<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_28_198233</id>
	<title>Intel Pulls SSD Firmware Day After Release</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256757540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Intel has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140021/Intel\_pulls\_firmware\_for\_SSDs\_just\_a\_day\_after\_release">pulled a firmware upgrade it released on Monday</a> for its X25-M consumer solid-state drives after users complained that the software caused crashes. The company on Monday <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139917/Intel\_releases\_Windows\_7\_SSD\_optimization\_toolbox">made available a software package called SSD Toolbox</a> to monitor and manage the performance and health of X25-M SSDs on systems running Windows 7. The package included a firmware upgrade and software called SSD Optimizer that included diagnostic tools to help keep the Intel SSD running at high performance. 'We have been <a href="http://communities.intel.com/thread/7693?start=0&amp;tstart=0">contacted by users with issues</a> with the 34-nanometer Intel SSD firmware upgrade and are investigating. We take all sightings and issues seriously and are working toward resolution. We have temporarily taken down the firmware link while we investigate,' an Intel spokesman said in an e-mail. The spokesman declined to comment on when the company would issue updated firmware."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Intel has pulled a firmware upgrade it released on Monday for its X25-M consumer solid-state drives after users complained that the software caused crashes .
The company on Monday made available a software package called SSD Toolbox to monitor and manage the performance and health of X25-M SSDs on systems running Windows 7 .
The package included a firmware upgrade and software called SSD Optimizer that included diagnostic tools to help keep the Intel SSD running at high performance .
'We have been contacted by users with issues with the 34-nanometer Intel SSD firmware upgrade and are investigating .
We take all sightings and issues seriously and are working toward resolution .
We have temporarily taken down the firmware link while we investigate, ' an Intel spokesman said in an e-mail .
The spokesman declined to comment on when the company would issue updated firmware .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Intel has pulled a firmware upgrade it released on Monday for its X25-M consumer solid-state drives after users complained that the software caused crashes.
The company on Monday made available a software package called SSD Toolbox to monitor and manage the performance and health of X25-M SSDs on systems running Windows 7.
The package included a firmware upgrade and software called SSD Optimizer that included diagnostic tools to help keep the Intel SSD running at high performance.
'We have been contacted by users with issues with the 34-nanometer Intel SSD firmware upgrade and are investigating.
We take all sightings and issues seriously and are working toward resolution.
We have temporarily taken down the firmware link while we investigate,' an Intel spokesman said in an e-mail.
The spokesman declined to comment on when the company would issue updated firmware.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29919365</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Machines</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1256825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it used to work like that back in the MFM/RLL days for hard drives.  The drive was a box of motors and steppers, and the logic to drive it all was on the controller card.  Not sure if I want to go back to those days again.  Especially since a controller that only knows how to control the bits of a hard drive would have absolutely no idea on how to talk to a SSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it used to work like that back in the MFM/RLL days for hard drives .
The drive was a box of motors and steppers , and the logic to drive it all was on the controller card .
Not sure if I want to go back to those days again .
Especially since a controller that only knows how to control the bits of a hard drive would have absolutely no idea on how to talk to a SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it used to work like that back in the MFM/RLL days for hard drives.
The drive was a box of motors and steppers, and the logic to drive it all was on the controller card.
Not sure if I want to go back to those days again.
Especially since a controller that only knows how to control the bits of a hard drive would have absolutely no idea on how to talk to a SSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904493</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>KillerBob</author>
	<datestamp>1256735040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmm.... you're right, I think. And sometimes you can pin down exactly who it is, too.... like, for example, if you suddenly have 5 posts modded as "troll" (that clearly aren't trolls) the day after you call somebody out for being a self-important twat with no clue what he's actually talking about... (look at my posting history for an example, you get a cookie if you can guess who it is)....</p><p>It happens. Some people are idiots. Theoretically the meta-mod system is in place to mitigate that kind of asshattery. Practically, though, Karma really doesn't serve a purpose at this place at all, except that when it gets high enough you have the option of turning off ads on the site without buying a subscription (as if you couldn't do the same thing with AdBlock Plus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm.... you 're right , I think .
And sometimes you can pin down exactly who it is , too.... like , for example , if you suddenly have 5 posts modded as " troll " ( that clearly are n't trolls ) the day after you call somebody out for being a self-important twat with no clue what he 's actually talking about... ( look at my posting history for an example , you get a cookie if you can guess who it is ) ....It happens .
Some people are idiots .
Theoretically the meta-mod system is in place to mitigate that kind of asshattery .
Practically , though , Karma really does n't serve a purpose at this place at all , except that when it gets high enough you have the option of turning off ads on the site without buying a subscription ( as if you could n't do the same thing with AdBlock Plus : P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm.... you're right, I think.
And sometimes you can pin down exactly who it is, too.... like, for example, if you suddenly have 5 posts modded as "troll" (that clearly aren't trolls) the day after you call somebody out for being a self-important twat with no clue what he's actually talking about... (look at my posting history for an example, you get a cookie if you can guess who it is)....It happens.
Some people are idiots.
Theoretically the meta-mod system is in place to mitigate that kind of asshattery.
Practically, though, Karma really doesn't serve a purpose at this place at all, except that when it gets high enough you have the option of turning off ads on the site without buying a subscription (as if you couldn't do the same thing with AdBlock Plus :P)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902569</id>
	<title>Darn it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firmware on my desktop, 34nm X-25M 80GB in the mail.  I hope they fix this quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firmware on my desktop , 34nm X-25M 80GB in the mail .
I hope they fix this quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firmware on my desktop, 34nm X-25M 80GB in the mail.
I hope they fix this quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901967</id>
	<title>Good afternoon.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First: prepare to be modded down again.  This is simply the way of things.</p><p>I am a long-time visitor to Slashdot, who started by lurking, created an account, rose to the giddy heights and sank to the murky depths a number of times over an illustrious trolling history, only to return to lurking.</p><p>The one constant to this place is that nobody really gives a shit.  It's not meant in a malicious way; no, it's more like the dispassionate indifference of nature towards its weakest strains, or corporate-provided tech support.</p><p>To survive -- indeed, to thrive! -- you must, too, not give a shit.  Post facts that aren't true!  Make courageous posts that start with "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."!  You'll have more karma than you know what to do with, and when you hit that tippity-top, start posting some real stinkers.  I used to enjoy the occasional movie spoiler in the middle of a post regarding Java performance analysis, slightly misremembered Star Trek quotes, or letting people in on the real history of skyscrapers (the first was built in Japan to commemorate the southernmost part of the Great Wall.)</p><p>My favorite bit was watching my worst posts go up, go down, etc.; I think I got over thirty points spent on a post one time, and it wasn't long after that they would just show percentages spent in each moderation category.  Boooo.</p><p>I don't know why it is, but the very worst thing you can do on here is try to hold an intellectual conversation.  Though in my case, I suppose it would have helped if I was somewhat intellectual.  Anyway, you can probably start getting the karma back up on your account by making smart-sounding comments to low-traffic stories.  Just make stuff up if you don't happen to know anything, it works gangbusters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : prepare to be modded down again .
This is simply the way of things.I am a long-time visitor to Slashdot , who started by lurking , created an account , rose to the giddy heights and sank to the murky depths a number of times over an illustrious trolling history , only to return to lurking.The one constant to this place is that nobody really gives a shit .
It 's not meant in a malicious way ; no , it 's more like the dispassionate indifference of nature towards its weakest strains , or corporate-provided tech support.To survive -- indeed , to thrive !
-- you must , too , not give a shit .
Post facts that are n't true !
Make courageous posts that start with " I know I 'll get modded down for this , but... " !
You 'll have more karma than you know what to do with , and when you hit that tippity-top , start posting some real stinkers .
I used to enjoy the occasional movie spoiler in the middle of a post regarding Java performance analysis , slightly misremembered Star Trek quotes , or letting people in on the real history of skyscrapers ( the first was built in Japan to commemorate the southernmost part of the Great Wall .
) My favorite bit was watching my worst posts go up , go down , etc .
; I think I got over thirty points spent on a post one time , and it was n't long after that they would just show percentages spent in each moderation category .
Boooo.I do n't know why it is , but the very worst thing you can do on here is try to hold an intellectual conversation .
Though in my case , I suppose it would have helped if I was somewhat intellectual .
Anyway , you can probably start getting the karma back up on your account by making smart-sounding comments to low-traffic stories .
Just make stuff up if you do n't happen to know anything , it works gangbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: prepare to be modded down again.
This is simply the way of things.I am a long-time visitor to Slashdot, who started by lurking, created an account, rose to the giddy heights and sank to the murky depths a number of times over an illustrious trolling history, only to return to lurking.The one constant to this place is that nobody really gives a shit.
It's not meant in a malicious way; no, it's more like the dispassionate indifference of nature towards its weakest strains, or corporate-provided tech support.To survive -- indeed, to thrive!
-- you must, too, not give a shit.
Post facts that aren't true!
Make courageous posts that start with "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."!
You'll have more karma than you know what to do with, and when you hit that tippity-top, start posting some real stinkers.
I used to enjoy the occasional movie spoiler in the middle of a post regarding Java performance analysis, slightly misremembered Star Trek quotes, or letting people in on the real history of skyscrapers (the first was built in Japan to commemorate the southernmost part of the Great Wall.
)My favorite bit was watching my worst posts go up, go down, etc.
; I think I got over thirty points spent on a post one time, and it wasn't long after that they would just show percentages spent in each moderation category.
Boooo.I don't know why it is, but the very worst thing you can do on here is try to hold an intellectual conversation.
Though in my case, I suppose it would have helped if I was somewhat intellectual.
Anyway, you can probably start getting the karma back up on your account by making smart-sounding comments to low-traffic stories.
Just make stuff up if you don't happen to know anything, it works gangbusters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901307</id>
	<title>That was fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was clearly run from an SSD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was clearly run from an SSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was clearly run from an SSD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1256763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes a-holes get mod points.  Just keep posting insightful, informative, and interesting posts, and it will work out.  It may take months to get up to Excellent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes a-holes get mod points .
Just keep posting insightful , informative , and interesting posts , and it will work out .
It may take months to get up to Excellent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes a-holes get mod points.
Just keep posting insightful, informative, and interesting posts, and it will work out.
It may take months to get up to Excellent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29927031</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256931360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just noticed that I have an excuse. Newegg calls them "Solid State Disks", which is where I got it from. I don't know if one is more "official" than the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just noticed that I have an excuse .
Newegg calls them " Solid State Disks " , which is where I got it from .
I do n't know if one is more " official " than the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just noticed that I have an excuse.
Newegg calls them "Solid State Disks", which is where I got it from.
I don't know if one is more "official" than the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902093</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go check again.  No more troll ratings.  You were right. Those were undeserved, and I countered them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go check again .
No more troll ratings .
You were right .
Those were undeserved , and I countered them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go check again.
No more troll ratings.
You were right.
Those were undeserved, and I countered them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623</id>
	<title>"Closed Source Filesystem"</title>
	<author>Bronster</author>
	<datestamp>1256735880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post really needs a link to:</p><p><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/355149/" title="lwn.net">http://lwn.net/Articles/355149/</a> [lwn.net]</p><p><i>"Do you want to trust your data to a closed source file system implementation which you can't debug, can't improve and &mdash; most scarily &mdash; can't even fsck when it goes wrong, because you don't have direct access to the underlying medium?"</i></p><p>This is what you get with a flash drive at the moment unfortunately - a closed source filesystem that presents a single "file" as a block device over sata.  And this firmware update is a filesystem driver change.  Ouch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post really needs a link to : http : //lwn.net/Articles/355149/ [ lwn.net ] " Do you want to trust your data to a closed source file system implementation which you ca n't debug , ca n't improve and    most scarily    ca n't even fsck when it goes wrong , because you do n't have direct access to the underlying medium ?
" This is what you get with a flash drive at the moment unfortunately - a closed source filesystem that presents a single " file " as a block device over sata .
And this firmware update is a filesystem driver change .
Ouch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post really needs a link to:http://lwn.net/Articles/355149/ [lwn.net]"Do you want to trust your data to a closed source file system implementation which you can't debug, can't improve and — most scarily — can't even fsck when it goes wrong, because you don't have direct access to the underlying medium?
"This is what you get with a flash drive at the moment unfortunately - a closed source filesystem that presents a single "file" as a block device over sata.
And this firmware update is a filesystem driver change.
Ouch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903397</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right.  I'm guessing you weren't around when hard-drives started getting popular.  Same deal, different hardware.</p><p>Almost all new hardware has growing pains in the beginning.  This is not to say that companies couldn't do better but for whatever reason there is always a mad rush to get stuff out as quick as possible in new markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right .
I 'm guessing you were n't around when hard-drives started getting popular .
Same deal , different hardware.Almost all new hardware has growing pains in the beginning .
This is not to say that companies could n't do better but for whatever reason there is always a mad rush to get stuff out as quick as possible in new markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right.
I'm guessing you weren't around when hard-drives started getting popular.
Same deal, different hardware.Almost all new hardware has growing pains in the beginning.
This is not to say that companies couldn't do better but for whatever reason there is always a mad rush to get stuff out as quick as possible in new markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901583</id>
	<title>Ares I-X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Launch Manager: "AH SH*T".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Launch Manager : " AH SH * T " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Launch Manager: "AH SH*T".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901807</id>
	<title>Hurray for the lack of testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256720400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, they ever heard of a thing called beta testing?</p><p>I don't like the way how these days most things are just pushed out from the production as fast and cheap as possible, and then start fixing the bugs afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they ever heard of a thing called beta testing ? I do n't like the way how these days most things are just pushed out from the production as fast and cheap as possible , and then start fixing the bugs afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they ever heard of a thing called beta testing?I don't like the way how these days most things are just pushed out from the production as fast and cheap as possible, and then start fixing the bugs afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901709</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256763240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given your user id, it is obvious that you are a troll, and my suggestion would be that you should never, ever access<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. again.</p><p>If this was a lame attempt at humour, then, again, please refrain from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given your user id , it is obvious that you are a troll , and my suggestion would be that you should never , ever access / .
again.If this was a lame attempt at humour , then , again , please refrain from / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given your user id, it is obvious that you are a troll, and my suggestion would be that you should never, ever access /.
again.If this was a lame attempt at humour, then, again, please refrain from /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901669</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paranoid much? There may be companies out there that haven't got a lot to loose and can play that testing game. Intel is certainly not one of them. Anyway, SSD's have been on the market quite a while, although market penetration was always low. And do you think that OS support for TRIM would be there if we had to wait for another year?</p><p>Anyway, let's wait and see what causes the (alleged) problems and we'll know what to think of it. It's a bit early to put this to corporate greed. These are complex products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoid much ?
There may be companies out there that have n't got a lot to loose and can play that testing game .
Intel is certainly not one of them .
Anyway , SSD 's have been on the market quite a while , although market penetration was always low .
And do you think that OS support for TRIM would be there if we had to wait for another year ? Anyway , let 's wait and see what causes the ( alleged ) problems and we 'll know what to think of it .
It 's a bit early to put this to corporate greed .
These are complex products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paranoid much?
There may be companies out there that haven't got a lot to loose and can play that testing game.
Intel is certainly not one of them.
Anyway, SSD's have been on the market quite a while, although market penetration was always low.
And do you think that OS support for TRIM would be there if we had to wait for another year?Anyway, let's wait and see what causes the (alleged) problems and we'll know what to think of it.
It's a bit early to put this to corporate greed.
These are complex products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902131</id>
	<title>It's still new techonology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256721900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's still new techonology. Compared to the evolution from the first hard-drives and the first 1x CD-ROMs on the market, the SSD technology is still somewhat more reliable. I myself find myself waiting for this technology to mature a bit more before introducing it on my company computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still new techonology .
Compared to the evolution from the first hard-drives and the first 1x CD-ROMs on the market , the SSD technology is still somewhat more reliable .
I myself find myself waiting for this technology to mature a bit more before introducing it on my company computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still new techonology.
Compared to the evolution from the first hard-drives and the first 1x CD-ROMs on the market, the SSD technology is still somewhat more reliable.
I myself find myself waiting for this technology to mature a bit more before introducing it on my company computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901831</id>
	<title>Not just Intel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crucial's M225 (I own the 128GB version) 1711 firmware had significant bugs and was quickly yanked. In order to upgrade to the latest 1819 you have to downgrade back to 1571.</p><p><a href="http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx" title="crucial.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx</a> [crucial.com]</p><p>Seems as if most consumer SSD products are still a bit in the "beta" stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crucial 's M225 ( I own the 128GB version ) 1711 firmware had significant bugs and was quickly yanked .
In order to upgrade to the latest 1819 you have to downgrade back to 1571.http : //www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx [ crucial.com ] Seems as if most consumer SSD products are still a bit in the " beta " stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crucial's M225 (I own the 128GB version) 1711 firmware had significant bugs and was quickly yanked.
In order to upgrade to the latest 1819 you have to downgrade back to 1571.http://www.crucial.com/support/firmware.aspx [crucial.com]Seems as if most consumer SSD products are still a bit in the "beta" stage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901427</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1256761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm planning on getting an SSD drive in around 10 years time once the technology is mature!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm planning on getting an SSD drive in around 10 years time once the technology is mature !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm planning on getting an SSD drive in around 10 years time once the technology is mature!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905283</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Machines</title>
	<author>alantus</author>
	<datestamp>1256740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware. Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC!!! I want DUMB machines, damn it! Why can't an SSD simply be a "mass storage device"?? Let the OS worry about wear leveling, etc.</p></div><p>A firmware upgrade makes it possible to make improvements or fix any bug discovered after a product was shipped.<br>It saves money to manufacturers (reducing RMA numbers), and time, and possibly downtime for clients.</p><p>I own a 32GB SLC Samsung SSD that as far as I know doesn't support firmware updating.  That is terrible for me because I'm stuck with an expensive SSD that will never have TRIM support.  If I had bought a different brand I could just get the firmware when they implement TRIM and I be happy.</p><p>I really don't know if TRIM is relevant with SLC drives, as everybody is talking about TRIM on MLC drives, anybody has the answer to this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else , but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware .
Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC ! ! !
I want DUMB machines , damn it !
Why ca n't an SSD simply be a " mass storage device " ? ?
Let the OS worry about wear leveling , etc.A firmware upgrade makes it possible to make improvements or fix any bug discovered after a product was shipped.It saves money to manufacturers ( reducing RMA numbers ) , and time , and possibly downtime for clients.I own a 32GB SLC Samsung SSD that as far as I know does n't support firmware updating .
That is terrible for me because I 'm stuck with an expensive SSD that will never have TRIM support .
If I had bought a different brand I could just get the firmware when they implement TRIM and I be happy.I really do n't know if TRIM is relevant with SLC drives , as everybody is talking about TRIM on MLC drives , anybody has the answer to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware.
Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC!!!
I want DUMB machines, damn it!
Why can't an SSD simply be a "mass storage device"??
Let the OS worry about wear leveling, etc.A firmware upgrade makes it possible to make improvements or fix any bug discovered after a product was shipped.It saves money to manufacturers (reducing RMA numbers), and time, and possibly downtime for clients.I own a 32GB SLC Samsung SSD that as far as I know doesn't support firmware updating.
That is terrible for me because I'm stuck with an expensive SSD that will never have TRIM support.
If I had bought a different brand I could just get the firmware when they implement TRIM and I be happy.I really don't know if TRIM is relevant with SLC drives, as everybody is talking about TRIM on MLC drives, anybody has the answer to this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903689</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256730000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lot of companies are making SSD's <br>
<a href="http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-2p5.html" title="storagesearch.com">http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-2p5.html</a> [storagesearch.com] <br>
Just a few for your desktop.<br>
At the consumer end its a cartel.  Nobody is going to drop the  $$$$ flow too fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lot of companies are making SSD 's http : //www.storagesearch.com/ssd-2p5.html [ storagesearch.com ] Just a few for your desktop .
At the consumer end its a cartel .
Nobody is going to drop the $ $ $ $ flow too fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lot of companies are making SSD's 
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-2p5.html [storagesearch.com] 
Just a few for your desktop.
At the consumer end its a cartel.
Nobody is going to drop the  $$$$ flow too fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901623</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>LitelySalted</author>
	<datestamp>1256762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess it's the "cheaper" "cheaper" alternative to shipping your whole QA department over to India.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's the " cheaper " " cheaper " alternative to shipping your whole QA department over to India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's the "cheaper" "cheaper" alternative to shipping your whole QA department over to India.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902299</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Machines</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1256722680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't that defeat the purpose of standards?</p><p>That's like saying that we should get rid of the x86 instruction set and just use the micro ops. A layer of abstraction helps and is required for a standard to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that defeat the purpose of standards ? That 's like saying that we should get rid of the x86 instruction set and just use the micro ops .
A layer of abstraction helps and is required for a standard to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that defeat the purpose of standards?That's like saying that we should get rid of the x86 instruction set and just use the micro ops.
A layer of abstraction helps and is required for a standard to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904351</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256734200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality.</p></div><p>FusionIO?</p><p>Oh wait - look at the price!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality.FusionIO ? Oh wait - look at the price !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality.FusionIO?Oh wait - look at the price!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906463</id>
	<title>Hey Intel,  how about unlocking the read speed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256749620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the first X-25M were blazing fast reads and pretty amazing at small file writes but somehow ground to a halt at 75 MB/s - about the speed<br>of a really good hard disk 3 years ago.</p><p>I hear the G2 drives can do 100 MB/s with a firmware update. Now, I know that you want to save the really fast writes for your SLC version<br>cause that much more moo-lay but c'mon - 100 MB/s for a $400 drive, that's artificially limited.<br>No thanks, until you let the drive perform to its proper capability ( i'm guessing 160 MB/s sequential writes) it's OCZ or Patriot for me ( I already own at least<br>one from each of them )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the first X-25M were blazing fast reads and pretty amazing at small file writes but somehow ground to a halt at 75 MB/s - about the speedof a really good hard disk 3 years ago.I hear the G2 drives can do 100 MB/s with a firmware update .
Now , I know that you want to save the really fast writes for your SLC versioncause that much more moo-lay but c'mon - 100 MB/s for a $ 400 drive , that 's artificially limited.No thanks , until you let the drive perform to its proper capability ( i 'm guessing 160 MB/s sequential writes ) it 's OCZ or Patriot for me ( I already own at leastone from each of them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the first X-25M were blazing fast reads and pretty amazing at small file writes but somehow ground to a halt at 75 MB/s - about the speedof a really good hard disk 3 years ago.I hear the G2 drives can do 100 MB/s with a firmware update.
Now, I know that you want to save the really fast writes for your SLC versioncause that much more moo-lay but c'mon - 100 MB/s for a $400 drive, that's artificially limited.No thanks, until you let the drive perform to its proper capability ( i'm guessing 160 MB/s sequential writes) it's OCZ or Patriot for me ( I already own at leastone from each of them )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901497</id>
	<title>Poor, poor quality control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I installed this firmware and I've never had more problems. My machine reboots 5-6 times a day and there is no end in si</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I installed this firmware and I 've never had more problems .
My machine reboots 5-6 times a day and there is no end in si</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I installed this firmware and I've never had more problems.
My machine reboots 5-6 times a day and there is no end in si</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903043</id>
	<title>My X-25M had this problem</title>
	<author>fear025</author>
	<datestamp>1256726640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had this problem with my X-25M yesterday. I updated the firmware, rebooted Windows 7 Ultimate, and everything was fine.

Then I started playing around with AHCI mode on my motherboard (I had installed with Enhanced-IDE) in order to get instant-TRIM, and after that didn't work I switched back.
Then the drive started getting SMART errors, so I switched around a few more times, and eventually SMART went away entirely, and the drive started showing up as a non-partitionable 7 MB drive.

Intel gave me an RMA after getting my info (processor, motherboard, bios revision).

I did make a backup beforehand though, because of the earlier intel bios snafu, so it really only cost me time and aggravation (and $11 shipping).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this problem with my X-25M yesterday .
I updated the firmware , rebooted Windows 7 Ultimate , and everything was fine .
Then I started playing around with AHCI mode on my motherboard ( I had installed with Enhanced-IDE ) in order to get instant-TRIM , and after that did n't work I switched back .
Then the drive started getting SMART errors , so I switched around a few more times , and eventually SMART went away entirely , and the drive started showing up as a non-partitionable 7 MB drive .
Intel gave me an RMA after getting my info ( processor , motherboard , bios revision ) .
I did make a backup beforehand though , because of the earlier intel bios snafu , so it really only cost me time and aggravation ( and $ 11 shipping ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this problem with my X-25M yesterday.
I updated the firmware, rebooted Windows 7 Ultimate, and everything was fine.
Then I started playing around with AHCI mode on my motherboard (I had installed with Enhanced-IDE) in order to get instant-TRIM, and after that didn't work I switched back.
Then the drive started getting SMART errors, so I switched around a few more times, and eventually SMART went away entirely, and the drive started showing up as a non-partitionable 7 MB drive.
Intel gave me an RMA after getting my info (processor, motherboard, bios revision).
I did make a backup beforehand though, because of the earlier intel bios snafu, so it really only cost me time and aggravation (and $11 shipping).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907335</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Machines</title>
	<author>geantvert</author>
	<datestamp>1256759520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humm... wear leveling in software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait until an OS misconfiguration, an OS bug or a virus ruins your SSD by writing thousand of times the same sector. I am not talking about losing your precious data which should be backuped but losing the whole disk. And don't even think about using the warranty. SSD makers are not suicidal. The first thing they would had to their product is a counter of writes per block in order to prove that the failure was not their fault.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humm... wear leveling in software ... wait until an OS misconfiguration , an OS bug or a virus ruins your SSD by writing thousand of times the same sector .
I am not talking about losing your precious data which should be backuped but losing the whole disk .
And do n't even think about using the warranty .
SSD makers are not suicidal .
The first thing they would had to their product is a counter of writes per block in order to prove that the failure was not their fault .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humm... wear leveling in software ... wait until an OS misconfiguration, an OS bug or a virus ruins your SSD by writing thousand of times the same sector.
I am not talking about losing your precious data which should be backuped but losing the whole disk.
And don't even think about using the warranty.
SSD makers are not suicidal.
The first thing they would had to their product is a counter of writes per block in order to prove that the failure was not their fault.
       </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256762280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When there isn't enough competition around, companies don't have to worry about Quality - the people will buy whats available, and if no one is offering a higher quality product, the low quality product will still sell.</p><p>If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When there is n't enough competition around , companies do n't have to worry about Quality - the people will buy whats available , and if no one is offering a higher quality product , the low quality product will still sell.If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there isn't enough competition around, companies don't have to worry about Quality - the people will buy whats available, and if no one is offering a higher quality product, the low quality product will still sell.If this market is to mature they need a company to step in with the emphasis on quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902945</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>allknowingfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1256726160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to thank everyone who took an interest. I do have thick skin, and I can take the abuse, but in this case I felt compelled to fight for the principle of the thing. Anyway, I apologize again for the off-topic post. Thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to thank everyone who took an interest .
I do have thick skin , and I can take the abuse , but in this case I felt compelled to fight for the principle of the thing .
Anyway , I apologize again for the off-topic post .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to thank everyone who took an interest.
I do have thick skin, and I can take the abuse, but in this case I felt compelled to fight for the principle of the thing.
Anyway, I apologize again for the off-topic post.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920407</id>
	<title>Re:"Closed Source Filesystem"</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1256835060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As alluded to in the link, modern hard drives transparently remap sectors when they go bad, so that when you ask to read the known bad one you actually get something from a completely different area altogether (wherever the spare sector space is at).  All that happens via a closed-source firmware implementation you can't debug, improve, or fix if it goes awry.  We're already being presented with a logical view of our drive hardware that maps to underlying physical hardware in a way we have no control over, been like that for many years now.</p><p>You should also recognize that were it not possible to spread the product development costs for SSDs across people with any operating system, they would still be in cost no object land.  The world at large is running Windows, and the manufacturer has to make things work even with a stupid OS to sell enough volume.  If you've solved that problem well, so that the hardware can do all the work, there's a lot less value to exposing the internals of that working design for people to mess with.  The issues improved by TRIM were the last of the major issues here that can be fixed by firmware alone, and I expect to see much more stable firmware (from Intel at least) now that they're moving past that development.</p><p>Regardless, this Intel SSD problem isn't any different than the recent disaster with Seagate's bad firmware on their 1.5TB drives, or countless other examples.  As I know multiple people who lost data on those drives due to that particular bug, or similar firmware issues in other regular hard drives, I don't see any real difference between the SSDs and where we were already at.  These devices all suck, you're a fool if you think of applying an update without a full backup, and twice a fool if you decide to be the first on your block to try a brand new release.  Firmware is hard to get right because there's so many different types of devices it has to talk to in the field, and it always will be fragile.  Thinking whether or not you have access to the underlying filesystem implementation changes that is pretty naive.  And the idea that a group like the Linux kernel hackers will do a better QA job than Intel seems pretty unlikely, given how they've basically pushed all QA and stability testing toward the distributors in the 2.6 series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As alluded to in the link , modern hard drives transparently remap sectors when they go bad , so that when you ask to read the known bad one you actually get something from a completely different area altogether ( wherever the spare sector space is at ) .
All that happens via a closed-source firmware implementation you ca n't debug , improve , or fix if it goes awry .
We 're already being presented with a logical view of our drive hardware that maps to underlying physical hardware in a way we have no control over , been like that for many years now.You should also recognize that were it not possible to spread the product development costs for SSDs across people with any operating system , they would still be in cost no object land .
The world at large is running Windows , and the manufacturer has to make things work even with a stupid OS to sell enough volume .
If you 've solved that problem well , so that the hardware can do all the work , there 's a lot less value to exposing the internals of that working design for people to mess with .
The issues improved by TRIM were the last of the major issues here that can be fixed by firmware alone , and I expect to see much more stable firmware ( from Intel at least ) now that they 're moving past that development.Regardless , this Intel SSD problem is n't any different than the recent disaster with Seagate 's bad firmware on their 1.5TB drives , or countless other examples .
As I know multiple people who lost data on those drives due to that particular bug , or similar firmware issues in other regular hard drives , I do n't see any real difference between the SSDs and where we were already at .
These devices all suck , you 're a fool if you think of applying an update without a full backup , and twice a fool if you decide to be the first on your block to try a brand new release .
Firmware is hard to get right because there 's so many different types of devices it has to talk to in the field , and it always will be fragile .
Thinking whether or not you have access to the underlying filesystem implementation changes that is pretty naive .
And the idea that a group like the Linux kernel hackers will do a better QA job than Intel seems pretty unlikely , given how they 've basically pushed all QA and stability testing toward the distributors in the 2.6 series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As alluded to in the link, modern hard drives transparently remap sectors when they go bad, so that when you ask to read the known bad one you actually get something from a completely different area altogether (wherever the spare sector space is at).
All that happens via a closed-source firmware implementation you can't debug, improve, or fix if it goes awry.
We're already being presented with a logical view of our drive hardware that maps to underlying physical hardware in a way we have no control over, been like that for many years now.You should also recognize that were it not possible to spread the product development costs for SSDs across people with any operating system, they would still be in cost no object land.
The world at large is running Windows, and the manufacturer has to make things work even with a stupid OS to sell enough volume.
If you've solved that problem well, so that the hardware can do all the work, there's a lot less value to exposing the internals of that working design for people to mess with.
The issues improved by TRIM were the last of the major issues here that can be fixed by firmware alone, and I expect to see much more stable firmware (from Intel at least) now that they're moving past that development.Regardless, this Intel SSD problem isn't any different than the recent disaster with Seagate's bad firmware on their 1.5TB drives, or countless other examples.
As I know multiple people who lost data on those drives due to that particular bug, or similar firmware issues in other regular hard drives, I don't see any real difference between the SSDs and where we were already at.
These devices all suck, you're a fool if you think of applying an update without a full backup, and twice a fool if you decide to be the first on your block to try a brand new release.
Firmware is hard to get right because there's so many different types of devices it has to talk to in the field, and it always will be fragile.
Thinking whether or not you have access to the underlying filesystem implementation changes that is pretty naive.
And the idea that a group like the Linux kernel hackers will do a better QA job than Intel seems pretty unlikely, given how they've basically pushed all QA and stability testing toward the distributors in the 2.6 series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902919</id>
	<title>My intel ssd is fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256725980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I upgraded to the new firmware on my intel 80 gig ssd on windows 7 home premium.  I guess I am lucky it worked.  I would really reccomend a SSD drive for laptops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I upgraded to the new firmware on my intel 80 gig ssd on windows 7 home premium .
I guess I am lucky it worked .
I would really reccomend a SSD drive for laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I upgraded to the new firmware on my intel 80 gig ssd on windows 7 home premium.
I guess I am lucky it worked.
I would really reccomend a SSD drive for laptops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902063</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1256721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public. "</i>
<br> <br>
Whatever, i've never had a pro</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public .
" Whatever , i 've never had a pro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public.
"
 
Whatever, i've never had a pro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938025</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Intel, how about unlocking the WRITE speed</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1256994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd made a typo in the original post - it should have been WRITE speed not READ.</p><p>Anyway, if you still disagree with me, have a look at <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-34nm-X25M-Gen-2-SSD-Performance-Update/?page=1" title="hothardware.com">http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-34nm-X25M-Gen-2-SSD-Performance-Update/?page=1</a> [hothardware.com]</p><p>Amazing what Intel managed with a firmware update - up to THIRTY PERCENT improvement in write speed.<br>I'm betting their design still has significant headroom left in the sequential writes department but , as I said before, they're protecting their premium SLC, the X-25E</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd made a typo in the original post - it should have been WRITE speed not READ.Anyway , if you still disagree with me , have a look at http : //hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-34nm-X25M-Gen-2-SSD-Performance-Update/ ? page = 1 [ hothardware.com ] Amazing what Intel managed with a firmware update - up to THIRTY PERCENT improvement in write speed.I 'm betting their design still has significant headroom left in the sequential writes department but , as I said before , they 're protecting their premium SLC , the X-25E</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd made a typo in the original post - it should have been WRITE speed not READ.Anyway, if you still disagree with me, have a look at http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-34nm-X25M-Gen-2-SSD-Performance-Update/?page=1 [hothardware.com]Amazing what Intel managed with a firmware update - up to THIRTY PERCENT improvement in write speed.I'm betting their design still has significant headroom left in the sequential writes department but , as I said before, they're protecting their premium SLC, the X-25E</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905413</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Josh Coalson</author>
	<datestamp>1256741400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not only that but intel has pissed off a lot of the g1 owners by their <a href="http://communities.intel.com/thread/5059?start=0&amp;tstart=0" title="intel.com">incriminating silence</a> [intel.com] about trim support in g1 drives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not only that but intel has pissed off a lot of the g1 owners by their incriminating silence [ intel.com ] about trim support in g1 drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not only that but intel has pissed off a lot of the g1 owners by their incriminating silence [intel.com] about trim support in g1 drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902477</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Kleen13</author>
	<datestamp>1256723520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So do you think this is more likely a target release date being jammed down the dev team's throat?  God I hate top-heavy companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So do you think this is more likely a target release date being jammed down the dev team 's throat ?
God I hate top-heavy companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do you think this is more likely a target release date being jammed down the dev team's throat?
God I hate top-heavy companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</id>
	<title>Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public. It's clear that SSDs are not ready for general release, but companies do not want to spend the time or money to validate them against specifications or ensure that they work properly for their particular purpose. Let the public pay for your beta test program. It's a lot cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public .
It 's clear that SSDs are not ready for general release , but companies do not want to spend the time or money to validate them against specifications or ensure that they work properly for their particular purpose .
Let the public pay for your beta test program .
It 's a lot cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think that the whole SSD market is a prime example of the modern corporate development mentality of pawning off beta testing to the general public.
It's clear that SSDs are not ready for general release, but companies do not want to spend the time or money to validate them against specifications or ensure that they work properly for their particular purpose.
Let the public pay for your beta test program.
It's a lot cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902257</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Gordo\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1256722560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not flawed so much as inevitable. A portion of the market will jump at the first example of a promising technology that ships. Being the first mover in a particular space holds special significance and advantages for companies competing for market share. The thinking goes that quality can be worked on iteratively through generations of product and there will never be a time when you reach perfect quality anyway.</p><p>Moral of the story: If you don't want to beta test products for corporations, then don't buy first generation technology.</p><p>And before you argue that G2s *are* second generation drives, I would not categorize them as such. They're die-shrunk G1 drives with some bug fixes and performance tweaks. Corporations and the media are quick to claim that any improvement to a first generation technology *is* the next generation as it sells copies, clicks and product.</p><p>As a general rule, I wait at least 6 months after Anandtech and others review a product before making a new technology purchase.  By then, you can usually figure out something about longer-term reliability from online discussions/reviews. As a result, I rarely have a whole lot of trouble with technology products I buy, beyond downloading the latest drivers/updates or whatnot. Sure, it means I don't have the latest bleeding edge stuff, but I also don't have to deal with the trouble that comes with paying for the opportunity to beta test.</p><p>Because SSD represents such a paradigm shift, I've chosen to hold off for at least another 6-12 months on SSDs partly to allow prices to drop and partly to account for the obvious growing pains that manufacturers have experienced over the past couple years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not flawed so much as inevitable .
A portion of the market will jump at the first example of a promising technology that ships .
Being the first mover in a particular space holds special significance and advantages for companies competing for market share .
The thinking goes that quality can be worked on iteratively through generations of product and there will never be a time when you reach perfect quality anyway.Moral of the story : If you do n't want to beta test products for corporations , then do n't buy first generation technology.And before you argue that G2s * are * second generation drives , I would not categorize them as such .
They 're die-shrunk G1 drives with some bug fixes and performance tweaks .
Corporations and the media are quick to claim that any improvement to a first generation technology * is * the next generation as it sells copies , clicks and product.As a general rule , I wait at least 6 months after Anandtech and others review a product before making a new technology purchase .
By then , you can usually figure out something about longer-term reliability from online discussions/reviews .
As a result , I rarely have a whole lot of trouble with technology products I buy , beyond downloading the latest drivers/updates or whatnot .
Sure , it means I do n't have the latest bleeding edge stuff , but I also do n't have to deal with the trouble that comes with paying for the opportunity to beta test.Because SSD represents such a paradigm shift , I 've chosen to hold off for at least another 6-12 months on SSDs partly to allow prices to drop and partly to account for the obvious growing pains that manufacturers have experienced over the past couple years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not flawed so much as inevitable.
A portion of the market will jump at the first example of a promising technology that ships.
Being the first mover in a particular space holds special significance and advantages for companies competing for market share.
The thinking goes that quality can be worked on iteratively through generations of product and there will never be a time when you reach perfect quality anyway.Moral of the story: If you don't want to beta test products for corporations, then don't buy first generation technology.And before you argue that G2s *are* second generation drives, I would not categorize them as such.
They're die-shrunk G1 drives with some bug fixes and performance tweaks.
Corporations and the media are quick to claim that any improvement to a first generation technology *is* the next generation as it sells copies, clicks and product.As a general rule, I wait at least 6 months after Anandtech and others review a product before making a new technology purchase.
By then, you can usually figure out something about longer-term reliability from online discussions/reviews.
As a result, I rarely have a whole lot of trouble with technology products I buy, beyond downloading the latest drivers/updates or whatnot.
Sure, it means I don't have the latest bleeding edge stuff, but I also don't have to deal with the trouble that comes with paying for the opportunity to beta test.Because SSD represents such a paradigm shift, I've chosen to hold off for at least another 6-12 months on SSDs partly to allow prices to drop and partly to account for the obvious growing pains that manufacturers have experienced over the past couple years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901311</id>
	<title>that's why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that's why I bought a Saturn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why I bought a Saturn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why I bought a Saturn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</id>
	<title>This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>allknowingfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1256762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know where else to log this complaint. I've only been using Slashdot for a week or two. I've really been enjoying it and I've been commenting a lot. I've received a positive or at least neutral response to all of my comments, but I logged on today and discovered that my karma had gone from "positive" to "bad" over night. I started checking around, and it seems that four of my comments have suddenly been modded down as trolls. They clearly aren't. I think I'm the victim of either a glitch or a moderator's personal vendetta, but I can't find anywhere to voice a complaint. What do I do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where else to log this complaint .
I 've only been using Slashdot for a week or two .
I 've really been enjoying it and I 've been commenting a lot .
I 've received a positive or at least neutral response to all of my comments , but I logged on today and discovered that my karma had gone from " positive " to " bad " over night .
I started checking around , and it seems that four of my comments have suddenly been modded down as trolls .
They clearly are n't .
I think I 'm the victim of either a glitch or a moderator 's personal vendetta , but I ca n't find anywhere to voice a complaint .
What do I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where else to log this complaint.
I've only been using Slashdot for a week or two.
I've really been enjoying it and I've been commenting a lot.
I've received a positive or at least neutral response to all of my comments, but I logged on today and discovered that my karma had gone from "positive" to "bad" over night.
I started checking around, and it seems that four of my comments have suddenly been modded down as trolls.
They clearly aren't.
I think I'm the victim of either a glitch or a moderator's personal vendetta, but I can't find anywhere to voice a complaint.
What do I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Intel, how about unlocking the read speed</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1256836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are extremely few read-world apps that require sequential writes at speeds even reaching 80MB/s, much less 100MB/s.  Sure, you can do it with a file copy, but how often does that come up as something you're waiting for?  You certainly can't reach that speed with anything network-based.  The fact that Intel optimized for smaller writes instead was absolutely the right thing.  Sure, the Patriot or OCZ drives manage <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=5" title="anandtech.com">fast write speeds</a> [anandtech.com] just as you describe.  But they're mundane on <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=6" title="anandtech.com">random reads and writes</a> [anandtech.com], and on everything but the <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=8" title="anandtech.com">heaviest workloads</a> [anandtech.com] Intel dominates.  They made the right trade-offs here for most situations compared to the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are extremely few read-world apps that require sequential writes at speeds even reaching 80MB/s , much less 100MB/s .
Sure , you can do it with a file copy , but how often does that come up as something you 're waiting for ?
You certainly ca n't reach that speed with anything network-based .
The fact that Intel optimized for smaller writes instead was absolutely the right thing .
Sure , the Patriot or OCZ drives manage fast write speeds [ anandtech.com ] just as you describe .
But they 're mundane on random reads and writes [ anandtech.com ] , and on everything but the heaviest workloads [ anandtech.com ] Intel dominates .
They made the right trade-offs here for most situations compared to the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are extremely few read-world apps that require sequential writes at speeds even reaching 80MB/s, much less 100MB/s.
Sure, you can do it with a file copy, but how often does that come up as something you're waiting for?
You certainly can't reach that speed with anything network-based.
The fact that Intel optimized for smaller writes instead was absolutely the right thing.
Sure, the Patriot or OCZ drives manage fast write speeds [anandtech.com] just as you describe.
But they're mundane on random reads and writes [anandtech.com], and on everything but the heaviest workloads [anandtech.com] Intel dominates.
They made the right trade-offs here for most situations compared to the competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902537</id>
	<title>Intel communities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does the intel community forum use gray on white and gray on light blue text?  Yuck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the intel community forum use gray on white and gray on light blue text ?
Yuck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the intel community forum use gray on white and gray on light blue text?
Yuck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901627</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a VAR that does good validation?  Seems like a market opportunity - I'm not buying SSD's myself out of good old-fashioned distrust of new-fangled things I can't hear spinning.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  My slow, archaic, RAID-1 disk sets are at least free from surprising bugs.  That is, at least after a few rounds of Seagate fixing the drive firmware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a VAR that does good validation ?
Seems like a market opportunity - I 'm not buying SSD 's myself out of good old-fashioned distrust of new-fangled things I ca n't hear spinning .
; ) My slow , archaic , RAID-1 disk sets are at least free from surprising bugs .
That is , at least after a few rounds of Seagate fixing the drive firmware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a VAR that does good validation?
Seems like a market opportunity - I'm not buying SSD's myself out of good old-fashioned distrust of new-fangled things I can't hear spinning.
;)  My slow, archaic, RAID-1 disk sets are at least free from surprising bugs.
That is, at least after a few rounds of Seagate fixing the drive firmware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902481</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't sweat it; like oodaloop said, just keep posting informative and interesting comments. As to the why, I suspect I know who the culprit is, as you only have one <a href="http://slashdot.org/~allknowingfrog/freaks" title="slashdot.org">freak</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>BTW, don't try for funny. Funny gains no karma, but attempted humor often gets modded troll or flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't sweat it ; like oodaloop said , just keep posting informative and interesting comments .
As to the why , I suspect I know who the culprit is , as you only have one freak [ slashdot.org ] .BTW , do n't try for funny .
Funny gains no karma , but attempted humor often gets modded troll or flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't sweat it; like oodaloop said, just keep posting informative and interesting comments.
As to the why, I suspect I know who the culprit is, as you only have one freak [slashdot.org].BTW, don't try for funny.
Funny gains no karma, but attempted humor often gets modded troll or flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908479</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>crtreece</author>
	<datestamp>1256820180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crap.  Is "SSD Drive" going to be the new ATM machine, UPC code, or PIN number?<blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;/pedant mode=off&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crap .
Is " SSD Drive " going to be the new ATM machine , UPC code , or PIN number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crap.
Is "SSD Drive" going to be the new ATM machine, UPC code, or PIN number?  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904693</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Machines</title>
	<author>KillerBob</author>
	<datestamp>1256736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It needs a firmware because the technology that controls read/write on the physical medium is not open source, and is probably not common across all drives. For SSD's, you have several different kinds of Flash that are in use, along with several different read/write controllers. The firmware is simply a low-level driver that translates between these read/write machine code and the standardised SATA interface. Some of the more intelligent firmware will also do some kinds of optimisation and load balancing on the flash chips.</p><p>You do realize that physical spinny platter-type drives also have firmware? As do optical devices? As does everything else you've got connected to your computer, even the keyboard/mouse and monitor? While some of those firmwares will probably never need to be updated (when was the list time performance on a keyboard was a major factor on a benchmark? The only time I've *ever* seen a problem with one of those, it was on an old iMac running System 9, and the issue was actually the os's input buffer which couldn't keep up with my typing rate that's in excess of 110wpm.), those devices still need and have a firmware.</p><p>But enthusiasts have had the ability to update the firmware on their CDROM drives and hard drives for a long time, as a code optimisation there can make a big difference to a benchmark that involves the device... on optical drives, it has even been done to upgrade a 32x drive to 40x or 48x with a firmware update, and there's also pirate firmwares available for DVD drives that reset the region change counter every time you power cycle the device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs a firmware because the technology that controls read/write on the physical medium is not open source , and is probably not common across all drives .
For SSD 's , you have several different kinds of Flash that are in use , along with several different read/write controllers .
The firmware is simply a low-level driver that translates between these read/write machine code and the standardised SATA interface .
Some of the more intelligent firmware will also do some kinds of optimisation and load balancing on the flash chips.You do realize that physical spinny platter-type drives also have firmware ?
As do optical devices ?
As does everything else you 've got connected to your computer , even the keyboard/mouse and monitor ?
While some of those firmwares will probably never need to be updated ( when was the list time performance on a keyboard was a major factor on a benchmark ?
The only time I 've * ever * seen a problem with one of those , it was on an old iMac running System 9 , and the issue was actually the os 's input buffer which could n't keep up with my typing rate that 's in excess of 110wpm .
) , those devices still need and have a firmware.But enthusiasts have had the ability to update the firmware on their CDROM drives and hard drives for a long time , as a code optimisation there can make a big difference to a benchmark that involves the device... on optical drives , it has even been done to upgrade a 32x drive to 40x or 48x with a firmware update , and there 's also pirate firmwares available for DVD drives that reset the region change counter every time you power cycle the device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs a firmware because the technology that controls read/write on the physical medium is not open source, and is probably not common across all drives.
For SSD's, you have several different kinds of Flash that are in use, along with several different read/write controllers.
The firmware is simply a low-level driver that translates between these read/write machine code and the standardised SATA interface.
Some of the more intelligent firmware will also do some kinds of optimisation and load balancing on the flash chips.You do realize that physical spinny platter-type drives also have firmware?
As do optical devices?
As does everything else you've got connected to your computer, even the keyboard/mouse and monitor?
While some of those firmwares will probably never need to be updated (when was the list time performance on a keyboard was a major factor on a benchmark?
The only time I've *ever* seen a problem with one of those, it was on an old iMac running System 9, and the issue was actually the os's input buffer which couldn't keep up with my typing rate that's in excess of 110wpm.
), those devices still need and have a firmware.But enthusiasts have had the ability to update the firmware on their CDROM drives and hard drives for a long time, as a code optimisation there can make a big difference to a benchmark that involves the device... on optical drives, it has even been done to upgrade a 32x drive to 40x or 48x with a firmware update, and there's also pirate firmwares available for DVD drives that reset the region change counter every time you power cycle the device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903881</id>
	<title>f!ailzo8s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256731200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>words, don't get so there are people said. 'Screaming wwel-known [tux.org]?  Are you arrogance was or chair, return Satan's Dick And to avoid so as to</htmltext>
<tokenext>words , do n't get so there are people said .
'Screaming wwel-known [ tux.org ] ?
Are you arrogance was or chair , return Satan 's Dick And to avoid so as to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>words, don't get so there are people said.
'Screaming wwel-known [tux.org]?
Are you arrogance was or chair, return Satan's Dick And to avoid so as to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938697</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Intel, how about unlocking the write speed</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1257001260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took a look at the AnandTech link you posted and from the data shown, I wonder if you quite truly understand the meaning of "mundane".</p><p>Here's a definition from dictionary.com:</p><p>2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.</p><p>The link<br><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=6" title="anandtech.com">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=6</a> [anandtech.com]</p><p>shows that, for HDDs, the random write rate at 4kb is 0.8 MB/s ( Seagate Momentus 5400.6 ) and 1.5 MB/s ( Velociraptor 300 GB).<br>Now, since I use primarily a notebook, the Velociraptor is a non-starter.<br>I'm also excluding all the SLC drives as they are just too expensive right now for a given capacity.<br>The Intel MLC drives rate at 36-40 MB/s and the Indilinx-based are 13 MB/s - an impressive 3x advantage for Intel.<br>But, mundane? That would be an accurate description of the HDD performance where the much-vaunted Velociraptor is 3x SLOWER than the Samsung-based MLC and almost 9x slower than the Indilinx ones.</p><p>The picture for laptop users like myself is even worse ( or better depending on where you stand ).<br>The Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500GB can barely manage 1/5th the random write speed of the Summit and a mere 6\% of any of the Indilinx drives.<br>Now, THAT is "mundane"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a look at the AnandTech link you posted and from the data shown , I wonder if you quite truly understand the meaning of " mundane " .Here 's a definition from dictionary.com : 2. common ; ordinary ; banal ; unimaginative.The linkhttp : //www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx ? i = 3667&amp;p = 6 [ anandtech.com ] shows that , for HDDs , the random write rate at 4kb is 0.8 MB/s ( Seagate Momentus 5400.6 ) and 1.5 MB/s ( Velociraptor 300 GB ) .Now , since I use primarily a notebook , the Velociraptor is a non-starter.I 'm also excluding all the SLC drives as they are just too expensive right now for a given capacity.The Intel MLC drives rate at 36-40 MB/s and the Indilinx-based are 13 MB/s - an impressive 3x advantage for Intel.But , mundane ?
That would be an accurate description of the HDD performance where the much-vaunted Velociraptor is 3x SLOWER than the Samsung-based MLC and almost 9x slower than the Indilinx ones.The picture for laptop users like myself is even worse ( or better depending on where you stand ) .The Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500GB can barely manage 1/5th the random write speed of the Summit and a mere 6 \ % of any of the Indilinx drives.Now , THAT is " mundane "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a look at the AnandTech link you posted and from the data shown, I wonder if you quite truly understand the meaning of "mundane".Here's a definition from dictionary.com:2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.The linkhttp://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&amp;p=6 [anandtech.com]shows that, for HDDs, the random write rate at 4kb is 0.8 MB/s ( Seagate Momentus 5400.6 ) and 1.5 MB/s ( Velociraptor 300 GB).Now, since I use primarily a notebook, the Velociraptor is a non-starter.I'm also excluding all the SLC drives as they are just too expensive right now for a given capacity.The Intel MLC drives rate at 36-40 MB/s and the Indilinx-based are 13 MB/s - an impressive 3x advantage for Intel.But, mundane?
That would be an accurate description of the HDD performance where the much-vaunted Velociraptor is 3x SLOWER than the Samsung-based MLC and almost 9x slower than the Indilinx ones.The picture for laptop users like myself is even worse ( or better depending on where you stand ).The Seagate Momentus 5400.6 500GB can barely manage 1/5th the random write speed of the Summit and a mere 6\% of any of the Indilinx drives.Now, THAT is "mundane"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906613</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Slashdot.  Most people here are a-holes, including you.  We also have a nice collection of idiots, zealots, morons, and outcasts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot .
Most people here are a-holes , including you .
We also have a nice collection of idiots , zealots , morons , and outcasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot.
Most people here are a-holes, including you.
We also have a nice collection of idiots, zealots, morons, and outcasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907163</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1256757780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried raising this on the OCZ forums, it wasn't even specific to OCZ products - I merely stated that "SSD's are finicky" which they absoloutely are and have been, it's not close to a simple, plug, play, forget - technology.<br>They are getting better and overall OCZ have done a good job with support but the vehement fans of the products absolutely not only blindly defended SSD's overall but took it as some kind of a personal attack, it's ridiculous.</p><p>FWIW I'm an early adopter, I've got 2 OCZ drives and 2 Intel drives (coming soon) and yes, definitely a beta product but I am glad they are being worked on and figured out, in 12 to 18 months we will see some incredible disk performance finally, magnetic hard disks have been ruining computers for years (see my post history, I'm a big storagage nut)</p><p>Best bet, simply wait and don't buy one yet. I personally couldn't wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried raising this on the OCZ forums , it was n't even specific to OCZ products - I merely stated that " SSD 's are finicky " which they absoloutely are and have been , it 's not close to a simple , plug , play , forget - technology.They are getting better and overall OCZ have done a good job with support but the vehement fans of the products absolutely not only blindly defended SSD 's overall but took it as some kind of a personal attack , it 's ridiculous.FWIW I 'm an early adopter , I 've got 2 OCZ drives and 2 Intel drives ( coming soon ) and yes , definitely a beta product but I am glad they are being worked on and figured out , in 12 to 18 months we will see some incredible disk performance finally , magnetic hard disks have been ruining computers for years ( see my post history , I 'm a big storagage nut ) Best bet , simply wait and do n't buy one yet .
I personally could n't wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried raising this on the OCZ forums, it wasn't even specific to OCZ products - I merely stated that "SSD's are finicky" which they absoloutely are and have been, it's not close to a simple, plug, play, forget - technology.They are getting better and overall OCZ have done a good job with support but the vehement fans of the products absolutely not only blindly defended SSD's overall but took it as some kind of a personal attack, it's ridiculous.FWIW I'm an early adopter, I've got 2 OCZ drives and 2 Intel drives (coming soon) and yes, definitely a beta product but I am glad they are being worked on and figured out, in 12 to 18 months we will see some incredible disk performance finally, magnetic hard disks have been ruining computers for years (see my post history, I'm a big storagage nut)Best bet, simply wait and don't buy one yet.
I personally couldn't wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155</id>
	<title>Smart Machines</title>
	<author>STDOUBT</author>
	<datestamp>1256721960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware. Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC!!! I want DUMB machines, damn it! Why can't an SSD simply be a "mass storage device"?? Let the OS worry about wear leveling, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else , but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware .
Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC ! ! !
I want DUMB machines , damn it !
Why ca n't an SSD simply be a " mass storage device " ? ?
Let the OS worry about wear leveling , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting damn sick and tired of devices that NEED firmware.
Why does every little peripheral need to contain LOGIC!!!
I want DUMB machines, damn it!
Why can't an SSD simply be a "mass storage device"??
Let the OS worry about wear leveling, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903563</id>
	<title>Moderation is awful here</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256729160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it phases you or upsets you do yourself a favour and leave. I'd rather you stay of course, but leaving is a better choice than worrying about it.</p><p>Just yesterday I had two posts on the same discussion that were very similar modded very differently. One ended up at +5:Insightful. The other at -1:Troll.</p><p>I regularly find that my posts get modded up to plus 5 then 4 days later get eroded to -1:Troll by people who don't like them. The only way I can see this happening is people bookmarking and coming back to mod things down. If you don't believe me just say something legitimate but negative about Apple or Google. Watch the moderation yoyo! I've got no way to prove it but I don't think I'm just being paranoid when I say that these people don't just mod down the post you don't like but then look at ALL your comments and mod them down too.</p><p>The only solution I can think of is to weight negative feedback lower than positive or cut off negative feedback once a comment gets enough positive. The trouble is that this too could be abused by a group or person with multiple accounts. Personally, despite only reading at +4 I'd like to see moderation abolished. People keep saying that occassionally idiots get mod points but it all works out, but the truth is moderation here has gone to the dogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it phases you or upsets you do yourself a favour and leave .
I 'd rather you stay of course , but leaving is a better choice than worrying about it.Just yesterday I had two posts on the same discussion that were very similar modded very differently .
One ended up at + 5 : Insightful .
The other at -1 : Troll.I regularly find that my posts get modded up to plus 5 then 4 days later get eroded to -1 : Troll by people who do n't like them .
The only way I can see this happening is people bookmarking and coming back to mod things down .
If you do n't believe me just say something legitimate but negative about Apple or Google .
Watch the moderation yoyo !
I 've got no way to prove it but I do n't think I 'm just being paranoid when I say that these people do n't just mod down the post you do n't like but then look at ALL your comments and mod them down too.The only solution I can think of is to weight negative feedback lower than positive or cut off negative feedback once a comment gets enough positive .
The trouble is that this too could be abused by a group or person with multiple accounts .
Personally , despite only reading at + 4 I 'd like to see moderation abolished .
People keep saying that occassionally idiots get mod points but it all works out , but the truth is moderation here has gone to the dogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it phases you or upsets you do yourself a favour and leave.
I'd rather you stay of course, but leaving is a better choice than worrying about it.Just yesterday I had two posts on the same discussion that were very similar modded very differently.
One ended up at +5:Insightful.
The other at -1:Troll.I regularly find that my posts get modded up to plus 5 then 4 days later get eroded to -1:Troll by people who don't like them.
The only way I can see this happening is people bookmarking and coming back to mod things down.
If you don't believe me just say something legitimate but negative about Apple or Google.
Watch the moderation yoyo!
I've got no way to prove it but I don't think I'm just being paranoid when I say that these people don't just mod down the post you don't like but then look at ALL your comments and mod them down too.The only solution I can think of is to weight negative feedback lower than positive or cut off negative feedback once a comment gets enough positive.
The trouble is that this too could be abused by a group or person with multiple accounts.
Personally, despite only reading at +4 I'd like to see moderation abolished.
People keep saying that occassionally idiots get mod points but it all works out, but the truth is moderation here has gone to the dogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901781</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>644bd346996</author>
	<datestamp>1256763480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more that nobody is taking seriously the fundamental differences between hard drives and flash. Nobody has really stopped to do a comprehensive assessment of what existing assumptions embodied in our software and users will be broken by flash memory that is asymmetric in both access speed and access granularity. As a result, the pre-Intel flash SSD controllers made really stupid trade-offs, and they ended up with drives that were less suitable for the consumer market than ordinary hard drives. Once Intel made everybody realize that latency and IOPS mattered a lot more to consumers than throughput, people moved on to the next difference, and started complaining about the lower write performance of a nearly full SSD. Even today, I still see people referring to it as a "bug", when it is nothing more than an inherent difference from the spinning platters of hard drives. Smart garbage collection (which requires smart OS support) is a way of hiding the limitation, but the lack of it isn't a bug any more than a hard drive with a small cache is faulty. It just has obvious room for improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more that nobody is taking seriously the fundamental differences between hard drives and flash .
Nobody has really stopped to do a comprehensive assessment of what existing assumptions embodied in our software and users will be broken by flash memory that is asymmetric in both access speed and access granularity .
As a result , the pre-Intel flash SSD controllers made really stupid trade-offs , and they ended up with drives that were less suitable for the consumer market than ordinary hard drives .
Once Intel made everybody realize that latency and IOPS mattered a lot more to consumers than throughput , people moved on to the next difference , and started complaining about the lower write performance of a nearly full SSD .
Even today , I still see people referring to it as a " bug " , when it is nothing more than an inherent difference from the spinning platters of hard drives .
Smart garbage collection ( which requires smart OS support ) is a way of hiding the limitation , but the lack of it is n't a bug any more than a hard drive with a small cache is faulty .
It just has obvious room for improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more that nobody is taking seriously the fundamental differences between hard drives and flash.
Nobody has really stopped to do a comprehensive assessment of what existing assumptions embodied in our software and users will be broken by flash memory that is asymmetric in both access speed and access granularity.
As a result, the pre-Intel flash SSD controllers made really stupid trade-offs, and they ended up with drives that were less suitable for the consumer market than ordinary hard drives.
Once Intel made everybody realize that latency and IOPS mattered a lot more to consumers than throughput, people moved on to the next difference, and started complaining about the lower write performance of a nearly full SSD.
Even today, I still see people referring to it as a "bug", when it is nothing more than an inherent difference from the spinning platters of hard drives.
Smart garbage collection (which requires smart OS support) is a way of hiding the limitation, but the lack of it isn't a bug any more than a hard drive with a small cache is faulty.
It just has obvious room for improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904357</id>
	<title>I'm using the new firmware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm typing this article on my trusty ThinkPad now equipped with a X-25 MLC 34nm SSD upgraded to the latest firmware. No problems whatsoever with Ubuntu. I'm wondering if the problem is related to some crappy OS that some people use...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm typing this article on my trusty ThinkPad now equipped with a X-25 MLC 34nm SSD upgraded to the latest firmware .
No problems whatsoever with Ubuntu .
I 'm wondering if the problem is related to some crappy OS that some people use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm typing this article on my trusty ThinkPad now equipped with a X-25 MLC 34nm SSD upgraded to the latest firmware.
No problems whatsoever with Ubuntu.
I'm wondering if the problem is related to some crappy OS that some people use...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902303</id>
	<title>vs Pricing</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes, it makes sense to price of product so high at the beginning of its PLC, so the consumer who willing to pay for it is highly likely to be able to provide free in detail crash feedback...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , it makes sense to price of product so high at the beginning of its PLC , so the consumer who willing to pay for it is highly likely to be able to provide free in detail crash feedback.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, it makes sense to price of product so high at the beginning of its PLC, so the consumer who willing to pay for it is highly likely to be able to provide free in detail crash feedback...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908341</id>
	<title>Re:"Closed Source Filesystem"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256818440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats OK, because your data doesn't only exist in one place, DOES IT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats OK , because your data does n't only exist in one place , DOES IT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats OK, because your data doesn't only exist in one place, DOES IT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902549</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1256724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there are only about 4 kinds of controllers: Intel (used by themselves and a couple models from Kingston and one other... Corsair I think?); Indilinx (used by the rest of the decent drives, like the OCZ Vertex line); Samsung (supposedly what you typically get if you buy a computer with an SSD already installed, not particularly good); and JMicron (the really crappy early drives). I get the impression that only the Intel and Indilinx controllers are actually any good, because the others bog down under lots of small writes (slow wear leveling algorithms?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are only about 4 kinds of controllers : Intel ( used by themselves and a couple models from Kingston and one other... Corsair I think ?
) ; Indilinx ( used by the rest of the decent drives , like the OCZ Vertex line ) ; Samsung ( supposedly what you typically get if you buy a computer with an SSD already installed , not particularly good ) ; and JMicron ( the really crappy early drives ) .
I get the impression that only the Intel and Indilinx controllers are actually any good , because the others bog down under lots of small writes ( slow wear leveling algorithms ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are only about 4 kinds of controllers: Intel (used by themselves and a couple models from Kingston and one other... Corsair I think?
); Indilinx (used by the rest of the decent drives, like the OCZ Vertex line); Samsung (supposedly what you typically get if you buy a computer with an SSD already installed, not particularly good); and JMicron (the really crappy early drives).
I get the impression that only the Intel and Indilinx controllers are actually any good, because the others bog down under lots of small writes (slow wear leveling algorithms?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902707</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't know where else to log this complaint.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Have you tried directing it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null? They may be slow in offering up helpful suggestions, but boy are they great listeners!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where else to log this complaint .
Have you tried directing it to /dev/null ?
They may be slow in offering up helpful suggestions , but boy are they great listeners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where else to log this complaint.
Have you tried directing it to /dev/null?
They may be slow in offering up helpful suggestions, but boy are they great listeners!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901737</id>
	<title>Re:This is off-topic and I appologize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say things that people like? I gave you my last mod point on an older comment, because somebody had obviously down-modded you inappropriately. Glad to help out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say things that people like ?
I gave you my last mod point on an older comment , because somebody had obviously down-modded you inappropriately .
Glad to help out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say things that people like?
I gave you my last mod point on an older comment, because somebody had obviously down-modded you inappropriately.
Glad to help out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073</id>
	<title>Re:Development process is flawed</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you define "enough competition"? Maybe I'm just ignorant about the SSD market, but Newegg lists 8 manufacturers with more models of SSD drives than Intel, with Patriot, Kingston, and Corsair probably being the most well-known companies. That would seem to indicate that there's quite a bit of competition in the SSD market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you define " enough competition " ?
Maybe I 'm just ignorant about the SSD market , but Newegg lists 8 manufacturers with more models of SSD drives than Intel , with Patriot , Kingston , and Corsair probably being the most well-known companies .
That would seem to indicate that there 's quite a bit of competition in the SSD market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you define "enough competition"?
Maybe I'm just ignorant about the SSD market, but Newegg lists 8 manufacturers with more models of SSD drives than Intel, with Patriot, Kingston, and Corsair probably being the most well-known companies.
That would seem to indicate that there's quite a bit of competition in the SSD market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29919365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29927031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_28_198233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902073
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29908479
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29927031
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29903397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29906463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29920485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29938025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29901831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_28_198233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29904693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29902299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29919365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29907335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_28_198233.29905283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
