<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_2133207</id>
	<title>Comparing Performance and Power Use For Vista vs. Windows 7 WIth Clarksfield Chip</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255513080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>crazipper writes <i>"Back when Intel launched its Core i5/i7 'Lynnfield' CPUs, Tom's Hardware <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-8.html">ran some tests in Windows 7 versus Vista</a> to gauge the benefits of the core parking and ideal core optimizations, said to cut power consumption in the new OS. It turned out that Win7 shifted the Nehalem-based CPUs in and out of Turbo Boost mode faster, resulting in <em>higher</em> power draw under load, while idle power was a slight bit lower. The mobile version of the architecture was claimed (at the time) to show a greater improvement in moving to Win7. Today there's a <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-core-i7,2443.html">follow-up with the flagship Clarksfield processor</a> that shows the same aggressive P-state promotion policies giving Win7 a significant performance advantage with Core i7 Mobile. However, power consumption is higher as well."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>crazipper writes " Back when Intel launched its Core i5/i7 'Lynnfield ' CPUs , Tom 's Hardware ran some tests in Windows 7 versus Vista to gauge the benefits of the core parking and ideal core optimizations , said to cut power consumption in the new OS .
It turned out that Win7 shifted the Nehalem-based CPUs in and out of Turbo Boost mode faster , resulting in higher power draw under load , while idle power was a slight bit lower .
The mobile version of the architecture was claimed ( at the time ) to show a greater improvement in moving to Win7 .
Today there 's a follow-up with the flagship Clarksfield processor that shows the same aggressive P-state promotion policies giving Win7 a significant performance advantage with Core i7 Mobile .
However , power consumption is higher as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crazipper writes "Back when Intel launched its Core i5/i7 'Lynnfield' CPUs, Tom's Hardware ran some tests in Windows 7 versus Vista to gauge the benefits of the core parking and ideal core optimizations, said to cut power consumption in the new OS.
It turned out that Win7 shifted the Nehalem-based CPUs in and out of Turbo Boost mode faster, resulting in higher power draw under load, while idle power was a slight bit lower.
The mobile version of the architecture was claimed (at the time) to show a greater improvement in moving to Win7.
Today there's a follow-up with the flagship Clarksfield processor that shows the same aggressive P-state promotion policies giving Win7 a significant performance advantage with Core i7 Mobile.
However, power consumption is higher as well.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751505</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255524360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My vaio has that too.</p><p>Unsure as to the actual battery life gains, but it has built in Intel GM965/X3100 and an nVidia 8400M GS. Maybe not using intel's tech?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My vaio has that too.Unsure as to the actual battery life gains , but it has built in Intel GM965/X3100 and an nVidia 8400M GS .
Maybe not using intel 's tech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My vaio has that too.Unsure as to the actual battery life gains, but it has built in Intel GM965/X3100 and an nVidia 8400M GS.
Maybe not using intel's tech?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750759</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1255519140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros? The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU? I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Apple GPU switching implementation appears to require the user to restart his or her session (that is, log off and log on again.)  Intel's implementation seems to support switching GPUs without logging off or restarting.  The Intel solution also has to handle two different display drivers.</p><p>Some older laptops supported switching between integrated and discrete graphics as well, but I think they required a reboot to switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros ?
The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it 's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU ?
I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel , but that still seems a little disingenuous.The Apple GPU switching implementation appears to require the user to restart his or her session ( that is , log off and log on again .
) Intel 's implementation seems to support switching GPUs without logging off or restarting .
The Intel solution also has to handle two different display drivers.Some older laptops supported switching between integrated and discrete graphics as well , but I think they required a reboot to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros?
The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU?
I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.The Apple GPU switching implementation appears to require the user to restart his or her session (that is, log off and log on again.
)  Intel's implementation seems to support switching GPUs without logging off or restarting.
The Intel solution also has to handle two different display drivers.Some older laptops supported switching between integrated and discrete graphics as well, but I think they required a reboot to switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751957</id>
	<title>Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1255527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Win7 quad core AMD system that boots in under 10 seconds, is rock solid stable, and runs every game I throw at it blindingly fast would care to disagree with you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Link to my PC build out.  I was going more for cosmetics (30 lbs of brushed aluminum, I don't much like the blue LEDs though, I am burnt out on blue LEDs) than for power, I have friends who consider a 10 second boot with Win7 to be slow.  Not that I boot very often, more likely I am coming out of Hibernate which I can do in ~3-5 seconds, which is pretty good timing for 8GB of RAM.</p><blockquote><div><p>I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips. I always end up switching back to Intel.</p></div></blockquote><p>Intel makes very stable chipsets.  If you tried AMD during the days that they were relying on Via chipsets (or used some of AMD's early chipsets) I can see how you could easily get this impression.  Intel is good at putting together barebones kits and working with OEMs to put out stable systems.</p><p>Also don't skimp on the mobo, get a good middle of the range one, and read reviews on it.  AMD's platforms have always offered a lot of diversity, which can be both a strength and a weakness; depending on how educated the system builder is about the relative merits (including stability) of those choices.</p><p>AMD is often seen as a cost cutting measure (and their CPUs are very financially efficient) but a lot of people, both OEMs at individuals, take cost cutting a bit too far and once they go with AMD they also skimp on the power supply, motherboard, and even RAM.</p><p>Indeed, an AMD system with a very well performing CPU that has been hooked up to a crash prone motherboard running no-name RAM all powered by a flaky PSU, can indeed give one a very negative impression of AMD as a whole.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>AMD MoBos are typically cheaper than comparable quality Intel MoBos, so you can save some money there, but don't be cheap with any other parts of the system.  You will still save a good chunk of change (how much depends on which company has done price drops most recently) and you will get a stable, reliable, very well performing system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Win7 quad core AMD system that boots in under 10 seconds , is rock solid stable , and runs every game I throw at it blindingly fast would care to disagree with you .
: ) Link to my PC build out .
I was going more for cosmetics ( 30 lbs of brushed aluminum , I do n't much like the blue LEDs though , I am burnt out on blue LEDs ) than for power , I have friends who consider a 10 second boot with Win7 to be slow .
Not that I boot very often , more likely I am coming out of Hibernate which I can do in ~ 3-5 seconds , which is pretty good timing for 8GB of RAM.I 've never been able to put my finger on it , but Windows simply does n't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips .
I always end up switching back to Intel.Intel makes very stable chipsets .
If you tried AMD during the days that they were relying on Via chipsets ( or used some of AMD 's early chipsets ) I can see how you could easily get this impression .
Intel is good at putting together barebones kits and working with OEMs to put out stable systems.Also do n't skimp on the mobo , get a good middle of the range one , and read reviews on it .
AMD 's platforms have always offered a lot of diversity , which can be both a strength and a weakness ; depending on how educated the system builder is about the relative merits ( including stability ) of those choices.AMD is often seen as a cost cutting measure ( and their CPUs are very financially efficient ) but a lot of people , both OEMs at individuals , take cost cutting a bit too far and once they go with AMD they also skimp on the power supply , motherboard , and even RAM.Indeed , an AMD system with a very well performing CPU that has been hooked up to a crash prone motherboard running no-name RAM all powered by a flaky PSU , can indeed give one a very negative impression of AMD as a whole .
: ) AMD MoBos are typically cheaper than comparable quality Intel MoBos , so you can save some money there , but do n't be cheap with any other parts of the system .
You will still save a good chunk of change ( how much depends on which company has done price drops most recently ) and you will get a stable , reliable , very well performing system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Win7 quad core AMD system that boots in under 10 seconds, is rock solid stable, and runs every game I throw at it blindingly fast would care to disagree with you.
:)Link to my PC build out.
I was going more for cosmetics (30 lbs of brushed aluminum, I don't much like the blue LEDs though, I am burnt out on blue LEDs) than for power, I have friends who consider a 10 second boot with Win7 to be slow.
Not that I boot very often, more likely I am coming out of Hibernate which I can do in ~3-5 seconds, which is pretty good timing for 8GB of RAM.I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips.
I always end up switching back to Intel.Intel makes very stable chipsets.
If you tried AMD during the days that they were relying on Via chipsets (or used some of AMD's early chipsets) I can see how you could easily get this impression.
Intel is good at putting together barebones kits and working with OEMs to put out stable systems.Also don't skimp on the mobo, get a good middle of the range one, and read reviews on it.
AMD's platforms have always offered a lot of diversity, which can be both a strength and a weakness; depending on how educated the system builder is about the relative merits (including stability) of those choices.AMD is often seen as a cost cutting measure (and their CPUs are very financially efficient) but a lot of people, both OEMs at individuals, take cost cutting a bit too far and once they go with AMD they also skimp on the power supply, motherboard, and even RAM.Indeed, an AMD system with a very well performing CPU that has been hooked up to a crash prone motherboard running no-name RAM all powered by a flaky PSU, can indeed give one a very negative impression of AMD as a whole.
:)AMD MoBos are typically cheaper than comparable quality Intel MoBos, so you can save some money there, but don't be cheap with any other parts of the system.
You will still save a good chunk of change (how much depends on which company has done price drops most recently) and you will get a stable, reliable, very well performing system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750903</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Update</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1255519800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thrice daily? What?.. I can't remember the last time I had three in a single month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thrice daily ?
What ? .. I ca n't remember the last time I had three in a single month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thrice daily?
What?.. I can't remember the last time I had three in a single month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29758779</id>
	<title>Power User?  How about begrudging windows users?</title>
	<author>tji</author>
	<datestamp>1255627620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of us that use Windows in a VM on our primary Linux or Mac OS X desktop, what is the best OS?</p><p>For a long time, I stuck with my good old Win2K VM.   But, too many apps were not supported on Win2K, so I moved to XP.</p><p>There was clearly no reason to go to Vista from XP.  But, how about now with Win7?  Any advantages to Win7 for basic VM use, office apps &amp; IT tools?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us that use Windows in a VM on our primary Linux or Mac OS X desktop , what is the best OS ? For a long time , I stuck with my good old Win2K VM .
But , too many apps were not supported on Win2K , so I moved to XP.There was clearly no reason to go to Vista from XP .
But , how about now with Win7 ?
Any advantages to Win7 for basic VM use , office apps &amp; IT tools ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us that use Windows in a VM on our primary Linux or Mac OS X desktop, what is the best OS?For a long time, I stuck with my good old Win2K VM.
But, too many apps were not supported on Win2K, so I moved to XP.There was clearly no reason to go to Vista from XP.
But, how about now with Win7?
Any advantages to Win7 for basic VM use, office apps &amp; IT tools?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750815</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They obviously don't. Some cohesive naming might give you at least an indication on what you are dealing with.</p><p>My favorite is the nVidia one: GF 6xxx -&gt; GF 7xxx -&gt; GF 8xxx -&gt; GF 9xxx -&gt; GT 2xx<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. WTF?</p><p>Now don't ask me why. I think it's stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They obviously do n't .
Some cohesive naming might give you at least an indication on what you are dealing with.My favorite is the nVidia one : GF 6xxx - &gt; GF 7xxx - &gt; GF 8xxx - &gt; GF 9xxx - &gt; GT 2xx .. WTF ? Now do n't ask me why .
I think it 's stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They obviously don't.
Some cohesive naming might give you at least an indication on what you are dealing with.My favorite is the nVidia one: GF 6xxx -&gt; GF 7xxx -&gt; GF 8xxx -&gt; GF 9xxx -&gt; GT 2xx .. WTF?Now don't ask me why.
I think it's stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752717</id>
	<title>more power, but more energy?</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1255533900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It uses more power, but if it gets the job done more quickly, it could still use less energy. Much like any current computer will get a sizable job done using less power than an Apple ][, even though the power supply and power draws are much bigger on the modern PC.</p><p>Also, the article tries to compare the laptops and gives system performance in minutes/mAh. But the article doesn't give the voltage of the battery packs. What is the minutes/mWh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It uses more power , but if it gets the job done more quickly , it could still use less energy .
Much like any current computer will get a sizable job done using less power than an Apple ] [ , even though the power supply and power draws are much bigger on the modern PC.Also , the article tries to compare the laptops and gives system performance in minutes/mAh .
But the article does n't give the voltage of the battery packs .
What is the minutes/mWh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It uses more power, but if it gets the job done more quickly, it could still use less energy.
Much like any current computer will get a sizable job done using less power than an Apple ][, even though the power supply and power draws are much bigger on the modern PC.Also, the article tries to compare the laptops and gives system performance in minutes/mAh.
But the article doesn't give the voltage of the battery packs.
What is the minutes/mWh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752439</id>
	<title>Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel have a larger market share so prioritizing taking advantage of/optimizing for Intel features makes economical sense.<br>I don't think Microsoft intentionally pessimizes their system for AMD system so the feeling of not running well is probably a combination of processor performance (AMD processors have lower IPC than Intel at the moment), chipset performance (AMD have had problems with ATA/SATA performance for example) and a psychological factor. There's also the fact that optimizations of common applications are (if at all) done only/mainly for Intel systems, again for market share reasons.<br>Microsoft works with AMD and other hardware manufacturers too, they have no reason for helping Intel reach a monopoly position as they would loose money. Their insistence on having Intel scrap their internal x86 64bit project(s) and adopt the AMD design is in my opinion proof that they do value the AMD cooperation and want to keep both players in the game.<br>But I'm just an anonymous coward, what do I know?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel have a larger market share so prioritizing taking advantage of/optimizing for Intel features makes economical sense.I do n't think Microsoft intentionally pessimizes their system for AMD system so the feeling of not running well is probably a combination of processor performance ( AMD processors have lower IPC than Intel at the moment ) , chipset performance ( AMD have had problems with ATA/SATA performance for example ) and a psychological factor .
There 's also the fact that optimizations of common applications are ( if at all ) done only/mainly for Intel systems , again for market share reasons.Microsoft works with AMD and other hardware manufacturers too , they have no reason for helping Intel reach a monopoly position as they would loose money .
Their insistence on having Intel scrap their internal x86 64bit project ( s ) and adopt the AMD design is in my opinion proof that they do value the AMD cooperation and want to keep both players in the game.But I 'm just an anonymous coward , what do I know ?
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel have a larger market share so prioritizing taking advantage of/optimizing for Intel features makes economical sense.I don't think Microsoft intentionally pessimizes their system for AMD system so the feeling of not running well is probably a combination of processor performance (AMD processors have lower IPC than Intel at the moment), chipset performance (AMD have had problems with ATA/SATA performance for example) and a psychological factor.
There's also the fact that optimizations of common applications are (if at all) done only/mainly for Intel systems, again for market share reasons.Microsoft works with AMD and other hardware manufacturers too, they have no reason for helping Intel reach a monopoly position as they would loose money.
Their insistence on having Intel scrap their internal x86 64bit project(s) and adopt the AMD design is in my opinion proof that they do value the AMD cooperation and want to keep both players in the game.But I'm just an anonymous coward, what do I know?
...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750627</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this what we want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which can be done with a bios switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which can be done with a bios switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which can be done with a bios switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750421</id>
	<title>As a shudder runs down my spine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying Vista is the better OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying Vista is the better OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying Vista is the better OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751797</id>
	<title>Clarksfield Chi</title>
	<author>russlar</author>
	<datestamp>1255526640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously not a P-series Intel chip</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously not a P-series Intel chip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously not a P-series Intel chip</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752545</id>
	<title>Re:But what about ECC?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1255532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>why would you want to run an i5/i7 system</p></div></blockquote><p>Because Borderlands is going to <i>rawk</i> on it.</p><p>What?  That's not a good enough reason for you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would you want to run an i5/i7 systemBecause Borderlands is going to rawk on it.What ?
That 's not a good enough reason for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would you want to run an i5/i7 systemBecause Borderlands is going to rawk on it.What?
That's not a good enough reason for you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751351</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MBP has an Nvidia and Intel Vid card.  You ca switch to one or the other then log out and log back in for it to take effect.  The only reason for this is to use less power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MBP has an Nvidia and Intel Vid card .
You ca switch to one or the other then log out and log back in for it to take effect .
The only reason for this is to use less power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MBP has an Nvidia and Intel Vid card.
You ca switch to one or the other then log out and log back in for it to take effect.
The only reason for this is to use less power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119</id>
	<title>still worth the upgrade</title>
	<author>sabhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255521240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>its still worth it to upgrade to windows 7.  vista is just too terribly slow.  i think a lot of people are holding back from purchasing computers because no one wants to be stuck with vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its still worth it to upgrade to windows 7. vista is just too terribly slow .
i think a lot of people are holding back from purchasing computers because no one wants to be stuck with vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its still worth it to upgrade to windows 7.  vista is just too terribly slow.
i think a lot of people are holding back from purchasing computers because no one wants to be stuck with vista.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751319</id>
	<title>Fukck a Shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">which Gathers</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>which Gathers [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which Gathers [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752097</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this what we want?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1255528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  A CPU running at half speed uses something like 70\% of the power that it does at full speed.  So it's better to run at full speed for a short time, then go into power saving mode than to run at slow speed for a long time.  This has been called <a href="http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/applications-power-management/race-to-idle.php" title="lesswatts.org" rel="nofollow">"race to idle"</a> [lesswatts.org], and reminds me of the de facto motto of my old military school, "hurry up so we can wait".<br> <br>

That said, Tom's Hardware did make a pretty big blunder on SSDs and battery life before, even having the gall to start that article with "Could Tom&rsquo;s Hardware be Wrong?  No, our results are definitely correct.".  I haven't RTFA, but I'd be quite hesitant to take their word on anything to do with power consumption without carefully examining the methodology of their tests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
A CPU running at half speed uses something like 70 \ % of the power that it does at full speed .
So it 's better to run at full speed for a short time , then go into power saving mode than to run at slow speed for a long time .
This has been called " race to idle " [ lesswatts.org ] , and reminds me of the de facto motto of my old military school , " hurry up so we can wait " .
That said , Tom 's Hardware did make a pretty big blunder on SSDs and battery life before , even having the gall to start that article with " Could Tom    s Hardware be Wrong ?
No , our results are definitely correct. " .
I have n't RTFA , but I 'd be quite hesitant to take their word on anything to do with power consumption without carefully examining the methodology of their tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
A CPU running at half speed uses something like 70\% of the power that it does at full speed.
So it's better to run at full speed for a short time, then go into power saving mode than to run at slow speed for a long time.
This has been called "race to idle" [lesswatts.org], and reminds me of the de facto motto of my old military school, "hurry up so we can wait".
That said, Tom's Hardware did make a pretty big blunder on SSDs and battery life before, even having the gall to start that article with "Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?
No, our results are definitely correct.".
I haven't RTFA, but I'd be quite hesitant to take their word on anything to do with power consumption without carefully examining the methodology of their tests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750433</id>
	<title>Underclocking and P-state?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Foo2 gives much higher performance and somewhat higher power consumption than Foo1.</p><p>Solution: Apply a downwards scalar to Foo2 so that the performance is the same and the power consumption is lower than Foo1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foo2 gives much higher performance and somewhat higher power consumption than Foo1.Solution : Apply a downwards scalar to Foo2 so that the performance is the same and the power consumption is lower than Foo1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foo2 gives much higher performance and somewhat higher power consumption than Foo1.Solution: Apply a downwards scalar to Foo2 so that the performance is the same and the power consumption is lower than Foo1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753189</id>
	<title>Re:still worth the upgrade</title>
	<author>SpitfireSMS</author>
	<datestamp>1255538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iv said it several times and Ill say it again.<br>The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements.<br>My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly, even though vista only "requires" 1GB.<br>I cant imagine running it with 1GB.</p><p>But Vista works fine when you have 3+GBs<br>Not only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse, but it was stable too. More so than I have found XP to be.</p><p>Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently, and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista.<br>The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability.<br>Several months after the install, I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD.<br>Still some kinks I suppose, and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iv said it several times and Ill say it again.The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements.My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly , even though vista only " requires " 1GB.I cant imagine running it with 1GB.But Vista works fine when you have 3 + GBsNot only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse , but it was stable too .
More so than I have found XP to be.Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently , and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista.The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability.Several months after the install , I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD.Still some kinks I suppose , and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iv said it several times and Ill say it again.The only thing wrong with Vista is the system requirements.My laptop with a 2GHz amd x2 processor and 2GB of RAM ran vista very poorly, even though vista only "requires" 1GB.I cant imagine running it with 1GB.But Vista works fine when you have 3+GBsNot only was it speedy on my desktop powerhouse, but it was stable too.
More so than I have found XP to be.Windows 7 is absolutely great if you have a system that can run Vista decently, and win7 on my laptop actually ran a lot better than Vista.The only issue Im having with 7 right now is stability.Several months after the install, I have come back to my computer after class only to see a BSOD.Still some kinks I suppose, and considering im running the release candidate its not unheard of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751303</id>
	<title>confused</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1255522500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Clarksfield Chi anything like a Charleston Chew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Clarksfield Chi anything like a Charleston Chew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Clarksfield Chi anything like a Charleston Chew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750685</id>
	<title>Newsflash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware tuned for old version of software has some issues with new version of software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware tuned for old version of software has some issues with new version of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware tuned for old version of software has some issues with new version of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750429</id>
	<title>But what about ECC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/1732211/Google-Finds-DRAM-Errors-More-Common-Than-Believed?art\_pos=2" title="slashdot.org">recent google study</a> [slashdot.org] and the <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1091921/Two-thirds-of-NVIDIA-GPUs-show-memory-errors?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">Folding@Home NVIDIA study</a> [slashdot.org], why would you <em>want</em> to run an i5/i7 system (which don't permit ECC)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the recent google study [ slashdot.org ] and the Folding @ Home NVIDIA study [ slashdot.org ] , why would you want to run an i5/i7 system ( which do n't permit ECC ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the recent google study [slashdot.org] and the Folding@Home NVIDIA study [slashdot.org], why would you want to run an i5/i7 system (which don't permit ECC)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750893</id>
	<title>Re:Good grief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat a <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">niggerdick</a> [goatse.fr]. All your friends do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat a niggerdick [ goatse.fr ] .
All your friends do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat a niggerdick [goatse.fr].
All your friends do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750791</id>
	<title>How about using XP sp3 for comparison???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cant be the only one who might think xp sp3 might actually win</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant be the only one who might think xp sp3 might actually win</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant be the only one who might think xp sp3 might actually win</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752565</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the worst thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs better but uses slightly more power in some rigs?</p><p>Desperation sets in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the worst thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs better but uses slightly more power in some rigs ? Desperation sets in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the worst thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs better but uses slightly more power in some rigs?Desperation sets in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756843</id>
	<title>Re:Newsflash</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1255619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Microsoft expects hardware manufactures to build new hardware to run their OS. Other OS makers either design the two in concert (most Unix) or design an OS for existing computers (most Linux).</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Microsoft expects hardware manufactures to build new hardware to run their OS .
Other OS makers either design the two in concert ( most Unix ) or design an OS for existing computers ( most Linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Microsoft expects hardware manufactures to build new hardware to run their OS.
Other OS makers either design the two in concert (most Unix) or design an OS for existing computers (most Linux).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751473</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this what we want?</title>
	<author>SpelledBackwards</author>
	<datestamp>1255524060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. People seem to forget that power drain and energy consumption are not the same thing - power consumption is in energy consumed per some amount of time. For a completely unrelated example: If you run a 30 W load over 1 second, it will use 30 joules of energy (because a 1 W power draw means it consumes 1 J per second). But if you run a 500 W load over 1/100 sec, you'll only use 5 J of energy. Batteries store energy, not power, so what is likely to be more important for mobile platforms is which one used the least amount of energy over the time span of the test, not comparing peak power or power in short bursts of activity.

That is, if you're concerned about battery life. Peak power might play a bigger role in talking about current load and CPU/battery temperature issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
People seem to forget that power drain and energy consumption are not the same thing - power consumption is in energy consumed per some amount of time .
For a completely unrelated example : If you run a 30 W load over 1 second , it will use 30 joules of energy ( because a 1 W power draw means it consumes 1 J per second ) .
But if you run a 500 W load over 1/100 sec , you 'll only use 5 J of energy .
Batteries store energy , not power , so what is likely to be more important for mobile platforms is which one used the least amount of energy over the time span of the test , not comparing peak power or power in short bursts of activity .
That is , if you 're concerned about battery life .
Peak power might play a bigger role in talking about current load and CPU/battery temperature issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
People seem to forget that power drain and energy consumption are not the same thing - power consumption is in energy consumed per some amount of time.
For a completely unrelated example: If you run a 30 W load over 1 second, it will use 30 joules of energy (because a 1 W power draw means it consumes 1 J per second).
But if you run a 500 W load over 1/100 sec, you'll only use 5 J of energy.
Batteries store energy, not power, so what is likely to be more important for mobile platforms is which one used the least amount of energy over the time span of the test, not comparing peak power or power in short bursts of activity.
That is, if you're concerned about battery life.
Peak power might play a bigger role in talking about current load and CPU/battery temperature issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750855</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the real nuisance of Windows Updates is the tremendous amount of CPU they use.  how is it that I can update a Linux distro on inferior hardware and not notice the slowdown so much?  is it because the linux system runs a user-mode program to take care of things, while windows update probably handles this in kernel mode?  seriously why does Windows need so much more processing power to perform the same type of task, and less of it since Windows Update considers only the core OS and not every installed package like a Linux package manager would do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the real nuisance of Windows Updates is the tremendous amount of CPU they use .
how is it that I can update a Linux distro on inferior hardware and not notice the slowdown so much ?
is it because the linux system runs a user-mode program to take care of things , while windows update probably handles this in kernel mode ?
seriously why does Windows need so much more processing power to perform the same type of task , and less of it since Windows Update considers only the core OS and not every installed package like a Linux package manager would do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the real nuisance of Windows Updates is the tremendous amount of CPU they use.
how is it that I can update a Linux distro on inferior hardware and not notice the slowdown so much?
is it because the linux system runs a user-mode program to take care of things, while windows update probably handles this in kernel mode?
seriously why does Windows need so much more processing power to perform the same type of task, and less of it since Windows Update considers only the core OS and not every installed package like a Linux package manager would do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417</id>
	<title>Windows Update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255516980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do know that the thrice-daily Windows Updates will consume a startling amount of power, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do know that the thrice-daily Windows Updates will consume a startling amount of power , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do know that the thrice-daily Windows Updates will consume a startling amount of power, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753237</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it's a bit disingenuous to give the credit to intel instead of nvidia. A bit more to give credit for slapping a brand name on it to the intel adopters. FTR there were several brands that used the nvidia version and Asus even included the hybrid SLI feature that Apple could not.</p><p>Also there are even older notebooks that allow you to choose whether to boot into a slow but power thrifty intel integrated "GPU" (ha!) or a faster dedicated GF8000 series card with a physical switch. But of course those don't do it during use</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it 's a bit disingenuous to give the credit to intel instead of nvidia .
A bit more to give credit for slapping a brand name on it to the intel adopters .
FTR there were several brands that used the nvidia version and Asus even included the hybrid SLI feature that Apple could not.Also there are even older notebooks that allow you to choose whether to boot into a slow but power thrifty intel integrated " GPU " ( ha !
) or a faster dedicated GF8000 series card with a physical switch .
But of course those do n't do it during use</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it's a bit disingenuous to give the credit to intel instead of nvidia.
A bit more to give credit for slapping a brand name on it to the intel adopters.
FTR there were several brands that used the nvidia version and Asus even included the hybrid SLI feature that Apple could not.Also there are even older notebooks that allow you to choose whether to boot into a slow but power thrifty intel integrated "GPU" (ha!
) or a faster dedicated GF8000 series card with a physical switch.
But of course those don't do it during use</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752337</id>
	<title>power isn't the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The power isn't so much the problem.<br>
The problem [ducks] is that it's running windows [runs]...<br>
[aw crap, here we go again]<br>[I hear the sock puppets winding up]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The power is n't so much the problem .
The problem [ ducks ] is that it 's running windows [ runs ] .. . [ aw crap , here we go again ] [ I hear the sock puppets winding up ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The power isn't so much the problem.
The problem [ducks] is that it's running windows [runs]...
[aw crap, here we go again][I hear the sock puppets winding up]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547</id>
	<title>Good grief</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255517700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've built several high-end PCs from scratch and spec'd several more at component level, during a period of well over a decade and most recently just a couple of years ago, and I still have <em>absolutely no idea</em> what any of the fine summary meant.</p><p>Does anyone actually label/number components in any sort of logical way at all any more? Codename this, year that, version.subversion.minorversion.veryminorversion the other (revision C17, of course; the C16s and B17s didn't have the double overclocked doobreeflips in the L7 cache).</p><p>It's a wonder anyone can build a PC that runs at any speed at all any more. Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've built several high-end PCs from scratch and spec 'd several more at component level , during a period of well over a decade and most recently just a couple of years ago , and I still have absolutely no idea what any of the fine summary meant.Does anyone actually label/number components in any sort of logical way at all any more ?
Codename this , year that , version.subversion.minorversion.veryminorversion the other ( revision C17 , of course ; the C16s and B17s did n't have the double overclocked doobreeflips in the L7 cache ) .It 's a wonder anyone can build a PC that runs at any speed at all any more .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've built several high-end PCs from scratch and spec'd several more at component level, during a period of well over a decade and most recently just a couple of years ago, and I still have absolutely no idea what any of the fine summary meant.Does anyone actually label/number components in any sort of logical way at all any more?
Codename this, year that, version.subversion.minorversion.veryminorversion the other (revision C17, of course; the C16s and B17s didn't have the double overclocked doobreeflips in the L7 cache).It's a wonder anyone can build a PC that runs at any speed at all any more.
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752261</id>
	<title>Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips</title>
	<author>Krahar</author>
	<datestamp>1255529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips.  I always end up switching back to Intel.</p></div><p>It's real for you because it is in your head - you are seeing what you expect to see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been able to put my finger on it , but Windows simply does n't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips .
I always end up switching back to Intel.It 's real for you because it is in your head - you are seeing what you expect to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips.
I always end up switching back to Intel.It's real for you because it is in your head - you are seeing what you expect to see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753335</id>
	<title>Re:Situations like this are why I run Intel chips</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1255540500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips<br><br>What does it mean "doesn't run as well"? Do the AMD CPU behaves obstinate and uncooperative? Started an union? You found high profile political assassination plans on a core-dump? It was going to stab you last night? Bad AMD bad!<br><br>Also you say that intel and Microsoft working together as if it's a GOOD thing, what? in 5 year you can run Windows 8 ONLY in intel: chipsets-SSD-CPU-Video Card? Sure THEY would like that.<br><br>Any Phenom II can deliver some of these features like shutting down unused cores and underclocking in idle even on Windows XP -- Even a Phenom I can use the "super-turbo-mumbo-jumbo-addinchestoepenis" feature in Windows 7, I've seen it with mine (Ph X3 8650): System is idle so underclocks to 1.3Ghz as soon as I start something like a game or CAD app the CPU goes back to the normal 2.3Ghz and stays there until reaches idles again, and that works out of the box in W7. In XP it's a manual setting and you have to install a driver for it, yet it works flawlessly.<br><br>Me? an AMD fanboy? Nah I just like to run any VM without first kissing any manufacturers ass, and for that mere approach by AMD they have my bucks and the ones from the people I build rigs, I've ever hear complains about the "companion AMD CPU" trying to stab them btw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; but Windows simply does n't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chipsWhat does it mean " does n't run as well " ?
Do the AMD CPU behaves obstinate and uncooperative ?
Started an union ?
You found high profile political assassination plans on a core-dump ?
It was going to stab you last night ?
Bad AMD bad ! Also you say that intel and Microsoft working together as if it 's a GOOD thing , what ?
in 5 year you can run Windows 8 ONLY in intel : chipsets-SSD-CPU-Video Card ?
Sure THEY would like that.Any Phenom II can deliver some of these features like shutting down unused cores and underclocking in idle even on Windows XP -- Even a Phenom I can use the " super-turbo-mumbo-jumbo-addinchestoepenis " feature in Windows 7 , I 've seen it with mine ( Ph X3 8650 ) : System is idle so underclocks to 1.3Ghz as soon as I start something like a game or CAD app the CPU goes back to the normal 2.3Ghz and stays there until reaches idles again , and that works out of the box in W7 .
In XP it 's a manual setting and you have to install a driver for it , yet it works flawlessly.Me ?
an AMD fanboy ?
Nah I just like to run any VM without first kissing any manufacturers ass , and for that mere approach by AMD they have my bucks and the ones from the people I build rigs , I 've ever hear complains about the " companion AMD CPU " trying to stab them btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chipsWhat does it mean "doesn't run as well"?
Do the AMD CPU behaves obstinate and uncooperative?
Started an union?
You found high profile political assassination plans on a core-dump?
It was going to stab you last night?
Bad AMD bad!Also you say that intel and Microsoft working together as if it's a GOOD thing, what?
in 5 year you can run Windows 8 ONLY in intel: chipsets-SSD-CPU-Video Card?
Sure THEY would like that.Any Phenom II can deliver some of these features like shutting down unused cores and underclocking in idle even on Windows XP -- Even a Phenom I can use the "super-turbo-mumbo-jumbo-addinchestoepenis" feature in Windows 7, I've seen it with mine (Ph X3 8650): System is idle so underclocks to 1.3Ghz as soon as I start something like a game or CAD app the CPU goes back to the normal 2.3Ghz and stays there until reaches idles again, and that works out of the box in W7.
In XP it's a manual setting and you have to install a driver for it, yet it works flawlessly.Me?
an AMD fanboy?
Nah I just like to run any VM without first kissing any manufacturers ass, and for that mere approach by AMD they have my bucks and the ones from the people I build rigs, I've ever hear complains about the "companion AMD CPU" trying to stab them btw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750959</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this what we want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255520220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".</p></div><p>Not necessarily. You also have to consider that higher performance settings may allow the processor to complete its task(s) and return to a minimal-power idle configuration more quickly, for an overall improvement in average power consumption. It all depends on the power/performance ratios for each performance level and the amount of overhead involved in switching between them. Plus, of course, a bit of clairvoyance in accurately predicting future requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if the goal was to use as little power as possible , we 'd just lock the processor in " slow mode " .Not necessarily .
You also have to consider that higher performance settings may allow the processor to complete its task ( s ) and return to a minimal-power idle configuration more quickly , for an overall improvement in average power consumption .
It all depends on the power/performance ratios for each performance level and the amount of overhead involved in switching between them .
Plus , of course , a bit of clairvoyance in accurately predicting future requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".Not necessarily.
You also have to consider that higher performance settings may allow the processor to complete its task(s) and return to a minimal-power idle configuration more quickly, for an overall improvement in average power consumption.
It all depends on the power/performance ratios for each performance level and the amount of overhead involved in switching between them.
Plus, of course, a bit of clairvoyance in accurately predicting future requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753787</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the best thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs slightly better but uses more power in the same rigs?
<p>

<i>Desperation sets in...</i>
</p><p>
Indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the best thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs slightly better but uses more power in the same rigs ?
Desperation sets in.. . Indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the best thing you can say about Win7 is that it performs slightly better but uses more power in the same rigs?
Desperation sets in...

Indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756275</id>
	<title>Re:still worth the upgrade</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not "upgrade" to Windows XP 64-bit?  It's faster than Vista <b>and</b> Win7, supports as much RAM as you can throw at it, has the same drivers support as Vista, and less invasive DRM.</p><p>Unless you actually <i>like</i> the condescending, childish Fisher-Price interface of Vista?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not " upgrade " to Windows XP 64-bit ?
It 's faster than Vista and Win7 , supports as much RAM as you can throw at it , has the same drivers support as Vista , and less invasive DRM.Unless you actually like the condescending , childish Fisher-Price interface of Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not "upgrade" to Windows XP 64-bit?
It's faster than Vista and Win7, supports as much RAM as you can throw at it, has the same drivers support as Vista, and less invasive DRM.Unless you actually like the condescending, childish Fisher-Price interface of Vista?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</id>
	<title>MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1255517160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the most interesting features added to Intel&rsquo;s GM45 chipset was switchable graphics&mdash;a hybrid technology consisting of an integrated graphics chipset and a discrete GPU. [...] The potential savings was supposed to equal up to roughly an hour of battery life. Unfortunately, Lenovo and Fujitsu were the <b>only</b> two builders to take advantage of switchable graphics.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros? The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU? I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.
</p><p>PS: Emphasis was mine</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most interesting features added to Intel    s GM45 chipset was switchable graphics    a hybrid technology consisting of an integrated graphics chipset and a discrete GPU .
[ ... ] The potential savings was supposed to equal up to roughly an hour of battery life .
Unfortunately , Lenovo and Fujitsu were the only two builders to take advantage of switchable graphics .
Is n't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros ?
The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it 's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU ?
I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel , but that still seems a little disingenuous .
PS : Emphasis was mine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most interesting features added to Intel’s GM45 chipset was switchable graphics—a hybrid technology consisting of an integrated graphics chipset and a discrete GPU.
[...] The potential savings was supposed to equal up to roughly an hour of battery life.
Unfortunately, Lenovo and Fujitsu were the only two builders to take advantage of switchable graphics.
Isn't that what Apple introduced earlier this year on the MacBook Pros?
The ability to switch off the high power GPU when it's not needed and fall back to a lower quality integrated GPU?
I realize that Apple used an nVidia solution instead of an Intel, but that still seems a little disingenuous.
PS: Emphasis was mine
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555</id>
	<title>Isn't this what we want?</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1255517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this what we want? I mean, it's higher power under load because it switches to "fast mode" faster. Isn't that good? Yes it uses more power, but if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this what we want ?
I mean , it 's higher power under load because it switches to " fast mode " faster .
Is n't that good ?
Yes it uses more power , but if the goal was to use as little power as possible , we 'd just lock the processor in " slow mode " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this what we want?
I mean, it's higher power under load because it switches to "fast mode" faster.
Isn't that good?
Yes it uses more power, but if the goal was to use as little power as possible, we'd just lock the processor in "slow mode".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750727</id>
	<title>Re:MacBook Pro</title>
	<author>Shados</author>
	<datestamp>1255519020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notebooks have done this for years (my girlfriend's 2-3 years old windows lap-top has that). Im guessing this is just Intel's flavor of it. Unless there's something fancier about Apple or Intel's offering like being able to do it on the fly without any settings to toggle or bios interaction, like CPU stepping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notebooks have done this for years ( my girlfriend 's 2-3 years old windows lap-top has that ) .
Im guessing this is just Intel 's flavor of it .
Unless there 's something fancier about Apple or Intel 's offering like being able to do it on the fly without any settings to toggle or bios interaction , like CPU stepping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notebooks have done this for years (my girlfriend's 2-3 years old windows lap-top has that).
Im guessing this is just Intel's flavor of it.
Unless there's something fancier about Apple or Intel's offering like being able to do it on the fly without any settings to toggle or bios interaction, like CPU stepping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047</id>
	<title>Situations like this are why I run Intel chips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255520880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I primarily use Microsoft software (I know, get out the pitchforks) and over the years I have occasionally run AMD chips after being overcome by various AMD biased friends of mine.  I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips.  I always end up switching back to Intel.  This article is just an example of why.  Intel and Microsoft are in bed with each other, and Microsoft will always be putting out the code to take full advantage of the Intel chips.  It wouldn't surprise me if Intel gives Microsoft the heads up on new features far in advance.  It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft works with Intel and encourages them to develop certain features in their processors that will help the Microsoft code base execute faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I primarily use Microsoft software ( I know , get out the pitchforks ) and over the years I have occasionally run AMD chips after being overcome by various AMD biased friends of mine .
I 've never been able to put my finger on it , but Windows simply does n't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips .
I always end up switching back to Intel .
This article is just an example of why .
Intel and Microsoft are in bed with each other , and Microsoft will always be putting out the code to take full advantage of the Intel chips .
It would n't surprise me if Intel gives Microsoft the heads up on new features far in advance .
It would n't surprise me if Microsoft works with Intel and encourages them to develop certain features in their processors that will help the Microsoft code base execute faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I primarily use Microsoft software (I know, get out the pitchforks) and over the years I have occasionally run AMD chips after being overcome by various AMD biased friends of mine.
I've never been able to put my finger on it, but Windows simply doesn't run as well on AMD chips as it does on Intel chips.
I always end up switching back to Intel.
This article is just an example of why.
Intel and Microsoft are in bed with each other, and Microsoft will always be putting out the code to take full advantage of the Intel chips.
It wouldn't surprise me if Intel gives Microsoft the heads up on new features far in advance.
It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft works with Intel and encourages them to develop certain features in their processors that will help the Microsoft code base execute faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756149</id>
	<title>Re:How about using XP sp3 for comparison???</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255616520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of <i>course</i> it would win.  Which is why they won't allow it in the tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it would win .
Which is why they wo n't allow it in the tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it would win.
Which is why they won't allow it in the tests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752941</id>
	<title>Test is pointless</title>
	<author>Trerro</author>
	<datestamp>1255535880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 is an upgrade to Vista, and it performs better. This isn't news.</p><p>The problem is that Vista is a HUGE downgrade from XP, and so far everything I've read says that 7 is simply less of an XP downgrade than Vista was. I couldn't care less if it's prettier - it either needs to have some major functionality that XP doesn't (and it doesn't), or it needs to offer a serious performance boost over XP (and it appears to do the opposite.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is an upgrade to Vista , and it performs better .
This is n't news.The problem is that Vista is a HUGE downgrade from XP , and so far everything I 've read says that 7 is simply less of an XP downgrade than Vista was .
I could n't care less if it 's prettier - it either needs to have some major functionality that XP does n't ( and it does n't ) , or it needs to offer a serious performance boost over XP ( and it appears to do the opposite .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is an upgrade to Vista, and it performs better.
This isn't news.The problem is that Vista is a HUGE downgrade from XP, and so far everything I've read says that 7 is simply less of an XP downgrade than Vista was.
I couldn't care less if it's prettier - it either needs to have some major functionality that XP doesn't (and it doesn't), or it needs to offer a serious performance boost over XP (and it appears to do the opposite.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_2133207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29756275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29758779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_2133207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29752565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29753237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29751505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_2133207.29750759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
