firefox 3.5 [mozilla.com].At first, Firefox seemed strangely familiar.
I thought they had changed very little unnecessarily until I visited the Acid3 test.
Lo and behold, I was still using Firefox 3.0.0.11.
What the fuck?
I manually invoked Check for Updates and repeated my first attempt only to find, upon restarting, the same thing.Finally in desperation I downloaded the installer manually from Mozilla [mozilla.com].
The install ran surprisingly quickly and, after a few minutes, I was launched with the new version.
I had to check, though, because again I thought it looked like very little had changed.In fact, did Mozilla bother changing anything beside the JavaScript?
The new TraceMonkey is great and all, but they could have at least made it look like they were working on something else.
When the most noticeable improvement is the "Know Your Rights" button (which everyone ignores) one really starts to wonder what the fuss was all about.Well, after the three tries it took to upgrade, I found my profile wouldn't migrate.
This was a mess, but I was able to eventually retrieve my bookmarks from a long, arcane file path in a hidden directory.
But then upon visiting my bookmarked sites I found that almost none of my add-ons are compatible with it.
Therefore my browser is almost entirely functionless.The bookmark tool itself could use a polishing.
It's a mess and has been since version 1.0.
If a browser is meant to render and organize content, Firefox surely falls down in this area.
Why does it take me several minutes to slosh through the GUI just to make a new folder and alphabetize some bookmarks in it?
Not to mention the damned Bookmarks toolbar, which takes up too much damn space and can't be turned off.And speaking of the GUI, it's slow as Hell slowget rid of the proprietary XUL and just hardcode the damned interface already!I also have to mention memory use.
On my system, Firefox was swallowing an incredible 400 MB with only a simple HTML 4 table open.
400 MB?!
I blame this on the Firefox team's use of C++, where memory management is about as easy as herding cats.
Likewise Firefox is a slow, bloated nightmare.
(For a contrast, there's Safari [apple.com], which is written in Objective C and is very small and efficient.
)Most of the time I have heavy JavaScript sites open.
I shudder to think how much Firefox eats then, and I'll be sure to check in the future.
No wonder my system tends to slow down when I've left Firefox open for days on end with dynamically updating pages and RSS feeds.
Clearly, Firefox leaks memory like a cracked sieve in a waterfall.With Firefox smelling more and more like crapware, I started to dig a little, first on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and then on the Mozilla Development Forums [mozilla.org].
It turns out that my observations are part of a larger pattern of Firefox quality issues and development customs.
The Mozilla developers are a bunch of arrogant, abusive shitheads.For starters, they're still running all tabs in the same process.
This is something IE7 and Safari 3 have had right for years.
So if a plugin crashes or a page takes forever to finish rendering, everything's stuck.
You can't even switch tabs to another page!
And Firefox 3.5 is a "milestone" release?
Firefox 3.6 and 4 are milestones too, and process-per-tab isn't scheduled for either.Developer interaction with Firefox users is stilted too.
Sometimes Bugzilla [mozilla.org] rep</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645749</id>
	<title>Great - when is the Atari 1040ste port?</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1247157240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, but never mind - the processor is slower than the connection - the computer itself would be the bottleneck...
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but never mind - the processor is slower than the connection - the computer itself would be the bottleneck.. . : -/ RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but never mind - the processor is slower than the connection - the computer itself would be the bottleneck...
 :-/

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648723</id>
	<title>Re:The Answer Lies In Your Web Server Log Files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you'll find that a significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4. At least that's what I find for my sites - and it's been that way for a long time.</p></div><p>What?  You believe user agent strings?  It's pretty easy to conclude that over 1\% of all accesses use a falsified user agent.</p><p>I believe them only for authenticated users, minimizing robots and zombies.  And my corporation's web authentication process involves the exchange of money.  And I -still- see falsified users agents every second of the day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 'll find that a significant number of your web sites ' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4 .
At least that 's what I find for my sites - and it 's been that way for a long time.What ?
You believe user agent strings ?
It 's pretty easy to conclude that over 1 \ % of all accesses use a falsified user agent.I believe them only for authenticated users , minimizing robots and zombies .
And my corporation 's web authentication process involves the exchange of money .
And I -still- see falsified users agents every second of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you'll find that a significant number of your web sites' visitors are still running Explorer or Netscape versions 3 or 4.
At least that's what I find for my sites - and it's been that way for a long time.What?
You believe user agent strings?
It's pretty easy to conclude that over 1\% of all accesses use a falsified user agent.I believe them only for authenticated users, minimizing robots and zombies.
And my corporation's web authentication process involves the exchange of money.
And I -still- see falsified users agents every second of the day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643643</id>
	<title>Neat, but...</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1247139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neat, but it would have been even cooler to see WebKit ported to MacOS 9.  I'm not keen on the idea of Mozilla's performance on the classic MacOS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neat , but it would have been even cooler to see WebKit ported to MacOS 9 .
I 'm not keen on the idea of Mozilla 's performance on the classic MacOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neat, but it would have been even cooler to see WebKit ported to MacOS 9.
I'm not keen on the idea of Mozilla's performance on the classic MacOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645293</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1247151180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least until I get assigned to those schools.<p>

Then, 3rd world countries usually get them. So they would care about Classilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least until I get assigned to those schools .
Then , 3rd world countries usually get them .
So they would care about Classilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least until I get assigned to those schools.
Then, 3rd world countries usually get them.
So they would care about Classilla.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28653799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28736511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28656459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_220216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28649639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28736511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28656459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28646151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28650159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28643985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28647855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28653799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28648723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_220216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28644571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_220216.28645331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
