<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_2035230</id>
	<title>VMware Workstation vs. VirtualBox vs. Parallels</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260952980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq writes <i>"InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/virtualization/infoworld-review-desktop-virtualization-windows-and-linux-heats-500">VMware Workstation 7, VirtualBox 3.1, and Parallels Desktop 4</a>, three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years.' The shake-up, which sees Microsoft's once promising Virtual PC <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-xp-mode-new-dos-box-222">off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds</a>, has put VirtualBox &mdash; among the <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/08/05/2157256/Best-Free-Open-Source-Software-For-Windows?art\_pos=2">best free open source software available for Windows</a> &mdash; out front as a general-purpose VM, filling the void left by VMware's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins. Meanwhile, Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product, as well as Workstation 4 Extreme, which delivers <a href="http://infoworld.com/t/desktop-virtualization/parallels-workstation-4-extreme-lowers-virtualization-overhead-237">near native performance for graphics, disk, and network I/O</a>. 'There's some genuine innovation going on, especially in the areas of hardware support and application compatibility,' Kennedy writes. 'All support 32- and 64-bit Windows and Linux hosts and guests, and all have added compelling new VM management capabilities, ranging from automated snapshots to live VM migration.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at VMware Workstation 7 , VirtualBox 3.1 , and Parallels Desktop 4 , three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years .
' The shake-up , which sees Microsoft 's once promising Virtual PC off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds , has put VirtualBox    among the best free open source software available for Windows    out front as a general-purpose VM , filling the void left by VMware 's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins .
Meanwhile , Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product , as well as Workstation 4 Extreme , which delivers near native performance for graphics , disk , and network I/O .
'There 's some genuine innovation going on , especially in the areas of hardware support and application compatibility, ' Kennedy writes .
'All support 32- and 64-bit Windows and Linux hosts and guests , and all have added compelling new VM management capabilities , ranging from automated snapshots to live VM migration .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at VMware Workstation 7, VirtualBox 3.1, and Parallels Desktop 4, three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years.
' The shake-up, which sees Microsoft's once promising Virtual PC off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds, has put VirtualBox — among the best free open source software available for Windows — out front as a general-purpose VM, filling the void left by VMware's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins.
Meanwhile, Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product, as well as Workstation 4 Extreme, which delivers near native performance for graphics, disk, and network I/O.
'There's some genuine innovation going on, especially in the areas of hardware support and application compatibility,' Kennedy writes.
'All support 32- and 64-bit Windows and Linux hosts and guests, and all have added compelling new VM management capabilities, ranging from automated snapshots to live VM migration.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466832</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259672820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I strongly agree!</p><p>On Windows, "portable" Virtualbox is sweet and doesn't even require normal installation.</p><p>I did a clean install to VM, then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rar'ed a copy as backup. If I have problems, I can easily replace both program files and VM in one shot.</p><p><a href="http://www.vbox.me/" title="www.vbox.me">http://www.vbox.me/</a> [www.vbox.me]</p><p>On Ubuntu, installing the PUEL version of Virtualbox was easy and allows me to try out other Linux distros and run XP for when I need that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly agree ! On Windows , " portable " Virtualbox is sweet and does n't even require normal installation.I did a clean install to VM , then .rar'ed a copy as backup .
If I have problems , I can easily replace both program files and VM in one shot.http : //www.vbox.me/ [ www.vbox.me ] On Ubuntu , installing the PUEL version of Virtualbox was easy and allows me to try out other Linux distros and run XP for when I need that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly agree!On Windows, "portable" Virtualbox is sweet and doesn't even require normal installation.I did a clean install to VM, then .rar'ed a copy as backup.
If I have problems, I can easily replace both program files and VM in one shot.http://www.vbox.me/ [www.vbox.me]On Ubuntu, installing the PUEL version of Virtualbox was easy and allows me to try out other Linux distros and run XP for when I need that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463866</id>
	<title>No mention of Citrix's XenDesktop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No mention of Citrix's XenDesktop?  XenApp is far superior to normal Terminal Services and the ICA protocol is pretty damn impressive.  Add in their "HDX" technology and Provisioning Server and I am scratching my head as to why the author left them out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No mention of Citrix 's XenDesktop ?
XenApp is far superior to normal Terminal Services and the ICA protocol is pretty damn impressive .
Add in their " HDX " technology and Provisioning Server and I am scratching my head as to why the author left them out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No mention of Citrix's XenDesktop?
XenApp is far superior to normal Terminal Services and the ICA protocol is pretty damn impressive.
Add in their "HDX" technology and Provisioning Server and I am scratching my head as to why the author left them out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30471654</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>terryducks</author>
	<datestamp>1261051320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've looked into VMware for hosting a couple of Windows sessions for development.<br> <br> They really need to get their head out of their ass (fragin tossers).  Give me a roadmap of products to install for X, Y &amp; Z.  Development path x - run on a single machine (you need to install a,b &amp;c configure like this - tada)  Development path Y - run on another host - (install d,e &amp; f - configure = tada)<br> <br>I can't figure out what I need due to bad naming and "huge" number of products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've looked into VMware for hosting a couple of Windows sessions for development .
They really need to get their head out of their ass ( fragin tossers ) .
Give me a roadmap of products to install for X , Y &amp; Z. Development path x - run on a single machine ( you need to install a,b &amp;c configure like this - tada ) Development path Y - run on another host - ( install d,e &amp; f - configure = tada ) I ca n't figure out what I need due to bad naming and " huge " number of products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've looked into VMware for hosting a couple of Windows sessions for development.
They really need to get their head out of their ass (fragin tossers).
Give me a roadmap of products to install for X, Y &amp; Z.  Development path x - run on a single machine (you need to install a,b &amp;c configure like this - tada)  Development path Y - run on another host - (install d,e &amp; f - configure = tada) I can't figure out what I need due to bad naming and "huge" number of products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470474</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>uninformedLuddite</author>
	<datestamp>1261083060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable.</p></div><p>You do realise that you are posting that VirtualBox is crap on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. don't you? Do you have a pecuniary interest in VMware? VirtualBox is  brilliant and it performs usually flawlessly(some of the experimental stuff plays up but <b> <i>so what</i> </b>?). Labeling it as buggy to the point of being unusable is an outrageous and untruthful thing to say.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.</p></div><p>Shenanigans</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware , to the point of being not very usable.You do realise that you are posting that VirtualBox is crap on / .
do n't you ?
Do you have a pecuniary interest in VMware ?
VirtualBox is brilliant and it performs usually flawlessly ( some of the experimental stuff plays up but so what ? ) .
Labeling it as buggy to the point of being unusable is an outrageous and untruthful thing to say.I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.Shenanigans</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable.You do realise that you are posting that VirtualBox is crap on /.
don't you?
Do you have a pecuniary interest in VMware?
VirtualBox is  brilliant and it performs usually flawlessly(some of the experimental stuff plays up but  so what ?).
Labeling it as buggy to the point of being unusable is an outrageous and untruthful thing to say.I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.Shenanigans
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467414</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463544</id>
	<title>frist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>frist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>frist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465484</id>
	<title>Choosing between these was incredibly easy for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VirtualBox is the only one in Ubuntu's repository, so that's the one I use. Can't be arsed with binary installers that can't be removed and break whenever you run a system update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VirtualBox is the only one in Ubuntu 's repository , so that 's the one I use .
Ca n't be arsed with binary installers that ca n't be removed and break whenever you run a system update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VirtualBox is the only one in Ubuntu's repository, so that's the one I use.
Can't be arsed with binary installers that can't be removed and break whenever you run a system update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469358</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use VirtualBox perfectly happily on my Dell XPS laptop. I often run 2 VMs at once, and they all run at perfectly usable speeds. I haven't had a VM-caused crash in the last year, and I do some moderately complicated things:<br>- using a Windows VM to print to USB connected printer that has no linux drivers<br>- running Warcraft 3 in the same VM (with full hardware acceleration)<br>- sharing folders between Windows and Linux VMs and the Linux host.<br>- Using VT-x and both cores of my dual-core CPU<br>- Using snapshots and immutable disk images.<br>- Booting my dual-boot Windows installation, using a pass-through image.<br>So yes, I'm not exactly running it in a high-demand environment, but for what I want to do it is perfect. I certainly wouldn't pay $189 for some</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use VirtualBox perfectly happily on my Dell XPS laptop .
I often run 2 VMs at once , and they all run at perfectly usable speeds .
I have n't had a VM-caused crash in the last year , and I do some moderately complicated things : - using a Windows VM to print to USB connected printer that has no linux drivers- running Warcraft 3 in the same VM ( with full hardware acceleration ) - sharing folders between Windows and Linux VMs and the Linux host.- Using VT-x and both cores of my dual-core CPU- Using snapshots and immutable disk images.- Booting my dual-boot Windows installation , using a pass-through image.So yes , I 'm not exactly running it in a high-demand environment , but for what I want to do it is perfect .
I certainly would n't pay $ 189 for some</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use VirtualBox perfectly happily on my Dell XPS laptop.
I often run 2 VMs at once, and they all run at perfectly usable speeds.
I haven't had a VM-caused crash in the last year, and I do some moderately complicated things:- using a Windows VM to print to USB connected printer that has no linux drivers- running Warcraft 3 in the same VM (with full hardware acceleration)- sharing folders between Windows and Linux VMs and the Linux host.- Using VT-x and both cores of my dual-core CPU- Using snapshots and immutable disk images.- Booting my dual-boot Windows installation, using a pass-through image.So yes, I'm not exactly running it in a high-demand environment, but for what I want to do it is perfect.
I certainly wouldn't pay $189 for some</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468716</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the truth<br>I was an avid lover of vmware for years<br>when it was a proper application built on a coded install it was rock solid and had incredibly good performance<br>I used to have solaris, xp, and linux boxes all running at the same time<br>their new "java" foundation is a bloated nasty piece of crap. I checked my ram, vmware was using 300 megs of my ram without even a machine running.</p><p>I switched to virtualbox, and I've been happy.<br>Sux when something works great then they putz with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the truthI was an avid lover of vmware for yearswhen it was a proper application built on a coded install it was rock solid and had incredibly good performanceI used to have solaris , xp , and linux boxes all running at the same timetheir new " java " foundation is a bloated nasty piece of crap .
I checked my ram , vmware was using 300 megs of my ram without even a machine running.I switched to virtualbox , and I 've been happy.Sux when something works great then they putz with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the truthI was an avid lover of vmware for yearswhen it was a proper application built on a coded install it was rock solid and had incredibly good performanceI used to have solaris, xp, and linux boxes all running at the same timetheir new "java" foundation is a bloated nasty piece of crap.
I checked my ram, vmware was using 300 megs of my ram without even a machine running.I switched to virtualbox, and I've been happy.Sux when something works great then they putz with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463898</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259662140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course, you can't create VM images with VMWare Player...</p></div></blockquote><p>Whoops, I lied.  The latest version can create images now.  I'm still not sure that it has 3D support, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , you ca n't create VM images with VMWare Player...Whoops , I lied .
The latest version can create images now .
I 'm still not sure that it has 3D support , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, you can't create VM images with VMWare Player...Whoops, I lied.
The latest version can create images now.
I'm still not sure that it has 3D support, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467890</id>
	<title>Only tried VirtualBox here.</title>
	<author>TxRv</author>
	<datestamp>1259679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use it to run XP Piratebay Edition and Slackware 13, both mostly for experimenting on. The only problems I've found are the lack of a simple way to share files between them, the complete inability to install BSD due to cascading segfaults (which is weird since it'll practically run on a toaster), and the fact that I  have to exit fullscreen and click outside the window to switch to another workspace in my host OS (Ubuntu). Other than those three things, I've found it pretty decent.

An acquaintance of mine who is the stereotypical obsessed Mac fan swears by Parallels, and it does look nice, but the proprietary license and price tag put me right off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use it to run XP Piratebay Edition and Slackware 13 , both mostly for experimenting on .
The only problems I 've found are the lack of a simple way to share files between them , the complete inability to install BSD due to cascading segfaults ( which is weird since it 'll practically run on a toaster ) , and the fact that I have to exit fullscreen and click outside the window to switch to another workspace in my host OS ( Ubuntu ) .
Other than those three things , I 've found it pretty decent .
An acquaintance of mine who is the stereotypical obsessed Mac fan swears by Parallels , and it does look nice , but the proprietary license and price tag put me right off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use it to run XP Piratebay Edition and Slackware 13, both mostly for experimenting on.
The only problems I've found are the lack of a simple way to share files between them, the complete inability to install BSD due to cascading segfaults (which is weird since it'll practically run on a toaster), and the fact that I  have to exit fullscreen and click outside the window to switch to another workspace in my host OS (Ubuntu).
Other than those three things, I've found it pretty decent.
An acquaintance of mine who is the stereotypical obsessed Mac fan swears by Parallels, and it does look nice, but the proprietary license and price tag put me right off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050</id>
	<title>Parallels Desktop is at version 5, btw.</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1259662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe he should've spent a second or two checking up on this before he did his test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he should 've spent a second or two checking up on this before he did his test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he should've spent a second or two checking up on this before he did his test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464456</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1259664060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense. Any decent boxed pre-loaded PC from a place like Best Buy or Costco is more than adequate for running this stuff.</p><p>Now there is the obvious problem of distinguishing between those of us that are trying to use VMs as a poor man's mainframe and those of us that aren't.</p><p>Since Parallels is in the comparison, this is obviously a review for desktop users.</p><p>OTOH: none of these products popped out of the ether just yesterday, so the idea<br>that you need a monster of a machine by modern standards just to run them decently<br>seems a little absurd really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Any decent boxed pre-loaded PC from a place like Best Buy or Costco is more than adequate for running this stuff.Now there is the obvious problem of distinguishing between those of us that are trying to use VMs as a poor man 's mainframe and those of us that are n't.Since Parallels is in the comparison , this is obviously a review for desktop users.OTOH : none of these products popped out of the ether just yesterday , so the ideathat you need a monster of a machine by modern standards just to run them decentlyseems a little absurd really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Any decent boxed pre-loaded PC from a place like Best Buy or Costco is more than adequate for running this stuff.Now there is the obvious problem of distinguishing between those of us that are trying to use VMs as a poor man's mainframe and those of us that aren't.Since Parallels is in the comparison, this is obviously a review for desktop users.OTOH: none of these products popped out of the ether just yesterday, so the ideathat you need a monster of a machine by modern standards just to run them decentlyseems a little absurd really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I could forget VMware Server!</p><p>One of their more recent releases went to a fucking horrible Web-based UI. I mean, they installed Java and Tomcat just so this terrible UI could be run. This major fuck-up on their part drove me to VirtualBox, and I haven't looked back.</p><p>I've seen a lot of stupid web-based UIs in my time, but what they produced was beyond shitty. It often locked up for no reason, and when it worked, it wasn't even enjoyable to use.</p><p>I sincerely hope that whoever came up with that idea got fired. They went from sleek, functional desktop application UI to an extraordinarily shitty web-based UI using AJAX. I still can't comprehend how that could have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could forget VMware Server ! One of their more recent releases went to a fucking horrible Web-based UI .
I mean , they installed Java and Tomcat just so this terrible UI could be run .
This major fuck-up on their part drove me to VirtualBox , and I have n't looked back.I 've seen a lot of stupid web-based UIs in my time , but what they produced was beyond shitty .
It often locked up for no reason , and when it worked , it was n't even enjoyable to use.I sincerely hope that whoever came up with that idea got fired .
They went from sleek , functional desktop application UI to an extraordinarily shitty web-based UI using AJAX .
I still ca n't comprehend how that could have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could forget VMware Server!One of their more recent releases went to a fucking horrible Web-based UI.
I mean, they installed Java and Tomcat just so this terrible UI could be run.
This major fuck-up on their part drove me to VirtualBox, and I haven't looked back.I've seen a lot of stupid web-based UIs in my time, but what they produced was beyond shitty.
It often locked up for no reason, and when it worked, it wasn't even enjoyable to use.I sincerely hope that whoever came up with that idea got fired.
They went from sleek, functional desktop application UI to an extraordinarily shitty web-based UI using AJAX.
I still can't comprehend how that could have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463850</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1259661960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It <b>is</b> expensive... when compared to <a href="http://www.vmware.com/products/player/" title="vmware.com">VMWare Player</a> [vmware.com], which is free (as in beer) and also supports up to 4 virtual CPUs.</p><p>Of course, you can't create VM images with VMWare Player...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is expensive... when compared to VMWare Player [ vmware.com ] , which is free ( as in beer ) and also supports up to 4 virtual CPUs.Of course , you ca n't create VM images with VMWare Player.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is expensive... when compared to VMWare Player [vmware.com], which is free (as in beer) and also supports up to 4 virtual CPUs.Of course, you can't create VM images with VMWare Player...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463986</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah!  Just emulate the GPU, everything is done in software these days.<br>I hear Pong is playable at 0.7fps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
Just emulate the GPU , everything is done in software these days.I hear Pong is playable at 0.7fps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
Just emulate the GPU, everything is done in software these days.I hear Pong is playable at 0.7fps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470414</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>uninformedLuddite</author>
	<datestamp>1261082400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> VirtualBox is also free to use, it understands VMWare images</p></div><p>and it is a fantastic and efficient virtual machine as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>VirtualBox is also free to use , it understands VMWare imagesand it is a fantastic and efficient virtual machine as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> VirtualBox is also free to use, it understands VMWare imagesand it is a fantastic and efficient virtual machine as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464186</id>
	<title>VirtualBox FTW</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1259663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works, its free, it supports multiple CPUs.  Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works , its free , it supports multiple CPUs .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works, its free, it supports multiple CPUs.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30476068</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1261076700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which part of using vmware was not as easy as virtualbox for you?<br><br>Here's my experience:<br><br>vmware server doesn't have signed drivers so I had problems getting it to work with Windows 7 x64. I didn't try vmware workstation - it's not free.<br><br>In contrast Virtual Box worked, and it was free.<br><br>Microsoft Virtual PC on the other hand wouldn't even let me boot up ubuntu after an install - got all the way past installation, but on boot to the installed OS it couldn't start up - not surprised though, I generally regard Virtual PC as crap (but perhaps it works very well running MS only stuff).<br><br>However Virtual Box is not as good as vmware if you are going to have virtual networks and muck about with them. With vmware changing the networks a virtual interface is attached to is easy - you can do it while the virtual machine is running.<br><br>Also, Virtual Box virtual machines don't seem to be stored all in one folder. A single virtual machine is stored in more than one directory - there's one path for the disks and another path for the other stuff. In contrast with vmware, it's all in one directory, so you can just copy the entire directory/folder and/or compress it.<br><br>vmware's "get out of virtual machine" keys are customizable combinations of ctrl-shift-alt (can be all, or partial).<br>virtual box's equivalent is the "host key", you can have many choices but you can only use one key - not a combo.<br><br>I have not tested what happens on virtualbox if the host screen saver locks while you are still in the guest. IIRC vmware used to have problems with that in some cases (you can't get out).<br><br>Lastly you can't run virtualbox and virtualpc at the same time. Fortunately you don't have to reboot - if you stop virtualpc, after a while you can run virtualbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of using vmware was not as easy as virtualbox for you ? Here 's my experience : vmware server does n't have signed drivers so I had problems getting it to work with Windows 7 x64 .
I did n't try vmware workstation - it 's not free.In contrast Virtual Box worked , and it was free.Microsoft Virtual PC on the other hand would n't even let me boot up ubuntu after an install - got all the way past installation , but on boot to the installed OS it could n't start up - not surprised though , I generally regard Virtual PC as crap ( but perhaps it works very well running MS only stuff ) .However Virtual Box is not as good as vmware if you are going to have virtual networks and muck about with them .
With vmware changing the networks a virtual interface is attached to is easy - you can do it while the virtual machine is running.Also , Virtual Box virtual machines do n't seem to be stored all in one folder .
A single virtual machine is stored in more than one directory - there 's one path for the disks and another path for the other stuff .
In contrast with vmware , it 's all in one directory , so you can just copy the entire directory/folder and/or compress it.vmware 's " get out of virtual machine " keys are customizable combinations of ctrl-shift-alt ( can be all , or partial ) .virtual box 's equivalent is the " host key " , you can have many choices but you can only use one key - not a combo.I have not tested what happens on virtualbox if the host screen saver locks while you are still in the guest .
IIRC vmware used to have problems with that in some cases ( you ca n't get out ) .Lastly you ca n't run virtualbox and virtualpc at the same time .
Fortunately you do n't have to reboot - if you stop virtualpc , after a while you can run virtualbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of using vmware was not as easy as virtualbox for you?Here's my experience:vmware server doesn't have signed drivers so I had problems getting it to work with Windows 7 x64.
I didn't try vmware workstation - it's not free.In contrast Virtual Box worked, and it was free.Microsoft Virtual PC on the other hand wouldn't even let me boot up ubuntu after an install - got all the way past installation, but on boot to the installed OS it couldn't start up - not surprised though, I generally regard Virtual PC as crap (but perhaps it works very well running MS only stuff).However Virtual Box is not as good as vmware if you are going to have virtual networks and muck about with them.
With vmware changing the networks a virtual interface is attached to is easy - you can do it while the virtual machine is running.Also, Virtual Box virtual machines don't seem to be stored all in one folder.
A single virtual machine is stored in more than one directory - there's one path for the disks and another path for the other stuff.
In contrast with vmware, it's all in one directory, so you can just copy the entire directory/folder and/or compress it.vmware's "get out of virtual machine" keys are customizable combinations of ctrl-shift-alt (can be all, or partial).virtual box's equivalent is the "host key", you can have many choices but you can only use one key - not a combo.I have not tested what happens on virtualbox if the host screen saver locks while you are still in the guest.
IIRC vmware used to have problems with that in some cases (you can't get out).Lastly you can't run virtualbox and virtualpc at the same time.
Fortunately you don't have to reboot - if you stop virtualpc, after a while you can run virtualbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466466</id>
	<title>Drag &amp; Drop</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1259670840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtual Box doesn't have drag and drop between guest and host.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual Box does n't have drag and drop between guest and host .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual Box doesn't have drag and drop between guest and host.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470398</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>uninformedLuddite</author>
	<datestamp>1261082280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once.</p></div><p>Why not? Please explain?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once.Why not ?
Please explain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once.Why not?
Please explain?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464162</id>
	<title>Only For Mac</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1259663040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't RTFA, I see.  It states that Parallels Desktop 5 is available, but only for Mac.  I just checked out their website and I have to agree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't RTFA , I see .
It states that Parallels Desktop 5 is available , but only for Mac .
I just checked out their website and I have to agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't RTFA, I see.
It states that Parallels Desktop 5 is available, but only for Mac.
I just checked out their website and I have to agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469750</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>paradxum</author>
	<datestamp>1259694300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree with the parent. I had used VMWare server for a few years and had always had strange issues crop up.... Ease of use really sucked when they went to the web interface (although it was a great Idea, it just didn't always work.) USB support in vmware was barely usable (sometimes the vm would just lock up.)<br><br>I moved over to virtualbox and everything just seems to work. Dead simple install and use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree with the parent .
I had used VMWare server for a few years and had always had strange issues crop up.... Ease of use really sucked when they went to the web interface ( although it was a great Idea , it just did n't always work .
) USB support in vmware was barely usable ( sometimes the vm would just lock up .
) I moved over to virtualbox and everything just seems to work .
Dead simple install and use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree with the parent.
I had used VMWare server for a few years and had always had strange issues crop up.... Ease of use really sucked when they went to the web interface (although it was a great Idea, it just didn't always work.
) USB support in vmware was barely usable (sometimes the vm would just lock up.
)I moved over to virtualbox and everything just seems to work.
Dead simple install and use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465698</id>
	<title>Colour-critical work? Forget VMWare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using VMware religiously for a few years now to test web pages in Windows-based browsers (I do web-based UI design on Linux and love it), but recently I've been doing more design/visual work and less markup/scripting, so I bought a deep-colour (10 bit) display with a much wider gamut than sRGB and promptly went about setting up the requisite software.

<p>It took very little time for me to discover that VMware has absolutely no colour management capability, which completely kills any chance you have of using Windows-based, colour-managed applications like Photoshop (unless you are intentionally not using a colour-managed workflow).

</p><p>The color matrix/LUT itself must obviously be created and applied in the host OS (I use Argyll and an X-Rite i1 Display 2 all on Linux, which work great) but it's useless if the Windows application isn't aware of the display profile.

</p><p>I did a bit of reading and it turned out VirtualBox does support hardware display profiles for Windows guests; the same afternoon I had a Windows XP VirtualBox guest running Photoshop CS3 with full colour management and has since been working great. Strongly recommend to other Linuxy designer-types finding themselves in a similar situation.

</p><p>On a related note, if ever you do create a calibrated monitor profile using Argyll that you intend to use with Firefox, <strong>use a matrix type profile, not a LUT</strong> -- Firefox apparently does not support the more accurate LUT profiles at all, but matrix profiles work just fine. I use the LUT for the general display profile but point firefox explicitly to an alternate matrix profile so that photos containing embedded display profiles show up with gamma and especially saturation levels for my display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using VMware religiously for a few years now to test web pages in Windows-based browsers ( I do web-based UI design on Linux and love it ) , but recently I 've been doing more design/visual work and less markup/scripting , so I bought a deep-colour ( 10 bit ) display with a much wider gamut than sRGB and promptly went about setting up the requisite software .
It took very little time for me to discover that VMware has absolutely no colour management capability , which completely kills any chance you have of using Windows-based , colour-managed applications like Photoshop ( unless you are intentionally not using a colour-managed workflow ) .
The color matrix/LUT itself must obviously be created and applied in the host OS ( I use Argyll and an X-Rite i1 Display 2 all on Linux , which work great ) but it 's useless if the Windows application is n't aware of the display profile .
I did a bit of reading and it turned out VirtualBox does support hardware display profiles for Windows guests ; the same afternoon I had a Windows XP VirtualBox guest running Photoshop CS3 with full colour management and has since been working great .
Strongly recommend to other Linuxy designer-types finding themselves in a similar situation .
On a related note , if ever you do create a calibrated monitor profile using Argyll that you intend to use with Firefox , use a matrix type profile , not a LUT -- Firefox apparently does not support the more accurate LUT profiles at all , but matrix profiles work just fine .
I use the LUT for the general display profile but point firefox explicitly to an alternate matrix profile so that photos containing embedded display profiles show up with gamma and especially saturation levels for my display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using VMware religiously for a few years now to test web pages in Windows-based browsers (I do web-based UI design on Linux and love it), but recently I've been doing more design/visual work and less markup/scripting, so I bought a deep-colour (10 bit) display with a much wider gamut than sRGB and promptly went about setting up the requisite software.
It took very little time for me to discover that VMware has absolutely no colour management capability, which completely kills any chance you have of using Windows-based, colour-managed applications like Photoshop (unless you are intentionally not using a colour-managed workflow).
The color matrix/LUT itself must obviously be created and applied in the host OS (I use Argyll and an X-Rite i1 Display 2 all on Linux, which work great) but it's useless if the Windows application isn't aware of the display profile.
I did a bit of reading and it turned out VirtualBox does support hardware display profiles for Windows guests; the same afternoon I had a Windows XP VirtualBox guest running Photoshop CS3 with full colour management and has since been working great.
Strongly recommend to other Linuxy designer-types finding themselves in a similar situation.
On a related note, if ever you do create a calibrated monitor profile using Argyll that you intend to use with Firefox, use a matrix type profile, not a LUT -- Firefox apparently does not support the more accurate LUT profiles at all, but matrix profiles work just fine.
I use the LUT for the general display profile but point firefox explicitly to an alternate matrix profile so that photos containing embedded display profiles show up with gamma and especially saturation levels for my display.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467190</id>
	<title>if there are no enterprise considerations...</title>
	<author>AbbyNormal</author>
	<datestamp>1259674860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these other solutions are very good, but if you have any ambitions of possible migrating boxes to a production environment you almost have to go with VMWare.  While the licensing cost of an Enterprise kit is expensive, the features that you get such as High Avail/DRS/VMotion are absolutely a godsend for any system admin (plus the whitelisted hardware specs).  I don't work for VMWare, but run a small business's IT and have been through the upgrade path from VMWare server to ESX server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these other solutions are very good , but if you have any ambitions of possible migrating boxes to a production environment you almost have to go with VMWare .
While the licensing cost of an Enterprise kit is expensive , the features that you get such as High Avail/DRS/VMotion are absolutely a godsend for any system admin ( plus the whitelisted hardware specs ) .
I do n't work for VMWare , but run a small business 's IT and have been through the upgrade path from VMWare server to ESX server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these other solutions are very good, but if you have any ambitions of possible migrating boxes to a production environment you almost have to go with VMWare.
While the licensing cost of an Enterprise kit is expensive, the features that you get such as High Avail/DRS/VMotion are absolutely a godsend for any system admin (plus the whitelisted hardware specs).
I don't work for VMWare, but run a small business's IT and have been through the upgrade path from VMWare server to ESX server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466896</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i installed virtualbox and accidentally formatted the hard drive it was on, and i don't mean the virtual one either</p><p>i give it three out of five where the fuck are my files</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i installed virtualbox and accidentally formatted the hard drive it was on , and i do n't mean the virtual one eitheri give it three out of five where the fuck are my files</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i installed virtualbox and accidentally formatted the hard drive it was on, and i don't mean the virtual one eitheri give it three out of five where the fuck are my files</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464868</id>
	<title>strange attitude about problems</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259665320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of these products are perfect, they all have problems.</p><p>These are complex products with many many features and I don't imagine there are many of us who use all of them.</p><p>Stuff that seems like a minor issue to one user is a total show-stopper to another.</p><p>Your success with a product means nothing to another user if they are using it differently or are attempting to use a different set of features.</p><p>Really the only answer is you have to try them for yourself and see how they work for you.</p><p>Fortunately even the pay-for products have a free evaluation period so you can try them out without shelling out the cash.</p><p>If you work with the product all day then the cost of purchase is pretty irrelevant compared to what you are doing with it.  How much is your time worth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of these products are perfect , they all have problems.These are complex products with many many features and I do n't imagine there are many of us who use all of them.Stuff that seems like a minor issue to one user is a total show-stopper to another.Your success with a product means nothing to another user if they are using it differently or are attempting to use a different set of features.Really the only answer is you have to try them for yourself and see how they work for you.Fortunately even the pay-for products have a free evaluation period so you can try them out without shelling out the cash.If you work with the product all day then the cost of purchase is pretty irrelevant compared to what you are doing with it .
How much is your time worth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of these products are perfect, they all have problems.These are complex products with many many features and I don't imagine there are many of us who use all of them.Stuff that seems like a minor issue to one user is a total show-stopper to another.Your success with a product means nothing to another user if they are using it differently or are attempting to use a different set of features.Really the only answer is you have to try them for yourself and see how they work for you.Fortunately even the pay-for products have a free evaluation period so you can try them out without shelling out the cash.If you work with the product all day then the cost of purchase is pretty irrelevant compared to what you are doing with it.
How much is your time worth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463814</id>
	<title>I was wrong</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops I was wrong about the max number of processors, it really is 4, I just tried it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops I was wrong about the max number of processors , it really is 4 , I just tried it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops I was wrong about the max number of processors, it really is 4, I just tried it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464530</id>
	<title>Re:2D and 3D accel. on VirtualBox</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1259664300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to point out that VirtualBox has support for 2D and 3D acceleration. I used to play "armadillo" there and (by also using AMD-V virtualization extension) it works great.</p><p>I also saw some friends using it to develop flash games using Adobe Flash CS3 and it was really smooth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to point out that VirtualBox has support for 2D and 3D acceleration .
I used to play " armadillo " there and ( by also using AMD-V virtualization extension ) it works great.I also saw some friends using it to develop flash games using Adobe Flash CS3 and it was really smooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to point out that VirtualBox has support for 2D and 3D acceleration.
I used to play "armadillo" there and (by also using AMD-V virtualization extension) it works great.I also saw some friends using it to develop flash games using Adobe Flash CS3 and it was really smooth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465990</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1259668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree one hundred percent.  I had been trying to get Virtual PC to work and even the simple task of mounting an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ISO image as the virtual CDROM was a headache.  Having heard about VirtualBox here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I went ahead and downloaded it and got it up and running.  I haven't looked back since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree one hundred percent .
I had been trying to get Virtual PC to work and even the simple task of mounting an .ISO image as the virtual CDROM was a headache .
Having heard about VirtualBox here on / .
I went ahead and downloaded it and got it up and running .
I have n't looked back since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree one hundred percent.
I had been trying to get Virtual PC to work and even the simple task of mounting an .ISO image as the virtual CDROM was a headache.
Having heard about VirtualBox here on /.
I went ahead and downloaded it and got it up and running.
I haven't looked back since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467006</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you installed the "guest tools"? Shares will then show up in Windows automatically. Though they're "vbox" shares, not smb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you installed the " guest tools " ?
Shares will then show up in Windows automatically .
Though they 're " vbox " shares , not smb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you installed the "guest tools"?
Shares will then show up in Windows automatically.
Though they're "vbox" shares, not smb</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30474178</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualbox</title>
	<author>Dragee</author>
	<datestamp>1261068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm misunderstanding your question, I apologize in advance, but I think a solution to your problem with iso's is to work independently of virtualbox if it's not working for you, and use some other tools.  I have found that VirtualCloneDrive (http://www.slysoft.com/en/download.html) and ISO Recorder (http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm) installed in my windows vm's make working with iso's easier, because I can mount or create iso's independently of whatever hypervisor I'm using, as long as I can get to my iso's share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm misunderstanding your question , I apologize in advance , but I think a solution to your problem with iso 's is to work independently of virtualbox if it 's not working for you , and use some other tools .
I have found that VirtualCloneDrive ( http : //www.slysoft.com/en/download.html ) and ISO Recorder ( http : //isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm ) installed in my windows vm 's make working with iso 's easier , because I can mount or create iso 's independently of whatever hypervisor I 'm using , as long as I can get to my iso 's share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm misunderstanding your question, I apologize in advance, but I think a solution to your problem with iso's is to work independently of virtualbox if it's not working for you, and use some other tools.
I have found that VirtualCloneDrive (http://www.slysoft.com/en/download.html) and ISO Recorder (http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm) installed in my windows vm's make working with iso's easier, because I can mount or create iso's independently of whatever hypervisor I'm using, as long as I can get to my iso's share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464566</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259664420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They call VMware Workstation at $189 "expensive".</i></p><p><i>It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.</i></p><p>Wrong.</p><p>At my company, we've decided to develop a whole new product line with embedded Linux, which of course means we need an actual Linux system to develop with.  We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with an embedded Linux vendor for them to make a port of Linux for a certain CPU we're using, and for licenses for their development tools, plus for all the custom development hardware.</p><p>However, since all our desktop computers are very old and run XP (and a few run 2000 because they're too old for XP), we decided to use one computer to run Linux, and we'd all VNC into it.  Since we wanted to be able to try a couple different distros in case of compatibility problems with our vendors, we (the IT dept actually) decided to use one computer running a VM.  So, they use VirtualBox (because it's free), on top of some recycled old desktop computer for our entire team to do development (i.e., lots of recompiling) on.  Why not get a new server system with 2 or 4 Xeons?  Because "there's no money in the budget for that".</p><p>So here, we can afford literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for software from certain vendors, but we can't afford $189 for VM software from a different vendor, nor can we afford $2000-5000 for a decent computer to do our development on with all this 6-figure licensed software.  For anything that comes out of the IT department's budget, we're only allowed to make do with whatever we can download for free or old hardware we can reuse from elsewhere.</p><p>BTW, we've had all kinds of problems with VirtualBox on this set-up, causing many days' worth of lost time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They call VMware Workstation at $ 189 " expensive " .It 's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.Wrong.At my company , we 've decided to develop a whole new product line with embedded Linux , which of course means we need an actual Linux system to develop with .
We 've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with an embedded Linux vendor for them to make a port of Linux for a certain CPU we 're using , and for licenses for their development tools , plus for all the custom development hardware.However , since all our desktop computers are very old and run XP ( and a few run 2000 because they 're too old for XP ) , we decided to use one computer to run Linux , and we 'd all VNC into it .
Since we wanted to be able to try a couple different distros in case of compatibility problems with our vendors , we ( the IT dept actually ) decided to use one computer running a VM .
So , they use VirtualBox ( because it 's free ) , on top of some recycled old desktop computer for our entire team to do development ( i.e. , lots of recompiling ) on .
Why not get a new server system with 2 or 4 Xeons ?
Because " there 's no money in the budget for that " .So here , we can afford literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for software from certain vendors , but we ca n't afford $ 189 for VM software from a different vendor , nor can we afford $ 2000-5000 for a decent computer to do our development on with all this 6-figure licensed software .
For anything that comes out of the IT department 's budget , we 're only allowed to make do with whatever we can download for free or old hardware we can reuse from elsewhere.BTW , we 've had all kinds of problems with VirtualBox on this set-up , causing many days ' worth of lost time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call VMware Workstation at $189 "expensive".It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.Wrong.At my company, we've decided to develop a whole new product line with embedded Linux, which of course means we need an actual Linux system to develop with.
We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with an embedded Linux vendor for them to make a port of Linux for a certain CPU we're using, and for licenses for their development tools, plus for all the custom development hardware.However, since all our desktop computers are very old and run XP (and a few run 2000 because they're too old for XP), we decided to use one computer to run Linux, and we'd all VNC into it.
Since we wanted to be able to try a couple different distros in case of compatibility problems with our vendors, we (the IT dept actually) decided to use one computer running a VM.
So, they use VirtualBox (because it's free), on top of some recycled old desktop computer for our entire team to do development (i.e., lots of recompiling) on.
Why not get a new server system with 2 or 4 Xeons?
Because "there's no money in the budget for that".So here, we can afford literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for software from certain vendors, but we can't afford $189 for VM software from a different vendor, nor can we afford $2000-5000 for a decent computer to do our development on with all this 6-figure licensed software.
For anything that comes out of the IT department's budget, we're only allowed to make do with whatever we can download for free or old hardware we can reuse from elsewhere.BTW, we've had all kinds of problems with VirtualBox on this set-up, causing many days' worth of lost time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463686</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. We run a test automation farm of about 60 virtual machines using VMWare server. It rocks. I'm thinking of setting it up on a machine at home and running multiple Window's machines on it. Very, very cool technology.</p><p>When it works</p><p>Which it often doesn't. There are bugs in the Linux underpinning the application, bugs in the application, bugs in Windows, bugs in our application and bugs in the automated testing system used to test our application. Not just bugs, but daemons, and they're *not* well behaved.</p><p>Every day is a new adventure!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
We run a test automation farm of about 60 virtual machines using VMWare server .
It rocks .
I 'm thinking of setting it up on a machine at home and running multiple Window 's machines on it .
Very , very cool technology.When it worksWhich it often does n't .
There are bugs in the Linux underpinning the application , bugs in the application , bugs in Windows , bugs in our application and bugs in the automated testing system used to test our application .
Not just bugs , but daemons , and they 're * not * well behaved.Every day is a new adventure !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
We run a test automation farm of about 60 virtual machines using VMWare server.
It rocks.
I'm thinking of setting it up on a machine at home and running multiple Window's machines on it.
Very, very cool technology.When it worksWhich it often doesn't.
There are bugs in the Linux underpinning the application, bugs in the application, bugs in Windows, bugs in our application and bugs in the automated testing system used to test our application.
Not just bugs, but daemons, and they're *not* well behaved.Every day is a new adventure!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473358</id>
	<title>Virtual Box Issue, and VMWare Player</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VirtualBox is a great option, and as an OSS product it would be my first choice, but the big problem is the license.</p><p>For a small business (sub 50 computers) where we need to run 20-30 VMs on individual machines, we can't use the PUEL license. The OSS option is not an option, as it does NOT support USB. So you still have to pay for the product. And this is where it gets hairy, because if you are a small business, you don't have a Sun representative to contact, and I have never gotten a response to emails with requests for pricing. So I can't even go to management and tell them how much it will cost.</p><p>VMWare Player plus a single workstation license to create and configure the vms was the lowest cost option for a while. But now that VMWare Player 3 has come out, I don't even need workstation. VMWare Player can create virtual machines and install the tools into them, and change any of the important settings easily.</p><p>So now it doesn't matter how good VirtualBox gets, it is competing against free. At the high end, IT already knows VMWare; at the low end there is no incremental cost and a clear license. VirtualBox is easy to use. But now, even if they cleaned up the USB license and distributed a precompiled binary, everyone is trained on player, the VMs are built for player, and there is a certain amount of lock in. Feature for feature, snapshots are the only difference I see, but most of our users don't need them anyway.</p><p>I hate recommending the closed source option against an OSS one, but this call isn't one of those. It was disappointing that the article never touched on that, since clearly workstation and parallels are primarily intended for professionals. The authors license was legitimate (evaluation) but his audience of professionals? They aren't compiling their own without USB, they are breaking the license. And that doesn't help OSS at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VirtualBox is a great option , and as an OSS product it would be my first choice , but the big problem is the license.For a small business ( sub 50 computers ) where we need to run 20-30 VMs on individual machines , we ca n't use the PUEL license .
The OSS option is not an option , as it does NOT support USB .
So you still have to pay for the product .
And this is where it gets hairy , because if you are a small business , you do n't have a Sun representative to contact , and I have never gotten a response to emails with requests for pricing .
So I ca n't even go to management and tell them how much it will cost.VMWare Player plus a single workstation license to create and configure the vms was the lowest cost option for a while .
But now that VMWare Player 3 has come out , I do n't even need workstation .
VMWare Player can create virtual machines and install the tools into them , and change any of the important settings easily.So now it does n't matter how good VirtualBox gets , it is competing against free .
At the high end , IT already knows VMWare ; at the low end there is no incremental cost and a clear license .
VirtualBox is easy to use .
But now , even if they cleaned up the USB license and distributed a precompiled binary , everyone is trained on player , the VMs are built for player , and there is a certain amount of lock in .
Feature for feature , snapshots are the only difference I see , but most of our users do n't need them anyway.I hate recommending the closed source option against an OSS one , but this call is n't one of those .
It was disappointing that the article never touched on that , since clearly workstation and parallels are primarily intended for professionals .
The authors license was legitimate ( evaluation ) but his audience of professionals ?
They are n't compiling their own without USB , they are breaking the license .
And that does n't help OSS at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VirtualBox is a great option, and as an OSS product it would be my first choice, but the big problem is the license.For a small business (sub 50 computers) where we need to run 20-30 VMs on individual machines, we can't use the PUEL license.
The OSS option is not an option, as it does NOT support USB.
So you still have to pay for the product.
And this is where it gets hairy, because if you are a small business, you don't have a Sun representative to contact, and I have never gotten a response to emails with requests for pricing.
So I can't even go to management and tell them how much it will cost.VMWare Player plus a single workstation license to create and configure the vms was the lowest cost option for a while.
But now that VMWare Player 3 has come out, I don't even need workstation.
VMWare Player can create virtual machines and install the tools into them, and change any of the important settings easily.So now it doesn't matter how good VirtualBox gets, it is competing against free.
At the high end, IT already knows VMWare; at the low end there is no incremental cost and a clear license.
VirtualBox is easy to use.
But now, even if they cleaned up the USB license and distributed a precompiled binary, everyone is trained on player, the VMs are built for player, and there is a certain amount of lock in.
Feature for feature, snapshots are the only difference I see, but most of our users don't need them anyway.I hate recommending the closed source option against an OSS one, but this call isn't one of those.
It was disappointing that the article never touched on that, since clearly workstation and parallels are primarily intended for professionals.
The authors license was legitimate (evaluation) but his audience of professionals?
They aren't compiling their own without USB, they are breaking the license.
And that doesn't help OSS at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464192</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1259663160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP, designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>because there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once</p></div><p>If the games you are playing in a VM are DOS / W95, the whole VM should take minimal CPU, memory, and graphics resources.  On a modern multi-core multi-ghz PC with 2-4 gigs of RAM, I'd say that makes plenty of sense.  One a quad-core x86, you should be able to run 10 old games in parallel W95 vms and still run each better than on an old sub-333mhz pentium the game was originally intended for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP , designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.because there 's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at onceIf the games you are playing in a VM are DOS / W95 , the whole VM should take minimal CPU , memory , and graphics resources .
On a modern multi-core multi-ghz PC with 2-4 gigs of RAM , I 'd say that makes plenty of sense .
One a quad-core x86 , you should be able to run 10 old games in parallel W95 vms and still run each better than on an old sub-333mhz pentium the game was originally intended for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP, designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.because there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at onceIf the games you are playing in a VM are DOS / W95, the whole VM should take minimal CPU, memory, and graphics resources.
On a modern multi-core multi-ghz PC with 2-4 gigs of RAM, I'd say that makes plenty of sense.
One a quad-core x86, you should be able to run 10 old games in parallel W95 vms and still run each better than on an old sub-333mhz pentium the game was originally intended for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469252</id>
	<title>Re:Colour-critical work? Forget VMWare.</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1259690220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and you are doing this for web design to be accessed by users where exactly 0\% of them will have their hardware and software configured to get anything out of the extra work and money you expended, assuming they have hardware even capable of doing it were they to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you are doing this for web design to be accessed by users where exactly 0 \ % of them will have their hardware and software configured to get anything out of the extra work and money you expended , assuming they have hardware even capable of doing it were they to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you are doing this for web design to be accessed by users where exactly 0\% of them will have their hardware and software configured to get anything out of the extra work and money you expended, assuming they have hardware even capable of doing it were they to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464114</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259662920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or watching videos.  I have a Windows XP VM on my Linux machine and Netflix movies play great on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or watching videos .
I have a Windows XP VM on my Linux machine and Netflix movies play great on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or watching videos.
I have a Windows XP VM on my Linux machine and Netflix movies play great on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465546</id>
	<title>Re:VirtualBox is an excellent product</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1259667360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest. I'm sure it must be possible.</p></div><p>I have successfully installed OS X on a VMware Workstation 7 VM, but I can't boot from the virtual hard drive...I have to boot from the CD, then tell it to use the HD as root.</p><p>I suspect this is from my lack of experience in building a Hackintosh, and the bootloader/kernel on the hard disk is not correct for non-Mac hardware.</p><p>In my testing, I have also found that <b>nothing</b> could get the OS X installer to boot on a Core i7 (either through a VM or raw hardware).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest .
I 'm sure it must be possible.I have successfully installed OS X on a VMware Workstation 7 VM , but I ca n't boot from the virtual hard drive...I have to boot from the CD , then tell it to use the HD as root.I suspect this is from my lack of experience in building a Hackintosh , and the bootloader/kernel on the hard disk is not correct for non-Mac hardware.In my testing , I have also found that nothing could get the OS X installer to boot on a Core i7 ( either through a VM or raw hardware ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest.
I'm sure it must be possible.I have successfully installed OS X on a VMware Workstation 7 VM, but I can't boot from the virtual hard drive...I have to boot from the CD, then tell it to use the HD as root.I suspect this is from my lack of experience in building a Hackintosh, and the bootloader/kernel on the hard disk is not correct for non-Mac hardware.In my testing, I have also found that nothing could get the OS X installer to boot on a Core i7 (either through a VM or raw hardware).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464496</id>
	<title>Don't forget Wine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to add Wine to the comparison - they up to v1.0.1 now.</p><p>And if you are using a Mac, that means you should consider <a href="http://winebottler.kronenberg.org/" title="kronenberg.org">Wine Bottler</a> [kronenberg.org]. It's like CrossoverOver, but it's better and free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to add Wine to the comparison - they up to v1.0.1 now.And if you are using a Mac , that means you should consider Wine Bottler [ kronenberg.org ] .
It 's like CrossoverOver , but it 's better and free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to add Wine to the comparison - they up to v1.0.1 now.And if you are using a Mac, that means you should consider Wine Bottler [kronenberg.org].
It's like CrossoverOver, but it's better and free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464044</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1259662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use VMWare server 1.x  You can get it through their website and they still patch it when security flaws are found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use VMWare server 1.x You can get it through their website and they still patch it when security flaws are found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use VMWare server 1.x  You can get it through their website and they still patch it when security flaws are found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464570</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259664420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>those bugs were?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>those bugs were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those bugs were?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466824</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>pdbaby</author>
	<datestamp>1259672700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want accelerated 3D for free then you want VMware Player 3. The only things it lacks are the advanced snapshots and replay features of Workstation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want accelerated 3D for free then you want VMware Player 3 .
The only things it lacks are the advanced snapshots and replay features of Workstation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want accelerated 3D for free then you want VMware Player 3.
The only things it lacks are the advanced snapshots and replay features of Workstation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464706</id>
	<title>VirtualBox is an excellent product</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1259664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no doubt that VMWare is a good product but the UI is terrible, and performance can be a bit iffy. On the other hand I've had nothing but a good experience with VirtualBox. Performance is excellent and the UI is nice and friendly too. I'm sure I might think different if I were some admin with a whole bank of these to run and other requirements, but for personal use VirtualBox has been far better than VMWare.
<p>
It's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest. I'm sure it must be possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no doubt that VMWare is a good product but the UI is terrible , and performance can be a bit iffy .
On the other hand I 've had nothing but a good experience with VirtualBox .
Performance is excellent and the UI is nice and friendly too .
I 'm sure I might think different if I were some admin with a whole bank of these to run and other requirements , but for personal use VirtualBox has been far better than VMWare .
It 's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest .
I 'm sure it must be possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no doubt that VMWare is a good product but the UI is terrible, and performance can be a bit iffy.
On the other hand I've had nothing but a good experience with VirtualBox.
Performance is excellent and the UI is nice and friendly too.
I'm sure I might think different if I were some admin with a whole bank of these to run and other requirements, but for personal use VirtualBox has been far better than VMWare.
It's too bad that no VM tool seems to support OS X as a guest.
I'm sure it must be possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>jasonwc</author>
	<datestamp>1259664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wanted to say that I have some experience with Virtualbox 3.1 and I disagree with the "ease-of-use" assessment of 7/10. I've played around with VMWare 7, Virtualbox, and VirtualPC, and Virtualbox is about as easy as a virtualization program can get. It has a simple GUI interface to setup your VM, provides sane settings by default, and allows lots of optimizations (like increasing # of cores used and 3D accel) easily.</p><p>I'm currently running Ubuntu 9.10 x86 in Windows 7 Professional x64, sharing 4 CPUs and allocating 512 MB of RAM to the VM. The VM runs very well and starts up incredibly fast. I'm very happy with it. It was also dead easy to install. Virtualbox also has a huge array of support for OS's - pretty much every Linux flavor, all Windows verisons from DOS/Win 3.x to Win 7/2008 R2, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, BeOS, Haiku etc.  See <a href="http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest\_OSes" title="virtualbox.org">http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest\_OSes</a> [virtualbox.org] for a full list.</p><p>In addition, it has VT-x and AMD-V support, but it isn't required. But, the best part is that it is open source (there is a closed version with a few more features) and FREE.</p><p>I didn't find Vmware as easy to use (rated 9/10). It was fine, just not easier than Virtualbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wanted to say that I have some experience with Virtualbox 3.1 and I disagree with the " ease-of-use " assessment of 7/10 .
I 've played around with VMWare 7 , Virtualbox , and VirtualPC , and Virtualbox is about as easy as a virtualization program can get .
It has a simple GUI interface to setup your VM , provides sane settings by default , and allows lots of optimizations ( like increasing # of cores used and 3D accel ) easily.I 'm currently running Ubuntu 9.10 x86 in Windows 7 Professional x64 , sharing 4 CPUs and allocating 512 MB of RAM to the VM .
The VM runs very well and starts up incredibly fast .
I 'm very happy with it .
It was also dead easy to install .
Virtualbox also has a huge array of support for OS 's - pretty much every Linux flavor , all Windows verisons from DOS/Win 3.x to Win 7/2008 R2 , OpenBSD , FreeBSD , BeOS , Haiku etc .
See http : //www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest \ _OSes [ virtualbox.org ] for a full list.In addition , it has VT-x and AMD-V support , but it is n't required .
But , the best part is that it is open source ( there is a closed version with a few more features ) and FREE.I did n't find Vmware as easy to use ( rated 9/10 ) .
It was fine , just not easier than Virtualbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wanted to say that I have some experience with Virtualbox 3.1 and I disagree with the "ease-of-use" assessment of 7/10.
I've played around with VMWare 7, Virtualbox, and VirtualPC, and Virtualbox is about as easy as a virtualization program can get.
It has a simple GUI interface to setup your VM, provides sane settings by default, and allows lots of optimizations (like increasing # of cores used and 3D accel) easily.I'm currently running Ubuntu 9.10 x86 in Windows 7 Professional x64, sharing 4 CPUs and allocating 512 MB of RAM to the VM.
The VM runs very well and starts up incredibly fast.
I'm very happy with it.
It was also dead easy to install.
Virtualbox also has a huge array of support for OS's - pretty much every Linux flavor, all Windows verisons from DOS/Win 3.x to Win 7/2008 R2, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, BeOS, Haiku etc.
See http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest\_OSes [virtualbox.org] for a full list.In addition, it has VT-x and AMD-V support, but it isn't required.
But, the best part is that it is open source (there is a closed version with a few more features) and FREE.I didn't find Vmware as easy to use (rated 9/10).
It was fine, just not easier than Virtualbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does not do accelerated 3d.  That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal' users trying to play games in their VM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not do accelerated 3d .
That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal ' users trying to play games in their VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not do accelerated 3d.
That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal' users trying to play games in their VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466850</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>pdbaby</author>
	<datestamp>1259672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like you want VMware Player... it's free and I find it a much more reliable virtualisation system than VirtualBox. It's effectively VMware Server without the ability to disconnect from the VM display (since they're trying to push people doing server virtualisation onto ESXi (and then onto their pricey products as a result).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you want VMware Player... it 's free and I find it a much more reliable virtualisation system than VirtualBox .
It 's effectively VMware Server without the ability to disconnect from the VM display ( since they 're trying to push people doing server virtualisation onto ESXi ( and then onto their pricey products as a result ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you want VMware Player... it's free and I find it a much more reliable virtualisation system than VirtualBox.
It's effectively VMware Server without the ability to disconnect from the VM display (since they're trying to push people doing server virtualisation onto ESXi (and then onto their pricey products as a result).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466346</id>
	<title>Re:Virtualbox</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1259670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image (as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play).</i> </p><p>I've never tried to burn CDs from an inside a VirtualBox VM, but I always install the OS from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso images and it works just fine.  We have a volume license agreement with Microsoft and they provide<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso files for all of their OSes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image ( as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play ) .
I 've never tried to burn CDs from an inside a VirtualBox VM , but I always install the OS from .iso images and it works just fine .
We have a volume license agreement with Microsoft and they provide .iso files for all of their OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image (as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play).
I've never tried to burn CDs from an inside a VirtualBox VM, but I always install the OS from .iso images and it works just fine.
We have a volume license agreement with Microsoft and they provide .iso files for all of their OSes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465228</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>negge</author>
	<datestamp>1259666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, with VMWare Server 2.x, you can connect to the host machine using VMWare Infrastructure Client. It looks and feels just like connecting to a ESX/ESXi server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , with VMWare Server 2.x , you can connect to the host machine using VMWare Infrastructure Client .
It looks and feels just like connecting to a ESX/ESXi server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, with VMWare Server 2.x, you can connect to the host machine using VMWare Infrastructure Client.
It looks and feels just like connecting to a ESX/ESXi server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468464</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After wrestling with the borked Java and Tomcat crap, I ended up finding that VMWare server 2.x is more trouble than its worth.  Its not like EMC doesn't know their stuff, as VMWare Workstation is very good, if you can afford the licenses.</p><p>For a hypervisor for most people, I'd go with VirtualBox for most things.  VirtualPC is also very good for a lot of tasks, and if you have Windows 7, a Windows XP VM is two downloads (XP image and VirtualPC) away.</p><p>Server-wise, believe it or not, Hyper-V is better than people think.  Yes, it requires hardware support, but it does a great job at virtualizing stuff with a relatively low performance penalty.  If I were doing a dedicated Windows solution, I'd probably go with that.</p><p>Of course, don't forget Xen.  People don't mention it much, but it likely will end up a hard hitter too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After wrestling with the borked Java and Tomcat crap , I ended up finding that VMWare server 2.x is more trouble than its worth .
Its not like EMC does n't know their stuff , as VMWare Workstation is very good , if you can afford the licenses.For a hypervisor for most people , I 'd go with VirtualBox for most things .
VirtualPC is also very good for a lot of tasks , and if you have Windows 7 , a Windows XP VM is two downloads ( XP image and VirtualPC ) away.Server-wise , believe it or not , Hyper-V is better than people think .
Yes , it requires hardware support , but it does a great job at virtualizing stuff with a relatively low performance penalty .
If I were doing a dedicated Windows solution , I 'd probably go with that.Of course , do n't forget Xen .
People do n't mention it much , but it likely will end up a hard hitter too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After wrestling with the borked Java and Tomcat crap, I ended up finding that VMWare server 2.x is more trouble than its worth.
Its not like EMC doesn't know their stuff, as VMWare Workstation is very good, if you can afford the licenses.For a hypervisor for most people, I'd go with VirtualBox for most things.
VirtualPC is also very good for a lot of tasks, and if you have Windows 7, a Windows XP VM is two downloads (XP image and VirtualPC) away.Server-wise, believe it or not, Hyper-V is better than people think.
Yes, it requires hardware support, but it does a great job at virtualizing stuff with a relatively low performance penalty.
If I were doing a dedicated Windows solution, I'd probably go with that.Of course, don't forget Xen.
People don't mention it much, but it likely will end up a hard hitter too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468324</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>LVSlushdat</author>
	<datestamp>1259682540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here.. Have a quad core Dell server with 4GB of ram, running Ubuntu 8.04 server, with 3 Virtualbox VMs, two Windows 2003 server instances, and a 2008 instance. Since the system is headless, the command line VBoxHeadless utility is fantastic... Don't know where all these bugs the parent poster mentions are... I also use Virtualbox on my laptop to allow me to run several Linux distros under Windows7.. Been flawless for me!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here.. Have a quad core Dell server with 4GB of ram , running Ubuntu 8.04 server , with 3 Virtualbox VMs , two Windows 2003 server instances , and a 2008 instance .
Since the system is headless , the command line VBoxHeadless utility is fantastic... Do n't know where all these bugs the parent poster mentions are... I also use Virtualbox on my laptop to allow me to run several Linux distros under Windows7.. Been flawless for me !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.. Have a quad core Dell server with 4GB of ram, running Ubuntu 8.04 server, with 3 Virtualbox VMs, two Windows 2003 server instances, and a 2008 instance.
Since the system is headless, the command line VBoxHeadless utility is fantastic... Don't know where all these bugs the parent poster mentions are... I also use Virtualbox on my laptop to allow me to run several Linux distros under Windows7.. Been flawless for me!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464308</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>Galactic Dominator</author>
	<datestamp>1259663520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable. I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.</p></div><p>No you will not.  Recent Virtualbox is very stable, I haven't seen a crash on Vbox version &gt; 3.0.1  I use it in complex networking high peak load setups without issue.  Only time I can bring it down is running high load in a nested hypervisor environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware , to the point of being not very usable .
I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.No you will not .
Recent Virtualbox is very stable , I have n't seen a crash on Vbox version &gt; 3.0.1 I use it in complex networking high peak load setups without issue .
Only time I can bring it down is running high load in a nested hypervisor environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable.
I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.No you will not.
Recent Virtualbox is very stable, I haven't seen a crash on Vbox version &gt; 3.0.1  I use it in complex networking high peak load setups without issue.
Only time I can bring it down is running high load in a nested hypervisor environment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464126</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1259662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If partitions can offer the same kind of flexibility as VMs then sure.</p><p>With some VM systems, it is possible to have forks off a central VM.  i could have MAIN, MAIN + GAME1, MAIN + GAME2....  If some super hard core LAN gamer wanted to do that they could end up with a dozens partitions... or one VM with several snapshots.</p><p>Are there partitioning systems, or tricks with partitioning that might do something like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If partitions can offer the same kind of flexibility as VMs then sure.With some VM systems , it is possible to have forks off a central VM .
i could have MAIN , MAIN + GAME1 , MAIN + GAME2.... If some super hard core LAN gamer wanted to do that they could end up with a dozens partitions... or one VM with several snapshots.Are there partitioning systems , or tricks with partitioning that might do something like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If partitions can offer the same kind of flexibility as VMs then sure.With some VM systems, it is possible to have forks off a central VM.
i could have MAIN, MAIN + GAME1, MAIN + GAME2....  If some super hard core LAN gamer wanted to do that they could end up with a dozens partitions... or one VM with several snapshots.Are there partitioning systems, or tricks with partitioning that might do something like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464960</id>
	<title>Re:On the Atom processor netbook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait? You have an Atom processor running Windows XP with a VirtualBox VM Machine and it works well?</p><p>I've got an Acer LT and I'd love to do this!</p><p>I'm currently using an AMD64 with 32-bit winxp and it rocks. You think the ATOM 1.6GHz (1G Mem) LT would run ok with VirtualBox? (The LT's my main PC ATM and I'm reluctant to get too "experimental.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait ?
You have an Atom processor running Windows XP with a VirtualBox VM Machine and it works well ? I 've got an Acer LT and I 'd love to do this ! I 'm currently using an AMD64 with 32-bit winxp and it rocks .
You think the ATOM 1.6GHz ( 1G Mem ) LT would run ok with VirtualBox ?
( The LT 's my main PC ATM and I 'm reluctant to get too " experimental .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait?
You have an Atom processor running Windows XP with a VirtualBox VM Machine and it works well?I've got an Acer LT and I'd love to do this!I'm currently using an AMD64 with 32-bit winxp and it rocks.
You think the ATOM 1.6GHz (1G Mem) LT would run ok with VirtualBox?
(The LT's my main PC ATM and I'm reluctant to get too "experimental.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30472278</id>
	<title>Re:Where's KVM</title>
	<author>short</author>
	<datestamp>1261058100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>slashdot in recent years does not expect you would not run Windows as your host OS (to play with that Linux game as the guest OS).</htmltext>
<tokenext>slashdot in recent years does not expect you would not run Windows as your host OS ( to play with that Linux game as the guest OS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slashdot in recent years does not expect you would not run Windows as your host OS (to play with that Linux game as the guest OS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466242</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1259669880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What problems did you run into with Virtual Box?  I found it to be simple to use.</p><p>1. Download software<br>2. Run software<br>3. Define parameters of VM<br>4. Point virtual CD at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.iso image of OS<br>5. Install OS</p><p>Then it just works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What problems did you run into with Virtual Box ?
I found it to be simple to use.1 .
Download software2 .
Run software3 .
Define parameters of VM4 .
Point virtual CD at .iso image of OS5 .
Install OSThen it just works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What problems did you run into with Virtual Box?
I found it to be simple to use.1.
Download software2.
Run software3.
Define parameters of VM4.
Point virtual CD at .iso image of OS5.
Install OSThen it just works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464424</id>
	<title>Virtual box is great, but doesn't scale.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1259664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For smaller scope tasks, there's nothing wrong with Virtual Box, but when you start running 50+ machines, you just need something like ESXi server. I've never used the web interface and don't plan to. We always use the Windows client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For smaller scope tasks , there 's nothing wrong with Virtual Box , but when you start running 50 + machines , you just need something like ESXi server .
I 've never used the web interface and do n't plan to .
We always use the Windows client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For smaller scope tasks, there's nothing wrong with Virtual Box, but when you start running 50+ machines, you just need something like ESXi server.
I've never used the web interface and don't plan to.
We always use the Windows client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752</id>
	<title>On the Atom processor netbook</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1259661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>VirtualBox rules.  XP on VMWare barely ran while the same Win XP install on VirtualBox is working well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VirtualBox rules .
XP on VMWare barely ran while the same Win XP install on VirtualBox is working well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VirtualBox rules.
XP on VMWare barely ran while the same Win XP install on VirtualBox is working well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467790</id>
	<title>Virtual Box: Ubuntu Host, XP Guest and Gaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I took the big jump and ditched my OEM Windows Vista Installation and installed Ubuntu on my home laptop (my main computer).</p><p>I could not come to grips with the failure of Windows Vista as an operating system, and Microsoft's decision to roll out Windows 7.  They shipped me trash with Windows Vista.  I shouldn't have to guard my information with such vigilance.  I shouldn't have to have a cleaner for this and a cleaner for that.  I shouldn't have to worry about picking up some virus during general internet browsing. I shouldn't have to have two browsers loaded on one machine (win explorer and firefox).  I shouldn't have to put up with the crap that is associated with any Windows distribution.  There must be something better.  Give me my grandmother's linux, give me Ubuntu.</p><p>Now, let's talk about gaming, something that is tightly tied to Windows distributions due to their control of the market place.  There are several games that I enjoy playing that require Windows to run, Sim City, Rome Total War, Close Combat, and a few others.  So, since my move to Ubuntu, I've investigated the many options available to emulate a Windows Box.</p><p>So, from what I can gather there are three viable options: WIne, VM Ware, and Sun's VirtualBox.<br>- First I tried WIne.  Quite a disappointment when it comes to ease of use.  Being new to Ubuntu, it was and is not easy for me to use. And, I've had no success installing the games mentioned above. So, I've stopped trying to use it<br>- Second I tried VirtualBox.  I had used VirtualBox before with success on a Vista host with a XP guest for the purposes of work.  So, when using it on an Ubuntu host with a XP guest, the user interface was very familiar.  Along with the familiarity I experience came the same satisfaction with the user interface.  I don't know if it would be any easier if Sun came to my house and installed it all for me.</p><p>So what are the negatives for VirtualBox?  From what I can tell, no support for DirectX.  While I can install and play SimCity4 (uses DirectDraw).  I can not install and play Rome Total War (uses DirectX).  I'm no expert, but I think this is because DirectX is Windows proprietary.</p><p>So, DirectX compatibility with VirtualBox is the roadblock between me and living happily ever after with my move to Ubuntu.  But in the end, to me the value of being able to kick Windows to the curb outweighs the loss of the one game.</p><p>Someday, game companies will realize they could be free of the all encompassing grip of Windows if they would only do the work necessary to develop for a well supported Linux distribution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I took the big jump and ditched my OEM Windows Vista Installation and installed Ubuntu on my home laptop ( my main computer ) .I could not come to grips with the failure of Windows Vista as an operating system , and Microsoft 's decision to roll out Windows 7 .
They shipped me trash with Windows Vista .
I should n't have to guard my information with such vigilance .
I should n't have to have a cleaner for this and a cleaner for that .
I should n't have to worry about picking up some virus during general internet browsing .
I should n't have to have two browsers loaded on one machine ( win explorer and firefox ) .
I should n't have to put up with the crap that is associated with any Windows distribution .
There must be something better .
Give me my grandmother 's linux , give me Ubuntu.Now , let 's talk about gaming , something that is tightly tied to Windows distributions due to their control of the market place .
There are several games that I enjoy playing that require Windows to run , Sim City , Rome Total War , Close Combat , and a few others .
So , since my move to Ubuntu , I 've investigated the many options available to emulate a Windows Box.So , from what I can gather there are three viable options : WIne , VM Ware , and Sun 's VirtualBox.- First I tried WIne .
Quite a disappointment when it comes to ease of use .
Being new to Ubuntu , it was and is not easy for me to use .
And , I 've had no success installing the games mentioned above .
So , I 've stopped trying to use it- Second I tried VirtualBox .
I had used VirtualBox before with success on a Vista host with a XP guest for the purposes of work .
So , when using it on an Ubuntu host with a XP guest , the user interface was very familiar .
Along with the familiarity I experience came the same satisfaction with the user interface .
I do n't know if it would be any easier if Sun came to my house and installed it all for me.So what are the negatives for VirtualBox ?
From what I can tell , no support for DirectX .
While I can install and play SimCity4 ( uses DirectDraw ) .
I can not install and play Rome Total War ( uses DirectX ) .
I 'm no expert , but I think this is because DirectX is Windows proprietary.So , DirectX compatibility with VirtualBox is the roadblock between me and living happily ever after with my move to Ubuntu .
But in the end , to me the value of being able to kick Windows to the curb outweighs the loss of the one game.Someday , game companies will realize they could be free of the all encompassing grip of Windows if they would only do the work necessary to develop for a well supported Linux distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I took the big jump and ditched my OEM Windows Vista Installation and installed Ubuntu on my home laptop (my main computer).I could not come to grips with the failure of Windows Vista as an operating system, and Microsoft's decision to roll out Windows 7.
They shipped me trash with Windows Vista.
I shouldn't have to guard my information with such vigilance.
I shouldn't have to have a cleaner for this and a cleaner for that.
I shouldn't have to worry about picking up some virus during general internet browsing.
I shouldn't have to have two browsers loaded on one machine (win explorer and firefox).
I shouldn't have to put up with the crap that is associated with any Windows distribution.
There must be something better.
Give me my grandmother's linux, give me Ubuntu.Now, let's talk about gaming, something that is tightly tied to Windows distributions due to their control of the market place.
There are several games that I enjoy playing that require Windows to run, Sim City, Rome Total War, Close Combat, and a few others.
So, since my move to Ubuntu, I've investigated the many options available to emulate a Windows Box.So, from what I can gather there are three viable options: WIne, VM Ware, and Sun's VirtualBox.- First I tried WIne.
Quite a disappointment when it comes to ease of use.
Being new to Ubuntu, it was and is not easy for me to use.
And, I've had no success installing the games mentioned above.
So, I've stopped trying to use it- Second I tried VirtualBox.
I had used VirtualBox before with success on a Vista host with a XP guest for the purposes of work.
So, when using it on an Ubuntu host with a XP guest, the user interface was very familiar.
Along with the familiarity I experience came the same satisfaction with the user interface.
I don't know if it would be any easier if Sun came to my house and installed it all for me.So what are the negatives for VirtualBox?
From what I can tell, no support for DirectX.
While I can install and play SimCity4 (uses DirectDraw).
I can not install and play Rome Total War (uses DirectX).
I'm no expert, but I think this is because DirectX is Windows proprietary.So, DirectX compatibility with VirtualBox is the roadblock between me and living happily ever after with my move to Ubuntu.
But in the end, to me the value of being able to kick Windows to the curb outweighs the loss of the one game.Someday, game companies will realize they could be free of the all encompassing grip of Windows if they would only do the work necessary to develop for a well supported Linux distribution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856</id>
	<title>Virtualbox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Virtual box on a pair of mac intel core duo 2 machines to run windows XP pro I'm very pleased with it. It essentially works perfectly. I don't care that it is only single processor since All I want is basic seemless windows functionality for those few cases where software is windows only.<p>

it works well with USB devices. I use it to program Lego Mindostorms, and for Midi (to USB) keyboard input and some thumb drives.</p><p>

it will mount any folder on my mac disk either permenantly or temporarily (these show us as X: or Y: or whatever). What's mildly annoying is that this is 2 step process: first you tell the VM to "add the drive" then you have to use a windows "run" command "net use x: " to tell windows about it. the second step seems strange to me, but you only do it one time.
</p><p>
I've had three things I could not figure out.
</p><p>
I never was able to get a windows media player to mount in media player mode so I could use windows DRM protected WMA files on it and manage it from within windows media player 11. Instead it only will mount as a thumb drive.</p><p>

I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image (as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play).
</p><p>
It will not burn a CD or DVD.
</p><p>
also I never figured out how to add my Samsung C310 printer to it or my HP multifunction printer to it. it does see them, it just never finds the drivers. However I'm pretty certain this is a windows driver problem and nothing to do with the VM.
</p><p>
I don't game so open GL means squat to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Virtual box on a pair of mac intel core duo 2 machines to run windows XP pro I 'm very pleased with it .
It essentially works perfectly .
I do n't care that it is only single processor since All I want is basic seemless windows functionality for those few cases where software is windows only .
it works well with USB devices .
I use it to program Lego Mindostorms , and for Midi ( to USB ) keyboard input and some thumb drives .
it will mount any folder on my mac disk either permenantly or temporarily ( these show us as X : or Y : or whatever ) .
What 's mildly annoying is that this is 2 step process : first you tell the VM to " add the drive " then you have to use a windows " run " command " net use x : " to tell windows about it .
the second step seems strange to me , but you only do it one time .
I 've had three things I could not figure out .
I never was able to get a windows media player to mount in media player mode so I could use windows DRM protected WMA files on it and manage it from within windows media player 11 .
Instead it only will mount as a thumb drive .
I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image ( as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play ) .
It will not burn a CD or DVD .
also I never figured out how to add my Samsung C310 printer to it or my HP multifunction printer to it .
it does see them , it just never finds the drivers .
However I 'm pretty certain this is a windows driver problem and nothing to do with the VM .
I do n't game so open GL means squat to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Virtual box on a pair of mac intel core duo 2 machines to run windows XP pro I'm very pleased with it.
It essentially works perfectly.
I don't care that it is only single processor since All I want is basic seemless windows functionality for those few cases where software is windows only.
it works well with USB devices.
I use it to program Lego Mindostorms, and for Midi (to USB) keyboard input and some thumb drives.
it will mount any folder on my mac disk either permenantly or temporarily (these show us as X: or Y: or whatever).
What's mildly annoying is that this is 2 step process: first you tell the VM to "add the drive" then you have to use a windows "run" command "net use x: " to tell windows about it.
the second step seems strange to me, but you only do it one time.
I've had three things I could not figure out.
I never was able to get a windows media player to mount in media player mode so I could use windows DRM protected WMA files on it and manage it from within windows media player 11.
Instead it only will mount as a thumb drive.
I was not able to get a virtual CD device to mount an iso image or burn an iso image (as a work around for getting the WMA files in a format I could play).
It will not burn a CD or DVD.
also I never figured out how to add my Samsung C310 printer to it or my HP multifunction printer to it.
it does see them, it just never finds the drivers.
However I'm pretty certain this is a windows driver problem and nothing to do with the VM.
I don't game so open GL means squat to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464178</id>
	<title>Parallels Workstation 4.0 EXTREEEEEMMMMEEEE!!!!</title>
	<author>gbrayut</author>
	<datestamp>1259663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use VirtualBox for building a test environment and it works very well. Also the graphics acceleration worked fine for the games that I tested with.

<a href="http://www.parallels.com/products/extreme/" title="parallels.com" rel="nofollow">Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme</a> [parallels.com] looks interesting, but the only "Certified hardware platform" is a HP Z800 Workstation, which costs $2000 to $5000. Add in $400 for the Parallels license and that gets to be a bit steep. Plus the announcer on the <a href="http://www.parallels.com/products/extreme/pwe\_tutorial-en\_US/" title="parallels.com" rel="nofollow">video sounds</a> [parallels.com] like he is trying to sell you a used car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use VirtualBox for building a test environment and it works very well .
Also the graphics acceleration worked fine for the games that I tested with .
Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme [ parallels.com ] looks interesting , but the only " Certified hardware platform " is a HP Z800 Workstation , which costs $ 2000 to $ 5000 .
Add in $ 400 for the Parallels license and that gets to be a bit steep .
Plus the announcer on the video sounds [ parallels.com ] like he is trying to sell you a used car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use VirtualBox for building a test environment and it works very well.
Also the graphics acceleration worked fine for the games that I tested with.
Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme [parallels.com] looks interesting, but the only "Certified hardware platform" is a HP Z800 Workstation, which costs $2000 to $5000.
Add in $400 for the Parallels license and that gets to be a bit steep.
Plus the announcer on the video sounds [parallels.com] like he is trying to sell you a used car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464608</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1259664540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used both for a couple years. If you don't need the ACE and Developer features of VMware, then Virtualbox is a fantastic substitute. Performance is roughly the same<br>on dual-core AMD 64-bit.<br>From a usability standpoint, it's been ahead of VMware for quite a while.</p><p>For example, you can send keystrokes to Virtualbox without trapping the keyboard output - the VBox window only has to have focus. Also, attaching virtual or physical disks<br>or images to VBox has long been simpler, but perhaps VMware has caught up.</p><p>And, i've found the VMware automatic installs to be a bit of a nuisance.</p><p>I guess I would still favor the VMware products for anything critical but, aside from that, I've been very pleased with Virtualbox for type 2 and Xenserver for type 1 hypervisors over<br>VMware Workstation and ESX.</p><p>What were you trying to setup that failed with VBox but worked with VMware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used both for a couple years .
If you do n't need the ACE and Developer features of VMware , then Virtualbox is a fantastic substitute .
Performance is roughly the sameon dual-core AMD 64-bit.From a usability standpoint , it 's been ahead of VMware for quite a while.For example , you can send keystrokes to Virtualbox without trapping the keyboard output - the VBox window only has to have focus .
Also , attaching virtual or physical disksor images to VBox has long been simpler , but perhaps VMware has caught up.And , i 've found the VMware automatic installs to be a bit of a nuisance.I guess I would still favor the VMware products for anything critical but , aside from that , I 've been very pleased with Virtualbox for type 2 and Xenserver for type 1 hypervisors overVMware Workstation and ESX.What were you trying to setup that failed with VBox but worked with VMware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used both for a couple years.
If you don't need the ACE and Developer features of VMware, then Virtualbox is a fantastic substitute.
Performance is roughly the sameon dual-core AMD 64-bit.From a usability standpoint, it's been ahead of VMware for quite a while.For example, you can send keystrokes to Virtualbox without trapping the keyboard output - the VBox window only has to have focus.
Also, attaching virtual or physical disksor images to VBox has long been simpler, but perhaps VMware has caught up.And, i've found the VMware automatic installs to be a bit of a nuisance.I guess I would still favor the VMware products for anything critical but, aside from that, I've been very pleased with Virtualbox for type 2 and Xenserver for type 1 hypervisors overVMware Workstation and ESX.What were you trying to setup that failed with VBox but worked with VMware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464644</id>
	<title>Where's KVM</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1259664660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux's KVM module and the "Virtual Machince Manager" (VMM) app that uses it needs to be measured on here. The interface is simple and easy.<br> <br>
It has shiny features too:<br>
- live OS migration. <br>
- Tools like "Test Drive Ubuntu" can use it to give you one-click "Test your bug in a daily build VM". <br>
- FOSS on FOSS (Linux, BSD, etc) no-latency driver requests being passed to the Host OS, meaning only 1 context switch per Virtual-Physical interrupt.<br>
- It's contributers are all still in the business of improving it (unlike all those mentioned except Parallels)<br>
- It's FOSS, has very little code, is the fastest growing<br>
- Its modules can run code for other CPUs (good for the oncoming ARMs). <br> <br>
Hardware virtualization helps for Windows virtualization. Please measure programs that use it (other than with Virtualbox which doesn't cooperate).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux 's KVM module and the " Virtual Machince Manager " ( VMM ) app that uses it needs to be measured on here .
The interface is simple and easy .
It has shiny features too : - live OS migration .
- Tools like " Test Drive Ubuntu " can use it to give you one-click " Test your bug in a daily build VM " .
- FOSS on FOSS ( Linux , BSD , etc ) no-latency driver requests being passed to the Host OS , meaning only 1 context switch per Virtual-Physical interrupt .
- It 's contributers are all still in the business of improving it ( unlike all those mentioned except Parallels ) - It 's FOSS , has very little code , is the fastest growing - Its modules can run code for other CPUs ( good for the oncoming ARMs ) .
Hardware virtualization helps for Windows virtualization .
Please measure programs that use it ( other than with Virtualbox which does n't cooperate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux's KVM module and the "Virtual Machince Manager" (VMM) app that uses it needs to be measured on here.
The interface is simple and easy.
It has shiny features too:
- live OS migration.
- Tools like "Test Drive Ubuntu" can use it to give you one-click "Test your bug in a daily build VM".
- FOSS on FOSS (Linux, BSD, etc) no-latency driver requests being passed to the Host OS, meaning only 1 context switch per Virtual-Physical interrupt.
- It's contributers are all still in the business of improving it (unlike all those mentioned except Parallels)
- It's FOSS, has very little code, is the fastest growing
- Its modules can run code for other CPUs (good for the oncoming ARMs).
Hardware virtualization helps for Windows virtualization.
Please measure programs that use it (other than with Virtualbox which doesn't cooperate).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464368</id>
	<title>Re:Parallels Desktop is at version 5, btw.</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1259663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please provide a link to Parallels Desktop 5 for Windows, then.</p><p>I only see a Mac release for Desktop 5 on Parallels products page, which was in fact mentioned in TFA, had you bothered to read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please provide a link to Parallels Desktop 5 for Windows , then.I only see a Mac release for Desktop 5 on Parallels products page , which was in fact mentioned in TFA , had you bothered to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please provide a link to Parallels Desktop 5 for Windows, then.I only see a Mac release for Desktop 5 on Parallels products page, which was in fact mentioned in TFA, had you bothered to read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468486</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree with the V2.x web interFARCE. That is the sole reason I RAN from VMWare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree with the V2.x web interFARCE .
That is the sole reason I RAN from VMWare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree with the V2.x web interFARCE.
That is the sole reason I RAN from VMWare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473364</id>
	<title>Re:VirtualBox FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop that FTW shit you ignorant 15 year old prick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop that FTW shit you ignorant 15 year old prick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop that FTW shit you ignorant 15 year old prick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470490</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>a8ksh4</author>
	<datestamp>1261083300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here; I've found VirtualBox to be as easy to use as VMWare server. It's actually much easier to install in Linux and has been much more (perfectly) stable, while VMWare used to crash on me and do random weird stuff.
<br> <br>
Also, I've found that it's virtualized hardware is better supported w/ newer OSs like Vista and Win 7.  For example, with VMWare server, I have to update service packs and use their guest enhancements CD for ethernet driver support, but this is not an issue with VirtualBox.
<br> <br>
BTW: At home, I live in Linux at home but use VMs to run office apps for school and for compatibility with work stuff; at work, I use virtualization for OS validation (Windows and Linux).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here ; I 've found VirtualBox to be as easy to use as VMWare server .
It 's actually much easier to install in Linux and has been much more ( perfectly ) stable , while VMWare used to crash on me and do random weird stuff .
Also , I 've found that it 's virtualized hardware is better supported w/ newer OSs like Vista and Win 7 .
For example , with VMWare server , I have to update service packs and use their guest enhancements CD for ethernet driver support , but this is not an issue with VirtualBox .
BTW : At home , I live in Linux at home but use VMs to run office apps for school and for compatibility with work stuff ; at work , I use virtualization for OS validation ( Windows and Linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here; I've found VirtualBox to be as easy to use as VMWare server.
It's actually much easier to install in Linux and has been much more (perfectly) stable, while VMWare used to crash on me and do random weird stuff.
Also, I've found that it's virtualized hardware is better supported w/ newer OSs like Vista and Win 7.
For example, with VMWare server, I have to update service packs and use their guest enhancements CD for ethernet driver support, but this is not an issue with VirtualBox.
BTW: At home, I live in Linux at home but use VMs to run office apps for school and for compatibility with work stuff; at work, I use virtualization for OS validation (Windows and Linux).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</id>
	<title>Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1259661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They call VMware Workstation at $189 "expensive".</p><p>It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.</p><p>They say a max of 4 virtual CPU in the review but they FAIL to mention that each of these CPU can have 4 cores, so really it supports 16 virtual processors.</p><p>These two inaccuracies also just happen to be the only two "Cons" that they assign to VMware.</p><p>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable.  I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They call VMware Workstation at $ 189 " expensive " .It 's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.They say a max of 4 virtual CPU in the review but they FAIL to mention that each of these CPU can have 4 cores , so really it supports 16 virtual processors.These two inaccuracies also just happen to be the only two " Cons " that they assign to VMware.If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware , to the point of being not very usable .
I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They call VMware Workstation at $189 "expensive".It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.They say a max of 4 virtual CPU in the review but they FAIL to mention that each of these CPU can have 4 cores, so really it supports 16 virtual processors.These two inaccuracies also just happen to be the only two "Cons" that they assign to VMware.If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable.
I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464260</id>
	<title>Re:On the Atom processor netbook</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1259663400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used VirtualBox OSE for about a year now, and have found issues only when doing complex setups for network testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used VirtualBox OSE for about a year now , and have found issues only when doing complex setups for network testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used VirtualBox OSE for about a year now, and have found issues only when doing complex setups for network testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464782</id>
	<title>They all are great in certain respects....</title>
	<author>ogdenk</author>
	<datestamp>1259665080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to VM's I use for interactive work like running Win32 desktop apps or gaming, I prefer Parallels Desktop 5 on OS X.  It even has WDDM drivers for Winblows.  Very slick, integrates well with OS X and has good enough 3D performance to play some games.</p><p>When it comes to virtual servers, I use VirtualBox where scalability isn't a HUGE concern.  I also use it extensively in the classroom since it's quite free and not hard for students to get ahold of and feel comfortable using it.  The 3D performance is awful and it's not as fast as parallels but it's solid and a good workhorse.</p><p>If I were hosting 50 VM's, I'd probably go with VMWare ESX but their desktop offerings VMWare Workstation and VMWare Fusion (OSX) have failed to impress me much.  Not saying they suck but Parallels 5 is noticeably faster, more stable (for both host and guest) and integrates better with the Host OS for desktop use.</p><p>All are good products but I prefer Parallels on OSX, VBox on everything else.  If they develop a Windows/Linux version of Parallels 5 that is just as good, I'd probably buy it.</p><p>One interesting point though, why does VBox support for FreeBSD guests suck so horribly?  You'd think a fairly open VM would have better support for open source guests.  Parallels supports FreeBSD in a much better fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to VM 's I use for interactive work like running Win32 desktop apps or gaming , I prefer Parallels Desktop 5 on OS X. It even has WDDM drivers for Winblows .
Very slick , integrates well with OS X and has good enough 3D performance to play some games.When it comes to virtual servers , I use VirtualBox where scalability is n't a HUGE concern .
I also use it extensively in the classroom since it 's quite free and not hard for students to get ahold of and feel comfortable using it .
The 3D performance is awful and it 's not as fast as parallels but it 's solid and a good workhorse.If I were hosting 50 VM 's , I 'd probably go with VMWare ESX but their desktop offerings VMWare Workstation and VMWare Fusion ( OSX ) have failed to impress me much .
Not saying they suck but Parallels 5 is noticeably faster , more stable ( for both host and guest ) and integrates better with the Host OS for desktop use.All are good products but I prefer Parallels on OSX , VBox on everything else .
If they develop a Windows/Linux version of Parallels 5 that is just as good , I 'd probably buy it.One interesting point though , why does VBox support for FreeBSD guests suck so horribly ?
You 'd think a fairly open VM would have better support for open source guests .
Parallels supports FreeBSD in a much better fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to VM's I use for interactive work like running Win32 desktop apps or gaming, I prefer Parallels Desktop 5 on OS X.  It even has WDDM drivers for Winblows.
Very slick, integrates well with OS X and has good enough 3D performance to play some games.When it comes to virtual servers, I use VirtualBox where scalability isn't a HUGE concern.
I also use it extensively in the classroom since it's quite free and not hard for students to get ahold of and feel comfortable using it.
The 3D performance is awful and it's not as fast as parallels but it's solid and a good workhorse.If I were hosting 50 VM's, I'd probably go with VMWare ESX but their desktop offerings VMWare Workstation and VMWare Fusion (OSX) have failed to impress me much.
Not saying they suck but Parallels 5 is noticeably faster, more stable (for both host and guest) and integrates better with the Host OS for desktop use.All are good products but I prefer Parallels on OSX, VBox on everything else.
If they develop a Windows/Linux version of Parallels 5 that is just as good, I'd probably buy it.One interesting point though, why does VBox support for FreeBSD guests suck so horribly?
You'd think a fairly open VM would have better support for open source guests.
Parallels supports FreeBSD in a much better fashion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
VMWare Server 1.x was great.  For 2.x, they decided to ditch the native client in favour of an awful web interface that barely worked.  That's one of the reasons why you don't hear many people singing its praises any more.  It went from being useful to being absolutely horrible to use.  VirtualBox is also free to use, it understands VMWare images, and it doesn't have that awful web interface.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VMWare Server 1.x was great .
For 2.x , they decided to ditch the native client in favour of an awful web interface that barely worked .
That 's one of the reasons why you do n't hear many people singing its praises any more .
It went from being useful to being absolutely horrible to use .
VirtualBox is also free to use , it understands VMWare images , and it does n't have that awful web interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
VMWare Server 1.x was great.
For 2.x, they decided to ditch the native client in favour of an awful web interface that barely worked.
That's one of the reasons why you don't hear many people singing its praises any more.
It went from being useful to being absolutely horrible to use.
VirtualBox is also free to use, it understands VMWare images, and it doesn't have that awful web interface.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465824</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1259668320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point behind that was to make it closer to their Infrastructure Client, which is a LOT more expensive. It's great for servers that are dedicated to cheap virtualization, but is terrible for workstations. That's not a big deal either, considering that it's really a server product and wasn't 'technically' meant to be used on the workstation, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point behind that was to make it closer to their Infrastructure Client , which is a LOT more expensive .
It 's great for servers that are dedicated to cheap virtualization , but is terrible for workstations .
That 's not a big deal either , considering that it 's really a server product and was n't 'technically ' meant to be used on the workstation , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point behind that was to make it closer to their Infrastructure Client, which is a LOT more expensive.
It's great for servers that are dedicated to cheap virtualization, but is terrible for workstations.
That's not a big deal either, considering that it's really a server product and wasn't 'technically' meant to be used on the workstation, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464548</id>
	<title>VirtualBox works for me...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1259664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me VirtualBox wins because it works on Windows 7 home premium. VMWare Server requires Professional.</p><p>I also like the interface better than VMWare's free server product which I was using on my old xp pro installation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me VirtualBox wins because it works on Windows 7 home premium .
VMWare Server requires Professional.I also like the interface better than VMWare 's free server product which I was using on my old xp pro installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me VirtualBox wins because it works on Windows 7 home premium.
VMWare Server requires Professional.I also like the interface better than VMWare's free server product which I was using on my old xp pro installation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463822</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>bflong</author>
	<datestamp>1259661840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware...</i></p><p>Sorry, I have to disagree. I have many, many instances of VirtualBox running and I love it. I *have* had some issues, but only with some really far out edge cases. I find it to be very easy to use, and reliable. As a sysadmin, VBoxManage is awesome for scripting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware...Sorry , I have to disagree .
I have many , many instances of VirtualBox running and I love it .
I * have * had some issues , but only with some really far out edge cases .
I find it to be very easy to use , and reliable .
As a sysadmin , VBoxManage is awesome for scripting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware...Sorry, I have to disagree.
I have many, many instances of VirtualBox running and I love it.
I *have* had some issues, but only with some really far out edge cases.
I find it to be very easy to use, and reliable.
As a sysadmin, VBoxManage is awesome for scripting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463920</id>
	<title>Re:Poor reasoning in the review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These tests are big stupidity. VirtualBox is okay to play with some OSes in your desktop. It is indeed buggy and locks up for no reason, even when I compiled it from source in Linux. I had some email conversations with the developers and they agreed it had some rough edges. Maybe it will be solid in a few months or years but VMware is the product to beat and they will have moved somewhere else when VirtualBox works correctly. ESX is free at an entry level, and is a solid product for production. I would never install anything else on my servers unless I want to be embarrassed having to reboot twenty servers. Others may have to reboot a hundred. VirtualPC or VBox in production... you deserve to be unemployed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These tests are big stupidity .
VirtualBox is okay to play with some OSes in your desktop .
It is indeed buggy and locks up for no reason , even when I compiled it from source in Linux .
I had some email conversations with the developers and they agreed it had some rough edges .
Maybe it will be solid in a few months or years but VMware is the product to beat and they will have moved somewhere else when VirtualBox works correctly .
ESX is free at an entry level , and is a solid product for production .
I would never install anything else on my servers unless I want to be embarrassed having to reboot twenty servers .
Others may have to reboot a hundred .
VirtualPC or VBox in production... you deserve to be unemployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These tests are big stupidity.
VirtualBox is okay to play with some OSes in your desktop.
It is indeed buggy and locks up for no reason, even when I compiled it from source in Linux.
I had some email conversations with the developers and they agreed it had some rough edges.
Maybe it will be solid in a few months or years but VMware is the product to beat and they will have moved somewhere else when VirtualBox works correctly.
ESX is free at an entry level, and is a solid product for production.
I would never install anything else on my servers unless I want to be embarrassed having to reboot twenty servers.
Others may have to reboot a hundred.
VirtualPC or VBox in production... you deserve to be unemployed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470888</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Spliffster</author>
	<datestamp>1261044540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh and another one:<br><br>I am a long time user and customer of VMWare products. But for my desktop virtualisation (and more and more non system critical servers) i am moving to virtualbox, why?<br><br>My host system is linux and Virtualbox is compiling the needed kernel modules through the package manager automagically on updates, i have to do this for vmware server by hand, every fucking time. And this is often, since i prefer patched servers so new kernels are going ins ASAP.<br><br>Cheers,<br>-S</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh and another one : I am a long time user and customer of VMWare products .
But for my desktop virtualisation ( and more and more non system critical servers ) i am moving to virtualbox , why ? My host system is linux and Virtualbox is compiling the needed kernel modules through the package manager automagically on updates , i have to do this for vmware server by hand , every fucking time .
And this is often , since i prefer patched servers so new kernels are going ins ASAP.Cheers,-S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh and another one:I am a long time user and customer of VMWare products.
But for my desktop virtualisation (and more and more non system critical servers) i am moving to virtualbox, why?My host system is linux and Virtualbox is compiling the needed kernel modules through the package manager automagically on updates, i have to do this for vmware server by hand, every fucking time.
And this is often, since i prefer patched servers so new kernels are going ins ASAP.Cheers,-S</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463934</id>
	<title>W00T 7p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That they sideline its readers and is 7he worst oof surprise to the</htmltext>
<tokenext>That they sideline its readers and is 7he worst oof surprise to the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they sideline its readers and is 7he worst oof surprise to the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464282</id>
	<title>James Joyce Would Be Scratching His Head</title>
	<author>timkar</author>
	<datestamp>1259663460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. I see that they've stopped teaching good sentence and paragraph construction in college.  Is it possible that this "paragraph" was cobbled together from several tweets?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I see that they 've stopped teaching good sentence and paragraph construction in college .
Is it possible that this " paragraph " was cobbled together from several tweets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I see that they've stopped teaching good sentence and paragraph construction in college.
Is it possible that this "paragraph" was cobbled together from several tweets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596</id>
	<title>Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If cost is an issue why do these reviews forget the free VMWare Server it does most everything most users would need at no cost vs workstation</htmltext>
<tokenext>If cost is an issue why do these reviews forget the free VMWare Server it does most everything most users would need at no cost vs workstation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If cost is an issue why do these reviews forget the free VMWare Server it does most everything most users would need at no cost vs workstation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone forgets VMware server</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It does not do accelerated 3d.  That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal' users trying to play games in their VM.</p></div><p>The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP, designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.</p><p>And believe me, they do not need accelerated 3d.</p><p>Anyone who is able to launch a VM of whatever OS they want to play whatever game they want is probably better off just installing it on a seperate partition, because there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not do accelerated 3d .
That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal ' users trying to play games in their VM.The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP , designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.And believe me , they do not need accelerated 3d.Anyone who is able to launch a VM of whatever OS they want to play whatever game they want is probably better off just installing it on a seperate partition , because there 's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not do accelerated 3d.
That is clearly one of the main features for 'normal' users trying to play games in their VM.The only games I play on a VM are the ones too old to work on XP, designed for DOS and pre 95 windows.And believe me, they do not need accelerated 3d.Anyone who is able to launch a VM of whatever OS they want to play whatever game they want is probably better off just installing it on a seperate partition, because there's no sense in playing a game while running 2 operating systems at once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464420</id>
	<title>VirtualBox; mostly opensource and lots of host OSs</title>
	<author>rhavenn</author>
	<datestamp>1259664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, VirtualBox wins purely out of the fact that it's mostly open source and supports the largest amount of host OSs and runs on a few more that aren't "supported" officially. Finally, a virtual machine that works with FreeBSD as a host.</p><p>However, from a performance standpoint I can't tell the difference between VMware and VirtualBox, except perhaps that VirtualBox doesn't seem to hammer the host OS quite as hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , VirtualBox wins purely out of the fact that it 's mostly open source and supports the largest amount of host OSs and runs on a few more that are n't " supported " officially .
Finally , a virtual machine that works with FreeBSD as a host.However , from a performance standpoint I ca n't tell the difference between VMware and VirtualBox , except perhaps that VirtualBox does n't seem to hammer the host OS quite as hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, VirtualBox wins purely out of the fact that it's mostly open source and supports the largest amount of host OSs and runs on a few more that aren't "supported" officially.
Finally, a virtual machine that works with FreeBSD as a host.However, from a performance standpoint I can't tell the difference between VMware and VirtualBox, except perhaps that VirtualBox doesn't seem to hammer the host OS quite as hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30471654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30472278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30476068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30474178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2035230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30471654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464126
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470490
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30476068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30465698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30474178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30473364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30470474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30468324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30469358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30466242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30463898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30472278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30464424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2035230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2035230.30467890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
