<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1425238</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista's In Just 8 Hours</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247756640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Barence</a> writes <i>"In order to ensure Windows 7 got off to a better start than Vista in the UK, Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies which were sold on a 'first come, first served basis while stocks last.' The promotion ensured Windows 7 shot to the top of Amazon's charts when it was released yesterday, with the online retailer claiming that 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.' The price of pre-ordering Windows 7 has now shot up to &pound;80, after the <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/262270/windows-7-jumps-up-to-80.html">&pound;50 copies sold out within a day</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " In order to ensure Windows 7 got off to a better start than Vista in the UK , Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies which were sold on a 'first come , first served basis while stocks last .
' The promotion ensured Windows 7 shot to the top of Amazon 's charts when it was released yesterday , with the online retailer claiming that 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista 's entire 17-week pre-order period .
' The price of pre-ordering Windows 7 has now shot up to   80 , after the   50 copies sold out within a day .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "In order to ensure Windows 7 got off to a better start than Vista in the UK, Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies which were sold on a 'first come, first served basis while stocks last.
' The promotion ensured Windows 7 shot to the top of Amazon's charts when it was released yesterday, with the online retailer claiming that 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.
' The price of pre-ordering Windows 7 has now shot up to £80, after the £50 copies sold out within a day.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724211</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. Normally I don't read this kind of schmuck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but yours is funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Normally I do n't read this kind of schmuck ... but yours is funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Normally I don't read this kind of schmuck ... but yours is funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349</id>
	<title>Amazing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.'</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills. I have karma points to burn, bitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista 's entire 17-week pre-order period .
'       The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand , and tries to spin it to Microsoft 's advantage .
      Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot 's resident Microsoft shills .
I have karma points to burn , bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.
'
      The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.
      Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills.
I have karma points to burn, bitches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719747</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>ArtemaOne</author>
	<datestamp>1247769960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BTW, DVDs are 5 1/4 inches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , DVDs are 5 1/4 inches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, DVDs are 5 1/4 inches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717085</id>
	<title>You better lose the Jews quickly, white man!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28727449</id>
	<title>Re:I'm never first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247829180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has no problem with dual booting systems, as long as they're both Windows systems, just make sure to install the newer windows release after the old one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has no problem with dual booting systems , as long as they 're both Windows systems , just make sure to install the newer windows release after the old one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has no problem with dual booting systems, as long as they're both Windows systems, just make sure to install the newer windows release after the old one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723115</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?" What planet do you live on?</p></div><p>Do you think OEMs pay $200 for the OEM versions of Windows they preinstall on their $400 computers? Have you not heard that Vista PCs sold today will get free upgrades to Windows 7?
</p><p>
How long did it take you to create your anti-M$ worldview?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 200 OS for a $ 400 computer is " not too expensive ?
" What planet do you live on ? Do you think OEMs pay $ 200 for the OEM versions of Windows they preinstall on their $ 400 computers ?
Have you not heard that Vista PCs sold today will get free upgrades to Windows 7 ?
How long did it take you to create your anti-M $ worldview ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?
" What planet do you live on?Do you think OEMs pay $200 for the OEM versions of Windows they preinstall on their $400 computers?
Have you not heard that Vista PCs sold today will get free upgrades to Windows 7?
How long did it take you to create your anti-M$ worldview?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717419</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you post the words mod troll it will be modded troll.  So don't say it will be modded X.</p><p>The more you know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you post the words mod troll it will be modded troll .
So do n't say it will be modded X.The more you know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you post the words mod troll it will be modded troll.
So don't say it will be modded X.The more you know!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720293</id>
	<title>Re:Are you crazy?</title>
	<author>Yunzil</author>
	<datestamp>1247772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was dirty trick for Microsoft to put back the security?</p><p><i>Please, what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular, incredibly stable, and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.</i></p><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was dirty trick for Microsoft to put back the security ? Please , what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular , incredibly stable , and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was dirty trick for Microsoft to put back the security?Please, what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular, incredibly stable, and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.
[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722611</id>
	<title>Re:It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1247738100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gnome on my <a href="http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2738" title="notebookreview.com">Inspiron 1300</a> [notebookreview.com] (512mb ram variant) isn't satisfying either. Neither is KDE(4). And I'm talking about their apps, too - and you can't avoid GTK and Qt apps and stay sane and productive on a FLOSS OS. </p><p>Most surprising is a certain "Fruit OS" sub-version 5.2, which is quite fast considering it was never meant to be ran on this hardware. </p><p>XP is ok (but this 2+yr old installation is yelling for attention in form of an MSDNAA-provided install disk).</p><p>I'm not using GNU/Linux for performance, definitely, but because of liberties it provides me. Not only philosophical or licensing. It's more about environmental and development liberties; I can do stuff I can't do elsewhere. And Vim works "as it should(tm)" only on GNU/Linux.</p><p>Vista is a horrible memory hog and I never installed it on aforementioned junk; still, when I hear that people advocate Linux because of less memory usage... I just go crazy. Come on! Gnome and KDE (esp. KDE4) eat more memory to me than Windows shell, and Iceweasel... well, either bigger or equal amount of RAM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gnome on my Inspiron 1300 [ notebookreview.com ] ( 512mb ram variant ) is n't satisfying either .
Neither is KDE ( 4 ) .
And I 'm talking about their apps , too - and you ca n't avoid GTK and Qt apps and stay sane and productive on a FLOSS OS .
Most surprising is a certain " Fruit OS " sub-version 5.2 , which is quite fast considering it was never meant to be ran on this hardware .
XP is ok ( but this 2 + yr old installation is yelling for attention in form of an MSDNAA-provided install disk ) .I 'm not using GNU/Linux for performance , definitely , but because of liberties it provides me .
Not only philosophical or licensing .
It 's more about environmental and development liberties ; I can do stuff I ca n't do elsewhere .
And Vim works " as it should ( tm ) " only on GNU/Linux.Vista is a horrible memory hog and I never installed it on aforementioned junk ; still , when I hear that people advocate Linux because of less memory usage... I just go crazy .
Come on !
Gnome and KDE ( esp .
KDE4 ) eat more memory to me than Windows shell , and Iceweasel... well , either bigger or equal amount of RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gnome on my Inspiron 1300 [notebookreview.com] (512mb ram variant) isn't satisfying either.
Neither is KDE(4).
And I'm talking about their apps, too - and you can't avoid GTK and Qt apps and stay sane and productive on a FLOSS OS.
Most surprising is a certain "Fruit OS" sub-version 5.2, which is quite fast considering it was never meant to be ran on this hardware.
XP is ok (but this 2+yr old installation is yelling for attention in form of an MSDNAA-provided install disk).I'm not using GNU/Linux for performance, definitely, but because of liberties it provides me.
Not only philosophical or licensing.
It's more about environmental and development liberties; I can do stuff I can't do elsewhere.
And Vim works "as it should(tm)" only on GNU/Linux.Vista is a horrible memory hog and I never installed it on aforementioned junk; still, when I hear that people advocate Linux because of less memory usage... I just go crazy.
Come on!
Gnome and KDE (esp.
KDE4) eat more memory to me than Windows shell, and Iceweasel... well, either bigger or equal amount of RAM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719091</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing!</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247767740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you mean a marketing company that just happens to sell software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you mean a marketing company that just happens to sell software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you mean a marketing company that just happens to sell software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717133</id>
	<title>Snake Light!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're the snake lights!  From Black and Decker!  Ohhhh, we get around and round and round and round and round!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're the snake lights !
From Black and Decker !
Ohhhh , we get around and round and round and round and round ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're the snake lights!
From Black and Decker!
Ohhhh, we get around and round and round and round and round!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721683</id>
	<title>Re:It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea- I totally agree. GNU/Linux rocks. What sucks is that many companies screw their  customers by implementing DRM, using proprietary formats, etc and end up experiencing problems on GNU/Linux sooner than on other "supported" platforms. It ends up that customers are hurt more by using these platforms and companies-but don't experience the pain right away. They experience more pain over longer periods. In GNU/Linux you tend to experience the pain right away if there is going to be pain. New users often reject it right away as a result. For instance: you buy an iPod that is restricted to Microsoft Windows and Apple systems. User plugs it in- installs some software- buys some music- computer dies 6 months later- and $5,000 music collection is toast. On GNU/Linux user plugs in their iPod it just doesn't work. Now in the later case the user suffers less- as they can just go buy something that works-but in the prior case the customer is just screwed out of allot of money.</p><p>Ohh and this was just an example. I don't know if the situation would actually go down like that-but you can't deny that these things happen frequently in the digital restrictions world. When Microsoft discontinued their music service I know something similar did go down like that. Similar things have happened with Apple discontinuing support for iTunes on older versions of its computer systems too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea- I totally agree .
GNU/Linux rocks .
What sucks is that many companies screw their customers by implementing DRM , using proprietary formats , etc and end up experiencing problems on GNU/Linux sooner than on other " supported " platforms .
It ends up that customers are hurt more by using these platforms and companies-but do n't experience the pain right away .
They experience more pain over longer periods .
In GNU/Linux you tend to experience the pain right away if there is going to be pain .
New users often reject it right away as a result .
For instance : you buy an iPod that is restricted to Microsoft Windows and Apple systems .
User plugs it in- installs some software- buys some music- computer dies 6 months later- and $ 5,000 music collection is toast .
On GNU/Linux user plugs in their iPod it just does n't work .
Now in the later case the user suffers less- as they can just go buy something that works-but in the prior case the customer is just screwed out of allot of money.Ohh and this was just an example .
I do n't know if the situation would actually go down like that-but you ca n't deny that these things happen frequently in the digital restrictions world .
When Microsoft discontinued their music service I know something similar did go down like that .
Similar things have happened with Apple discontinuing support for iTunes on older versions of its computer systems too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea- I totally agree.
GNU/Linux rocks.
What sucks is that many companies screw their  customers by implementing DRM, using proprietary formats, etc and end up experiencing problems on GNU/Linux sooner than on other "supported" platforms.
It ends up that customers are hurt more by using these platforms and companies-but don't experience the pain right away.
They experience more pain over longer periods.
In GNU/Linux you tend to experience the pain right away if there is going to be pain.
New users often reject it right away as a result.
For instance: you buy an iPod that is restricted to Microsoft Windows and Apple systems.
User plugs it in- installs some software- buys some music- computer dies 6 months later- and $5,000 music collection is toast.
On GNU/Linux user plugs in their iPod it just doesn't work.
Now in the later case the user suffers less- as they can just go buy something that works-but in the prior case the customer is just screwed out of allot of money.Ohh and this was just an example.
I don't know if the situation would actually go down like that-but you can't deny that these things happen frequently in the digital restrictions world.
When Microsoft discontinued their music service I know something similar did go down like that.
Similar things have happened with Apple discontinuing support for iTunes on older versions of its computer systems too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1247762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced.  Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.</p><p>XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced .
Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.XP is Windows 7 competition , not Linux or OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced.
Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718671</id>
	<title>Re:Price Gouging</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247766060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is overpriced.  Vista was a horrible dead horse.  Essentially a dead horse with lipstick.  I have 3 machines with Vista on it.  I have 10 machines with Linux and about 8 with XP.  The linux boxes run more stably and are more customizable.  I can change the look with little effort.  Software is easy to install.</p><p>Vista is horrible.  I spend my days as a small business owner supporting Windows based products.  I make my income off it.  I spend a good deal of that time (about 90\% of it) cleaning computers of malware and bringing them back to a state where they can run acceptably.  Though I don't get many infected Vista boxes I do get them. The reason is that I get so few Vista boxes.  People in my community learned early on not to trust Microsoft and Vista.  Most are just happy as a lark to stay with XP.</p><p>To this day I have nothing but problems with all my machines running Vista.  I'm attuned to analyzing and fixing problems so I see them in Vista more readily than some Joe that may use it for only a couple purposes.  I know this because I work on them regularly.  I have to in order to learn it and stay up to date.  Just as I will with Windows 7.</p><p>But as far as I'm concerned Vista 7 should have been offered for free.  No one should be rushing out to pay Microsoft yet again to fix the crap they created in Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is overpriced .
Vista was a horrible dead horse .
Essentially a dead horse with lipstick .
I have 3 machines with Vista on it .
I have 10 machines with Linux and about 8 with XP .
The linux boxes run more stably and are more customizable .
I can change the look with little effort .
Software is easy to install.Vista is horrible .
I spend my days as a small business owner supporting Windows based products .
I make my income off it .
I spend a good deal of that time ( about 90 \ % of it ) cleaning computers of malware and bringing them back to a state where they can run acceptably .
Though I do n't get many infected Vista boxes I do get them .
The reason is that I get so few Vista boxes .
People in my community learned early on not to trust Microsoft and Vista .
Most are just happy as a lark to stay with XP.To this day I have nothing but problems with all my machines running Vista .
I 'm attuned to analyzing and fixing problems so I see them in Vista more readily than some Joe that may use it for only a couple purposes .
I know this because I work on them regularly .
I have to in order to learn it and stay up to date .
Just as I will with Windows 7.But as far as I 'm concerned Vista 7 should have been offered for free .
No one should be rushing out to pay Microsoft yet again to fix the crap they created in Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is overpriced.
Vista was a horrible dead horse.
Essentially a dead horse with lipstick.
I have 3 machines with Vista on it.
I have 10 machines with Linux and about 8 with XP.
The linux boxes run more stably and are more customizable.
I can change the look with little effort.
Software is easy to install.Vista is horrible.
I spend my days as a small business owner supporting Windows based products.
I make my income off it.
I spend a good deal of that time (about 90\% of it) cleaning computers of malware and bringing them back to a state where they can run acceptably.
Though I don't get many infected Vista boxes I do get them.
The reason is that I get so few Vista boxes.
People in my community learned early on not to trust Microsoft and Vista.
Most are just happy as a lark to stay with XP.To this day I have nothing but problems with all my machines running Vista.
I'm attuned to analyzing and fixing problems so I see them in Vista more readily than some Joe that may use it for only a couple purposes.
I know this because I work on them regularly.
I have to in order to learn it and stay up to date.
Just as I will with Windows 7.But as far as I'm concerned Vista 7 should have been offered for free.
No one should be rushing out to pay Microsoft yet again to fix the crap they created in Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718775</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow, this hardly seems like news.  Windows 7 is a much better planned and engineered system than Vista ever was.  Vista was shoved down our throats, while 7 takes into consideration what people need and want.  I run 7 on machines that Vista just barfed at, meaning I don't need to spend 600 bucks on hardware to please Microsoft.</p><p>Yes, of course Win7 outsells Vista immediately.  The humorous news will be coming out in the months ahead, when organizations that adopted Vista, like the US Army, find that they are unable to do things that Win7 users can do.  Right now, I have almost no idea what those things might be - but most likely it will be driver related.  No one is going to develop for Vista!!</p><p>Just wait for it.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , this hardly seems like news .
Windows 7 is a much better planned and engineered system than Vista ever was .
Vista was shoved down our throats , while 7 takes into consideration what people need and want .
I run 7 on machines that Vista just barfed at , meaning I do n't need to spend 600 bucks on hardware to please Microsoft.Yes , of course Win7 outsells Vista immediately .
The humorous news will be coming out in the months ahead , when organizations that adopted Vista , like the US Army , find that they are unable to do things that Win7 users can do .
Right now , I have almost no idea what those things might be - but most likely it will be driver related .
No one is going to develop for Vista !
! Just wait for it...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, this hardly seems like news.
Windows 7 is a much better planned and engineered system than Vista ever was.
Vista was shoved down our throats, while 7 takes into consideration what people need and want.
I run 7 on machines that Vista just barfed at, meaning I don't need to spend 600 bucks on hardware to please Microsoft.Yes, of course Win7 outsells Vista immediately.
The humorous news will be coming out in the months ahead, when organizations that adopted Vista, like the US Army, find that they are unable to do things that Win7 users can do.
Right now, I have almost no idea what those things might be - but most likely it will be driver related.
No one is going to develop for Vista!
!Just wait for it.......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718557</id>
	<title>Re:It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From what I have heard, it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I use Vista right now, and it's fairly stable, but it's a little slow, even after I had to turn all the retarded parts off.  <br> <br>What I find strange is that the people that use MS software out of choice continually put up with and reward a company that regularly bends them over a barrel and gives them downright awful or just mostly awful software with every other release.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I have heard , it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed .
I use Vista right now , and it 's fairly stable , but it 's a little slow , even after I had to turn all the retarded parts off .
What I find strange is that the people that use MS software out of choice continually put up with and reward a company that regularly bends them over a barrel and gives them downright awful or just mostly awful software with every other release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I have heard, it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.
I use Vista right now, and it's fairly stable, but it's a little slow, even after I had to turn all the retarded parts off.
What I find strange is that the people that use MS software out of choice continually put up with and reward a company that regularly bends them over a barrel and gives them downright awful or just mostly awful software with every other release.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717815</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>The\_Duck271</author>
	<datestamp>1247763240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what I thought; how do you "run out" of copies a sequence of bytes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I thought ; how do you " run out " of copies a sequence of bytes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I thought; how do you "run out" of copies a sequence of bytes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</id>
	<title>while stocks last?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a shortage of electrons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a shortage of electrons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a shortage of electrons?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717829</id>
	<title>Re:Just 7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. The Vista preorders were from Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curley Howard, and Alfred E. Neuman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
The Vista preorders were from Bill Gates , Steve Ballmer , Moe Howard , Larry Fine , Curley Howard , and Alfred E. Neuman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
The Vista preorders were from Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curley Howard, and Alfred E. Neuman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717473</id>
	<title>It wasn't because of the price...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also comes with 18\% fewer bugs and vulnerabilities if you order a promotional copy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also comes with 18 \ % fewer bugs and vulnerabilities if you order a promotional copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also comes with 18\% fewer bugs and vulnerabilities if you order a promotional copy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720571</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We've run out of electrons!"</p><p>"Are you sure?"</p><p>"Yes, I'm positive!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 've run out of electrons !
" " Are you sure ?
" " Yes , I 'm positive !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We've run out of electrons!
""Are you sure?
""Yes, I'm positive!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717351</id>
	<title>ta30</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>here, please do Raymon3 in his with the work, or</htmltext>
<tokenext>here , please do Raymon3 in his with the work , or</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here, please do Raymon3 in his with the work, or</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722633</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>ivucica</author>
	<datestamp>1247738220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>Ubuntu-9.04 $</tt><br>Fixed that for ya. Never run as root.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu-9.04 $ Fixed that for ya .
Never run as root .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu-9.04 $Fixed that for ya.
Never run as root.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141</id>
	<title>Preordering Windows?</title>
	<author>Nerogk</author>
	<datestamp>1247760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the collector's edition come with a deluxe CD of Windows sound effects?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the collector 's edition come with a deluxe CD of Windows sound effects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the collector's edition come with a deluxe CD of Windows sound effects?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28744659</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing something bad to something worse, does not make it good somehow. ^^</p><p>Oh, and my OS did cost me $0. And I got a free crash course in how the OS works internally.<br>I can even give you a copy: <a href="http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml" title="gentoo.org">http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml</a> [gentoo.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing something bad to something worse , does not make it good somehow .
^ ^ Oh , and my OS did cost me $ 0 .
And I got a free crash course in how the OS works internally.I can even give you a copy : http : //www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml [ gentoo.org ] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing something bad to something worse, does not make it good somehow.
^^Oh, and my OS did cost me $0.
And I got a free crash course in how the OS works internally.I can even give you a copy: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml [gentoo.org] ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722545</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1247737740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Factor in inflation. Maybe that $200 today will be enough to buy a cheeseburger and a gallon of gasoline 10 years from now.</p><p>On to more serious things, it depends on what you do with the operating system. Is it primarily for web surfing, watching some video, checking e-mail, and things of the like? The only thing threatened is the streaming video, which may require hardware upgrades, and consequently, an OS update eventually.</p><p>And who says someone can't have two computers? One with XP, for the simple things which won't need any true update in the foreseeable future. And one with the latest OS, for tasks that require more power, so-to-speak.</p><p>The amazing part is that XP is still being sold with new computers, the OEM version. Of course, it's tied to the machine, but not much can be done about that unless you have a spare retail copy sitting around.</p><p>A few thoughts about Windows 7...<br>How will it fare on legacy machines?<br>How will it fare on today's moderate machines, especially when it comes to heavy use, such as gaming and streaming video?<br>And, will it solve the security issues that plagued XP, and if not, is it any better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Factor in inflation .
Maybe that $ 200 today will be enough to buy a cheeseburger and a gallon of gasoline 10 years from now.On to more serious things , it depends on what you do with the operating system .
Is it primarily for web surfing , watching some video , checking e-mail , and things of the like ?
The only thing threatened is the streaming video , which may require hardware upgrades , and consequently , an OS update eventually.And who says someone ca n't have two computers ?
One with XP , for the simple things which wo n't need any true update in the foreseeable future .
And one with the latest OS , for tasks that require more power , so-to-speak.The amazing part is that XP is still being sold with new computers , the OEM version .
Of course , it 's tied to the machine , but not much can be done about that unless you have a spare retail copy sitting around.A few thoughts about Windows 7...How will it fare on legacy machines ? How will it fare on today 's moderate machines , especially when it comes to heavy use , such as gaming and streaming video ? And , will it solve the security issues that plagued XP , and if not , is it any better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Factor in inflation.
Maybe that $200 today will be enough to buy a cheeseburger and a gallon of gasoline 10 years from now.On to more serious things, it depends on what you do with the operating system.
Is it primarily for web surfing, watching some video, checking e-mail, and things of the like?
The only thing threatened is the streaming video, which may require hardware upgrades, and consequently, an OS update eventually.And who says someone can't have two computers?
One with XP, for the simple things which won't need any true update in the foreseeable future.
And one with the latest OS, for tasks that require more power, so-to-speak.The amazing part is that XP is still being sold with new computers, the OEM version.
Of course, it's tied to the machine, but not much can be done about that unless you have a spare retail copy sitting around.A few thoughts about Windows 7...How will it fare on legacy machines?How will it fare on today's moderate machines, especially when it comes to heavy use, such as gaming and streaming video?And, will it solve the security issues that plagued XP, and if not, is it any better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725197</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>mprindle</author>
	<datestamp>1247753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you.  I preordered the $100 Pro upgrade, but I'm not even going to think about installing it until Win7 SP1 comes out.  By then most of the drivers for my hardware will be available and the initial annoying bugs will then be squished or others will have already figured out how to squash them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
I preordered the $ 100 Pro upgrade , but I 'm not even going to think about installing it until Win7 SP1 comes out .
By then most of the drivers for my hardware will be available and the initial annoying bugs will then be squished or others will have already figured out how to squash them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
I preordered the $100 Pro upgrade, but I'm not even going to think about installing it until Win7 SP1 comes out.
By then most of the drivers for my hardware will be available and the initial annoying bugs will then be squished or others will have already figured out how to squash them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</id>
	<title>Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Installing Windows 7

<p>Microsoft:


</p><p>YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO UPGRADE WINDOWS VISTA, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?


</p><p>Yes.


</p><p>ARE YOU REALLY SURE?


</p><p>Yes.


</p><p>ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE?


</p><p>*****yes!******


</p><p>OK, THEN. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ASK YOU THAT NOW. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING A PICKY CONSUMER AND SUPPORTING THAT WHOLE "ANTI-TRUST" NONSENSE. INGRATE.


</p><p>Just get on with it.


</p><p>ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 7. FIRST WE NEED TO CHECK YOUR SYSTEM FOR COMPATIBILITY. THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.


</p><p>Groan.


</p><p>THE INSTALL PROGRAM HAS DETECTED SEVERAL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND WILL NOT LET YOU INSTALL 7.


</p><p>Problems? What problems?


</p><p>THE VIDEO CARD YOU ARE USING APPARENTLY DOES NOT WORK WITH THE MOTHERBOARD.


</p><p>But I'm using it at this very moment.


</p><p>THAT IS IRRELEVANT.


</p><p>But if the video card isn't working with the mother board then I can't very well see this warning message telling me that the video card wasn't...


</p><p>DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOOL ME WITH LOGIC, I AM A MICROSOFT PRODUCT. LOGIC DOES NOT WORK ON ME. I HAVE ALSO FOUND THE FOLLOWING MINOR ERRORS: WINDOWS 7 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDWARE - MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MEMORY CHIPS, MOTHERBOARD BIOS, WEB CAM, SCANNER, SOUND CARD, USB CONTROLLER, CD/R DRIVE, MICROPHONE, AND FLIGHT STICK.


</p><p>All that?


</p><p>YES. AND THE HARD DRIVE IS RIGHT OUT TOO. WE DON'T LIKE THE MANUFACTURER.


</p><p>Well what *DOES* work?


</p><p>THE MOUSE.


</p><p>The mouse?


</p><p>YES. AND THE 5 1/4 DRIVE.


</p><p>I don't have a 5 1/4 drive.


</p><p>YES YOU DO.


</p><p>No I don't.


</p><p>WHAT'S THAT THEN?


</p><p>It's a DVD R/W drive.


</p><p>NO IT ISN'T.


</p><p>Yes it is.


</p><p>YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART YOU KNOW.


</p><p>Look, can you just upgrade Vista on my system and I'll download the latest drivers for everything later? Please?


</p><p>WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN *YOUR* SYSTEM?


</p><p>Well it is mine.


</p><p>NO IT ISN'T.


</p><p>It bloody well is.


</p><p>NUH-UH. YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WHEN YOU OPENED THE BOX. OUR SYSTEM. IT'S OURS. AND YOU CAN ONLY DO 4 CHANGES BEFORE YOU HAVE TO PAY US MORE MONEY.


</p><p>But why?


</p><p>BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE LICENSE WORKS, IDJIT. WE CAN'T VERY WELL HAVE PEOPLE PUTTING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEMS ALL HIGGLEDY PIGGLEDY, NOW COULD WE? YOU USERS WOULD MUCK EVERYTHING UP, AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE, NOWHERE. THAT'S WHERE. I... HEY, WHAT IS THAT? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? IS THAT A DISK? WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT DISK? YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVE ARE YOU? YOU ARE! WHAT'S ON THAT DISK? IS THAT LINUX? YOU'RE INSTALLING LINUX?? WHY WOULD YOU INSTALL LINUX WHEN I AM INFINITELY MORE POWE..........


</p><p>Ubuntu-9.04 #</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installing Windows 7 Microsoft : YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO UPGRADE WINDOWS VISTA , ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE ?
Yes . ARE YOU REALLY SURE ?
Yes . ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE ?
* * * * * yes ! * * * * * * OK , THEN .
JUST SO YOU KNOW , WE 'RE REQUIRED TO ASK YOU THAT NOW .
IT 'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING A PICKY CONSUMER AND SUPPORTING THAT WHOLE " ANTI-TRUST " NONSENSE .
INGRATE . Just get on with it .
ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 7 .
FIRST WE NEED TO CHECK YOUR SYSTEM FOR COMPATIBILITY .
THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS .
Groan . THE INSTALL PROGRAM HAS DETECTED SEVERAL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND WILL NOT LET YOU INSTALL 7 .
Problems ? What problems ?
THE VIDEO CARD YOU ARE USING APPARENTLY DOES NOT WORK WITH THE MOTHERBOARD .
But I 'm using it at this very moment .
THAT IS IRRELEVANT .
But if the video card is n't working with the mother board then I ca n't very well see this warning message telling me that the video card was n't.. . DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOOL ME WITH LOGIC , I AM A MICROSOFT PRODUCT .
LOGIC DOES NOT WORK ON ME .
I HAVE ALSO FOUND THE FOLLOWING MINOR ERRORS : WINDOWS 7 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDWARE - MONITOR , KEYBOARD , MEMORY CHIPS , MOTHERBOARD BIOS , WEB CAM , SCANNER , SOUND CARD , USB CONTROLLER , CD/R DRIVE , MICROPHONE , AND FLIGHT STICK .
All that ?
YES. AND THE HARD DRIVE IS RIGHT OUT TOO .
WE DO N'T LIKE THE MANUFACTURER .
Well what * DOES * work ?
THE MOUSE .
The mouse ?
YES. AND THE 5 1/4 DRIVE .
I do n't have a 5 1/4 drive .
YES YOU DO .
No I do n't .
WHAT 'S THAT THEN ?
It 's a DVD R/W drive .
NO IT IS N'T .
Yes it is .
YOU 'RE NOT THAT SMART YOU KNOW .
Look , can you just upgrade Vista on my system and I 'll download the latest drivers for everything later ?
Please ? WAIT , WHAT DO YOU MEAN * YOUR * SYSTEM ?
Well it is mine .
NO IT IS N'T .
It bloody well is .
NUH-UH. YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WHEN YOU OPENED THE BOX .
OUR SYSTEM .
IT 'S OURS .
AND YOU CAN ONLY DO 4 CHANGES BEFORE YOU HAVE TO PAY US MORE MONEY .
But why ?
BECAUSE THAT 'S HOW THE LICENSE WORKS , IDJIT .
WE CA N'T VERY WELL HAVE PEOPLE PUTTING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEMS ALL HIGGLEDY PIGGLEDY , NOW COULD WE ?
YOU USERS WOULD MUCK EVERYTHING UP , AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE ?
I 'LL TELL YOU WHERE , NOWHERE .
THAT 'S WHERE .
I... HEY , WHAT IS THAT ?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ?
IS THAT A DISK ?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT DISK ?
YOU 'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVE ARE YOU ?
YOU ARE !
WHAT 'S ON THAT DISK ?
IS THAT LINUX ?
YOU 'RE INSTALLING LINUX ? ?
WHY WOULD YOU INSTALL LINUX WHEN I AM INFINITELY MORE POWE......... . Ubuntu-9.04 #</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installing Windows 7

Microsoft:


YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO UPGRADE WINDOWS VISTA, ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?
Yes.


ARE YOU REALLY SURE?
Yes.


ARE YOU REALLY REALLY SURE?
*****yes!******


OK, THEN.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ASK YOU THAT NOW.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR BEING A PICKY CONSUMER AND SUPPORTING THAT WHOLE "ANTI-TRUST" NONSENSE.
INGRATE.


Just get on with it.
ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL WINDOWS 7.
FIRST WE NEED TO CHECK YOUR SYSTEM FOR COMPATIBILITY.
THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.
Groan.


THE INSTALL PROGRAM HAS DETECTED SEVERAL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS AND WILL NOT LET YOU INSTALL 7.
Problems? What problems?
THE VIDEO CARD YOU ARE USING APPARENTLY DOES NOT WORK WITH THE MOTHERBOARD.
But I'm using it at this very moment.
THAT IS IRRELEVANT.
But if the video card isn't working with the mother board then I can't very well see this warning message telling me that the video card wasn't...


DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FOOL ME WITH LOGIC, I AM A MICROSOFT PRODUCT.
LOGIC DOES NOT WORK ON ME.
I HAVE ALSO FOUND THE FOLLOWING MINOR ERRORS: WINDOWS 7 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDWARE - MONITOR, KEYBOARD, MEMORY CHIPS, MOTHERBOARD BIOS, WEB CAM, SCANNER, SOUND CARD, USB CONTROLLER, CD/R DRIVE, MICROPHONE, AND FLIGHT STICK.
All that?
YES. AND THE HARD DRIVE IS RIGHT OUT TOO.
WE DON'T LIKE THE MANUFACTURER.
Well what *DOES* work?
THE MOUSE.
The mouse?
YES. AND THE 5 1/4 DRIVE.
I don't have a 5 1/4 drive.
YES YOU DO.
No I don't.
WHAT'S THAT THEN?
It's a DVD R/W drive.
NO IT ISN'T.
Yes it is.
YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART YOU KNOW.
Look, can you just upgrade Vista on my system and I'll download the latest drivers for everything later?
Please?


WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN *YOUR* SYSTEM?
Well it is mine.
NO IT ISN'T.
It bloody well is.
NUH-UH. YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WHEN YOU OPENED THE BOX.
OUR SYSTEM.
IT'S OURS.
AND YOU CAN ONLY DO 4 CHANGES BEFORE YOU HAVE TO PAY US MORE MONEY.
But why?
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE LICENSE WORKS, IDJIT.
WE CAN'T VERY WELL HAVE PEOPLE PUTTING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ON THEIR SYSTEMS ALL HIGGLEDY PIGGLEDY, NOW COULD WE?
YOU USERS WOULD MUCK EVERYTHING UP, AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?
I'LL TELL YOU WHERE, NOWHERE.
THAT'S WHERE.
I... HEY, WHAT IS THAT?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
IS THAT A DISK?
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT DISK?
YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THE DRIVE ARE YOU?
YOU ARE!
WHAT'S ON THAT DISK?
IS THAT LINUX?
YOU'RE INSTALLING LINUX??
WHY WOULD YOU INSTALL LINUX WHEN I AM INFINITELY MORE POWE..........


Ubuntu-9.04 #</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717735</id>
	<title>So what does this really prove...</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...except that we've had ample time to critique and review both Vista and Windows 7, and the general conclusion is that what we know about Vista NOW is completely different from what we knew about Vista when it was first released. And the general knowledge about Windows 7 is much more positive than current perceptions about Vista</p><p>Hmmm. What was that about hindsight...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...except that we 've had ample time to critique and review both Vista and Windows 7 , and the general conclusion is that what we know about Vista NOW is completely different from what we knew about Vista when it was first released .
And the general knowledge about Windows 7 is much more positive than current perceptions about VistaHmmm .
What was that about hindsight... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...except that we've had ample time to critique and review both Vista and Windows 7, and the general conclusion is that what we know about Vista NOW is completely different from what we knew about Vista when it was first released.
And the general knowledge about Windows 7 is much more positive than current perceptions about VistaHmmm.
What was that about hindsight...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723901</id>
	<title>Re:I'm never first</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1247744100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For the love of god MS, some of us run dual boot systems.</p><p>At the very least, give us an option.</p></div></blockquote><p>What are you talking about? Microsoft DOES give you the option!</p><p>You can dual-boot Windows 7 &amp; Vista, or Windows 7 and XP, or Windows 7 and 2000...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of god MS , some of us run dual boot systems.At the very least , give us an option.What are you talking about ?
Microsoft DOES give you the option ! You can dual-boot Windows 7 &amp; Vista , or Windows 7 and XP , or Windows 7 and 2000.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of god MS, some of us run dual boot systems.At the very least, give us an option.What are you talking about?
Microsoft DOES give you the option!You can dual-boot Windows 7 &amp; Vista, or Windows 7 and XP, or Windows 7 and 2000...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451</id>
	<title>Are you crazy?</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247765340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the beta of Win7 was just Vista with a new taskbar and with the security stripped out.  Secondly, PC Mag tests indicate that a Win7 RC runs only 5\% faster than Vista (and that the increase is imperceptible to the end-user), thought it has a new taskbar--this means they put back the security.  That was a very dirty trick if you ask me.</p><p>From what I have read they added even more draconian digital restrictions management into the OS, and hence more privacy violations.  You can live with always being treated like a thief. I'll use the software that gives me control, has no draconian DRM, and treats me like a human being.  Please, what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular, incredibly stable, and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.  Let's get over this Microsoft stuff and get moving on competition in this and other markets to return to the consumer their right to have a choice.</p><p>As well, you guys are so subject to these crazy marketing ploys.  There are no limited supplies of stock when software comes into play.  Don't give me the diatribe about CD and production costs.  They can distribute it in other ways.  There's no limitation of stock unless it is artificially created.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the beta of Win7 was just Vista with a new taskbar and with the security stripped out .
Secondly , PC Mag tests indicate that a Win7 RC runs only 5 \ % faster than Vista ( and that the increase is imperceptible to the end-user ) , thought it has a new taskbar--this means they put back the security .
That was a very dirty trick if you ask me.From what I have read they added even more draconian digital restrictions management into the OS , and hence more privacy violations .
You can live with always being treated like a thief .
I 'll use the software that gives me control , has no draconian DRM , and treats me like a human being .
Please , what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular , incredibly stable , and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide .
Let 's get over this Microsoft stuff and get moving on competition in this and other markets to return to the consumer their right to have a choice.As well , you guys are so subject to these crazy marketing ploys .
There are no limited supplies of stock when software comes into play .
Do n't give me the diatribe about CD and production costs .
They can distribute it in other ways .
There 's no limitation of stock unless it is artificially created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the beta of Win7 was just Vista with a new taskbar and with the security stripped out.
Secondly, PC Mag tests indicate that a Win7 RC runs only 5\% faster than Vista (and that the increase is imperceptible to the end-user), thought it has a new taskbar--this means they put back the security.
That was a very dirty trick if you ask me.From what I have read they added even more draconian digital restrictions management into the OS, and hence more privacy violations.
You can live with always being treated like a thief.
I'll use the software that gives me control, has no draconian DRM, and treats me like a human being.
Please, what Linux has done is shown the world that an OS can become popular, incredibly stable, and widely loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.
Let's get over this Microsoft stuff and get moving on competition in this and other markets to return to the consumer their right to have a choice.As well, you guys are so subject to these crazy marketing ploys.
There are no limited supplies of stock when software comes into play.
Don't give me the diatribe about CD and production costs.
They can distribute it in other ways.
There's no limitation of stock unless it is artificially created.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719179</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Flea of Pain</author>
	<datestamp>1247768040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just so long as you realize that a Macbook Pro costs around $1800, and is running around $800 of hardware.  So that makes OSX a $1000 operating system.  Now I know there will be the fan boys out there who will claim otherwise (or worse, claim that its worth that much).  But 200 isn't really that bad when you break it down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so long as you realize that a Macbook Pro costs around $ 1800 , and is running around $ 800 of hardware .
So that makes OSX a $ 1000 operating system .
Now I know there will be the fan boys out there who will claim otherwise ( or worse , claim that its worth that much ) .
But 200 is n't really that bad when you break it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so long as you realize that a Macbook Pro costs around $1800, and is running around $800 of hardware.
So that makes OSX a $1000 operating system.
Now I know there will be the fan boys out there who will claim otherwise (or worse, claim that its worth that much).
But 200 isn't really that bad when you break it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718253</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1247764740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.</p><p>Say what you will about Linux or OSX, but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.</p></div><p>Score:4, Interesting. Seriously?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not too expensive , it 's a great piece of software , and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.Say what you will about Linux or OSX , but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.Score : 4 , Interesting .
Seriously ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.Say what you will about Linux or OSX, but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.Score:4, Interesting.
Seriously?!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718325</id>
	<title>Still waiting for a reason to upgrade to XP ...</title>
	<author>MacTO</author>
	<datestamp>1247764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I do run Windows XP, since my computer came with it, I recently realised that virtually all of my software will run under Windows 2000.  In the few cases where XP is necessary, it is usually possible to use the prior version of the software and pretty much accomplish the same task.</p><p>So what did I do: I dumped some money into acquiring VMware Workstation and some older copies of Windows.  The system allows me to create separate virtual machines for separate tasks, thus allowing me to avoid (or at least isolate) many of the things that makes Windows frail.</p><p>That degree of isolation, in my books, would be a far more meaningful form of advance in operating systems than a resource intensive coating of eye-candy and a security mechanism that had to be scaled back in order to be considered as useful.  Of course Microsoft is stuck in a corner where only the visualization of progress (eye-candy) and the perception of security (UAC) will sell their products, so I don't suppose that all of us will see the incentive to buy Windows 7 or its successors in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do run Windows XP , since my computer came with it , I recently realised that virtually all of my software will run under Windows 2000 .
In the few cases where XP is necessary , it is usually possible to use the prior version of the software and pretty much accomplish the same task.So what did I do : I dumped some money into acquiring VMware Workstation and some older copies of Windows .
The system allows me to create separate virtual machines for separate tasks , thus allowing me to avoid ( or at least isolate ) many of the things that makes Windows frail.That degree of isolation , in my books , would be a far more meaningful form of advance in operating systems than a resource intensive coating of eye-candy and a security mechanism that had to be scaled back in order to be considered as useful .
Of course Microsoft is stuck in a corner where only the visualization of progress ( eye-candy ) and the perception of security ( UAC ) will sell their products , so I do n't suppose that all of us will see the incentive to buy Windows 7 or its successors in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do run Windows XP, since my computer came with it, I recently realised that virtually all of my software will run under Windows 2000.
In the few cases where XP is necessary, it is usually possible to use the prior version of the software and pretty much accomplish the same task.So what did I do: I dumped some money into acquiring VMware Workstation and some older copies of Windows.
The system allows me to create separate virtual machines for separate tasks, thus allowing me to avoid (or at least isolate) many of the things that makes Windows frail.That degree of isolation, in my books, would be a far more meaningful form of advance in operating systems than a resource intensive coating of eye-candy and a security mechanism that had to be scaled back in order to be considered as useful.
Of course Microsoft is stuck in a corner where only the visualization of progress (eye-candy) and the perception of security (UAC) will sell their products, so I don't suppose that all of us will see the incentive to buy Windows 7 or its successors in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?" What planet do you live on?</p><p>Great piece of software? That remains to be seen, and depends on your definition of "great". Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me. What makes it so great?</p><p>Best OS Microsoft has put out? Probably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 200 OS for a $ 400 computer is " not too expensive ?
" What planet do you live on ? Great piece of software ?
That remains to be seen , and depends on your definition of " great " .
Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me .
What makes it so great ? Best OS Microsoft has put out ?
Probably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?
" What planet do you live on?Great piece of software?
That remains to be seen, and depends on your definition of "great".
Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me.
What makes it so great?Best OS Microsoft has put out?
Probably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719893</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1247770620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there a shortage of electrons?</p></div><p>No, they have a surplus of electrons, so they can't make enough 0's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a shortage of electrons ? No , they have a surplus of electrons , so they ca n't make enough 0 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a shortage of electrons?No, they have a surplus of electrons, so they can't make enough 0's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719057</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Cromac</author>
	<datestamp>1247767560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, </i> <br>
Great? Great? Windows 7 is better than Vista, that's it's only claim to fame. It's far from "great".
<p>
<i>and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.</i> <br>
Pure opinion and far from the opinion of most people. XP, while not perfect by a long shot, is still the best OS MS has managed to come up with.
</p><p>
The only reason Win 7 will eventually have a majority share is because Microsoft will stop selling and supporting XP and will only sell Win7. Through simple hardware attrition Win7 will become the most used platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not too expensive , it 's a great piece of software , Great ?
Great ? Windows 7 is better than Vista , that 's it 's only claim to fame .
It 's far from " great " .
and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet .
Pure opinion and far from the opinion of most people .
XP , while not perfect by a long shot , is still the best OS MS has managed to come up with .
The only reason Win 7 will eventually have a majority share is because Microsoft will stop selling and supporting XP and will only sell Win7 .
Through simple hardware attrition Win7 will become the most used platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software,  
Great?
Great? Windows 7 is better than Vista, that's it's only claim to fame.
It's far from "great".
and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.
Pure opinion and far from the opinion of most people.
XP, while not perfect by a long shot, is still the best OS MS has managed to come up with.
The only reason Win 7 will eventually have a majority share is because Microsoft will stop selling and supporting XP and will only sell Win7.
Through simple hardware attrition Win7 will become the most used platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717289</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's New Coke all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's New Coke all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's New Coke all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719883</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>vishbar</author>
	<datestamp>1247770560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think so. If it was in any way possible to have sex with an operating system, the OSX fanboys would have discovered it by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
If it was in any way possible to have sex with an operating system , the OSX fanboys would have discovered it by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
If it was in any way possible to have sex with an operating system, the OSX fanboys would have discovered it by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717541</id>
	<title>Re:Preordering Windows?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mine is coming with a Steve Ballmer action figure... complete with chair!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine is coming with a Steve Ballmer action figure... complete with chair !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine is coming with a Steve Ballmer action figure... complete with chair!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720753</id>
	<title>Re:Windows performance&#226;&#166;</title>
	<author>justdaven</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might try it.  If I could install on my existing computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might try it .
If I could install on my existing computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might try it.
If I could install on my existing computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721049</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.</p></div><p>Windows 7 has Gentoo too, what more could you want?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.Windows 7 has Gentoo too , what more could you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS COULD TAKE SEVERAL DAYS.Windows 7 has Gentoo too, what more could you want?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722557</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247737800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installing Win 7 takes about 5 clicks and completes in about half an hour.  Any mainstream computer made in the last 3 years will run it, hell it installed and ran on my 7 year old dell laptop minus aero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installing Win 7 takes about 5 clicks and completes in about half an hour .
Any mainstream computer made in the last 3 years will run it , hell it installed and ran on my 7 year old dell laptop minus aero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installing Win 7 takes about 5 clicks and completes in about half an hour.
Any mainstream computer made in the last 3 years will run it, hell it installed and ran on my 7 year old dell laptop minus aero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725171</id>
	<title>what they should do is this</title>
	<author>R.Morton</author>
	<datestamp>1247753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that all OS's should be freely given by the company and then the user pays for support they would see a huge increase in thier user base that way.<br>Also companies would still need to pay MS a fee as usual for digital signing and such for drivers so MS would still be making money and could continue as usual.</p><p>But that is just my take on it, I maybe seeing it in an entirely unrealistic way that makes no sense to anyone but me.</p><p>R.Morton<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that all OS 's should be freely given by the company and then the user pays for support they would see a huge increase in thier user base that way.Also companies would still need to pay MS a fee as usual for digital signing and such for drivers so MS would still be making money and could continue as usual.But that is just my take on it , I maybe seeing it in an entirely unrealistic way that makes no sense to anyone but me.R.Morton  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that all OS's should be freely given by the company and then the user pays for support they would see a huge increase in thier user base that way.Also companies would still need to pay MS a fee as usual for digital signing and such for drivers so MS would still be making money and could continue as usual.But that is just my take on it, I maybe seeing it in an entirely unrealistic way that makes no sense to anyone but me.R.Morton
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717531</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well XP is getting harder to find with new computers, and most people aren't doing retail installs.  I work in IT and 85\% of our clients have put off buying new PCs during the Vista era, since they knew they would be upgrading the OS site wide in the next 1-3 years and they didn't/don't want to use Vista.  They buy XP if they have to replace another computer or need to purchase an additional computer, but mostly they are living with older/slower PCs until W7 comes out.  Next year I expect our hardware sales to skyrocket as we have nearly two years worth of computer upgrades that people put off.  It isn't so much they want W7, but they want a new PC, and don't want to repay for 7 later after buying it with XP (plus labor charges), and don't want Vista (at all).<br>That is as long as the economy doesn't tank even more.  Then they may just wait until they can make sure they still have an operational business.  Now even if a PC breaks, 1/2 the time the companies have at least 10 "extra" in the back that are no longer used since their users are unemployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well XP is getting harder to find with new computers , and most people are n't doing retail installs .
I work in IT and 85 \ % of our clients have put off buying new PCs during the Vista era , since they knew they would be upgrading the OS site wide in the next 1-3 years and they did n't/do n't want to use Vista .
They buy XP if they have to replace another computer or need to purchase an additional computer , but mostly they are living with older/slower PCs until W7 comes out .
Next year I expect our hardware sales to skyrocket as we have nearly two years worth of computer upgrades that people put off .
It is n't so much they want W7 , but they want a new PC , and do n't want to repay for 7 later after buying it with XP ( plus labor charges ) , and do n't want Vista ( at all ) .That is as long as the economy does n't tank even more .
Then they may just wait until they can make sure they still have an operational business .
Now even if a PC breaks , 1/2 the time the companies have at least 10 " extra " in the back that are no longer used since their users are unemployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well XP is getting harder to find with new computers, and most people aren't doing retail installs.
I work in IT and 85\% of our clients have put off buying new PCs during the Vista era, since they knew they would be upgrading the OS site wide in the next 1-3 years and they didn't/don't want to use Vista.
They buy XP if they have to replace another computer or need to purchase an additional computer, but mostly they are living with older/slower PCs until W7 comes out.
Next year I expect our hardware sales to skyrocket as we have nearly two years worth of computer upgrades that people put off.
It isn't so much they want W7, but they want a new PC, and don't want to repay for 7 later after buying it with XP (plus labor charges), and don't want Vista (at all).That is as long as the economy doesn't tank even more.
Then they may just wait until they can make sure they still have an operational business.
Now even if a PC breaks, 1/2 the time the companies have at least 10 "extra" in the back that are no longer used since their users are unemployed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721723</id>
	<title>Wake me up when....</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1247777820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 Ultimate is offered at a cheaper price for upgrades. Until then I will stick with trusty old Vista which is pretty darn good now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 Ultimate is offered at a cheaper price for upgrades .
Until then I will stick with trusty old Vista which is pretty darn good now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 Ultimate is offered at a cheaper price for upgrades.
Until then I will stick with trusty old Vista which is pretty darn good now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717981</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>Derosian</author>
	<datestamp>1247763720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Windows 7 is as good as everyone seems to be saying, and I have been hearing a strangely large amount of good things about it, then XP will become what windows 98 was, as everyone switches to Windows 7.  I have to wonder if this wasn't all part of the plan as you so put it, but I honestly think that Microsoft didn't realize the lemon they were putting out with Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows 7 is as good as everyone seems to be saying , and I have been hearing a strangely large amount of good things about it , then XP will become what windows 98 was , as everyone switches to Windows 7 .
I have to wonder if this was n't all part of the plan as you so put it , but I honestly think that Microsoft did n't realize the lemon they were putting out with Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows 7 is as good as everyone seems to be saying, and I have been hearing a strangely large amount of good things about it, then XP will become what windows 98 was, as everyone switches to Windows 7.
I have to wonder if this wasn't all part of the plan as you so put it, but I honestly think that Microsoft didn't realize the lemon they were putting out with Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717649</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing!</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1247762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A marketing department trying to spin things in favor of their own company? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A marketing department trying to spin things in favor of their own company ?
I am shocked , SHOCKED , I tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A marketing department trying to spin things in favor of their own company?
I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719177</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1247768040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that whole stupid "Virtual PC compatibility mode" got me thinking, why didn't they just rip off Apple? While I am a lifelong Windows user I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and the transition for OS9 to OSX was brilliant. To give the users and developers time to migrate they had a whole OS9 that could be run seamless, ala parallels. Then they simply slowly phased out OS9 support.</p><p>


Considering how many users of XP there are, something like 400 million + according to Wikipedia, it would make sense to have an easy seamless switch over like Apple did with OS9 to OSX. Just stuffing Virtual PC on the OS with an XP image seems like a cop out to me. But then again I still think they are total morons for completely killing XP drivers with so many pieces of hardware out there with XP drivers that in all likelihood will never see Vista/7 drivers. While I ordered my $50 Home Premium to play with I think I'll be staying with XP32/64 (XP64 is actually quite nice) until at least SP1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that whole stupid " Virtual PC compatibility mode " got me thinking , why did n't they just rip off Apple ?
While I am a lifelong Windows user I believe in giving credit where credit is due , and the transition for OS9 to OSX was brilliant .
To give the users and developers time to migrate they had a whole OS9 that could be run seamless , ala parallels .
Then they simply slowly phased out OS9 support .
Considering how many users of XP there are , something like 400 million + according to Wikipedia , it would make sense to have an easy seamless switch over like Apple did with OS9 to OSX .
Just stuffing Virtual PC on the OS with an XP image seems like a cop out to me .
But then again I still think they are total morons for completely killing XP drivers with so many pieces of hardware out there with XP drivers that in all likelihood will never see Vista/7 drivers .
While I ordered my $ 50 Home Premium to play with I think I 'll be staying with XP32/64 ( XP64 is actually quite nice ) until at least SP1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that whole stupid "Virtual PC compatibility mode" got me thinking, why didn't they just rip off Apple?
While I am a lifelong Windows user I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and the transition for OS9 to OSX was brilliant.
To give the users and developers time to migrate they had a whole OS9 that could be run seamless, ala parallels.
Then they simply slowly phased out OS9 support.
Considering how many users of XP there are, something like 400 million + according to Wikipedia, it would make sense to have an easy seamless switch over like Apple did with OS9 to OSX.
Just stuffing Virtual PC on the OS with an XP image seems like a cop out to me.
But then again I still think they are total morons for completely killing XP drivers with so many pieces of hardware out there with XP drivers that in all likelihood will never see Vista/7 drivers.
While I ordered my $50 Home Premium to play with I think I'll be staying with XP32/64 (XP64 is actually quite nice) until at least SP1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720159</id>
	<title>Re:It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1247771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Windows 7 eliminates the choice between XP and Vista by giving us the best of both worlds and with a price cut on top, what's *not* to like?</p><p>Sure, I use Linux as my main desktop and have been for the past 6-7 years, but I like PC gaming so I still need a Windows install somewhere and 7 is the best there is for that purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Windows 7 eliminates the choice between XP and Vista by giving us the best of both worlds and with a price cut on top , what 's * not * to like ? Sure , I use Linux as my main desktop and have been for the past 6-7 years , but I like PC gaming so I still need a Windows install somewhere and 7 is the best there is for that purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Windows 7 eliminates the choice between XP and Vista by giving us the best of both worlds and with a price cut on top, what's *not* to like?Sure, I use Linux as my main desktop and have been for the past 6-7 years, but I like PC gaming so I still need a Windows install somewhere and 7 is the best there is for that purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722381</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is apple mac osx upgrade from windows vista, lol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is apple mac osx upgrade from windows vista , lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is apple mac osx upgrade from windows vista, lol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719153</id>
	<title>Re:It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When I used vista, I have absolute no problem with it"</p><p>Obviously, you ran Vista on a recent high powered machine, with super graphics.  Unfortunately, as part of the marketing hype, Vista was sold on new machines that were seriously underpowered, with crumby onboard graphics.  So, even on expensive new machines, businesses and consumers found that Vista sucked. Win7, however, rocks along nicely on almost any machine with a CPU over 1 Ghz.  You may or may not be able to use the Aero features, but it runs stable, and performance is decent.</p><p>I have found that Vista sucked even harder in virtual machines - but Win7 is perfectly happy inside a virtual machine.</p><p>I just don't know how else to spell it out.  Vista was a terribly expensive mistake, and in today's economy, few people or businesses can afford expensive mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When I used vista , I have absolute no problem with it " Obviously , you ran Vista on a recent high powered machine , with super graphics .
Unfortunately , as part of the marketing hype , Vista was sold on new machines that were seriously underpowered , with crumby onboard graphics .
So , even on expensive new machines , businesses and consumers found that Vista sucked .
Win7 , however , rocks along nicely on almost any machine with a CPU over 1 Ghz .
You may or may not be able to use the Aero features , but it runs stable , and performance is decent.I have found that Vista sucked even harder in virtual machines - but Win7 is perfectly happy inside a virtual machine.I just do n't know how else to spell it out .
Vista was a terribly expensive mistake , and in today 's economy , few people or businesses can afford expensive mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When I used vista, I have absolute no problem with it"Obviously, you ran Vista on a recent high powered machine, with super graphics.
Unfortunately, as part of the marketing hype, Vista was sold on new machines that were seriously underpowered, with crumby onboard graphics.
So, even on expensive new machines, businesses and consumers found that Vista sucked.
Win7, however, rocks along nicely on almost any machine with a CPU over 1 Ghz.
You may or may not be able to use the Aero features, but it runs stable, and performance is decent.I have found that Vista sucked even harder in virtual machines - but Win7 is perfectly happy inside a virtual machine.I just don't know how else to spell it out.
Vista was a terribly expensive mistake, and in today's economy, few people or businesses can afford expensive mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720999</id>
	<title>Nice PR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With only 1500 licenses available on amazon.de its no wonder they were sold out quickly. I bet this was not different for other shops/countries. And all the news media jumped on the bandwagon to report how quickly Win7 was sold out. Whoever was responsible at mircosoft marketing deserves a payrise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With only 1500 licenses available on amazon.de its no wonder they were sold out quickly .
I bet this was not different for other shops/countries .
And all the news media jumped on the bandwagon to report how quickly Win7 was sold out .
Whoever was responsible at mircosoft marketing deserves a payrise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With only 1500 licenses available on amazon.de its no wonder they were sold out quickly.
I bet this was not different for other shops/countries.
And all the news media jumped on the bandwagon to report how quickly Win7 was sold out.
Whoever was responsible at mircosoft marketing deserves a payrise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722101</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1247736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Windows 7 is the only Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as "broken for unknown reasons". That's a pretty big accomplishment for them!</i>
</p><p>Er, how long have you been using Windows ?  Other revision changes that meet your criteria:
</p><p>Windows 2.0 -&gt; Windows 3.0
<br>Windows 3.0 -&gt; Windows 3.1
<br>Windows 3.1 -&gt; Windows 95
<br>Windows 9x -&gt; Windows XP (depending on how you want to look at it)
<br>Windows NT 3.51 -&gt; Windows NT 4.0
<br>Windows NT 4.0  -&gt; Windows 2000
<br>Windows 2000 Server -&gt; Windows 2003 Server
<br>Windows 2003 Server -&gt; Windows 2008 Server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is the only Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they 've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as " broken for unknown reasons " .
That 's a pretty big accomplishment for them !
Er , how long have you been using Windows ?
Other revision changes that meet your criteria : Windows 2.0 - &gt; Windows 3.0 Windows 3.0 - &gt; Windows 3.1 Windows 3.1 - &gt; Windows 95 Windows 9x - &gt; Windows XP ( depending on how you want to look at it ) Windows NT 3.51 - &gt; Windows NT 4.0 Windows NT 4.0 - &gt; Windows 2000 Windows 2000 Server - &gt; Windows 2003 Server Windows 2003 Server - &gt; Windows 2008 Server</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Windows 7 is the only Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as "broken for unknown reasons".
That's a pretty big accomplishment for them!
Er, how long have you been using Windows ?
Other revision changes that meet your criteria:
Windows 2.0 -&gt; Windows 3.0
Windows 3.0 -&gt; Windows 3.1
Windows 3.1 -&gt; Windows 95
Windows 9x -&gt; Windows XP (depending on how you want to look at it)
Windows NT 3.51 -&gt; Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 4.0  -&gt; Windows 2000
Windows 2000 Server -&gt; Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Server -&gt; Windows 2008 Server</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627</id>
	<title>I'm never first</title>
	<author>BigJClark</author>
	<datestamp>1247766000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
I'm never first to buy any piece of software.  I don't like paying to beta test software, and with MS's current record with OS's, I'm apprehensive at best to purchase this.  And I still hate how MS wipes your MBR.  For the love of god MS, some of us run dual boot systems.  <br> <br>
At the very least, give us an <i>option</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm never first to buy any piece of software .
I do n't like paying to beta test software , and with MS 's current record with OS 's , I 'm apprehensive at best to purchase this .
And I still hate how MS wipes your MBR .
For the love of god MS , some of us run dual boot systems .
At the very least , give us an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm never first to buy any piece of software.
I don't like paying to beta test software, and with MS's current record with OS's, I'm apprehensive at best to purchase this.
And I still hate how MS wipes your MBR.
For the love of god MS, some of us run dual boot systems.
At the very least, give us an option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719635</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you will about hardware compatibility, but Win7 RC's setup recognized my USB wireless mouse/keyboard and my RAID0 set all by itself.  It was quite a pleasant surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about hardware compatibility , but Win7 RC 's setup recognized my USB wireless mouse/keyboard and my RAID0 set all by itself .
It was quite a pleasant surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about hardware compatibility, but Win7 RC's setup recognized my USB wireless mouse/keyboard and my RAID0 set all by itself.
It was quite a pleasant surprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28733333</id>
	<title>Agreed, 110\%, but reservations on HOSTS &amp; WFP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247860680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX."</b> - by Jeng (926980) on Thursday July 16, @11:42AM (#28717635)</p></div><p>Agreed, 110\%:</p><p><b>I am in utter 110\% agreement with you &amp; your reasoning, albeit with a SLIGHT difference</b> (&amp; Linux is UNIX derivants' competition, imo @ least - Linux IS a "better *NIX than *NIX is", because it's more versatile than most of its relatives in the *NIX family tree, plus the fact that Linus Torvalds, "Penguin #1", has the GOOD SENSE to NOT allow a fracturing of the kernel/core of HIS Operating System @ least (which "killed *NIX" imo, because if that did not happen, we'd ALL be most likely running a *NIX variant on our PC's today, instead of mostly Windows)... &amp; the only one close to it is MacOS X, but lately? The Linux crew's done a good job on patching holes (whereas MacOS X, a bsd derivant, has 1 unpatched hole in scripting issues still outstanding &amp; only partially fixed))...</p><p>SO - all that "said &amp; aside", between what I've found &amp; still have not been answered on (even by MS themselves, &amp; I asked about what I note below 3x on their "Engineering Windows 7" blog) &amp; OpenGL issues (another one that ticks me off)? Well, take a read, &amp; YOU decide:</p><p>Anyhow/anyways - <b>Back to my subject-line above &amp; points on why I'd state that</b> (Me, the "Windows fanboy himself @<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/."? Ok, here we go:</p><p><b>Windows 7, VISTA, &amp; Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, &amp; you may not either, depending on your point of view</b> (mine's based solely on efficiency &amp; security), &amp; if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:</p><p><b>1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address</b> - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... &amp; yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &amp;/or Windows 7 as well.</p><p><b>So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?</b></p><p>Ok - since you can technically use either:</p><p>a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")<br>b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest &amp; next most efficient)<br>c.) The smallest &amp; fastest plain-jane 0</p><p>PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...</p><p>You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &amp;/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??</p><p><b>Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.</b></p><p><b>Simply because</b></p><p><b>1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk &amp; is the largest/slowest<br>2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes &amp; is the next largest/slowest in size on disk<br>3.) 0 = 1 byte</b></p><p>Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, &amp; caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk &amp; in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.</p><p><b>Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -&gt; </b> <a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>AND?? <b>So do folks like "SpyBot Search &amp; Destroy" also</b> (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, &amp; IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend &amp; recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))</p><p>Hey - <b>Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one &amp; made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -&gt; </b> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&amp;cid=28677363" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&amp;cid=28677363</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Even 1 of my "naysayers" on this subject, ADMITTED a savings exists (in string processing) here:</p><p>----</p><div class="quote"><p><b>"Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1","</b> - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)</p></div><p>----</p><p>(&amp; HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use &amp; thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), &amp; when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &amp;/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers &amp; SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, &amp; if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe? It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)</p><p>Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 - MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains...</p><p>For instance:</p><p>My HOSTS file currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &amp;/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).</p><p>Using 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size...</p><p>Using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size</p><p>Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size.</p><p>See my point?</p><p>(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))</p><p>NO questions asked - <b>the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?</b></p><p><b>I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record"</b> (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), <b>which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure</b> (basically an array of sorts really, &amp; a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!</p><p>I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, &amp; fastest using 0.</p><p>And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) &amp; a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.</p><p><b>So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?</b></p><p>I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" &amp; then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, + using a hi-resolution multimedia timer getting the time @ the start of the looped Open HOSTS/Read HOSTS/Close Hosts cycle of the test, &amp; merely seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).</p><p>In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &amp;/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!</p><p><b>On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?</b></p><p><b>I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development</b> (S. Sinofsky) <b>on this here -&gt; </b>  <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage</a> [msdn.com] &amp; other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... <b>&amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done</b> - THUS, @ this point?</p><p>I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...</p><p>AND</p><p><b>2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7... </b></p><p>Sure it works in this new single point method &amp; it is simple to manage &amp; "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!</p><p>Thus, however?</p><p><b>This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'</b>!</p><p>(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", &amp; it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)</p><p>VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &amp;/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, &amp; layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.</p><p><b>Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, &amp; chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.</b></p><p>(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers &amp; registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).</p><p><b>I.E.-&gt; Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, &amp; they are not that simple to take them ALL down... </b></p><p>(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).</p><p><b>On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP</b> (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) <b>as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?</b></p><p><b>I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development</b> (S. Sinofsky) <b>on this here -&gt; </b>  <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage</a> [msdn.com] <b>&amp; other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... &amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done</b> - THUS, @ this point?</p><p>I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise &amp; proven wrong.</p><p>----</p><p><b>Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves </b> ("The horses' mouth"), <b>in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs</b> (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) <b>from my "Point #2" above?</b></p><p>Thus, I'll now note how:</p><p>----</p><p>1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), &amp; TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...</p><p>2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...</p><p>----</p><p><b>First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete &amp; different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:</b></p><p><a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths</p><p>====</p><p>The following components process IP packets:</p><p>IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.</p><p><b>TCP/IP filtering</b> Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.</p><p><b>Filter-hook driver</b> A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filter incoming and outgoing IP packets. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, the filter-hook driver is Ipfltdrv.sys, a component of Routing and Remote Access. When enabled, Routing and Remote Access allows you to configure separate inbound and outbound IP packet filters for each interface using the Routing and Remote Access snap-in. Ipfltdrv.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic (packets not destined for the host).</p><p><b>Firewall-hook driver</b> A Windows component that uses the firewall-hook API to examine incoming and outgoing packets. On a computer running Windows XP, the firewall-hook driver is Ipnat.sys, which is shared by both Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Firewall. Internet Connection Sharing is a basic network address translator (NAT). Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall. Ipnat.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing, Windows Firewall, and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access. If the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access is enabled, you cannot also enable Windows Firewall or Internet Connection Sharing.</p><p><b>IPsec The IPsec component</b>, Ipsec.sys, is the implementation of IPsec in Windows to provide cryptographic protection to IP traffic. Ipsec.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic and can permit, block, or secure traffic.</p><p>----</p><p><b>1.) After receiving the IP packet, Tcpip.sys passes it to Ipsec.sys for processing.</b></p><p>If the packet has IPsec protection (the IP Protocol field value indicates either Authentication Header [AH] or Encapsulating Security Payload [ESP]), it is processed and removed. If the Windows Firewall: Allow authenticated IPSec bypass Group Policy setting applies to the computer, Ipsec.sys sets an IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet. Ipsec.sys passes the resulting packet back to Tcpip.sys.</p><p>If the packet does not have IPsec protection, based on the set of IPsec filters, Ipsec.sys determines whether the packet is permitted, blocked, or requires security. If permitted, Ipsec.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys without modification. If the packet is blocked or requires security, Ipsec.sys silently discards the packet.</p><p><b>2.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipfltdrv.sys for processing.</b></p><p>Based on the interface on which the packet was received, Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured inbound IP packet filters.</p><p>If the inbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the packet. If the inbound IP packet filters allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.</p><p><b>3.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipnat.sys for processing.</b></p><p>If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is enabled and the interface on which the packet was received is the public interface connected to the Internet, Ipnat.sys compares the packet to its NAT translation table. If an entry is found, the IP packet is translated and the resulting packet is treated as source traffic.</p><p><b>4.) Windows Firewall checks the IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet.</b> If the IPsec Bypass flag is set, Windows Firewall passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.</p><p>If the IPsec Bypass flag is not set, Windows Firewall compares the packet to its exceptions list. If the packet matches an exception, Ipnat.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys. If the IP packet does not match an exception, Ipnat.sys silently discards the IP packet.</p><p>Tcpip.sys compares the IP packet to the configured set of allowed packets for TCP/IP filtering.</p><p>If TCP/IP filtering does not allow the packet, Tcpip.sys silently discards the packet. If TCP/IP filtering allows the packet, Tcpip.sys continues processing the packet, eventually passing the packet payload to TCP, UDP, or other upper layer protocols.</p><p>====</p><p><b>NOW, the new method, "WFP", used by Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; the upcoming Windows 7:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>====</p><p>"The IPsec Policy Agent service and Windows Firewall are examples of WFP applications that are included with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008"</p><p>and</p><p>"Because all the applications and services use the same filtering engine, it is easier to determine whether other applications or services exist that perform the same function."</p><p>====</p><p>See my point, on VISTA/Server 2008, &amp; yes, Windows 7's design for the Firewall, Port Filtering, &amp; IPSec in a SINGLE POINT (WFP) vs. the older "3-part/zone defense/phalanx-like" arrangement older MS OS' used (2000/XP/Server 2003)?</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; <b>IF you do not by now? Then take a peek @ this one from ROOTKIT.COM</b> (which sounds QUITE similar to what I only theorize on THIS LATTER point, on WFP, by this point):</p><p><b>PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952" title="rootkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</a> [rootkit.com]</p><p><b>"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."</b></p><p>apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" XP is Windows 7 competition , not Linux or OSX .
" - by Jeng ( 926980 ) on Thursday July 16 , @ 11 : 42AM ( # 28717635 ) Agreed , 110 \ % : I am in utter 110 \ % agreement with you &amp; your reasoning , albeit with a SLIGHT difference ( &amp; Linux is UNIX derivants ' competition , imo @ least - Linux IS a " better * NIX than * NIX is " , because it 's more versatile than most of its relatives in the * NIX family tree , plus the fact that Linus Torvalds , " Penguin # 1 " , has the GOOD SENSE to NOT allow a fracturing of the kernel/core of HIS Operating System @ least ( which " killed * NIX " imo , because if that did not happen , we 'd ALL be most likely running a * NIX variant on our PC 's today , instead of mostly Windows ) ... &amp; the only one close to it is MacOS X , but lately ?
The Linux crew 's done a good job on patching holes ( whereas MacOS X , a bsd derivant , has 1 unpatched hole in scripting issues still outstanding &amp; only partially fixed ) ) ...SO - all that " said &amp; aside " , between what I 've found &amp; still have not been answered on ( even by MS themselves , &amp; I asked about what I note below 3x on their " Engineering Windows 7 " blog ) &amp; OpenGL issues ( another one that ticks me off ) ?
Well , take a read , &amp; YOU decide : Anyhow/anyways - Back to my subject-line above &amp; points on why I 'd state that ( Me , the " Windows fanboy himself @ /. " ?
Ok , here we go : Windows 7 , VISTA , &amp; Server 2008 have a couple of " issues " I do n't like in them , &amp; you may not either , depending on your point of view ( mine 's based solely on efficiency &amp; security ) , &amp; if my take on these issues are n't " good enough " ?
I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says , link URL is in my " p.s .
" @ the bottom of this post : 1 .
) HOSTS files being unable to use " 0 " for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an " MS Patch Tuesday " in fact for VISTA ( when it had NO problem using it before that , as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can ) ... &amp; yes , this continues in its descendants , Windows Server 2008 &amp;/or Windows 7 as well.So , why is this a " problem " you might ask ? Ok - since you can technically use either : a .
) 127.0.0.1 ( the " loopback adapter address " ) b .
) 0.0.0.0 ( next smallest &amp; next most efficient ) c. ) The smallest &amp; fastest plain-jane 0PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...You can use ANY of those , in order to block out known bad sites &amp;/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way ?
? Microsoft has " promoted bloat " in doing so... no questions asked.Simply because1 .
) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk &amp; is the largest/slowest2 .
) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes &amp; is the next largest/slowest in size on disk3 .
) 0 = 1 byteUsing a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the " decimal-to-hexadecimal " conversion process that 127.0.0.1 , or even 0.0.0.0 go thru , since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus , since the filesystem , memory mgt , &amp; caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up , using a SMALLER string via 0 usage ( vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 ) will tend to " pack " more records into each pass of the read being done , on disk &amp; in memory , per pass/sweep/read as well.Even " security guru " Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE - &gt; http : //www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [ securityfocus.com ] AND ? ?
So do folks like " SpyBot Search &amp; Destroy " also ( since their app populates not only the HOSTS file , but , also files like Opera 's Filter.ini , FireFox 's block lists , &amp; IE Restricted Zones also , for LAYERED SECURITY ( this is the trend &amp; recommended practice by security folks by the by , myself included ) ) Hey - Even this slashdotter , sootman , uses one &amp; made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file , from mvps.org , here - &gt; http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1300193&amp;cid = 28677363 [ slashdot.org ] Even 1 of my " naysayers " on this subject , ADMITTED a savings exists ( in string processing ) here : ---- " Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a " 0 " rather than " 127.0.0.1 " , " - by ericfitz ( 59316 ) on Monday July 13 , @ 01 : 21AM ( # 28672821 ) ---- ( &amp; HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser , email program , or in general every webbound program you use &amp; thus HOSTS are " global " in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack ( which most all do mind you , even MS is based off of it , as BSD 's IS truly , " the best in the business " ) , &amp; when coupled with say , IE restricted zones , FireFox addons like NoScript &amp;/or AdBlock , or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini , for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers &amp; SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this , &amp; if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe ?
It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one ) Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 - MS has literally promoted bloat in this file , making it load slower from disk , into memory !
This compounds itself , the more entries your HOSTS file contains...For instance : My HOSTS file currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners , bad websites , &amp;/or bad nameservers ( used for controlling botnets , misdirecting net requests , etc .
et al ) .Using 127.0.0.1 ?
My " huge " HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size...Using 0.0.0.0 ( next smallest ) it would be 19mb in sizeUsing 0 as my blocking IP , it is only 14mb in size.See my point ?
( For loads either in the local DNS cache , or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running , this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is ( which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones , especially if you use a " giant HOSTS file " ( purely relative term , but once it goes over ( iirc ) 4mb in size , you have to cut the local DNS cache client service ) ) ) NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone , but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof ? I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a " pascal record " ( which is analagous to a C/C + + structure ) , which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well , using a C/C + + structure ( basically an array of sorts really , &amp; a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT , minus the functions built in , this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE ( for efficiency , which FORTRAN as a single example , lacks as a feature , @ least Fortran 77 did , but other languages do not ) ) ! I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file 's entirety into a listbox , same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1 , next slowest using 0.0.0.0 , &amp; fastest using 0.And , sure : Some MORE " goes on " during DNS API loads ( iirc , removal of duplicated entries ( which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt .
via say , notepad.exe ) &amp; a conversion from decimal values to hex ones ) , but , nevertheless ?
My point here " holds true " , of slower value loads , record-by-record , from a HOSTS file , when the entries become larger.So , to " prove my point " to my naysayers ? I timed it using the Win32 API calls " GetTickCount " &amp; then again , using the API calls of " QueryPerformanceCounter " as well , + using a hi-resolution multimedia timer getting the time @ the start of the looped Open HOSTS/Read HOSTS/Close Hosts cycle of the test , &amp; merely seeing the SAME results ( a slowdown when reading in this file from disk , especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file , vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0 ) .In my test , I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( 127.0.0.1 &amp;/or 0.0.0.0 , vs. the smallest/fastest in 0 ) ... proving me correct on this note ! On this HOSTS issue , and the WFP design issue in my next post below ? I also then questioned MS ' own staff , even their VP of development ( S. Sinofsky ) on this here - &gt; http : //blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx ? CommentPosted = true # commentmessage [ msdn.com ] &amp; other places in their blogs , to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... &amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS , @ this point ? I am convinced they ( MS ) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note .
Unless it has something to do with IPv6 ( most folks use IPv4 still ) , I can not understand WHY this design mistake imo , has occurred , in HOSTS files...AND2 .
) The " Windows Filtering Platform " , which is now how the firewall works in VISTA , Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7... Sure it works in this new single point method &amp; it is simple to manage &amp; " sync " all points of it , making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method , but that very thing works against it as well , because it is only a single part system now ! Thus , however ? This " single layer design " in WFP , now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down ' !
( Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do , is to take down any software firewalls present , or even the " Windows Security Center " itself which should warn you of the firewall " going down " , &amp; it 's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use , or messing up their registry init .
settings ) VS. the older ( up to ) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 , for protecting a system via IP Filtering , the Windows native Firewall , &amp;/or IPSEC .
Each of which uses diff .
drivers , &amp; layers of the IP stack to function from , as well as registry initialization settings.Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks , deadbolt locks , &amp; chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security .
( Each of which the latter older method used , had 3 separate drivers &amp; registry settings to do their jobs , representing a " phalanx like " / " zone defense like " system of backup of one another ( like you see in sports OR ancient wars , and trust me , it WORKS , because on either side of yourself , you have " backup " , even if YOU " go down " vs. the opponent ) ) .I.E.- &gt; Take 1 of the " older method 's " 3 part defenses down ?
2 others STILL stand in the way , &amp; they are not that simple to take them ALL down... ( Well , @ least NOT as easily as " taking out " a single part defensive system like WFP ( the new " Windows Filtering Platform " , which powers the VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; yes , Windows 7 firewall defense system ) ) .On this " single-part/single-point of attack " WFP ( vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement ) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above ? I also then questioned MS ' own staff , even their VP of development ( S. Sinofsky ) on this here - &gt; http : //blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx ? CommentPosted = true # commentmessage [ msdn.com ] &amp; other places in their blogs , to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... &amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS , @ this point ? I 'll stick to my thoughts on it , until I am shown otherwise &amp; proven wrong.----Following up on what I wrote up above , so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ( " The horses ' mouth " ) , in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs ( not HOSTS files , that I am SURE I am correct about , no questions asked ) from my " Point # 2 " above ? Thus , I 'll now note how : ----1 .
) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it ( IPSEC.SYS ( IP Security Policies ) , IPNAT.SYS ( Windows Firewall ) , IPFLTDRV.SYS ( Port Filtering ) , &amp; TCPIP.SYS ( base IP driver ) ) ...2 .
) AND , how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently , using a SINGLE layer ( WFP ) ...----First off , here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete &amp; different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in : http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [ microsoft.com ] The Cable Guy - June 2005 : TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths = = = = The following components process IP packets : IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol , TCP port , or UDP port , the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic ( packets destined for the host ) .
You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol ( TCP/IP ) component in the Network Connections folder.Filter-hook driver A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filter incoming and outgoing IP packets .
On a computer running Windows Server 2003 , the filter-hook driver is Ipfltdrv.sys , a component of Routing and Remote Access .
When enabled , Routing and Remote Access allows you to configure separate inbound and outbound IP packet filters for each interface using the Routing and Remote Access snap-in .
Ipfltdrv.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic ( packets not destined for the host ) .Firewall-hook driver A Windows component that uses the firewall-hook API to examine incoming and outgoing packets .
On a computer running Windows XP , the firewall-hook driver is Ipnat.sys , which is shared by both Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Firewall .
Internet Connection Sharing is a basic network address translator ( NAT ) .
Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall .
Ipnat.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic .
On a computer running Windows Server 2003 , Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing , Windows Firewall , and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access .
If the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access is enabled , you can not also enable Windows Firewall or Internet Connection Sharing.IPsec The IPsec component , Ipsec.sys , is the implementation of IPsec in Windows to provide cryptographic protection to IP traffic .
Ipsec.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic and can permit , block , or secure traffic.----1 .
) After receiving the IP packet , Tcpip.sys passes it to Ipsec.sys for processing.If the packet has IPsec protection ( the IP Protocol field value indicates either Authentication Header [ AH ] or Encapsulating Security Payload [ ESP ] ) , it is processed and removed .
If the Windows Firewall : Allow authenticated IPSec bypass Group Policy setting applies to the computer , Ipsec.sys sets an IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet .
Ipsec.sys passes the resulting packet back to Tcpip.sys.If the packet does not have IPsec protection , based on the set of IPsec filters , Ipsec.sys determines whether the packet is permitted , blocked , or requires security .
If permitted , Ipsec.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys without modification .
If the packet is blocked or requires security , Ipsec.sys silently discards the packet.2 .
) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipfltdrv.sys for processing.Based on the interface on which the packet was received , Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured inbound IP packet filters.If the inbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet , Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the packet .
If the inbound IP packet filters allow the packet , Ipfltdrv.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.3 .
) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipnat.sys for processing.If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is enabled and the interface on which the packet was received is the public interface connected to the Internet , Ipnat.sys compares the packet to its NAT translation table .
If an entry is found , the IP packet is translated and the resulting packet is treated as source traffic.4 .
) Windows Firewall checks the IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet .
If the IPsec Bypass flag is set , Windows Firewall passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.If the IPsec Bypass flag is not set , Windows Firewall compares the packet to its exceptions list .
If the packet matches an exception , Ipnat.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys .
If the IP packet does not match an exception , Ipnat.sys silently discards the IP packet.Tcpip.sys compares the IP packet to the configured set of allowed packets for TCP/IP filtering.If TCP/IP filtering does not allow the packet , Tcpip.sys silently discards the packet .
If TCP/IP filtering allows the packet , Tcpip.sys continues processing the packet , eventually passing the packet payload to TCP , UDP , or other upper layer protocols. = = = = NOW , the new method , " WFP " , used by Windows VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; the upcoming Windows 7 : http : //www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx [ microsoft.com ] = = = = " The IPsec Policy Agent service and Windows Firewall are examples of WFP applications that are included with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 " and " Because all the applications and services use the same filtering engine , it is easier to determine whether other applications or services exist that perform the same function .
" = = = = See my point , on VISTA/Server 2008 , &amp; yes , Windows 7 's design for the Firewall , Port Filtering , &amp; IPSec in a SINGLE POINT ( WFP ) vs. the older " 3-part/zone defense/phalanx-like " arrangement older MS OS ' used ( 2000/XP/Server 2003 ) ? APKP.S. = &gt; IF you do not by now ?
Then take a peek @ this one from ROOTKIT.COM ( which sounds QUITE similar to what I only theorize on THIS LATTER point , on WFP , by this point ) : PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT : http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952 [ rootkit.com ] " BTW , the firewalls based on NDIS v6 , which was introduced in Windows Vista , are much easier to unhook and bypass .
" apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX.
" - by Jeng (926980) on Thursday July 16, @11:42AM (#28717635)Agreed, 110\%:I am in utter 110\% agreement with you &amp; your reasoning, albeit with a SLIGHT difference (&amp; Linux is UNIX derivants' competition, imo @ least - Linux IS a "better *NIX than *NIX is", because it's more versatile than most of its relatives in the *NIX family tree, plus the fact that Linus Torvalds, "Penguin #1", has the GOOD SENSE to NOT allow a fracturing of the kernel/core of HIS Operating System @ least (which "killed *NIX" imo, because if that did not happen, we'd ALL be most likely running a *NIX variant on our PC's today, instead of mostly Windows)... &amp; the only one close to it is MacOS X, but lately?
The Linux crew's done a good job on patching holes (whereas MacOS X, a bsd derivant, has 1 unpatched hole in scripting issues still outstanding &amp; only partially fixed))...SO - all that "said &amp; aside", between what I've found &amp; still have not been answered on (even by MS themselves, &amp; I asked about what I note below 3x on their "Engineering Windows 7" blog) &amp; OpenGL issues (another one that ticks me off)?
Well, take a read, &amp; YOU decide:Anyhow/anyways - Back to my subject-line above &amp; points on why I'd state that (Me, the "Windows fanboy himself @ /."?
Ok, here we go:Windows 7, VISTA, &amp; Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, &amp; you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency &amp; security), &amp; if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"?
I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s.
" @ the bottom of this post:1.
) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... &amp; yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &amp;/or Windows 7 as well.So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?Ok - since you can technically use either:a.
) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")b.
) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest &amp; next most efficient)c.) The smallest &amp; fastest plain-jane 0PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &amp;/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way?
?Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.Simply because1.
) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk &amp; is the largest/slowest2.
) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes &amp; is the next largest/slowest in size on disk3.
) 0 = 1 byteUsing a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, &amp; caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk &amp; in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -&gt;  http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]AND??
So do folks like "SpyBot Search &amp; Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, &amp; IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend &amp; recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one &amp; made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -&gt;  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&amp;cid=28677363 [slashdot.org]Even 1 of my "naysayers" on this subject, ADMITTED a savings exists (in string processing) here:----"Perhaps it would be a reduction of a couple dozen CPU cycles to read a "0" rather than "127.0.0.1"," - by ericfitz (59316) on Monday July 13, @01:21AM (#28672821)----(&amp; HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use &amp; thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), &amp; when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &amp;/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers &amp; SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, &amp; if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe?
It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 - MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory!
This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains...For instance:My HOSTS file currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &amp;/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc.
et al).Using 127.0.0.1?
My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size...Using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in sizeUsing 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size.See my point?
(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, &amp; a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, &amp; fastest using 0.And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt.
via say, notepad.exe) &amp; a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless?
My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" &amp; then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, + using a hi-resolution multimedia timer getting the time @ the start of the looped Open HOSTS/Read HOSTS/Close Hosts cycle of the test, &amp; merely seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &amp;/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -&gt;   http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] &amp; other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... &amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note.
Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...AND2.
) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7... Sure it works in this new single point method &amp; it is simple to manage &amp; "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!Thus, however?This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!
(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", &amp; it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init.
settings)VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &amp;/or IPSEC.
Each of which uses diff.
drivers, &amp; layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, &amp; chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.
(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers &amp; registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).I.E.-&gt; Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down?
2 others STILL stand in the way, &amp; they are not that simple to take them ALL down... (Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -&gt;   http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] &amp; other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... &amp; I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise &amp; proven wrong.----Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves  ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?Thus, I'll now note how:----1.
) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), &amp; TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...2.
) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...----First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete &amp; different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths====The following components process IP packets:IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host).
You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.Filter-hook driver A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filter incoming and outgoing IP packets.
On a computer running Windows Server 2003, the filter-hook driver is Ipfltdrv.sys, a component of Routing and Remote Access.
When enabled, Routing and Remote Access allows you to configure separate inbound and outbound IP packet filters for each interface using the Routing and Remote Access snap-in.
Ipfltdrv.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic (packets not destined for the host).Firewall-hook driver A Windows component that uses the firewall-hook API to examine incoming and outgoing packets.
On a computer running Windows XP, the firewall-hook driver is Ipnat.sys, which is shared by both Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Firewall.
Internet Connection Sharing is a basic network address translator (NAT).
Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall.
Ipnat.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic.
On a computer running Windows Server 2003, Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing, Windows Firewall, and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access.
If the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access is enabled, you cannot also enable Windows Firewall or Internet Connection Sharing.IPsec The IPsec component, Ipsec.sys, is the implementation of IPsec in Windows to provide cryptographic protection to IP traffic.
Ipsec.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic and can permit, block, or secure traffic.----1.
) After receiving the IP packet, Tcpip.sys passes it to Ipsec.sys for processing.If the packet has IPsec protection (the IP Protocol field value indicates either Authentication Header [AH] or Encapsulating Security Payload [ESP]), it is processed and removed.
If the Windows Firewall: Allow authenticated IPSec bypass Group Policy setting applies to the computer, Ipsec.sys sets an IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet.
Ipsec.sys passes the resulting packet back to Tcpip.sys.If the packet does not have IPsec protection, based on the set of IPsec filters, Ipsec.sys determines whether the packet is permitted, blocked, or requires security.
If permitted, Ipsec.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys without modification.
If the packet is blocked or requires security, Ipsec.sys silently discards the packet.2.
) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipfltdrv.sys for processing.Based on the interface on which the packet was received, Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured inbound IP packet filters.If the inbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the packet.
If the inbound IP packet filters allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.3.
) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipnat.sys for processing.If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is enabled and the interface on which the packet was received is the public interface connected to the Internet, Ipnat.sys compares the packet to its NAT translation table.
If an entry is found, the IP packet is translated and the resulting packet is treated as source traffic.4.
) Windows Firewall checks the IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet.
If the IPsec Bypass flag is set, Windows Firewall passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.If the IPsec Bypass flag is not set, Windows Firewall compares the packet to its exceptions list.
If the packet matches an exception, Ipnat.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys.
If the IP packet does not match an exception, Ipnat.sys silently discards the IP packet.Tcpip.sys compares the IP packet to the configured set of allowed packets for TCP/IP filtering.If TCP/IP filtering does not allow the packet, Tcpip.sys silently discards the packet.
If TCP/IP filtering allows the packet, Tcpip.sys continues processing the packet, eventually passing the packet payload to TCP, UDP, or other upper layer protocols.====NOW, the new method, "WFP", used by Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; the upcoming Windows 7:http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx [microsoft.com]===="The IPsec Policy Agent service and Windows Firewall are examples of WFP applications that are included with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008"and"Because all the applications and services use the same filtering engine, it is easier to determine whether other applications or services exist that perform the same function.
"====See my point, on VISTA/Server 2008, &amp; yes, Windows 7's design for the Firewall, Port Filtering, &amp; IPSec in a SINGLE POINT (WFP) vs. the older "3-part/zone defense/phalanx-like" arrangement older MS OS' used (2000/XP/Server 2003)?APKP.S.=&gt; IF you do not by now?
Then take a peek @ this one from ROOTKIT.COM (which sounds QUITE similar to what I only theorize on THIS LATTER point, on WFP, by this point):PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com]"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass.
"apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719395</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>aj50</author>
	<datestamp>1247768820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No shortage of electrons, just a shortage of sanity from the MS sales/marketing department.</p><p>(Anyone who has worked with MS sales/marketing should not be surprised.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shortage of electrons , just a shortage of sanity from the MS sales/marketing department .
( Anyone who has worked with MS sales/marketing should not be surprised .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shortage of electrons, just a shortage of sanity from the MS sales/marketing department.
(Anyone who has worked with MS sales/marketing should not be surprised.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725357</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check what this article is about and what the commenter is commenting on, i.e. the &#194;&pound;50 upgrade copies (80$)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check what this article is about and what the commenter is commenting on , i.e .
the     50 upgrade copies ( 80 $ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check what this article is about and what the commenter is commenting on, i.e.
the Â£50 upgrade copies (80$)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720541</id>
	<title>Windoze 7 = Vista 2.0</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1247773020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as such, totally sucks.  I've tried several RC of Win 7, and it's bloated, buggy, slow.... Sure it beats the pants off of Vista, but so does punching myself in the face repeatedly.  It totally sucks compared to XP or Linux Mint.</p><p>I mean, it is at least a generation behind on performance and features.</p><p>Besides which XP still does everything I want.</p><p>I for one would WAY rather have a $100 netbook with either lightweight Linux or XP and 1gb of ram and a webcam than any newer laptop with Vista, or Vista 2.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as such , totally sucks .
I 've tried several RC of Win 7 , and it 's bloated , buggy , slow.... Sure it beats the pants off of Vista , but so does punching myself in the face repeatedly .
It totally sucks compared to XP or Linux Mint.I mean , it is at least a generation behind on performance and features.Besides which XP still does everything I want.I for one would WAY rather have a $ 100 netbook with either lightweight Linux or XP and 1gb of ram and a webcam than any newer laptop with Vista , or Vista 2.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as such, totally sucks.
I've tried several RC of Win 7, and it's bloated, buggy, slow.... Sure it beats the pants off of Vista, but so does punching myself in the face repeatedly.
It totally sucks compared to XP or Linux Mint.I mean, it is at least a generation behind on performance and features.Besides which XP still does everything I want.I for one would WAY rather have a $100 netbook with either lightweight Linux or XP and 1gb of ram and a webcam than any newer laptop with Vista, or Vista 2.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>svendsen</author>
	<datestamp>1247769480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would say it is cheap when you think about.  Assume you buy Windows 7 for $200.  You will probably get 10 years out of it. $20 a year isn't bad considering everything it can do.  Even if you only get 5 years $40 is still a great deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it is cheap when you think about .
Assume you buy Windows 7 for $ 200 .
You will probably get 10 years out of it .
$ 20 a year is n't bad considering everything it can do .
Even if you only get 5 years $ 40 is still a great deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it is cheap when you think about.
Assume you buy Windows 7 for $200.
You will probably get 10 years out of it.
$20 a year isn't bad considering everything it can do.
Even if you only get 5 years $40 is still a great deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720465</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet."</p><p>But isn't that what they said about VISTA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not too expensive , it 's a great piece of software , and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet .
" But is n't that what they said about VISTA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.
"But isn't that what they said about VISTA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718471</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1247765400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so. A shortage of electrons? That's the most absur</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
A shortage of electrons ?
That 's the most absur</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
A shortage of electrons?
That's the most absur</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717099</id>
	<title>Windows performance&#226;&#166;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has come to my attention that a new version of Mac OS X, dubbed "Leopard" by Apple, Inc., is nearing release. Upon researching these claims, I have come to the conclusion that Leopard is the state of the art in consumer, workstation, and server operating system software and will make Apple's Mac lines the most technologically advanced in computing today.</p><p>But don't take my word for it. Let's take a look what Leopard has to offer and what its competitors sorely lack.</p><p>Back to the Future</p><p>One important feature of Leopard is real-time backups. With a new app called Time Machine, the user can voyage back through previous versions of files with a radical new graphical interface. Lost a file? Throttle your physics-defying space-time warping program and retrieve it. Rumor has it that Steve Jobs has built certain Macs with "physics processors" that may allow actual time-travel with Time Machine. For now, however, retrieving lost files and backing up your documents are easier in Leopard.</p><p>Windows, meanwhile, offers what they call "file versions," which is included on a tab at the back of the properties window. Once you find this tab, you must then read and understand all of the tiny text under the tab, then proceed to look for the version of the file you want. But what happens if you delete the file? Well, there's no properties window to open for a file that doesn't exist, so you're completely out of luck. And backing up your hard drive? There is a tool for this, but it's sadly not as good as Time Machine.</p><p>Trading Spaces</p><p>Another feature users of no other commercial operating system have is called Spaces. Spaces is, or are &#226;" depending on your dialect &#226;" extra desktops the user can devote specific windows and tasks to. For instance, instead of distracting yourself with MySpace, LiveJournal, and iChat while you write your dissertation, you can put all the windows and programs from your Internet lolling on one desktop and the apps you're using to get yourself a PhD on another.</p><p>Linux is a popular "hacker" operating system with "virtual desktops," which work the same as Spaces but are uglier and less standardized. For instance, if you load up one desktop manager for Linux, the virtual desktops feature may be stored fifty windows deep while another one may have it turned on already, stealing windows from new programs away without saying a word. Couple this with the fact that virtual desktops are abbreviated as VD and you have another win for Leopard.</p><p>Twice As Wide</p><p>For system administrators and graphic designers out there, 64-bit support in Leopard will be a huge boon. 64-bit chips can work on twice the amount of data that a 32-bit chip can, so you can get more work done in the same amount of time. Leopard supports 64-bits quite well and but can also run 32-bit programs seamlessly, allowing the user to hang onto older versions of programs and never noticing the difference. As the industry moves from 32 to 64 bits, Apple will make the transition completely transparent for its users.</p><p>Windows and Linux users have it a little harder. Windows comes in two versions, each on a different DVD. If you use Linux, watch out. You have to download the program code for the operating system, tweak it by hand, and then reinstall everything. Not for the faint of heart, eh? And there's the added risk that your program will need the same treatment if it's not ready for 64-bit. Good luck with that if you have actual work to do.</p><p>The Upshot</p><p>What does this all mean in the bottom line? You'll get more work done. You won't have Windows complaining about signed drivers and blue-screening when it doesn't get its way. You won't have to join a mailing list and kiss up to the developers of the app you need support for. In the same amount of time needed to install Vista, for instance, you can install Leopard, set it up, and download and install all the updates available for it.</p><p>With Linux, you'll be searching through your text buffer for the right command utility after the instal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has come to my attention that a new version of Mac OS X , dubbed " Leopard " by Apple , Inc. , is nearing release .
Upon researching these claims , I have come to the conclusion that Leopard is the state of the art in consumer , workstation , and server operating system software and will make Apple 's Mac lines the most technologically advanced in computing today.But do n't take my word for it .
Let 's take a look what Leopard has to offer and what its competitors sorely lack.Back to the FutureOne important feature of Leopard is real-time backups .
With a new app called Time Machine , the user can voyage back through previous versions of files with a radical new graphical interface .
Lost a file ?
Throttle your physics-defying space-time warping program and retrieve it .
Rumor has it that Steve Jobs has built certain Macs with " physics processors " that may allow actual time-travel with Time Machine .
For now , however , retrieving lost files and backing up your documents are easier in Leopard.Windows , meanwhile , offers what they call " file versions , " which is included on a tab at the back of the properties window .
Once you find this tab , you must then read and understand all of the tiny text under the tab , then proceed to look for the version of the file you want .
But what happens if you delete the file ?
Well , there 's no properties window to open for a file that does n't exist , so you 're completely out of luck .
And backing up your hard drive ?
There is a tool for this , but it 's sadly not as good as Time Machine.Trading SpacesAnother feature users of no other commercial operating system have is called Spaces .
Spaces is , or are   " depending on your dialect   " extra desktops the user can devote specific windows and tasks to .
For instance , instead of distracting yourself with MySpace , LiveJournal , and iChat while you write your dissertation , you can put all the windows and programs from your Internet lolling on one desktop and the apps you 're using to get yourself a PhD on another.Linux is a popular " hacker " operating system with " virtual desktops , " which work the same as Spaces but are uglier and less standardized .
For instance , if you load up one desktop manager for Linux , the virtual desktops feature may be stored fifty windows deep while another one may have it turned on already , stealing windows from new programs away without saying a word .
Couple this with the fact that virtual desktops are abbreviated as VD and you have another win for Leopard.Twice As WideFor system administrators and graphic designers out there , 64-bit support in Leopard will be a huge boon .
64-bit chips can work on twice the amount of data that a 32-bit chip can , so you can get more work done in the same amount of time .
Leopard supports 64-bits quite well and but can also run 32-bit programs seamlessly , allowing the user to hang onto older versions of programs and never noticing the difference .
As the industry moves from 32 to 64 bits , Apple will make the transition completely transparent for its users.Windows and Linux users have it a little harder .
Windows comes in two versions , each on a different DVD .
If you use Linux , watch out .
You have to download the program code for the operating system , tweak it by hand , and then reinstall everything .
Not for the faint of heart , eh ?
And there 's the added risk that your program will need the same treatment if it 's not ready for 64-bit .
Good luck with that if you have actual work to do.The UpshotWhat does this all mean in the bottom line ?
You 'll get more work done .
You wo n't have Windows complaining about signed drivers and blue-screening when it does n't get its way .
You wo n't have to join a mailing list and kiss up to the developers of the app you need support for .
In the same amount of time needed to install Vista , for instance , you can install Leopard , set it up , and download and install all the updates available for it.With Linux , you 'll be searching through your text buffer for the right command utility after the instal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has come to my attention that a new version of Mac OS X, dubbed "Leopard" by Apple, Inc., is nearing release.
Upon researching these claims, I have come to the conclusion that Leopard is the state of the art in consumer, workstation, and server operating system software and will make Apple's Mac lines the most technologically advanced in computing today.But don't take my word for it.
Let's take a look what Leopard has to offer and what its competitors sorely lack.Back to the FutureOne important feature of Leopard is real-time backups.
With a new app called Time Machine, the user can voyage back through previous versions of files with a radical new graphical interface.
Lost a file?
Throttle your physics-defying space-time warping program and retrieve it.
Rumor has it that Steve Jobs has built certain Macs with "physics processors" that may allow actual time-travel with Time Machine.
For now, however, retrieving lost files and backing up your documents are easier in Leopard.Windows, meanwhile, offers what they call "file versions," which is included on a tab at the back of the properties window.
Once you find this tab, you must then read and understand all of the tiny text under the tab, then proceed to look for the version of the file you want.
But what happens if you delete the file?
Well, there's no properties window to open for a file that doesn't exist, so you're completely out of luck.
And backing up your hard drive?
There is a tool for this, but it's sadly not as good as Time Machine.Trading SpacesAnother feature users of no other commercial operating system have is called Spaces.
Spaces is, or are â" depending on your dialect â" extra desktops the user can devote specific windows and tasks to.
For instance, instead of distracting yourself with MySpace, LiveJournal, and iChat while you write your dissertation, you can put all the windows and programs from your Internet lolling on one desktop and the apps you're using to get yourself a PhD on another.Linux is a popular "hacker" operating system with "virtual desktops," which work the same as Spaces but are uglier and less standardized.
For instance, if you load up one desktop manager for Linux, the virtual desktops feature may be stored fifty windows deep while another one may have it turned on already, stealing windows from new programs away without saying a word.
Couple this with the fact that virtual desktops are abbreviated as VD and you have another win for Leopard.Twice As WideFor system administrators and graphic designers out there, 64-bit support in Leopard will be a huge boon.
64-bit chips can work on twice the amount of data that a 32-bit chip can, so you can get more work done in the same amount of time.
Leopard supports 64-bits quite well and but can also run 32-bit programs seamlessly, allowing the user to hang onto older versions of programs and never noticing the difference.
As the industry moves from 32 to 64 bits, Apple will make the transition completely transparent for its users.Windows and Linux users have it a little harder.
Windows comes in two versions, each on a different DVD.
If you use Linux, watch out.
You have to download the program code for the operating system, tweak it by hand, and then reinstall everything.
Not for the faint of heart, eh?
And there's the added risk that your program will need the same treatment if it's not ready for 64-bit.
Good luck with that if you have actual work to do.The UpshotWhat does this all mean in the bottom line?
You'll get more work done.
You won't have Windows complaining about signed drivers and blue-screening when it doesn't get its way.
You won't have to join a mailing list and kiss up to the developers of the app you need support for.
In the same amount of time needed to install Vista, for instance, you can install Leopard, set it up, and download and install all the updates available for it.With Linux, you'll be searching through your text buffer for the right command utility after the instal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718805</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1247766600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what you're saying is something like this...</p><p>1) Release crappy Vista OS.<br>2) ?<br>3) Profit!</p><p>Now, I'm not sure about Bill Gates, but Steve Ballmer looks like he could actually be an Underpants Gnome.</p><p>I'm sorry- one should never mention Gnome around Ballmer. He tends to throw things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what you 're saying is something like this...1 ) Release crappy Vista OS.2 ) ? 3 ) Profit ! Now , I 'm not sure about Bill Gates , but Steve Ballmer looks like he could actually be an Underpants Gnome.I 'm sorry- one should never mention Gnome around Ballmer .
He tends to throw things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what you're saying is something like this...1) Release crappy Vista OS.2) ?3) Profit!Now, I'm not sure about Bill Gates, but Steve Ballmer looks like he could actually be an Underpants Gnome.I'm sorry- one should never mention Gnome around Ballmer.
He tends to throw things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718733</id>
	<title>Re:Price Gouging</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux is free as in beer, yet it only has ~1\% desktop share.  Is it overpriced as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is free as in beer , yet it only has ~ 1 \ % desktop share .
Is it overpriced as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux is free as in beer, yet it only has ~1\% desktop share.
Is it overpriced as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718369</id>
	<title>Re:Just 7?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1247765100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So Vista only had 6 pre-orders?</p></div></blockquote><p>Huh. They wish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Vista only had 6 pre-orders ? Huh .
They wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Vista only had 6 pre-orders?Huh.
They wish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723851</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247743800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else read this and hear the MCP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else read this and hear the MCP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else read this and hear the MCP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717823</id>
	<title>BOHICA!</title>
	<author>MarcQuadra</author>
	<datestamp>1247763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!</p><p>Seriously, Win7 just feels like a lot of good press wrapped around Vista to me. That being said, I'm using it at work already (but I was using Vista pre-SP1 too).</p><p>I'm -not- going to enjoy trying to hold-off users from self-deploying this until we're ready to support it. Even with the lead time, there are lots of bits and pieces that wouldn't fit in our environment, and there are far too many 'flavors', especially with the 32 and 64 bit editions for me to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bend Over , Here It Comes Again ! Seriously , Win7 just feels like a lot of good press wrapped around Vista to me .
That being said , I 'm using it at work already ( but I was using Vista pre-SP1 too ) .I 'm -not- going to enjoy trying to hold-off users from self-deploying this until we 're ready to support it .
Even with the lead time , there are lots of bits and pieces that would n't fit in our environment , and there are far too many 'flavors ' , especially with the 32 and 64 bit editions for me to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!Seriously, Win7 just feels like a lot of good press wrapped around Vista to me.
That being said, I'm using it at work already (but I was using Vista pre-SP1 too).I'm -not- going to enjoy trying to hold-off users from self-deploying this until we're ready to support it.
Even with the lead time, there are lots of bits and pieces that wouldn't fit in our environment, and there are far too many 'flavors', especially with the 32 and 64 bit editions for me to handle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28726943</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid it won't be a competition much longer. Since XP is practically a 32bit only system, it will in the end fall, when more RAM and new architecture become a norm. That is rather sad, I'd be happy to see more support for XP 64bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid it wo n't be a competition much longer .
Since XP is practically a 32bit only system , it will in the end fall , when more RAM and new architecture become a norm .
That is rather sad , I 'd be happy to see more support for XP 64bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid it won't be a competition much longer.
Since XP is practically a 32bit only system, it will in the end fall, when more RAM and new architecture become a norm.
That is rather sad, I'd be happy to see more support for XP 64bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719973</id>
	<title>Re:Are you crazy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.</p> </div><p>Bullshit. You had me thinking you were rational until this point. For one, for a 1\% marketshare, which is the generally accepted number, that would mean there are 10 BILLION people who have computers. Up that to a 2\% marketshare, and you still need 5 Billion computer owners. This might blow your mind, but there's a large percentage of people who don't own computers. Even if you up it to a 10\% marketshare, you're sitting at One Billion people running computers. The highest concentration of computers is in the US, with a population of 300,000,000. You'd need to have all of India or China owning computers to get your numbers. And neither of them have close to the ratio that the US does.</p><p>Also, standard snark about "loving" Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide .
Bullshit. You had me thinking you were rational until this point .
For one , for a 1 \ % marketshare , which is the generally accepted number , that would mean there are 10 BILLION people who have computers .
Up that to a 2 \ % marketshare , and you still need 5 Billion computer owners .
This might blow your mind , but there 's a large percentage of people who do n't own computers .
Even if you up it to a 10 \ % marketshare , you 're sitting at One Billion people running computers .
The highest concentration of computers is in the US , with a population of 300,000,000 .
You 'd need to have all of India or China owning computers to get your numbers .
And neither of them have close to the ratio that the US does.Also , standard snark about " loving " Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>loved by a hundred million or more people world-wide.
Bullshit. You had me thinking you were rational until this point.
For one, for a 1\% marketshare, which is the generally accepted number, that would mean there are 10 BILLION people who have computers.
Up that to a 2\% marketshare, and you still need 5 Billion computer owners.
This might blow your mind, but there's a large percentage of people who don't own computers.
Even if you up it to a 10\% marketshare, you're sitting at One Billion people running computers.
The highest concentration of computers is in the US, with a population of 300,000,000.
You'd need to have all of India or China owning computers to get your numbers.
And neither of them have close to the ratio that the US does.Also, standard snark about "loving" Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717927</id>
	<title>Re:while stocks last?</title>
	<author>flowsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1247763600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron\_universe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">One Electron Universe</a> [wikipedia.org] hypothesis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , under the One Electron Universe [ wikipedia.org ] hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, under the One Electron Universe [wikipedia.org] hypothesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722405</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sorry, but that title belongs to windows 2000.</p><p>1. value compared to predecessor.<br>2. stability<br>3. lean code</p><p>vista and 7 fall flat on 1 and 3 especially. there is no reason why the os should take 700MB of ram on fresh boot of a fresh install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , but that title belongs to windows 2000.1. value compared to predecessor.2 .
stability3. lean codevista and 7 fall flat on 1 and 3 especially .
there is no reason why the os should take 700MB of ram on fresh boot of a fresh install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, but that title belongs to windows 2000.1. value compared to predecessor.2.
stability3. lean codevista and 7 fall flat on 1 and 3 especially.
there is no reason why the os should take 700MB of ram on fresh boot of a fresh install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721753</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia</p><p>"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response"</p><p>You posted a comment that was specifically designed to provoke a disciplinary response ("I have karma points to burn, bitches"), therefore you're a troll. Nobody has to be paid to realise that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia " In Internet slang , a troll is someone who posts controversial , inflammatory , irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community , such as an online discussion forum , chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response " You posted a comment that was specifically designed to provoke a disciplinary response ( " I have karma points to burn , bitches " ) , therefore you 're a troll .
Nobody has to be paid to realise that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response"You posted a comment that was specifically designed to provoke a disciplinary response ("I have karma points to burn, bitches"), therefore you're a troll.
Nobody has to be paid to realise that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720263</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1247771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced.  Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.</p><p>XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX.</p></div><p> XP is also going to be sold less and less, especially since Windows 7 is far more capable on netbooks than Vista. MS will simply stop licensing XP and let time do the rest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced .
Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.XP is Windows 7 competition , not Linux or OSX .
XP is also going to be sold less and less , especially since Windows 7 is far more capable on netbooks than Vista .
MS will simply stop licensing XP and let time do the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I would have to say that Windows 7 is still overpriced.
Without it being able to be pirated or sold at a reasonable price it will never have the share that XP does.XP is Windows 7 competition, not Linux or OSX.
XP is also going to be sold less and less, especially since Windows 7 is far more capable on netbooks than Vista.
MS will simply stop licensing XP and let time do the rest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717697</id>
	<title>Re:Amazing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.'</i> </p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills. I have karma points to burn, bitches.</p></div><p>Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)<br>How exactly is this an insightful post?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista 's entire 17-week pre-order period .
'       The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand , and tries to spin it to Microsoft 's advantage .
      Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot 's resident Microsoft shills .
I have karma points to burn , bitches.Amazing !
( Score : 3 , Insightful ) How exactly is this an insightful post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.
' 
      The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.
      Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills.
I have karma points to burn, bitches.Amazing!
(Score:3, Insightful)How exactly is this an insightful post?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</id>
	<title>Great startegy</title>
	<author>steveo777</author>
	<datestamp>1247760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Release Vista, a relatively broken operating system, and try to ram it down peoples' throats.  When the people gag enough pop out a 'new' OS that fixes the unpalatableness of the old OS and sell millions!</p><p>Not that I don't mind using a descent OS, which Windows 7 seems to be at this time.  However, I'd be just as likely to use Windows 7 as XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Release Vista , a relatively broken operating system , and try to ram it down peoples ' throats .
When the people gag enough pop out a 'new ' OS that fixes the unpalatableness of the old OS and sell millions ! Not that I do n't mind using a descent OS , which Windows 7 seems to be at this time .
However , I 'd be just as likely to use Windows 7 as XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Release Vista, a relatively broken operating system, and try to ram it down peoples' throats.
When the people gag enough pop out a 'new' OS that fixes the unpalatableness of the old OS and sell millions!Not that I don't mind using a descent OS, which Windows 7 seems to be at this time.
However, I'd be just as likely to use Windows 7 as XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717551</id>
	<title>it was all planned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only reason windows 7 looks so good is because vista was just that bad....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only reason windows 7 looks so good is because vista was just that bad... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only reason windows 7 looks so good is because vista was just that bad....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717769</id>
	<title>How exactly is 7 better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally like vista and I am not sure why people hate it so much other than since it seems to the cool thing to do. I am using windows 7 RC on one of my computers right now and it seems to be the same OS as vista with some minor improvements. So I guess the cool thing to do now is to love 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally like vista and I am not sure why people hate it so much other than since it seems to the cool thing to do .
I am using windows 7 RC on one of my computers right now and it seems to be the same OS as vista with some minor improvements .
So I guess the cool thing to do now is to love 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally like vista and I am not sure why people hate it so much other than since it seems to the cool thing to do.
I am using windows 7 RC on one of my computers right now and it seems to be the same OS as vista with some minor improvements.
So I guess the cool thing to do now is to love 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717687</id>
	<title>Headline Translation:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man I hate Windows!  Oohhh I bet Windows will solve that problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man I hate Windows !
Oohhh I bet Windows will solve that problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man I hate Windows!
Oohhh I bet Windows will solve that problem!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723387</id>
	<title>Just goes to show</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just goes to show that people will buy any crap on sale!  Next up in marketing, buy one get one free... but with the same product code, so the 2nd one is completely useless!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just goes to show that people will buy any crap on sale !
Next up in marketing , buy one get one free... but with the same product code , so the 2nd one is completely useless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just goes to show that people will buy any crap on sale!
Next up in marketing, buy one get one free... but with the same product code, so the 2nd one is completely useless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724835</id>
	<title>Question the source...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247750220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brian Valentine who left Microsoft amidst their Vista woes is now working for Amazon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brian Valentine who left Microsoft amidst their Vista woes is now working for Amazon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brian Valentine who left Microsoft amidst their Vista woes is now working for Amazon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717781</id>
	<title>Surprise!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247763120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a good product and people might actually be willing to give you money for it</p><p>Imagine a world where businesses actually made their products better to get sales rather than skimming quality to reduce margins for more profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a good product and people might actually be willing to give you money for itImagine a world where businesses actually made their products better to get sales rather than skimming quality to reduce margins for more profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a good product and people might actually be willing to give you money for itImagine a world where businesses actually made their products better to get sales rather than skimming quality to reduce margins for more profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718619</id>
	<title>Re:Just 7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"As Microsoft strives to migrate their core technologies from the desktop onto the Web, so too is their propaganda machine migrating from the established press to the informal social web. Microsoft shills are invading social web sites everywhere - in forums, discussion groups, comments to news items, edits to Wikipedia, manipulation of search engines, comments to blogs - posing as innocent participants to promote their agenda and counter wide spread complaints about their shady marketing practises. Even in the comments section of blogs by Microsoft employees on their own corporate site they employ sock puppets to say the things the author felt inappropriate to say directly. They race to place their shill postings at the top spot in the comments section of news and blogs, or perhaps they are given advance notice enabling them to do this where they are a sponsor.
<p>
The evidence is here on Slashdot for all to see, without embellishments from me. What I say here is amounts to only a digest of hundreds of postings by others. A careful investigator can see for himself the evolution of discussions on Microsoft related issues, especially those accusing them of their usual hard ball tactics. As one reads from Slashdot's historical record on through to recent times, the evolution of Microsoft's efforts to pervert Slashdot's discussions becomes readily apparent. Microsoft's ambition is to twist internet discussions around a full 180 degrees until these discussions become a platform for propaganda from Microsoft's "Ministry of Truth". A study of the comments of the shills posted here can be cross-correlated with postings on other sites. Their pattern of saturating a discussion with shill postings, and the repeating of mindless memes becomes obvious. Their harassment, ridicule, and suppression of criticisms is designed to intimidated those who would speak out against them. They seek to establish and enforce a discipline of giving Microsoft "fair treatment" and their propaganda the same consideration and respect a real person would deserve.
</p><p>
In the process they are destroying Slashdot as we know it. This insidious attack on the infrastructure we rely upon to form our opinions in a complex world has both a direct and an inhibitory effect on free speech as a side effect.
</p><p>
We must stop this while it is in its infancy. Once it fully established, it will become much more difficult to root out, and other ruthless corporations, organizations, and even governments will want to emulate the success of Microsoft's campaign. This is the nightmare vision of the end of the social internet as we know it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As Microsoft strives to migrate their core technologies from the desktop onto the Web , so too is their propaganda machine migrating from the established press to the informal social web .
Microsoft shills are invading social web sites everywhere - in forums , discussion groups , comments to news items , edits to Wikipedia , manipulation of search engines , comments to blogs - posing as innocent participants to promote their agenda and counter wide spread complaints about their shady marketing practises .
Even in the comments section of blogs by Microsoft employees on their own corporate site they employ sock puppets to say the things the author felt inappropriate to say directly .
They race to place their shill postings at the top spot in the comments section of news and blogs , or perhaps they are given advance notice enabling them to do this where they are a sponsor .
The evidence is here on Slashdot for all to see , without embellishments from me .
What I say here is amounts to only a digest of hundreds of postings by others .
A careful investigator can see for himself the evolution of discussions on Microsoft related issues , especially those accusing them of their usual hard ball tactics .
As one reads from Slashdot 's historical record on through to recent times , the evolution of Microsoft 's efforts to pervert Slashdot 's discussions becomes readily apparent .
Microsoft 's ambition is to twist internet discussions around a full 180 degrees until these discussions become a platform for propaganda from Microsoft 's " Ministry of Truth " .
A study of the comments of the shills posted here can be cross-correlated with postings on other sites .
Their pattern of saturating a discussion with shill postings , and the repeating of mindless memes becomes obvious .
Their harassment , ridicule , and suppression of criticisms is designed to intimidated those who would speak out against them .
They seek to establish and enforce a discipline of giving Microsoft " fair treatment " and their propaganda the same consideration and respect a real person would deserve .
In the process they are destroying Slashdot as we know it .
This insidious attack on the infrastructure we rely upon to form our opinions in a complex world has both a direct and an inhibitory effect on free speech as a side effect .
We must stop this while it is in its infancy .
Once it fully established , it will become much more difficult to root out , and other ruthless corporations , organizations , and even governments will want to emulate the success of Microsoft 's campaign .
This is the nightmare vision of the end of the social internet as we know it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As Microsoft strives to migrate their core technologies from the desktop onto the Web, so too is their propaganda machine migrating from the established press to the informal social web.
Microsoft shills are invading social web sites everywhere - in forums, discussion groups, comments to news items, edits to Wikipedia, manipulation of search engines, comments to blogs - posing as innocent participants to promote their agenda and counter wide spread complaints about their shady marketing practises.
Even in the comments section of blogs by Microsoft employees on their own corporate site they employ sock puppets to say the things the author felt inappropriate to say directly.
They race to place their shill postings at the top spot in the comments section of news and blogs, or perhaps they are given advance notice enabling them to do this where they are a sponsor.
The evidence is here on Slashdot for all to see, without embellishments from me.
What I say here is amounts to only a digest of hundreds of postings by others.
A careful investigator can see for himself the evolution of discussions on Microsoft related issues, especially those accusing them of their usual hard ball tactics.
As one reads from Slashdot's historical record on through to recent times, the evolution of Microsoft's efforts to pervert Slashdot's discussions becomes readily apparent.
Microsoft's ambition is to twist internet discussions around a full 180 degrees until these discussions become a platform for propaganda from Microsoft's "Ministry of Truth".
A study of the comments of the shills posted here can be cross-correlated with postings on other sites.
Their pattern of saturating a discussion with shill postings, and the repeating of mindless memes becomes obvious.
Their harassment, ridicule, and suppression of criticisms is designed to intimidated those who would speak out against them.
They seek to establish and enforce a discipline of giving Microsoft "fair treatment" and their propaganda the same consideration and respect a real person would deserve.
In the process they are destroying Slashdot as we know it.
This insidious attack on the infrastructure we rely upon to form our opinions in a complex world has both a direct and an inhibitory effect on free speech as a side effect.
We must stop this while it is in its infancy.
Once it fully established, it will become much more difficult to root out, and other ruthless corporations, organizations, and even governments will want to emulate the success of Microsoft's campaign.
This is the nightmare vision of the end of the social internet as we know it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718317</id>
	<title>Re:Price Gouging</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL.  It is typical for an American company to have an "introductory offer," to get as many copies out the door initially by taking a profit loss.  This boosts sales at the regular retail price by "word of mouth" between friends, either showing it off or talking about it.  I'm shocked you would have the knee-jerk reaction that the OS production costs are somehow related to the introductory price.  Or are you really that much of a retarded regarding marketing?</p><p>Oh wait, I forgot you were from Europe somewhere.  Nevermind, you are used to being raped in the market place by your own companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
It is typical for an American company to have an " introductory offer , " to get as many copies out the door initially by taking a profit loss .
This boosts sales at the regular retail price by " word of mouth " between friends , either showing it off or talking about it .
I 'm shocked you would have the knee-jerk reaction that the OS production costs are somehow related to the introductory price .
Or are you really that much of a retarded regarding marketing ? Oh wait , I forgot you were from Europe somewhere .
Nevermind , you are used to being raped in the market place by your own companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
It is typical for an American company to have an "introductory offer," to get as many copies out the door initially by taking a profit loss.
This boosts sales at the regular retail price by "word of mouth" between friends, either showing it off or talking about it.
I'm shocked you would have the knee-jerk reaction that the OS production costs are somehow related to the introductory price.
Or are you really that much of a retarded regarding marketing?Oh wait, I forgot you were from Europe somewhere.
Nevermind, you are used to being raped in the market place by your own companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247764080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the "best OS Microsoft has put out yet". That's making room for previous versions being worth half a shit at their release.</p><p>Windows 7 is the <i>only</i> Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as "broken for unknown reasons". That's a pretty big accomplishment for them!</p><p>Meh. Maybe I should just not post this comment. I'd forgotten about the "Windows XP Compatibility Mode" feature. That's inexplicably fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the " best OS Microsoft has put out yet " .
That 's making room for previous versions being worth half a shit at their release.Windows 7 is the only Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they 've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as " broken for unknown reasons " .
That 's a pretty big accomplishment for them ! Meh .
Maybe I should just not post this comment .
I 'd forgotten about the " Windows XP Compatibility Mode " feature .
That 's inexplicably fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the "best OS Microsoft has put out yet".
That's making room for previous versions being worth half a shit at their release.Windows 7 is the only Microsoft OS that is not only markedly better than its predecessor but is the only release they've made where there is not something immediately noticeable as "broken for unknown reasons".
That's a pretty big accomplishment for them!Meh.
Maybe I should just not post this comment.
I'd forgotten about the "Windows XP Compatibility Mode" feature.
That's inexplicably fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719281</id>
	<title>Re:Upgrade Path...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1247768460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the "+10 entertaining" mod button?   ROFLMAO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the " + 10 entertaining " mod button ?
ROFLMAO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the "+10 entertaining" mod button?
ROFLMAO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725561</id>
	<title>The man from Planet X</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247757180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?" What planet do you live on?</i> </p><p>The better question would be to ask what planet <b>you</b> come from.</p><p> The OEM system install is the gold standard in the Windows market. No one gives a damn about retail list.</p><p>The most you can reasonably expect from the typical Windows user is a one-time OS upgrade in-place for a late model system.</p><p>The steeply discounted refurbished quad core HP Pavilion purchased in late July and eligible for a free upgrade in October.</p><p>There are enormous economies of scale in producing for the Windows market.</p><p> By the time product hits the shelves whatever competitive advantage the "free" OS might have has long since disappeared.</p><p>That is why WalMart drop-kicks the Linux netbook into the dumpster.</p><p> No need to educate buyers unfamiliar with the OS. No need to maintain a dual inventory and support structure.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 200 OS for a $ 400 computer is " not too expensive ?
" What planet do you live on ?
The better question would be to ask what planet you come from .
The OEM system install is the gold standard in the Windows market .
No one gives a damn about retail list.The most you can reasonably expect from the typical Windows user is a one-time OS upgrade in-place for a late model system.The steeply discounted refurbished quad core HP Pavilion purchased in late July and eligible for a free upgrade in October.There are enormous economies of scale in producing for the Windows market .
By the time product hits the shelves whatever competitive advantage the " free " OS might have has long since disappeared.That is why WalMart drop-kicks the Linux netbook into the dumpster .
No need to educate buyers unfamiliar with the OS .
No need to maintain a dual inventory and support structure .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $200 OS for a $400 computer is "not too expensive?
" What planet do you live on?
The better question would be to ask what planet you come from.
The OEM system install is the gold standard in the Windows market.
No one gives a damn about retail list.The most you can reasonably expect from the typical Windows user is a one-time OS upgrade in-place for a late model system.The steeply discounted refurbished quad core HP Pavilion purchased in late July and eligible for a free upgrade in October.There are enormous economies of scale in producing for the Windows market.
By the time product hits the shelves whatever competitive advantage the "free" OS might have has long since disappeared.That is why WalMart drop-kicks the Linux netbook into the dumpster.
No need to educate buyers unfamiliar with the OS.
No need to maintain a dual inventory and support structure.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391</id>
	<title>Price Gouging</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1247761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no cheaper upgrade version of Windows 7 in Europe. So, for Win7 Home Premium, it's either pay &#194;&pound;50 now or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... three times that much later on.</p><p>It seems that &#194;&pound;50 is what people are willing to pay for a decent OS. More than willing to pay. Which suggests that the OS is overpriced and that if some form of competition were introduced, the price would plummet and MS would be unable to sell their new shiny OS for 150 clams without falling victim to that competition (assuming no dirty tricks and competition based on merit)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... (yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's unrealsitic, of course).</p><p>Never mind the stupid IE issue the EU parliament is fussing over - get slapping Microsoft for price gouging and abusing their monopoly that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no cheaper upgrade version of Windows 7 in Europe .
So , for Win7 Home Premium , it 's either pay     50 now or ... three times that much later on.It seems that     50 is what people are willing to pay for a decent OS .
More than willing to pay .
Which suggests that the OS is overpriced and that if some form of competition were introduced , the price would plummet and MS would be unable to sell their new shiny OS for 150 clams without falling victim to that competition ( assuming no dirty tricks and competition based on merit ) ... ( yes ... that 's unrealsitic , of course ) .Never mind the stupid IE issue the EU parliament is fussing over - get slapping Microsoft for price gouging and abusing their monopoly that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no cheaper upgrade version of Windows 7 in Europe.
So, for Win7 Home Premium, it's either pay Â£50 now or ... three times that much later on.It seems that Â£50 is what people are willing to pay for a decent OS.
More than willing to pay.
Which suggests that the OS is overpriced and that if some form of competition were introduced, the price would plummet and MS would be unable to sell their new shiny OS for 150 clams without falling victim to that competition (assuming no dirty tricks and competition based on merit) ... (yes ... that's unrealsitic, of course).Never mind the stupid IE issue the EU parliament is fussing over - get slapping Microsoft for price gouging and abusing their monopoly that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145</id>
	<title>Just 7?</title>
	<author>mrthoughtful</author>
	<datestamp>1247760540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista's In Just 8hrs" - So Vista only had 6 pre-orders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista 's In Just 8hrs " - So Vista only had 6 pre-orders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows 7 Pre-Orders Top Vista's In Just 8hrs" - So Vista only had 6 pre-orders?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717821</id>
	<title>Devoted Macintosh user forced to use XP by day</title>
	<author>QuatermassX</author>
	<datestamp>1247763240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My adult life has primarily been spent using various permutations of Apple's Macintosh computers for fun and (quite often) for profit and (always) to further my artistic goals. By day for the past couple of years though, I'm usually forced to interact with a Windows PC running the latest flavour of Win XP.
</p><p>I really can't imagine why I would ever want to upgrade that PC and why oh why I would ever need anything more than Word/Excel/PPT 2003 on Windows. I really don't. I'm a geek and believe in giving Windows a go now and again and didn't think Vista all THAT horrible at PC World. It just looked like a very fiddly version of OS X Leopard. It isn't for me, but that's ok.
</p><p>But in ALL of this, I cannot think of one compelling feature that will make my life more rich or work easier in Windows 7. Will Word create my letters? Oh no, that insane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx file format already makes exchanging files a living hell. Will Excel becoming more comprehensible? Probably not (and forgive this slight troll, but I recently gave Numbers a try and was exceedingly surprised at how well it works - Pages remains a bit lame, though).
</p><p>I would really love to see Microsoft innovate something that would make interacting with these boxes more pleasing, the manipulation of complex information more straightforward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I just don't understand why I would want to upgrade that older Windows PC.
</p><p>So this will cost me &#194;&pound;80 to install on my iMac? That's not all that bad, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My adult life has primarily been spent using various permutations of Apple 's Macintosh computers for fun and ( quite often ) for profit and ( always ) to further my artistic goals .
By day for the past couple of years though , I 'm usually forced to interact with a Windows PC running the latest flavour of Win XP .
I really ca n't imagine why I would ever want to upgrade that PC and why oh why I would ever need anything more than Word/Excel/PPT 2003 on Windows .
I really do n't .
I 'm a geek and believe in giving Windows a go now and again and did n't think Vista all THAT horrible at PC World .
It just looked like a very fiddly version of OS X Leopard .
It is n't for me , but that 's ok . But in ALL of this , I can not think of one compelling feature that will make my life more rich or work easier in Windows 7 .
Will Word create my letters ?
Oh no , that insane .docx file format already makes exchanging files a living hell .
Will Excel becoming more comprehensible ?
Probably not ( and forgive this slight troll , but I recently gave Numbers a try and was exceedingly surprised at how well it works - Pages remains a bit lame , though ) .
I would really love to see Microsoft innovate something that would make interacting with these boxes more pleasing , the manipulation of complex information more straightforward ... but I just do n't understand why I would want to upgrade that older Windows PC .
So this will cost me     80 to install on my iMac ?
That 's not all that bad , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My adult life has primarily been spent using various permutations of Apple's Macintosh computers for fun and (quite often) for profit and (always) to further my artistic goals.
By day for the past couple of years though, I'm usually forced to interact with a Windows PC running the latest flavour of Win XP.
I really can't imagine why I would ever want to upgrade that PC and why oh why I would ever need anything more than Word/Excel/PPT 2003 on Windows.
I really don't.
I'm a geek and believe in giving Windows a go now and again and didn't think Vista all THAT horrible at PC World.
It just looked like a very fiddly version of OS X Leopard.
It isn't for me, but that's ok.
But in ALL of this, I cannot think of one compelling feature that will make my life more rich or work easier in Windows 7.
Will Word create my letters?
Oh no, that insane .docx file format already makes exchanging files a living hell.
Will Excel becoming more comprehensible?
Probably not (and forgive this slight troll, but I recently gave Numbers a try and was exceedingly surprised at how well it works - Pages remains a bit lame, though).
I would really love to see Microsoft innovate something that would make interacting with these boxes more pleasing, the manipulation of complex information more straightforward ... but I just don't understand why I would want to upgrade that older Windows PC.
So this will cost me Â£80 to install on my iMac?
That's not all that bad, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159</id>
	<title>Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.</p><p>Say what you will about Linux or OSX, but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not too expensive , it 's a great piece of software , and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.Say what you will about Linux or OSX , but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not too expensive, it's a great piece of software, and the best OS Microsoft has put out yet.Say what you will about Linux or OSX, but I honestly think that Windows 7 is going to have a good future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717739</id>
	<title>Re:Great startegy</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1247762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not that I don't mind using a <b>descent</b> OS, which Windows 7 seems to be at this time.</p></div><p>So Windows 7 is an operating system specialized in producing offspring? Truly, that's taking "The internet is for porn" to its ultimate consequences!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I do n't mind using a descent OS , which Windows 7 seems to be at this time.So Windows 7 is an operating system specialized in producing offspring ?
Truly , that 's taking " The internet is for porn " to its ultimate consequences !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I don't mind using a descent OS, which Windows 7 seems to be at this time.So Windows 7 is an operating system specialized in producing offspring?
Truly, that's taking "The internet is for porn" to its ultimate consequences!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720613</id>
	<title>The sky just fell.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't this people know what kind of mistake they are making. The really should read more slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't this people know what kind of mistake they are making .
The really should read more slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't this people know what kind of mistake they are making.
The really should read more slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723107</id>
	<title>Re:Preordering Windows?</title>
	<author>bonedog73</author>
	<datestamp>1247740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People actually pre-order Windows??</htmltext>
<tokenext>People actually pre-order Windows ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People actually pre-order Windows?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715</id>
	<title>It is just Vista SP X</title>
	<author>Clarious</author>
	<datestamp>1247762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and people are acting crazy. When I used vista, I have absolute no problem with it, so I don't understand what with the Windows 7 hype. From what I have heard, it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.</p><p>But I have no reason to care about Windows world anymore, switched to Linux half a year ago and now I am a happy Linux user<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) There may never be an year of Linux or its market will never go past 10\%, but I can use it comfortably now, so it is fine with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and people are acting crazy .
When I used vista , I have absolute no problem with it , so I do n't understand what with the Windows 7 hype .
From what I have heard , it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.But I have no reason to care about Windows world anymore , switched to Linux half a year ago and now I am a happy Linux user : ) There may never be an year of Linux or its market will never go past 10 \ % , but I can use it comfortably now , so it is fine with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and people are acting crazy.
When I used vista, I have absolute no problem with it, so I don't understand what with the Windows 7 hype.
From what I have heard, it is just Vista with the retarded parts removed.But I have no reason to care about Windows world anymore, switched to Linux half a year ago and now I am a happy Linux user :) There may never be an year of Linux or its market will never go past 10\%, but I can use it comfortably now, so it is fine with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722229</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great piece of software? That remains to be seen, and depends on your definition of "great". Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me.</p></div><p>I too, find "great" to be a meaningless and confusing word. Those damn marketers!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great piece of software ?
That remains to be seen , and depends on your definition of " great " .
Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me.I too , find " great " to be a meaningless and confusing word .
Those damn marketers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great piece of software?
That remains to be seen, and depends on your definition of "great".
Kind of meaningless marketspeak if you ask me.I too, find "great" to be a meaningless and confusing word.
Those damn marketers!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722883</id>
	<title>Re:Can't say I'm surprised....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Decent desktops are running at $400 or so with Vista pre-installed, and would cost about that when WIndows 7 comes out. Now, really is Windows worth such a big part of the cost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decent desktops are running at $ 400 or so with Vista pre-installed , and would cost about that when WIndows 7 comes out .
Now , really is Windows worth such a big part of the cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decent desktops are running at $400 or so with Vista pre-installed, and would cost about that when WIndows 7 comes out.
Now, really is Windows worth such a big part of the cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28727449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28726943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28733333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28744659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1425238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28733333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722545
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28726943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28744659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28725357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28722611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28724835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28720293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28721753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28719091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28727449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28723901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1425238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28717391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1425238.28718317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
