<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_1344226</id>
	<title>Microsoft To Switch Focus To Windows 8 In July 2010</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259764860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader noted a bit from Ars saying <i>Microsoft will be <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/microsoft-to-switch-internal-focus-to-windows-8-in-july-2010.ars">switching internal focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8</a> in fiscal year 2010. Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away. According to Microsoft's roadmaps, the release of Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader noted a bit from Ars saying Microsoft will be switching internal focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2010 .
Microsoft 's fiscal year starts in July , which is only eight months away .
According to Microsoft 's roadmaps , the release of Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader noted a bit from Ars saying Microsoft will be switching internal focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2010.
Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.
According to Microsoft's roadmaps, the release of Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298576</id>
	<title>Re:What's New?</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1259602800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an impressively stupid comment.  I mean, really impressively stupid, which is saying something on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an impressively stupid comment .
I mean , really impressively stupid , which is saying something on ./</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an impressively stupid comment.
I mean, really impressively stupid, which is saying something on ./</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299438</id>
	<title>Re:Which version will Windows 8 be?</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1259606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which version will Fedora 10 be<blockquote><div><p> <tt>Linux ark.cs.curtin.edu.au 2.6.19.1 #5 SMP Wed Jan 3 14:52:27 WDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which version will Fedora 10 be Linux ark.cs.curtin.edu.au 2.6.19.1 # 5 SMP Wed Jan 3 14 : 52 : 27 WDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which version will Fedora 10 be Linux ark.cs.curtin.edu.au 2.6.19.1 #5 SMP Wed Jan 3 14:52:27 WDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298520</id>
	<title>Re:What's New?</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1259602560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actual multiuser support with decent file protection (NTFS vs. FAT).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actual multiuser support with decent file protection ( NTFS vs. FAT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actual multiuser support with decent file protection (NTFS vs. FAT).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299346</id>
	<title>Re:Taking bets on infinity</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259605980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol?</p></div><p>Very unlikely, as it's the <a href="http://msmvps.com/blogs/brianmadsen/archive/2009/11/03/visual-studio-2010-got-a-new-logo-you-like.aspx" title="msmvps.com">new logo</a> [msmvps.com] for Visual Studio already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol ? Very unlikely , as it 's the new logo [ msmvps.com ] for Visual Studio already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol?Very unlikely, as it's the new logo [msmvps.com] for Visual Studio already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299662</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1259607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theoretically a 64 bit OS and proccessor could support 16 Exabytes (actually 16 Exbibytes) but in reality the current hardware can only handle a 40bit physical address (1TiB) with the ability to go to 52bit(4PiB).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theoretically a 64 bit OS and proccessor could support 16 Exabytes ( actually 16 Exbibytes ) but in reality the current hardware can only handle a 40bit physical address ( 1TiB ) with the ability to go to 52bit ( 4PiB ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theoretically a 64 bit OS and proccessor could support 16 Exabytes (actually 16 Exbibytes) but in reality the current hardware can only handle a 40bit physical address (1TiB) with the ability to go to 52bit(4PiB).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298632</id>
	<title>Im not going to lie, i love Windows.</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1259603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not going to lie, i love Windows.Ive bought them all so far, But Unless theres some serious new features/technology in Windows 8 it will be the first i have skipped. Its come to the point the internet is smoken fast,my computer does what i want it to do,all my programs work just fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not going to lie , i love Windows.Ive bought them all so far , But Unless theres some serious new features/technology in Windows 8 it will be the first i have skipped .
Its come to the point the internet is smoken fast,my computer does what i want it to do,all my programs work just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not going to lie, i love Windows.Ive bought them all so far, But Unless theres some serious new features/technology in Windows 8 it will be the first i have skipped.
Its come to the point the internet is smoken fast,my computer does what i want it to do,all my programs work just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298286</id>
	<title>time bandits</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1259601420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.</p></div><p>They just keep coming, faster and faster.  Next next year is a mere twenty months away and we haven't even *started* next year.</p><p>Dripping with weedy urgency, like a guy six weeks into his first relationship, waking up his girlfriend at four in the morning to have sex for the againth time because "there's only another two weeks before your placebos".  If she's still too love-addled not to permanently dismember the weedy bastard right then and there, she'll be going "yeah, like I know already, been there before".</p><p>Actually, it's more like a guy doing this ten years into his third marriage, who won't get snipped because he still thinks he's a stud.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's fiscal year starts in July , which is only eight months away.They just keep coming , faster and faster .
Next next year is a mere twenty months away and we have n't even * started * next year.Dripping with weedy urgency , like a guy six weeks into his first relationship , waking up his girlfriend at four in the morning to have sex for the againth time because " there 's only another two weeks before your placebos " .
If she 's still too love-addled not to permanently dismember the weedy bastard right then and there , she 'll be going " yeah , like I know already , been there before " .Actually , it 's more like a guy doing this ten years into his third marriage , who wo n't get snipped because he still thinks he 's a stud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.They just keep coming, faster and faster.
Next next year is a mere twenty months away and we haven't even *started* next year.Dripping with weedy urgency, like a guy six weeks into his first relationship, waking up his girlfriend at four in the morning to have sex for the againth time because "there's only another two weeks before your placebos".
If she's still too love-addled not to permanently dismember the weedy bastard right then and there, she'll be going "yeah, like I know already, been there before".Actually, it's more like a guy doing this ten years into his third marriage, who won't get snipped because he still thinks he's a stud.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301636</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1259572980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does W2K support up to DX8 or DX9? Steam has support for OSes back to winME. I use XP currently, but I'd downgrade in a heartbeat if I had to. No gamemaker wants to push a DX10-only game, so until that day comes, 99\% of users probably would be comfortable using W2K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does W2K support up to DX8 or DX9 ?
Steam has support for OSes back to winME .
I use XP currently , but I 'd downgrade in a heartbeat if I had to .
No gamemaker wants to push a DX10-only game , so until that day comes , 99 \ % of users probably would be comfortable using W2K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does W2K support up to DX8 or DX9?
Steam has support for OSes back to winME.
I use XP currently, but I'd downgrade in a heartbeat if I had to.
No gamemaker wants to push a DX10-only game, so until that day comes, 99\% of users probably would be comfortable using W2K.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297368</id>
	<title>Wait,</title>
	<author>inglishmayjer</author>
	<datestamp>1259596980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>was windows 8 my idea too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>was windows 8 my idea too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was windows 8 my idea too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301066</id>
	<title>Re:Release early, release often...</title>
	<author>webheaded</author>
	<datestamp>1259614020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that what the betas are for? &gt;\_&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what the betas are for ?
&gt; \ _ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what the betas are for?
&gt;\_&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297278</id>
	<title>Release the what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're going to release the release, when are they going to release the os?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're going to release the release , when are they going to release the os ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're going to release the release, when are they going to release the os?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300334</id>
	<title>Re:*ONLY* 8 months?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista, which may or may not have been valid, so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice. </i></p><p>On the contrary, I strongly prefer Vista to Windows 7. Vista at least made it easy to turn off all the new fluffy user interface crap.</p><p>Windows 7 makes it impossible to turn off many of the new fluffy user interface craplets, leading to significant user training costs and helpdesk calls.</p><p>If MS reenabled the Vista interface for Windows 7, I would accept it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista , which may or may not have been valid , so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice .
On the contrary , I strongly prefer Vista to Windows 7 .
Vista at least made it easy to turn off all the new fluffy user interface crap.Windows 7 makes it impossible to turn off many of the new fluffy user interface craplets , leading to significant user training costs and helpdesk calls.If MS reenabled the Vista interface for Windows 7 , I would accept it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista, which may or may not have been valid, so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice.
On the contrary, I strongly prefer Vista to Windows 7.
Vista at least made it easy to turn off all the new fluffy user interface crap.Windows 7 makes it impossible to turn off many of the new fluffy user interface craplets, leading to significant user training costs and helpdesk calls.If MS reenabled the Vista interface for Windows 7, I would accept it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297624</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1259598300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This must be getting old to the people that use Windows and have to put<br>up with these things, but to the one percent of us that use Linux, it<br>never becomes old. I feel rather schadenfreude!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This must be getting old to the people that use Windows and have to putup with these things , but to the one percent of us that use Linux , itnever becomes old .
I feel rather schadenfreude !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This must be getting old to the people that use Windows and have to putup with these things, but to the one percent of us that use Linux, itnever becomes old.
I feel rather schadenfreude!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302718</id>
	<title>Re:Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1259576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>98... 2k... 98... 2k</p><p>Anyone else feel like something is missing?</p><p>Ahh.. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed\_memory" title="wikipedia.org">that explains it...</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>98... 2k... 98... 2kAnyone else feel like something is missing ? Ahh.. that explains it... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>98... 2k... 98... 2kAnyone else feel like something is missing?Ahh.. that explains it... [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299160</id>
	<title>Fiscal year 2010?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in fiscal year 2010. Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.</p></div></blockquote><p>Microsoft's FY10 started <b>last</b> July.  FY11 starts seven months from yesterday.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in fiscal year 2010 .
Microsoft 's fiscal year starts in July , which is only eight months away.Microsoft 's FY10 started last July .
FY11 starts seven months from yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in fiscal year 2010.
Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.Microsoft's FY10 started last July.
FY11 starts seven months from yesterday.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300586</id>
	<title>Re:What's New?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where is the innovation? Where is the Wow stuff?</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/technology.html" title="worldofwarcraft.com">WoW</a> [worldofwarcraft.com] won't run on Windows 95, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the innovation ?
Where is the Wow stuff ? WoW [ worldofwarcraft.com ] wo n't run on Windows 95 , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the innovation?
Where is the Wow stuff?WoW [worldofwarcraft.com] won't run on Windows 95, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299872</id>
	<title>Summary incorrect about FY10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the middle of FY10 right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the middle of FY10 right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the middle of FY10 right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299086</id>
	<title>Re:Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are in business to make money, not play nice.</p><p>As long as users continue to pay for their product their business model is valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are in business to make money , not play nice.As long as users continue to pay for their product their business model is valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are in business to make money, not play nice.As long as users continue to pay for their product their business model is valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299316</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1259605800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they're getting back on their normal release schedule. Good for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 're getting back on their normal release schedule .
Good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they're getting back on their normal release schedule.
Good for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299698</id>
	<title>Re:Which version will Windows 8 be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The correct answer is: who gives a fucking shit about such pedantry?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct answer is : who gives a fucking shit about such pedantry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct answer is: who gives a fucking shit about such pedantry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297530</id>
	<title>Windows 8?</title>
	<author>Brian Edwards</author>
	<datestamp>1259597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would that be the OctoOS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be the OctoOS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be the OctoOS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297730</id>
	<title>Focus Shift?</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1259598780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will this be anything like the <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/news/00/january/000118/befree.shtml" title="macobserver.com">Be Focus Shift</a> [macobserver.com] at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this be anything like the Be Focus Shift [ macobserver.com ] at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this be anything like the Be Focus Shift [macobserver.com] at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300506</id>
	<title>Re:Which version will Windows 8 be?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259611320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to guess that it will also be 6.1 or 7.1.</p><p>Why?  Because Windows 7 is 6.1 so the following is true:</p><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>// Are we running XP or newer?<br>if (majorver &gt;= 5 &amp;&amp; minorver &gt;= 1) {<br>// Do stuff<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>which fails on Vista because Vista is 6.0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to guess that it will also be 6.1 or 7.1.Why ?
Because Windows 7 is 6.1 so the following is true : // Are we running XP or newer ? if ( majorver &gt; = 5 &amp;&amp; minorver &gt; = 1 ) { // Do stuff } which fails on Vista because Vista is 6.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to guess that it will also be 6.1 or 7.1.Why?
Because Windows 7 is 6.1 so the following is true: // Are we running XP or newer?if (majorver &gt;= 5 &amp;&amp; minorver &gt;= 1) {// Do stuff} which fails on Vista because Vista is 6.0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297544</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.</em>

<br> <br>

To use a line from The Patriot:

<br> <br>

You dream, General.

<br> <br>

People, average people, don't care that there are different versions of Windows.  People, average people, want something that allows them to get on to the internet, send email, maybe play some online games and a few other things.

<br> <br>

People, average people, just want something that works.  They don't want to have to go to a command line and remember some obscure phrase to accomplish something.  Until Linux becomes more like a Mac or Windows environment, Linux will not take off for the average person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people get fed up with crippled " home " versions and paying more for " ultimate " versions , Linux will surely take off .
To use a line from The Patriot : You dream , General .
People , average people , do n't care that there are different versions of Windows .
People , average people , want something that allows them to get on to the internet , send email , maybe play some online games and a few other things .
People , average people , just want something that works .
They do n't want to have to go to a command line and remember some obscure phrase to accomplish something .
Until Linux becomes more like a Mac or Windows environment , Linux will not take off for the average person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.
To use a line from The Patriot:

 

You dream, General.
People, average people, don't care that there are different versions of Windows.
People, average people, want something that allows them to get on to the internet, send email, maybe play some online games and a few other things.
People, average people, just want something that works.
They don't want to have to go to a command line and remember some obscure phrase to accomplish something.
Until Linux becomes more like a Mac or Windows environment, Linux will not take off for the average person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30306954</id>
	<title>ABiggey4U</title>
	<author>ABiggey4U</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 8 Professional ZX Edition Leaked [checked by me] [h33t][migel]  easily found on: <a href="http://www.kickasstorrents.com/applications/" title="kickasstorrents.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kickasstorrents.com/applications/</a> [kickasstorrents.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 8 Professional ZX Edition Leaked [ checked by me ] [ h33t ] [ migel ] easily found on : http : //www.kickasstorrents.com/applications/ [ kickasstorrents.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 8 Professional ZX Edition Leaked [checked by me] [h33t][migel]  easily found on: http://www.kickasstorrents.com/applications/ [kickasstorrents.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298064</id>
	<title>Re:Price Appropriately</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I literally remember using XP in 8th grade</p></div>
</blockquote><p>As opposed to figuratively remembering something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I literally remember using XP in 8th grade As opposed to figuratively remembering something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I literally remember using XP in 8th grade
As opposed to figuratively remembering something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?</p></div><p>128 bit, I think we heard previously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can Windows 8 do that ca n't be done with Windows 7 ? 128 bit , I think we heard previously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?128 bit, I think we heard previously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297810</id>
	<title>Summary fiscal year incorrect</title>
	<author>JD-1027</author>
	<datestamp>1259599200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a minor error in the summary. Next July starts fiscal year 2011. The article actually has it correct...<blockquote><div><p>The sixth job posting arrived on November 20, 2009, requesting a Sr. Manager, Partner Skills Development - Launch Lead who is to change business focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2011. Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a minor error in the summary .
Next July starts fiscal year 2011 .
The article actually has it correct...The sixth job posting arrived on November 20 , 2009 , requesting a Sr. Manager , Partner Skills Development - Launch Lead who is to change business focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2011 .
Microsoft 's fiscal year starts in July , which is only eight months away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a minor error in the summary.
Next July starts fiscal year 2011.
The article actually has it correct...The sixth job posting arrived on November 20, 2009, requesting a Sr. Manager, Partner Skills Development - Launch Lead who is to change business focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2011.
Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070</id>
	<title>Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Ocho!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Ocho !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Ocho!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298400</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1259601960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't a 64-bit system support 2^64 bytes of memory, which would be something like 1.8x10^19 bytes of memory? Or are there other constraints? And even if there were, wouldn't it be easier to work on the other constraints?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't a 64-bit system support 2 ^ 64 bytes of memory , which would be something like 1.8x10 ^ 19 bytes of memory ?
Or are there other constraints ?
And even if there were , would n't it be easier to work on the other constraints ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't a 64-bit system support 2^64 bytes of memory, which would be something like 1.8x10^19 bytes of memory?
Or are there other constraints?
And even if there were, wouldn't it be easier to work on the other constraints?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30308870</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crippling in a software sense also often means 'deliberately limiting (purely for market segmentation reasons) some feature which by default would be available'<br>In windows Vista/7 the amount of memory you can use is limited in this way:<br><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical\_memory\_limits\_windows\_7" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical\_memory\_limits\_windows\_7</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>I wouldn't claim that the home premium maximum of 16Gb RAM is a serious limitation for even top-end home users now, but given that at the top end you could be already be using 8Gb (the limit for home basic), it could well be an issue within the lifetime of windows 7.</p><p>As far as the server versions of Windows are concerned, this is already a serious issue. You can easily hit the 'server standard edition' limits in server 2003/2008 (16/32Gb) and have to pay huge amounts of extra money for a higher grade version of server, even if the *only* extra feature you want is to address a bit more memory. This definitely counts as 'crippling' in my book.</p><p>This has got to be one advantage of FOSS operating systems - they *never* introduce artificial limits like this. Linux is currently limited (by its design, I assume) to about 64Tb of physical memory according to this:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Whereas even the most expensive version of windows server 2008 is limited to 2Tb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crippling in a software sense also often means 'deliberately limiting ( purely for market segmentation reasons ) some feature which by default would be available'In windows Vista/7 the amount of memory you can use is limited in this way : http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778 ( VS.85 ) .aspx # physical \ _memory \ _limits \ _windows \ _7 [ microsoft.com ] I would n't claim that the home premium maximum of 16Gb RAM is a serious limitation for even top-end home users now , but given that at the top end you could be already be using 8Gb ( the limit for home basic ) , it could well be an issue within the lifetime of windows 7.As far as the server versions of Windows are concerned , this is already a serious issue .
You can easily hit the 'server standard edition ' limits in server 2003/2008 ( 16/32Gb ) and have to pay huge amounts of extra money for a higher grade version of server , even if the * only * extra feature you want is to address a bit more memory .
This definitely counts as 'crippling ' in my book.This has got to be one advantage of FOSS operating systems - they * never * introduce artificial limits like this .
Linux is currently limited ( by its design , I assume ) to about 64Tb of physical memory according to this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 # Linux [ wikipedia.org ] Whereas even the most expensive version of windows server 2008 is limited to 2Tb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crippling in a software sense also often means 'deliberately limiting (purely for market segmentation reasons) some feature which by default would be available'In windows Vista/7 the amount of memory you can use is limited in this way:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical\_memory\_limits\_windows\_7 [microsoft.com]I wouldn't claim that the home premium maximum of 16Gb RAM is a serious limitation for even top-end home users now, but given that at the top end you could be already be using 8Gb (the limit for home basic), it could well be an issue within the lifetime of windows 7.As far as the server versions of Windows are concerned, this is already a serious issue.
You can easily hit the 'server standard edition' limits in server 2003/2008 (16/32Gb) and have to pay huge amounts of extra money for a higher grade version of server, even if the *only* extra feature you want is to address a bit more memory.
This definitely counts as 'crippling' in my book.This has got to be one advantage of FOSS operating systems - they *never* introduce artificial limits like this.
Linux is currently limited (by its design, I assume) to about 64Tb of physical memory according to this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux [wikipedia.org]Whereas even the most expensive version of windows server 2008 is limited to 2Tb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300152</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>T-Bone-T</author>
	<datestamp>1259609700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about 8 but there are things that Vista does that XP doesn't that I take for granted and things 7 Beta did that I miss in Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about 8 but there are things that Vista does that XP does n't that I take for granted and things 7 Beta did that I miss in Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about 8 but there are things that Vista does that XP doesn't that I take for granted and things 7 Beta did that I miss in Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300328</id>
	<title>This Just In</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1259610540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will still be using XP when Windows 8 is released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will still be using XP when Windows 8 is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will still be using XP when Windows 8 is released.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298896</id>
	<title>Re:Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1259604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were Microsoft (and I am a Linux user by choice) I would continue to walk the path of the Windows 7 approach.<br>-Make the OS faster.<br>-Polish more.<br>-Don't change the locations of options unless there is a great new and easy way to put all option in one place.<br>-Make all apps and installers look the same for once.<br>-Try not to add too much new tech. The only thing users notice is: stability, speed, ease of use and eyecandy. Nothing more. So scrap what can be scrapped in the planning.<br>-Don't make a scene about how the next version of Windows is going to let your computer turn into a Star Treck computer or whatever.<br>-Market speed, stability, ease of use and eyecandy. Nothing else.<br>-Make only two versions: Personal edition and Professional edition.<br>-Charge 25 USD for the personal edition and 50 USD for the professional edition. Forget the upgrade scheme.<br>-Turn off all services by default and only turn them on at request.<br>-Allocate less resource for taskbar apps that start automagically when the computer is booted, but a lot for drivers to start up.<br>-Fix that fscking Internet Explorer to follow all standards to the digit.</p><p>Mayor profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were Microsoft ( and I am a Linux user by choice ) I would continue to walk the path of the Windows 7 approach.-Make the OS faster.-Polish more.-Do n't change the locations of options unless there is a great new and easy way to put all option in one place.-Make all apps and installers look the same for once.-Try not to add too much new tech .
The only thing users notice is : stability , speed , ease of use and eyecandy .
Nothing more .
So scrap what can be scrapped in the planning.-Do n't make a scene about how the next version of Windows is going to let your computer turn into a Star Treck computer or whatever.-Market speed , stability , ease of use and eyecandy .
Nothing else.-Make only two versions : Personal edition and Professional edition.-Charge 25 USD for the personal edition and 50 USD for the professional edition .
Forget the upgrade scheme.-Turn off all services by default and only turn them on at request.-Allocate less resource for taskbar apps that start automagically when the computer is booted , but a lot for drivers to start up.-Fix that fscking Internet Explorer to follow all standards to the digit.Mayor profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were Microsoft (and I am a Linux user by choice) I would continue to walk the path of the Windows 7 approach.-Make the OS faster.-Polish more.-Don't change the locations of options unless there is a great new and easy way to put all option in one place.-Make all apps and installers look the same for once.-Try not to add too much new tech.
The only thing users notice is: stability, speed, ease of use and eyecandy.
Nothing more.
So scrap what can be scrapped in the planning.-Don't make a scene about how the next version of Windows is going to let your computer turn into a Star Treck computer or whatever.-Market speed, stability, ease of use and eyecandy.
Nothing else.-Make only two versions: Personal edition and Professional edition.-Charge 25 USD for the personal edition and 50 USD for the professional edition.
Forget the upgrade scheme.-Turn off all services by default and only turn them on at request.-Allocate less resource for taskbar apps that start automagically when the computer is booted, but a lot for drivers to start up.-Fix that fscking Internet Explorer to follow all standards to the digit.Mayor profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297342</id>
	<title>will they get it right next time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have brrn using XP since 2003. Before that I was using 98SE<br>I didn't see the need to upgrade to Vista, and I heard it sucked anyway.<br>I guess I should skip &amp; then (since that would mean buying new hardware as well) and wait for Win 8</p><p>Of course if everybody does this then both MS and the PC manufacturers have a cashflow problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have brrn using XP since 2003 .
Before that I was using 98SEI did n't see the need to upgrade to Vista , and I heard it sucked anyway.I guess I should skip &amp; then ( since that would mean buying new hardware as well ) and wait for Win 8Of course if everybody does this then both MS and the PC manufacturers have a cashflow problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have brrn using XP since 2003.
Before that I was using 98SEI didn't see the need to upgrade to Vista, and I heard it sucked anyway.I guess I should skip &amp; then (since that would mean buying new hardware as well) and wait for Win 8Of course if everybody does this then both MS and the PC manufacturers have a cashflow problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30304894</id>
	<title>And then Windows 9...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1259583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then, finally... their real target!  Ladies and gentlemen!  Introducing Windows X!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then , finally... their real target !
Ladies and gentlemen !
Introducing Windows X !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then, finally... their real target!
Ladies and gentlemen!
Introducing Windows X!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299490</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psh, let's get some 64 bit apps first, methinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psh , let 's get some 64 bit apps first , methinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psh, let's get some 64 bit apps first, methinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297298</id>
	<title>What microsoft Really needs to do</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Read this Article and take some important notes.<br>
<a href="http://www.mil-embedded.com/articles/id/?4217" title="mil-embedded.com">NOTES!</a> [mil-embedded.com] <br>
bells and whistles do not sell in the real world were work needs to be done.<br>
People want a system/car/airplane/appliance that works, always. Not part of the time.<br>
If you want to dick around get a <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple\_introduces\_revolutionary" title="theonion.com">Mac Book Wheel</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Read this Article and take some important notes .
NOTES ! [ mil-embedded.com ] bells and whistles do not sell in the real world were work needs to be done .
People want a system/car/airplane/appliance that works , always .
Not part of the time .
If you want to dick around get a Mac Book Wheel [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Read this Article and take some important notes.
NOTES! [mil-embedded.com] 
bells and whistles do not sell in the real world were work needs to be done.
People want a system/car/airplane/appliance that works, always.
Not part of the time.
If you want to dick around get a Mac Book Wheel [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302958</id>
	<title>I still can't get it to run on my single-core CPU</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1259577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>strange, cause Linux and BSD both run fine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... are you sure Win8 is supposed to be an improvement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>strange , cause Linux and BSD both run fine ... are you sure Win8 is supposed to be an improvement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>strange, cause Linux and BSD both run fine ... are you sure Win8 is supposed to be an improvement?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302388</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>ProzacPatient</author>
	<datestamp>1259575200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't think we need 128-bit processors.<br>
As wet as it makes all us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. nerds to think of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT BITS.. there is nothing that 128-bit can offer us that 64-bit can't already do right now, practically speaking.<br>
Besides look at how long it took for the market to adopt 64-bit, and that move is still in progress.<br> <br>
So in all seriousness, if Microsoft was actually going to support 128-bit processors then it would probably be strictly for the server and super computer markets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't think we need 128-bit processors .
As wet as it makes all us / .
nerds to think of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT BITS.. there is nothing that 128-bit can offer us that 64-bit ca n't already do right now , practically speaking .
Besides look at how long it took for the market to adopt 64-bit , and that move is still in progress .
So in all seriousness , if Microsoft was actually going to support 128-bit processors then it would probably be strictly for the server and super computer markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't think we need 128-bit processors.
As wet as it makes all us /.
nerds to think of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT BITS.. there is nothing that 128-bit can offer us that 64-bit can't already do right now, practically speaking.
Besides look at how long it took for the market to adopt 64-bit, and that move is still in progress.
So in all seriousness, if Microsoft was actually going to support 128-bit processors then it would probably be strictly for the server and super computer markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30305498</id>
	<title>Flaky Release Versions for Flaky Operating Systems</title>
	<author>slashdime</author>
	<datestamp>1259586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3.1
95(+3) (same os)
XP
Vista
7

Microsoft Windows 8 will be actually named Microsoft Windows "SALES GENERATING CATCHPHRASE"</htmltext>
<tokenext>3.1 95 ( + 3 ) ( same os ) XP Vista 7 Microsoft Windows 8 will be actually named Microsoft Windows " SALES GENERATING CATCHPHRASE "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.1
95(+3) (same os)
XP
Vista
7

Microsoft Windows 8 will be actually named Microsoft Windows "SALES GENERATING CATCHPHRASE"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297840</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1259599440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've given one definition of `crippled`, and called it normal. Perhaps that one works for you, but everyone has their own definition, and one thing they'll have in common is that some event has reduced the functionality of some object.  Perhaps you're being lazy, because the information is easy to come by, but in case you're crippled in some way and are therefore unable to find out for yourself, two of the things missing from Windows 7 Home Premium which many people would find useful are 1) Windows XP mode (perhaps you have old software/games to run. Without this the user may have to wait for a Windows 7 patch, or pay for an alternative) and 2) Bitlocker (you might want to stop people from accessing some of your files without your permission without having to manually run apps for each instance)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've given one definition of ` crippled ` , and called it normal .
Perhaps that one works for you , but everyone has their own definition , and one thing they 'll have in common is that some event has reduced the functionality of some object .
Perhaps you 're being lazy , because the information is easy to come by , but in case you 're crippled in some way and are therefore unable to find out for yourself , two of the things missing from Windows 7 Home Premium which many people would find useful are 1 ) Windows XP mode ( perhaps you have old software/games to run .
Without this the user may have to wait for a Windows 7 patch , or pay for an alternative ) and 2 ) Bitlocker ( you might want to stop people from accessing some of your files without your permission without having to manually run apps for each instance )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've given one definition of `crippled`, and called it normal.
Perhaps that one works for you, but everyone has their own definition, and one thing they'll have in common is that some event has reduced the functionality of some object.
Perhaps you're being lazy, because the information is easy to come by, but in case you're crippled in some way and are therefore unable to find out for yourself, two of the things missing from Windows 7 Home Premium which many people would find useful are 1) Windows XP mode (perhaps you have old software/games to run.
Without this the user may have to wait for a Windows 7 patch, or pay for an alternative) and 2) Bitlocker (you might want to stop people from accessing some of your files without your permission without having to manually run apps for each instance)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297644</id>
	<title>Re:Odd - even cycle</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259598360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory makes sense if you apply it to operating systems. DOS was the good one; oh sure, it's warty, but it's <em>still</em> here and that tells you quite a bit. Windows, not so good. Maybe Microsoft's next OS will be worth running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory makes sense if you apply it to operating systems .
DOS was the good one ; oh sure , it 's warty , but it 's still here and that tells you quite a bit .
Windows , not so good .
Maybe Microsoft 's next OS will be worth running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory makes sense if you apply it to operating systems.
DOS was the good one; oh sure, it's warty, but it's still here and that tells you quite a bit.
Windows, not so good.
Maybe Microsoft's next OS will be worth running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297106</id>
	<title>End-of-the-world-screen-of-death</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah - you were thinking it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - you were thinking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - you were thinking it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297322</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1259596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases, right? Since the year 2000, there have been 5 non-server releases (ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7), and it's almost 2010, it is planned to be 6 at 2012.</p><p>That's one every other year.</p><p>Apple does the same thing, many software vendors do the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases , right ?
Since the year 2000 , there have been 5 non-server releases ( ME , 2000 , XP , Vista , 7 ) , and it 's almost 2010 , it is planned to be 6 at 2012.That 's one every other year.Apple does the same thing , many software vendors do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases, right?
Since the year 2000, there have been 5 non-server releases (ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7), and it's almost 2010, it is planned to be 6 at 2012.That's one every other year.Apple does the same thing, many software vendors do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298580</id>
	<title>HAHAHAHAHA!</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1259602800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off."</i> <br> <br>

I don't know whether to reply with a sincere criticism or a joke. So... I'll do both.<br> <br>

So, we'll start with the fact that the "ultimate" version is not required by, and not lusted after by, well, the vast majority of users. With Windows 7 you don't need Ultimate for much of anything. Hell, I was a Vista Ultimate x64 user and when I picked up Windows 7 I got "Professional" instead. They moved all the good stuff down a step. But here's the kicker - if you actually want the things that the Pro version requires, you aren't going to switch to linux to save a small amount of money. Especially if what you want is to do things like extend Media Centre to a compatible streaming device in the living room.<br> <br>

Now for the cheap shot at linux in the form of a semi-incorrect joke (only "semi" because this is a very common perception):<br> <br>

Being forced to pay extra to get leather seats and a great stereo isn't gonna make me run out and switch to a rickshaw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When people get fed up with crippled " home " versions and paying more for " ultimate " versions , Linux will surely take off .
" I do n't know whether to reply with a sincere criticism or a joke .
So... I 'll do both .
So , we 'll start with the fact that the " ultimate " version is not required by , and not lusted after by , well , the vast majority of users .
With Windows 7 you do n't need Ultimate for much of anything .
Hell , I was a Vista Ultimate x64 user and when I picked up Windows 7 I got " Professional " instead .
They moved all the good stuff down a step .
But here 's the kicker - if you actually want the things that the Pro version requires , you are n't going to switch to linux to save a small amount of money .
Especially if what you want is to do things like extend Media Centre to a compatible streaming device in the living room .
Now for the cheap shot at linux in the form of a semi-incorrect joke ( only " semi " because this is a very common perception ) : Being forced to pay extra to get leather seats and a great stereo is n't gon na make me run out and switch to a rickshaw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.
"  

I don't know whether to reply with a sincere criticism or a joke.
So... I'll do both.
So, we'll start with the fact that the "ultimate" version is not required by, and not lusted after by, well, the vast majority of users.
With Windows 7 you don't need Ultimate for much of anything.
Hell, I was a Vista Ultimate x64 user and when I picked up Windows 7 I got "Professional" instead.
They moved all the good stuff down a step.
But here's the kicker - if you actually want the things that the Pro version requires, you aren't going to switch to linux to save a small amount of money.
Especially if what you want is to do things like extend Media Centre to a compatible streaming device in the living room.
Now for the cheap shot at linux in the form of a semi-incorrect joke (only "semi" because this is a very common perception): 

Being forced to pay extra to get leather seats and a great stereo isn't gonna make me run out and switch to a rickshaw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300062</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1259609220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off. If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.</i>
<p>
Sorry to burst your bubble but Windows 7 works and it works so well that virtually NO ONE is going to switch to Linux. Perhaps a computer literate person might if they're more interested in tinkering with their PC than using their PC to get stuff done but that is a minority. Your average consumer wants something that works out of the box and Windows 7 works out of the box. They are very unlikely to install another OS, especially one which really doesn't offer much that their current one can't do.
</p><p>
In fact the only way I see 2010 being the "year of Linux" is if Google persuades the likes of Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba etc. to install Chrome OS on their budget netbooks/laptops instead of Windows. Even then, I don't know how successful this proposition would be unless Google splits its ad revenues with manufacturers. The manufacturers would have to make more from Google than they lose in sales from installing Windows 7 and from not installing paid crapware like Norton 30 day trials.
</p><p>
Personally I think Linux has blown it on the desktop. Ubuntu got closest to a workable desktop, and the Vista PR nightmare was the perfect time to steal Window's thunder but it never happened. Linux looked like it was making progress on netbooks but its lost virtually all of its traction there too. Now Windows 7 is here, the reasons for switching to Linux look pretty weak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people get fed up with crippled " home " versions and paying more for " ultimate " versions , Linux will surely take off .
If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install , 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop .
Sorry to burst your bubble but Windows 7 works and it works so well that virtually NO ONE is going to switch to Linux .
Perhaps a computer literate person might if they 're more interested in tinkering with their PC than using their PC to get stuff done but that is a minority .
Your average consumer wants something that works out of the box and Windows 7 works out of the box .
They are very unlikely to install another OS , especially one which really does n't offer much that their current one ca n't do .
In fact the only way I see 2010 being the " year of Linux " is if Google persuades the likes of Lenovo , Dell , Toshiba etc .
to install Chrome OS on their budget netbooks/laptops instead of Windows .
Even then , I do n't know how successful this proposition would be unless Google splits its ad revenues with manufacturers .
The manufacturers would have to make more from Google than they lose in sales from installing Windows 7 and from not installing paid crapware like Norton 30 day trials .
Personally I think Linux has blown it on the desktop .
Ubuntu got closest to a workable desktop , and the Vista PR nightmare was the perfect time to steal Window 's thunder but it never happened .
Linux looked like it was making progress on netbooks but its lost virtually all of its traction there too .
Now Windows 7 is here , the reasons for switching to Linux look pretty weak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.
If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Windows 7 works and it works so well that virtually NO ONE is going to switch to Linux.
Perhaps a computer literate person might if they're more interested in tinkering with their PC than using their PC to get stuff done but that is a minority.
Your average consumer wants something that works out of the box and Windows 7 works out of the box.
They are very unlikely to install another OS, especially one which really doesn't offer much that their current one can't do.
In fact the only way I see 2010 being the "year of Linux" is if Google persuades the likes of Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba etc.
to install Chrome OS on their budget netbooks/laptops instead of Windows.
Even then, I don't know how successful this proposition would be unless Google splits its ad revenues with manufacturers.
The manufacturers would have to make more from Google than they lose in sales from installing Windows 7 and from not installing paid crapware like Norton 30 day trials.
Personally I think Linux has blown it on the desktop.
Ubuntu got closest to a workable desktop, and the Vista PR nightmare was the perfect time to steal Window's thunder but it never happened.
Linux looked like it was making progress on netbooks but its lost virtually all of its traction there too.
Now Windows 7 is here, the reasons for switching to Linux look pretty weak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298142</id>
	<title>More Frisbees For My Dog</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1259600700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent... this will mark the third major release of Windows that I will never use.  Keep 'em coming, Ballmer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent... this will mark the third major release of Windows that I will never use .
Keep 'em coming , Ballmer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent... this will mark the third major release of Windows that I will never use.
Keep 'em coming, Ballmer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158</id>
	<title>Price Appropriately</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1259596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel like I have been spoiled by the solid 6 years of time XP was on the market. I literally remember using XP in 8th grade and running it well up to my sophomore year of college. That is a HUGE amount of time. Microsoft can make huge gains by keeping the price of upgrades cheap. Cheap meaning 30-50$. They will have a happy pirate free user if they did that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like I have been spoiled by the solid 6 years of time XP was on the market .
I literally remember using XP in 8th grade and running it well up to my sophomore year of college .
That is a HUGE amount of time .
Microsoft can make huge gains by keeping the price of upgrades cheap .
Cheap meaning 30-50 $ .
They will have a happy pirate free user if they did that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like I have been spoiled by the solid 6 years of time XP was on the market.
I literally remember using XP in 8th grade and running it well up to my sophomore year of college.
That is a HUGE amount of time.
Microsoft can make huge gains by keeping the price of upgrades cheap.
Cheap meaning 30-50$.
They will have a happy pirate free user if they did that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299710</id>
	<title>Maybe...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1259607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the Mayans were right after all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Mayans were right after all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the Mayans were right after all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297788</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Skreems</author>
	<datestamp>1259599080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>You can't RDP into the machine</li><li>Windows XP mode is either missing entirely, or less complete (their literature is vague on which) and so less likely to support an old app that you need</li><li>Maximum of 16 GB ram allowed (8GB on home Basic)</li><li>Can't use drive-level encryption</li><li>Built-in backup system works with local physical media only, no backups to a network location</li></ul><p>
Not everyone will miss all those features, but I'm guessing most people will miss one or two. And it's particularly insulting to have them charge more for things that are completely artificial limits, for example the maximum RAM. It seems likely that it was probably MORE work to impose the limit than to just uncap everyone to 192GB like the Pro/Ultimate version supports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't RDP into the machineWindows XP mode is either missing entirely , or less complete ( their literature is vague on which ) and so less likely to support an old app that you needMaximum of 16 GB ram allowed ( 8GB on home Basic ) Ca n't use drive-level encryptionBuilt-in backup system works with local physical media only , no backups to a network location Not everyone will miss all those features , but I 'm guessing most people will miss one or two .
And it 's particularly insulting to have them charge more for things that are completely artificial limits , for example the maximum RAM .
It seems likely that it was probably MORE work to impose the limit than to just uncap everyone to 192GB like the Pro/Ultimate version supports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You can't RDP into the machineWindows XP mode is either missing entirely, or less complete (their literature is vague on which) and so less likely to support an old app that you needMaximum of 16 GB ram allowed (8GB on home Basic)Can't use drive-level encryptionBuilt-in backup system works with local physical media only, no backups to a network location
Not everyone will miss all those features, but I'm guessing most people will miss one or two.
And it's particularly insulting to have them charge more for things that are completely artificial limits, for example the maximum RAM.
It seems likely that it was probably MORE work to impose the limit than to just uncap everyone to 192GB like the Pro/Ultimate version supports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297148</id>
	<title>Microsoft is already in Fiscal Year 2010</title>
	<author>PigDawg</author>
	<datestamp>1259596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FY 2010 started in July 2009</htmltext>
<tokenext>FY 2010 started in July 2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FY 2010 started in July 2009</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30305750</id>
	<title>Missed something</title>
	<author>maugle</author>
	<datestamp>1259587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I skimmed the replies and found an important point missing, concerning how Windows 8 will be marketed:  If Windows 8 is going to be released in 2012, that means that sometime in late 2011, Microsoft will start telling us that Windows 7 is, in fact, dog shit.<br> <br>But Windows 8 will solve all those problems, and be faster and more secure!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I skimmed the replies and found an important point missing , concerning how Windows 8 will be marketed : If Windows 8 is going to be released in 2012 , that means that sometime in late 2011 , Microsoft will start telling us that Windows 7 is , in fact , dog shit .
But Windows 8 will solve all those problems , and be faster and more secure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I skimmed the replies and found an important point missing, concerning how Windows 8 will be marketed:  If Windows 8 is going to be released in 2012, that means that sometime in late 2011, Microsoft will start telling us that Windows 7 is, in fact, dog shit.
But Windows 8 will solve all those problems, and be faster and more secure!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298328</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Phoobarnvaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259601540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Won't be worth a damn if Windows 8 doesn't support at least a 1024bit architecture. Looks like they dropped the ball again &amp; are going to have another dog on their hands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't be worth a damn if Windows 8 does n't support at least a 1024bit architecture .
Looks like they dropped the ball again &amp; are going to have another dog on their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't be worth a damn if Windows 8 doesn't support at least a 1024bit architecture.
Looks like they dropped the ball again &amp; are going to have another dog on their hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297318</id>
	<title>Re:Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259596740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you not know the length of time between XP and Vista?<br>
<br>
Seriously. Do you even think about what you say before you say it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you not know the length of time between XP and Vista ?
Seriously. Do you even think about what you say before you say it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you not know the length of time between XP and Vista?
Seriously. Do you even think about what you say before you say it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't update your OS then. I'm sure Window 2000 does everything you'll ever need. Why upgrade past that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't update your OS then .
I 'm sure Window 2000 does everything you 'll ever need .
Why upgrade past that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't update your OS then.
I'm sure Window 2000 does everything you'll ever need.
Why upgrade past that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048</id>
	<title>Which version will Windows 8 be?</title>
	<author>TimSSG</author>
	<datestamp>1259600280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which version will Windows 8 be? <br>
<br>
Windows 7 is Windows version 6.1<br>
<tt>
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
</tt>
<br>
Tim S.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which version will Windows 8 be ?
Windows 7 is Windows version 6.1 Microsoft Windows [ Version 6.1.7600 ] Copyright ( c ) 2009 Microsoft Corporation .
All rights reserved .
Tim S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which version will Windows 8 be?
Windows 7 is Windows version 6.1

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Tim S.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299752</id>
	<title>Re:More Frisbees For My Dog</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1259607720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must've missed your posts in other stories, but could you please enumerate the number of major releases of other operating systems that you haven't used?  Be sure to cover OS X, the various BSDs and Linuxes, OS/2, BeOS, real-time operating systems, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must 've missed your posts in other stories , but could you please enumerate the number of major releases of other operating systems that you have n't used ?
Be sure to cover OS X , the various BSDs and Linuxes , OS/2 , BeOS , real-time operating systems , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must've missed your posts in other stories, but could you please enumerate the number of major releases of other operating systems that you haven't used?
Be sure to cover OS X, the various BSDs and Linuxes, OS/2, BeOS, real-time operating systems, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd think that constantly creating new versions of windows to create an income stream is getting<br>ridiculous now. What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7? I guess the trend may be<br>that the consumer/customer will update on every 2nd or 3rd windows version that comes out instead<br>of every year. The same goes for the browsers and office too. I think that it should be v7.1 and v7.2<br>etc to add additional functionalities for free vs. buying functionalities in increments. Also just<br>changing the GUI interface to look new improved shouldn't count either.</p><p>The only new version that should come out that would drastically be new that one can purchase<br>is the artificial intelligence version. That is, one that can improve itself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think that constantly creating new versions of windows to create an income stream is gettingridiculous now .
What can Windows 8 do that ca n't be done with Windows 7 ?
I guess the trend may bethat the consumer/customer will update on every 2nd or 3rd windows version that comes out insteadof every year .
The same goes for the browsers and office too .
I think that it should be v7.1 and v7.2etc to add additional functionalities for free vs. buying functionalities in increments .
Also justchanging the GUI interface to look new improved should n't count either.The only new version that should come out that would drastically be new that one can purchaseis the artificial intelligence version .
That is , one that can improve itself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think that constantly creating new versions of windows to create an income stream is gettingridiculous now.
What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?
I guess the trend may bethat the consumer/customer will update on every 2nd or 3rd windows version that comes out insteadof every year.
The same goes for the browsers and office too.
I think that it should be v7.1 and v7.2etc to add additional functionalities for free vs. buying functionalities in increments.
Also justchanging the GUI interface to look new improved shouldn't count either.The only new version that should come out that would drastically be new that one can purchaseis the artificial intelligence version.
That is, one that can improve itself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298408</id>
	<title>Re:What's New?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>64 bit. Better memory management. More feature complete GUI. Massively improved networking. Far better looking (yes, Linux devs, this matters). Hugely improved automatic update mechanism. Far better driver support out of the box, with auto-download of OEM vendor drivers.</p><p>That's just off the top of my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>64 bit .
Better memory management .
More feature complete GUI .
Massively improved networking .
Far better looking ( yes , Linux devs , this matters ) .
Hugely improved automatic update mechanism .
Far better driver support out of the box , with auto-download of OEM vendor drivers.That 's just off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64 bit.
Better memory management.
More feature complete GUI.
Massively improved networking.
Far better looking (yes, Linux devs, this matters).
Hugely improved automatic update mechanism.
Far better driver support out of the box, with auto-download of OEM vendor drivers.That's just off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297862</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259599560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ME was a kludge relesae, with 2000 being the proper release for that goal (merging the Windows 9x GUI with the NT kernel). And you can argue that Vista was a kludge release (trying to implement UAC and a better security model, but selling the OS to the masses with Live integration and Aero interface), with 7 being the proper release of Vista's goals.</p><p>If you throw out ME and Vista, Windows has had three major releases in 9 years, and plans the next in 3 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ME was a kludge relesae , with 2000 being the proper release for that goal ( merging the Windows 9x GUI with the NT kernel ) .
And you can argue that Vista was a kludge release ( trying to implement UAC and a better security model , but selling the OS to the masses with Live integration and Aero interface ) , with 7 being the proper release of Vista 's goals.If you throw out ME and Vista , Windows has had three major releases in 9 years , and plans the next in 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ME was a kludge relesae, with 2000 being the proper release for that goal (merging the Windows 9x GUI with the NT kernel).
And you can argue that Vista was a kludge release (trying to implement UAC and a better security model, but selling the OS to the masses with Live integration and Aero interface), with 7 being the proper release of Vista's goals.If you throw out ME and Vista, Windows has had three major releases in 9 years, and plans the next in 3 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300130</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259609580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CPUs exist with 128 bit instructions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CPUs exist with 128 bit instructions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPUs exist with 128 bit instructions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272</id>
	<title>Odd - even cycle</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259596560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it going to be like the Star Trek movies, where whether it sucks or not depends on whether it's odd or even?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it going to be like the Star Trek movies , where whether it sucks or not depends on whether it 's odd or even ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it going to be like the Star Trek movies, where whether it sucks or not depends on whether it's odd or even?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297876</id>
	<title>O\_O</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule 34<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... That is all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule 34 .... That is all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule 34 .... That is all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104</id>
	<title>Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... of a larger bank account.</p><p>They seem to just want to crank out a new OS as soon as they can leaving users to suffer with the results.  Take some time, and build in some value and strength to the OS before moving onto the next one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... of a larger bank account.They seem to just want to crank out a new OS as soon as they can leaving users to suffer with the results .
Take some time , and build in some value and strength to the OS before moving onto the next one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of a larger bank account.They seem to just want to crank out a new OS as soon as they can leaving users to suffer with the results.
Take some time, and build in some value and strength to the OS before moving onto the next one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301722</id>
	<title>Windows 8 Features</title>
	<author>devent</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft manages to implement the feature that is in all other systems for at least 40 years: That you can delete/read/write an open file.</p><p>But I think Windows users need to wait until Windows 11 for that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , just maybe , Microsoft manages to implement the feature that is in all other systems for at least 40 years : That you can delete/read/write an open file.But I think Windows users need to wait until Windows 11 for that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft manages to implement the feature that is in all other systems for at least 40 years: That you can delete/read/write an open file.But I think Windows users need to wait until Windows 11 for that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297960</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Professional is designed to work in a domain. Home users won't be running a domain unless they have purchased Windows Server to run a domain controller. Ulimate seems really unnecessary. I say that running Windows 7 Ultimate. The only need for Windows 7 Ultimate I can imagine is getting the free VM of XP inside of 7 Ultimate (which doesn't ship on the DVD, you have to download it). And even that you can replicate with an existing XP license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Professional is designed to work in a domain .
Home users wo n't be running a domain unless they have purchased Windows Server to run a domain controller .
Ulimate seems really unnecessary .
I say that running Windows 7 Ultimate .
The only need for Windows 7 Ultimate I can imagine is getting the free VM of XP inside of 7 Ultimate ( which does n't ship on the DVD , you have to download it ) .
And even that you can replicate with an existing XP license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Professional is designed to work in a domain.
Home users won't be running a domain unless they have purchased Windows Server to run a domain controller.
Ulimate seems really unnecessary.
I say that running Windows 7 Ultimate.
The only need for Windows 7 Ultimate I can imagine is getting the free VM of XP inside of 7 Ultimate (which doesn't ship on the DVD, you have to download it).
And even that you can replicate with an existing XP license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30304606</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1259582400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?</p></div><p>More than 256 cores!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can Windows 8 do that ca n't be done with Windows 7 ? More than 256 cores !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?More than 256 cores!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299642</id>
	<title>I see no reason for Vista or 7. We'll see about 8.</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1259607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started with a home computer in the 80s. Quite fun but cassettes were slow, so I got a PC with MS DOS 3.3</p><p>I upgraded to DOS 5 because of its memory management. I then installed Windows 3.1 upon DOS 5 because of the truetype fonts and word processing. <b>It made me more productive.</b></p><p>(I also started using Linux because it allowed me to have a Unix at home without suffering that asshole sysadmin at the university, but this posting is not about Linux)</p><p>I upgraded DOS5+Win3 to Win95OSR because it was more stable and easier to use than 3.1, it had font smoothing, native TCP/IP and it was generally an OS vs DOS and a windowed shell. <b>It made me more productive.</b></p><p>I skipped Win98 and WinMe because they offered nothing new.</p><p>I started using Win2000 because it was a real OS, much more stable and secure than Win95. <b>It made me more productive.</b></p><p>I started using XP when nLite matured because I could remove the useless crap and XP is optimized for speed and supports network bridges and, most importantly, cleartype. <b>It made me more productive</b></p><p>I've tried Vista and 7 but they have not made me more productive. I wonder if Microsoft can change that with 8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started with a home computer in the 80s .
Quite fun but cassettes were slow , so I got a PC with MS DOS 3.3I upgraded to DOS 5 because of its memory management .
I then installed Windows 3.1 upon DOS 5 because of the truetype fonts and word processing .
It made me more productive .
( I also started using Linux because it allowed me to have a Unix at home without suffering that asshole sysadmin at the university , but this posting is not about Linux ) I upgraded DOS5 + Win3 to Win95OSR because it was more stable and easier to use than 3.1 , it had font smoothing , native TCP/IP and it was generally an OS vs DOS and a windowed shell .
It made me more productive.I skipped Win98 and WinMe because they offered nothing new.I started using Win2000 because it was a real OS , much more stable and secure than Win95 .
It made me more productive.I started using XP when nLite matured because I could remove the useless crap and XP is optimized for speed and supports network bridges and , most importantly , cleartype .
It made me more productiveI 've tried Vista and 7 but they have not made me more productive .
I wonder if Microsoft can change that with 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started with a home computer in the 80s.
Quite fun but cassettes were slow, so I got a PC with MS DOS 3.3I upgraded to DOS 5 because of its memory management.
I then installed Windows 3.1 upon DOS 5 because of the truetype fonts and word processing.
It made me more productive.
(I also started using Linux because it allowed me to have a Unix at home without suffering that asshole sysadmin at the university, but this posting is not about Linux)I upgraded DOS5+Win3 to Win95OSR because it was more stable and easier to use than 3.1, it had font smoothing, native TCP/IP and it was generally an OS vs DOS and a windowed shell.
It made me more productive.I skipped Win98 and WinMe because they offered nothing new.I started using Win2000 because it was a real OS, much more stable and secure than Win95.
It made me more productive.I started using XP when nLite matured because I could remove the useless crap and XP is optimized for speed and supports network bridges and, most importantly, cleartype.
It made me more productiveI've tried Vista and 7 but they have not made me more productive.
I wonder if Microsoft can change that with 8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298494</id>
	<title>Re:Price Appropriately</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1259602440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the important question is "how much are the customers willing to pay" and from the number of Windows computers I see everywhere, I would guess whatever they are charging now is aligned to whatever amount customers are willing to pay. </p><p>I agree 30x can be greater than 100y for large values of x, but I don't see that many users buying more copies of Windows if it was cheaper and I see tons of companies paying much less (and I would guess Microsoft is making a ton of money from big companies).</p><p>Another way to see it: Microsoft would require to more than triple its user base in order to offset the 70\% drop in price. They would need even more users in order to "make huge gains" and I quite simply don't see that happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the important question is " how much are the customers willing to pay " and from the number of Windows computers I see everywhere , I would guess whatever they are charging now is aligned to whatever amount customers are willing to pay .
I agree 30x can be greater than 100y for large values of x , but I do n't see that many users buying more copies of Windows if it was cheaper and I see tons of companies paying much less ( and I would guess Microsoft is making a ton of money from big companies ) .Another way to see it : Microsoft would require to more than triple its user base in order to offset the 70 \ % drop in price .
They would need even more users in order to " make huge gains " and I quite simply do n't see that happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the important question is "how much are the customers willing to pay" and from the number of Windows computers I see everywhere, I would guess whatever they are charging now is aligned to whatever amount customers are willing to pay.
I agree 30x can be greater than 100y for large values of x, but I don't see that many users buying more copies of Windows if it was cheaper and I see tons of companies paying much less (and I would guess Microsoft is making a ton of money from big companies).Another way to see it: Microsoft would require to more than triple its user base in order to offset the 70\% drop in price.
They would need even more users in order to "make huge gains" and I quite simply don't see that happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982</id>
	<title>What's New?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259599980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone tell me exactly what is new and different from say Win95 to Windows 7?</p><p>Sure, they fixed bugs and maybe made it faster...somewhat, but overall it seem as if we are in a Men's Suit shop with racks and racks of suits, the only difference being the shades of gray and single breasted or double breasted.</p><p>Where is the innovation? Where is the Wow stuff?</p><p>How much has hardware progressed? Has the software actually progressed with it other to become a great fat pig of resources, doing the same stuff it did in 95, only more of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone tell me exactly what is new and different from say Win95 to Windows 7 ? Sure , they fixed bugs and maybe made it faster...somewhat , but overall it seem as if we are in a Men 's Suit shop with racks and racks of suits , the only difference being the shades of gray and single breasted or double breasted.Where is the innovation ?
Where is the Wow stuff ? How much has hardware progressed ?
Has the software actually progressed with it other to become a great fat pig of resources , doing the same stuff it did in 95 , only more of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone tell me exactly what is new and different from say Win95 to Windows 7?Sure, they fixed bugs and maybe made it faster...somewhat, but overall it seem as if we are in a Men's Suit shop with racks and racks of suits, the only difference being the shades of gray and single breasted or double breasted.Where is the innovation?
Where is the Wow stuff?How much has hardware progressed?
Has the software actually progressed with it other to become a great fat pig of resources, doing the same stuff it did in 95, only more of it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298372</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what, it did until very recently, and it could continue doing it if it was supported, win2k it's very similar to xp. Probably installing pidgin and a messenger client, whatever modern broser still available for it, and openoffice.org it remains being functional as far as productivity is concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what , it did until very recently , and it could continue doing it if it was supported , win2k it 's very similar to xp .
Probably installing pidgin and a messenger client , whatever modern broser still available for it , and openoffice.org it remains being functional as far as productivity is concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what, it did until very recently, and it could continue doing it if it was supported, win2k it's very similar to xp.
Probably installing pidgin and a messenger client, whatever modern broser still available for it, and openoffice.org it remains being functional as far as productivity is concerned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297726</id>
	<title>*ONLY* 8 months?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, the 2010 Fiscal Year is ONLY 8 months away when 2010 is only 4 weeks away?  Yeah, better start planning for this massive and abrupt shift...  (yeah, I know the difference between a fiscal and a calendar year).<br><br>Seriously, though.  Good for them.  I think XP was out way too long and while I never really had a problem with it that wouldn't be inherent in any type of Windows (I'm just old enough to have missed out on needing to learn much about DOS, and PowerShell pisses me off by not being tcsh), and I think people got complacent with it.  The long run of XP probably had as much to do with Vista fears as early bugs did.  I purchased a copy of Vista Ultimate a few months ago, and I had no problems with it at all, other than shitty command line, but I was never really an XP user at home anyway.<br><br>The story yesterday with regards to Win 7 stealing more XP market share than Vista market share, I think backs this up.  The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista, which may or may not have been valid, so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice.  Kicking up the Win 8 cycle should keep interest higher, and hopefully they'll be able to deliver on time (yeah, yeah...), because 2 years plus 8 months is still sort of slow compared to Apple's releases, and like a glacier compared to some of the major Linux distributions or BSDs which are on might tighter release schedules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , the 2010 Fiscal Year is ONLY 8 months away when 2010 is only 4 weeks away ?
Yeah , better start planning for this massive and abrupt shift... ( yeah , I know the difference between a fiscal and a calendar year ) .Seriously , though .
Good for them .
I think XP was out way too long and while I never really had a problem with it that would n't be inherent in any type of Windows ( I 'm just old enough to have missed out on needing to learn much about DOS , and PowerShell pisses me off by not being tcsh ) , and I think people got complacent with it .
The long run of XP probably had as much to do with Vista fears as early bugs did .
I purchased a copy of Vista Ultimate a few months ago , and I had no problems with it at all , other than shitty command line , but I was never really an XP user at home anyway.The story yesterday with regards to Win 7 stealing more XP market share than Vista market share , I think backs this up .
The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista , which may or may not have been valid , so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice .
Kicking up the Win 8 cycle should keep interest higher , and hopefully they 'll be able to deliver on time ( yeah , yeah... ) , because 2 years plus 8 months is still sort of slow compared to Apple 's releases , and like a glacier compared to some of the major Linux distributions or BSDs which are on might tighter release schedules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, the 2010 Fiscal Year is ONLY 8 months away when 2010 is only 4 weeks away?
Yeah, better start planning for this massive and abrupt shift...  (yeah, I know the difference between a fiscal and a calendar year).Seriously, though.
Good for them.
I think XP was out way too long and while I never really had a problem with it that wouldn't be inherent in any type of Windows (I'm just old enough to have missed out on needing to learn much about DOS, and PowerShell pisses me off by not being tcsh), and I think people got complacent with it.
The long run of XP probably had as much to do with Vista fears as early bugs did.
I purchased a copy of Vista Ultimate a few months ago, and I had no problems with it at all, other than shitty command line, but I was never really an XP user at home anyway.The story yesterday with regards to Win 7 stealing more XP market share than Vista market share, I think backs this up.
The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista, which may or may not have been valid, so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice.
Kicking up the Win 8 cycle should keep interest higher, and hopefully they'll be able to deliver on time (yeah, yeah...), because 2 years plus 8 months is still sort of slow compared to Apple's releases, and like a glacier compared to some of the major Linux distributions or BSDs which are on might tighter release schedules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298416</id>
	<title>Re:End-of-the-world-screen-of-death</title>
	<author>kaizokuace</author>
	<datestamp>1259602080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually the Mayans were right about 2012. They of course had no clue that the end of the days would be brought upon via BSOD</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the Mayans were right about 2012 .
They of course had no clue that the end of the days would be brought upon via BSOD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the Mayans were right about 2012.
They of course had no clue that the end of the days would be brought upon via BSOD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297460</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259597460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If Linux didn't exist, this kind of licensing wouldn't be a big deal"

For most people Linux does not exist, so it is, in fact, not a big deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If Linux did n't exist , this kind of licensing would n't be a big deal " For most people Linux does not exist , so it is , in fact , not a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If Linux didn't exist, this kind of licensing wouldn't be a big deal"

For most people Linux does not exist, so it is, in fact, not a big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298484</id>
	<title>Microsoft vapourware 8</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In the face of strong competition, Evangelism's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958\%7C" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">focus</a> [groklaw.net] may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the face of strong competition , Evangelism 's focus [ groklaw.net ] may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology , however .
Indeed , Phase 1 ( Evangelism Starts ) for version x + 1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the face of strong competition, Evangelism's focus [groklaw.net] may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however.
Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300898</id>
	<title>This may sound Strange but,</title>
	<author>axor1337</author>
	<datestamp>1259613240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one hope that windows 8 takes awhile to get releases.around 2015 would make me happy. I mostly skipped Vista for my personal use because of the early issues, but as a tier 2-3 IS Technician for the duration of Vista I experienced enough of it. I final bought a new laptop in July (came with vista of course and has been upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate) and I used vista until I got my 7 ultimate. vista finally matured with SP2  in to descent OS and was replaced in less than a year. I love My Windows 7 it has been super stable and fast. I was happy to make the switch form XP on all on my Machines. after investing all of this money if Windows 8 comes out in less than 5 years I wont upgrade. I want to be able to get some life out of my OS. I drive my cars till they reach 175,000 miles before I trade them in (about 7 Years) and With 8 computer in my house upgrading all of their OS's is Costly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one hope that windows 8 takes awhile to get releases.around 2015 would make me happy .
I mostly skipped Vista for my personal use because of the early issues , but as a tier 2-3 IS Technician for the duration of Vista I experienced enough of it .
I final bought a new laptop in July ( came with vista of course and has been upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate ) and I used vista until I got my 7 ultimate .
vista finally matured with SP2 in to descent OS and was replaced in less than a year .
I love My Windows 7 it has been super stable and fast .
I was happy to make the switch form XP on all on my Machines .
after investing all of this money if Windows 8 comes out in less than 5 years I wont upgrade .
I want to be able to get some life out of my OS .
I drive my cars till they reach 175,000 miles before I trade them in ( about 7 Years ) and With 8 computer in my house upgrading all of their OS 's is Costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one hope that windows 8 takes awhile to get releases.around 2015 would make me happy.
I mostly skipped Vista for my personal use because of the early issues, but as a tier 2-3 IS Technician for the duration of Vista I experienced enough of it.
I final bought a new laptop in July (came with vista of course and has been upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate) and I used vista until I got my 7 ultimate.
vista finally matured with SP2  in to descent OS and was replaced in less than a year.
I love My Windows 7 it has been super stable and fast.
I was happy to make the switch form XP on all on my Machines.
after investing all of this money if Windows 8 comes out in less than 5 years I wont upgrade.
I want to be able to get some life out of my OS.
I drive my cars till they reach 175,000 miles before I trade them in (about 7 Years) and With 8 computer in my house upgrading all of their OS's is Costly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298438</id>
	<title>Re:Timed with corporate PC replacement cycles...</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259602140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most large corporations have a staggered, consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle, couldn't care less about what software is installed since they're all imaged in-house, and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Most large corporations have a 3-year PC replacement cycle where the bosses' 3-year old, that was $5000 when new, gets some black masking tape to repair the cracked screen, a quick delete of "My Videos", and are then given to the rest of the employees, who don't really need new computers or a "R" key, anyways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most large corporations have a staggered , consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle , could n't care less about what software is installed since they 're all imaged in-house , and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible .
Most large corporations have a 3-year PC replacement cycle where the bosses ' 3-year old , that was $ 5000 when new , gets some black masking tape to repair the cracked screen , a quick delete of " My Videos " , and are then given to the rest of the employees , who do n't really need new computers or a " R " key , anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most large corporations have a staggered, consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle, couldn't care less about what software is installed since they're all imaged in-house, and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible.
Most large corporations have a 3-year PC replacement cycle where the bosses' 3-year old, that was $5000 when new, gets some black masking tape to repair the cracked screen, a quick delete of "My Videos", and are then given to the rest of the employees, who don't really need new computers or a "R" key, anyways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299436</id>
	<title>Gotta go find my credit card</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1259606460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn! I better get moving! I haven't even bought Vista yet, and then I gotta go buy Windows 7 in time to be ready for Windows 8!</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn !
I better get moving !
I have n't even bought Vista yet , and then I got ta go buy Windows 7 in time to be ready for Windows 8 ! -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn!
I better get moving!
I haven't even bought Vista yet, and then I gotta go buy Windows 7 in time to be ready for Windows 8!-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297306</id>
	<title>Re:Why not focus on building a stable OS instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows hasn't been unstable since Windows 98.  If you can't make Windows 2k+ stable, you're an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has n't been unstable since Windows 98 .
If you ca n't make Windows 2k + stable , you 're an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows hasn't been unstable since Windows 98.
If you can't make Windows 2k+ stable, you're an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297932</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>sabs</author>
	<datestamp>1259599740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually<br>When WoW has a native Linux client.<br>THAT will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ActuallyWhen WoW has a native Linux client.THAT will be the year of Linux on the Desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ActuallyWhen WoW has a native Linux client.THAT will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302920</id>
	<title>Offtopic, but gimme a hand here.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1259576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Been dualbooting for years, still running XP. I skipped Vista and sure don't regret it, but I've thought about giving 7 a shot.</p><p>Only problem is, I can't find anything about what the system requirements are. I mean, I can find the "official" Microsof requirements, but not the "real world".</p><p>So what do you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. geeks think?</p><p>AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3800+<br>RAM: 2G<br>HDD0: 80GB<br>HDD1: ~450GB</p><p>Dual boot ubuntu 9.04 (until I find a new distro).</p><p>Mod me down if you want, but at least answer me AC, huh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Been dualbooting for years , still running XP .
I skipped Vista and sure do n't regret it , but I 've thought about giving 7 a shot.Only problem is , I ca n't find anything about what the system requirements are .
I mean , I can find the " official " Microsof requirements , but not the " real world " .So what do you / .
geeks think ? AMD Athlon ( tm ) 64 Processor 3800 + RAM : 2GHDD0 : 80GBHDD1 : ~ 450GBDual boot ubuntu 9.04 ( until I find a new distro ) .Mod me down if you want , but at least answer me AC , huh ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been dualbooting for years, still running XP.
I skipped Vista and sure don't regret it, but I've thought about giving 7 a shot.Only problem is, I can't find anything about what the system requirements are.
I mean, I can find the "official" Microsof requirements, but not the "real world".So what do you /.
geeks think?AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3800+RAM: 2GHDD0: 80GBHDD1: ~450GBDual boot ubuntu 9.04 (until I find a new distro).Mod me down if you want, but at least answer me AC, huh?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302720</id>
	<title>As long as they wrap it up by December 21, 2012</title>
	<author>gooneybird</author>
	<datestamp>1259576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Otherwise they may have problems with the Mayan calendar, as it is resetting. Hopefully they get the TZDATA correct. Unlike Ubuntu which seems to update TZDATA continually every week. Seriously does someone know WTF they doing for TZDATA, or is someone, somewhere always changing what timezone the people want to be in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise they may have problems with the Mayan calendar , as it is resetting .
Hopefully they get the TZDATA correct .
Unlike Ubuntu which seems to update TZDATA continually every week .
Seriously does someone know WTF they doing for TZDATA , or is someone , somewhere always changing what timezone the people want to be in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise they may have problems with the Mayan calendar, as it is resetting.
Hopefully they get the TZDATA correct.
Unlike Ubuntu which seems to update TZDATA continually every week.
Seriously does someone know WTF they doing for TZDATA, or is someone, somewhere always changing what timezone the people want to be in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302598</id>
	<title>Oh my, the inhumanity of it all....</title>
	<author>gooneybird</author>
	<datestamp>1259575800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows NT = Genesis (or was this when Hell was created?)
<br>
<br>
Windows 2000 = Windows NT SP5
<br>
<br>
Windows XP = Windows 2000 SP5
<br>
<br>
Windows Vista = Windows XP SP4
<br>
<br>
Windows 7 = Vista SP3
<br>
<br>
Windows 8 = Windows 7 SP3
<br>
<br>
-or just-
<br>
<br>
" Microsoft X SP20.. "
<br>
<br>
Wouldn't it just be easier to just keep track of them by absolute Service Pack Number - rather then having to remember names?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows NT = Genesis ( or was this when Hell was created ?
) Windows 2000 = Windows NT SP5 Windows XP = Windows 2000 SP5 Windows Vista = Windows XP SP4 Windows 7 = Vista SP3 Windows 8 = Windows 7 SP3 -or just- " Microsoft X SP20.. " Would n't it just be easier to just keep track of them by absolute Service Pack Number - rather then having to remember names ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows NT = Genesis (or was this when Hell was created?
)


Windows 2000 = Windows NT SP5


Windows XP = Windows 2000 SP5


Windows Vista = Windows XP SP4


Windows 7 = Vista SP3


Windows 8 = Windows 7 SP3


-or just-


" Microsoft X SP20.. "


Wouldn't it just be easier to just keep track of them by absolute Service Pack Number - rather then having to remember names?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300372</id>
	<title>Creeping closer to MSX</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1259610660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Soon we will have MSX which will be very similar to Windows XP except without the pee, and similar to OSX except its an M instead of an O.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon we will have MSX which will be very similar to Windows XP except without the pee , and similar to OSX except its an M instead of an O .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon we will have MSX which will be very similar to Windows XP except without the pee, and similar to OSX except its an M instead of an O.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297418</id>
	<title>Re:Timed with corporate PC replacement cycles...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259597280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle, and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.</p></div><p>Most large corporations have a staggered, consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle, couldn't care less about what software is installed since they're all imaged in-house, and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle , and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.Most large corporations have a staggered , consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle , could n't care less about what software is installed since they 're all imaged in-house , and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle, and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.Most large corporations have a staggered, consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle, couldn't care less about what software is installed since they're all imaged in-house, and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259596260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that. The main problem for most consumers is that Microsoft licenses different levels of OS functionality at different price points. If Linux didn't exist, this kind of licensing wouldn't be a big deal, but since you can essentially go from a barebones OS all the way up to a fully featured OS for the same price with Linux, Windows seems less attractive.</p><p>When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off. If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that .
The main problem for most consumers is that Microsoft licenses different levels of OS functionality at different price points .
If Linux did n't exist , this kind of licensing would n't be a big deal , but since you can essentially go from a barebones OS all the way up to a fully featured OS for the same price with Linux , Windows seems less attractive.When people get fed up with crippled " home " versions and paying more for " ultimate " versions , Linux will surely take off .
If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install , 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that.
The main problem for most consumers is that Microsoft licenses different levels of OS functionality at different price points.
If Linux didn't exist, this kind of licensing wouldn't be a big deal, but since you can essentially go from a barebones OS all the way up to a fully featured OS for the same price with Linux, Windows seems less attractive.When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.
If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298080</id>
	<title>Taking bets on infinity</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259600460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the eight be tipped on its side to make an infinity symbol?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297154</id>
	<title>Timed with corporate PC replacement cycles...</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle, and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle , and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle, and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298512</id>
	<title>We already know the exact release date.</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1259602500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*skips most of the comments*</p><p>Windows 8 will be released on 21 December 2012.</p><p>(Score:-1,Redundant)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* skips most of the comments * Windows 8 will be released on 21 December 2012 .
( Score : -1,Redundant )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*skips most of the comments*Windows 8 will be released on 21 December 2012.
(Score:-1,Redundant)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 8..</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259598660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To support all those 128-bit processors and 128-bit applications currently on the market?   To support more than the 192 GB of main memory supported by Windows 7 64-bit?  I thought 192 GB ought to be enough for anybody!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To support all those 128-bit processors and 128-bit applications currently on the market ?
To support more than the 192 GB of main memory supported by Windows 7 64-bit ?
I thought 192 GB ought to be enough for anybody !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To support all those 128-bit processors and 128-bit applications currently on the market?
To support more than the 192 GB of main memory supported by Windows 7 64-bit?
I thought 192 GB ought to be enough for anybody!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300792</id>
	<title>This dates back to DOS... and seems true</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1259612700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It goes like this.  DOS 1 was.. well, it was version 1.0, but it was pretty good for it's time (1981.)  Compare it to contemporary versions of CP/M and it was a reasonable OS.  Then DOS 2 was an abomination which was promptly replaced with DOS 3.  Everyone ran MS-DOS 3.3 for a LONG time--years--and DOS 4.0 was a joke.  Then DOS 5 came out and was well loved, while MS-DOS 6 was yet another joke.</p><p>It gets a little harder to figure out with Windows though.  Windows 95 was DOS 7, as was Windows 98.  Windows ME was DOS 8.</p><p>I would argue that you can't really place NT kernels prior to XP into this scheme.  So, we would then say that XP was the equivalent of DOS 9, Vista was DOS 10, and Windows 7 is DOS 11.</p><p>What about the early versions of Window?  Well, since they were just "operating environments", not real manly operating systems like MS-DOS, I don't think we can really consider them.  (For those grunting at me calling MS-DOS a real operating system: congratulations!  You've been taken in by one of my classic pranks!  Bazinga!)</p><p>The logical conclusion, of course, is that Windows 8 is going to SERIOUSLY suck.  As least if you believe in the sunspot cycle and the mayan calendar, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It goes like this .
DOS 1 was.. well , it was version 1.0 , but it was pretty good for it 's time ( 1981 .
) Compare it to contemporary versions of CP/M and it was a reasonable OS .
Then DOS 2 was an abomination which was promptly replaced with DOS 3 .
Everyone ran MS-DOS 3.3 for a LONG time--years--and DOS 4.0 was a joke .
Then DOS 5 came out and was well loved , while MS-DOS 6 was yet another joke.It gets a little harder to figure out with Windows though .
Windows 95 was DOS 7 , as was Windows 98 .
Windows ME was DOS 8.I would argue that you ca n't really place NT kernels prior to XP into this scheme .
So , we would then say that XP was the equivalent of DOS 9 , Vista was DOS 10 , and Windows 7 is DOS 11.What about the early versions of Window ?
Well , since they were just " operating environments " , not real manly operating systems like MS-DOS , I do n't think we can really consider them .
( For those grunting at me calling MS-DOS a real operating system : congratulations !
You 've been taken in by one of my classic pranks !
Bazinga ! ) The logical conclusion , of course , is that Windows 8 is going to SERIOUSLY suck .
As least if you believe in the sunspot cycle and the mayan calendar , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It goes like this.
DOS 1 was.. well, it was version 1.0, but it was pretty good for it's time (1981.
)  Compare it to contemporary versions of CP/M and it was a reasonable OS.
Then DOS 2 was an abomination which was promptly replaced with DOS 3.
Everyone ran MS-DOS 3.3 for a LONG time--years--and DOS 4.0 was a joke.
Then DOS 5 came out and was well loved, while MS-DOS 6 was yet another joke.It gets a little harder to figure out with Windows though.
Windows 95 was DOS 7, as was Windows 98.
Windows ME was DOS 8.I would argue that you can't really place NT kernels prior to XP into this scheme.
So, we would then say that XP was the equivalent of DOS 9, Vista was DOS 10, and Windows 7 is DOS 11.What about the early versions of Window?
Well, since they were just "operating environments", not real manly operating systems like MS-DOS, I don't think we can really consider them.
(For those grunting at me calling MS-DOS a real operating system: congratulations!
You've been taken in by one of my classic pranks!
Bazinga!)The logical conclusion, of course, is that Windows 8 is going to SERIOUSLY suck.
As least if you believe in the sunspot cycle and the mayan calendar, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299444</id>
	<title>Re:Price Appropriately</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1259606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, considering I paid $50 (to amazon) + shipping for windows home premium upgrade I got the price you mentioned.<br> <br>

HOnestly...$50 or $100...until the next version (about 4 years) is cheap.  Though in all honesty, nobody is forcing you to get win8 when it comes out.  MS has to come out with major releases like this because that is how the industry moves.  Who knows, maybe by then we will have 128bit processors running around.  $50 for four years comes to 3 cents a day...even suzanne struthers would be impressed.  At $100 that is 6 cents a day.  Not that big of a deal<br> <br>

As for pirates....yea no such thing...as long as people can get it free they will.  I know people making six figure salaries who pirate just because they don't want to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , considering I paid $ 50 ( to amazon ) + shipping for windows home premium upgrade I got the price you mentioned .
HOnestly... $ 50 or $ 100...until the next version ( about 4 years ) is cheap .
Though in all honesty , nobody is forcing you to get win8 when it comes out .
MS has to come out with major releases like this because that is how the industry moves .
Who knows , maybe by then we will have 128bit processors running around .
$ 50 for four years comes to 3 cents a day...even suzanne struthers would be impressed .
At $ 100 that is 6 cents a day .
Not that big of a deal As for pirates....yea no such thing...as long as people can get it free they will .
I know people making six figure salaries who pirate just because they do n't want to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, considering I paid $50 (to amazon) + shipping for windows home premium upgrade I got the price you mentioned.
HOnestly...$50 or $100...until the next version (about 4 years) is cheap.
Though in all honesty, nobody is forcing you to get win8 when it comes out.
MS has to come out with major releases like this because that is how the industry moves.
Who knows, maybe by then we will have 128bit processors running around.
$50 for four years comes to 3 cents a day...even suzanne struthers would be impressed.
At $100 that is 6 cents a day.
Not that big of a deal 

As for pirates....yea no such thing...as long as people can get it free they will.
I know people making six figure salaries who pirate just because they don't want to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297120</id>
	<title>Release early, release often...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...at least they got that clue from FOSS. Now if they could understand the added value of peer review. Many eyeballs wouldn't be too many for spotting bugs in Windows, now would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...at least they got that clue from FOSS .
Now if they could understand the added value of peer review .
Many eyeballs would n't be too many for spotting bugs in Windows , now would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...at least they got that clue from FOSS.
Now if they could understand the added value of peer review.
Many eyeballs wouldn't be too many for spotting bugs in Windows, now would they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1259595840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I heard that Ubuntu going to be switching focus to 10.x next year as well!  STOP TEH PRESSES!!!1!

</p><p>Do we actually have anything to talk about regarding Windows 8, or is this just another thread where we trot out all the usual "ZOMG evil Micro$oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah"?  Because that's getting kind of old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I heard that Ubuntu going to be switching focus to 10.x next year as well !
STOP TEH PRESSES ! ! ! 1 !
Do we actually have anything to talk about regarding Windows 8 , or is this just another thread where we trot out all the usual " ZOMG evil Micro $ oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah " ?
Because that 's getting kind of old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I heard that Ubuntu going to be switching focus to 10.x next year as well!
STOP TEH PRESSES!!!1!
Do we actually have anything to talk about regarding Windows 8, or is this just another thread where we trot out all the usual "ZOMG evil Micro$oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah"?
Because that's getting kind of old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297472</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, but, but... ZOMG evil Micro$oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , but , but... ZOMG evil Micro $ oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, but, but... ZOMG evil Micro$oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297292</id>
	<title>So what're they focusing on now?</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're concentrating on fixing/improving Windows 7...will they stop?</p><p>If they're not going to stop fixing/improving Windows 7, what's the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're concentrating on fixing/improving Windows 7...will they stop ? If they 're not going to stop fixing/improving Windows 7 , what 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're concentrating on fixing/improving Windows 7...will they stop?If they're not going to stop fixing/improving Windows 7, what's the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494</id>
	<title>Re:And?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1259597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please explain how Windows 7 Home Premium (the only Home version I can find on sale in the UK at least) is crippled compared to either Professional or Ultimate.</p><p>Note that "crippled" in normal parlance "describes someone with serious injuries that affect their ability to walk or move" (from <a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=18334&amp;dict=CALD" title="cambridge.org">the CALD</a> [cambridge.org]) - in this case, you'd be talking essential features that are missing or broken, seriously affecting the usefulness of the OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain how Windows 7 Home Premium ( the only Home version I can find on sale in the UK at least ) is crippled compared to either Professional or Ultimate.Note that " crippled " in normal parlance " describes someone with serious injuries that affect their ability to walk or move " ( from the CALD [ cambridge.org ] ) - in this case , you 'd be talking essential features that are missing or broken , seriously affecting the usefulness of the OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain how Windows 7 Home Premium (the only Home version I can find on sale in the UK at least) is crippled compared to either Professional or Ultimate.Note that "crippled" in normal parlance "describes someone with serious injuries that affect their ability to walk or move" (from the CALD [cambridge.org]) - in this case, you'd be talking essential features that are missing or broken, seriously affecting the usefulness of the OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298380</id>
	<title>Timed perfectly for the end of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that Windows 8 is going to trigger a catastrophe that will end the world? Does Microsoft have insight into the 2012 catastrophe and are making plans for the first post-apocalyptic operating system?</p><p>(C'mon, this is not the first time Slashdot has aired conspiracy theories about Microsoft.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that Windows 8 is going to trigger a catastrophe that will end the world ?
Does Microsoft have insight into the 2012 catastrophe and are making plans for the first post-apocalyptic operating system ?
( C'mon , this is not the first time Slashdot has aired conspiracy theories about Microsoft .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that Windows 8 is going to trigger a catastrophe that will end the world?
Does Microsoft have insight into the 2012 catastrophe and are making plans for the first post-apocalyptic operating system?
(C'mon, this is not the first time Slashdot has aired conspiracy theories about Microsoft.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30308870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30304606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1344226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301636
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297710
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302388
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299490
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298400
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30304606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297322
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297840
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30308870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30301066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30302718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30299444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1344226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30297982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30300586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1344226.30298520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
