<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_232200</id>
	<title>The Amiga, Circa 2010 &mdash; Dead and Loving It</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262430060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Orion Blastar writes <i>"While many Amiga users have moved on to Linux, Mac OS X, and even, gasp shock, Microsoft Windows, some of us don't want to give up so easily. There are two open source projects that are keeping the Amiga legacy alive even if Amiga Inc. seems to be deader than a doornail and not really doing much but selling old Classic Amiga games for new platforms. Like WINE, there was a project to run AmigaOS 3.1 software for Linux and other platforms, but it evolved instead into an open source operating system named <a href="http://aros.sourceforge.net/">Amiga Research OS</a>, or AROS. AROS is best run inside an emulator, and while it is not a modern OS like Linux, it can <a href="http://aros.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/nightly-download?20100101/Binaries/AROS-20100101-linux-i386-system.tar.bz2">be downloaded and run inside of Linux</a> (and the <a href="http://aros.sourceforge.net/download.php">downloads section has more</a>). While it is not ready for prime time yet, it is a promising OS that is being ported to many platforms and uses the user friendly Amiga GUI we Amiga users grew up with."</i> Read on for more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orion Blastar writes " While many Amiga users have moved on to Linux , Mac OS X , and even , gasp shock , Microsoft Windows , some of us do n't want to give up so easily .
There are two open source projects that are keeping the Amiga legacy alive even if Amiga Inc. seems to be deader than a doornail and not really doing much but selling old Classic Amiga games for new platforms .
Like WINE , there was a project to run AmigaOS 3.1 software for Linux and other platforms , but it evolved instead into an open source operating system named Amiga Research OS , or AROS .
AROS is best run inside an emulator , and while it is not a modern OS like Linux , it can be downloaded and run inside of Linux ( and the downloads section has more ) .
While it is not ready for prime time yet , it is a promising OS that is being ported to many platforms and uses the user friendly Amiga GUI we Amiga users grew up with .
" Read on for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orion Blastar writes "While many Amiga users have moved on to Linux, Mac OS X, and even, gasp shock, Microsoft Windows, some of us don't want to give up so easily.
There are two open source projects that are keeping the Amiga legacy alive even if Amiga Inc. seems to be deader than a doornail and not really doing much but selling old Classic Amiga games for new platforms.
Like WINE, there was a project to run AmigaOS 3.1 software for Linux and other platforms, but it evolved instead into an open source operating system named Amiga Research OS, or AROS.
AROS is best run inside an emulator, and while it is not a modern OS like Linux, it can be downloaded and run inside of Linux (and the downloads section has more).
While it is not ready for prime time yet, it is a promising OS that is being ported to many platforms and uses the user friendly Amiga GUI we Amiga users grew up with.
" Read on for more.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630148</id>
	<title>Re: X  vs. Amiga</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262550660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[begin rant] X is precisely everything the Amiga was not, an innovation that set open systems graphics back by at least a decade.  Aside from an SGI app here or there I never saw an X interface that looked good until 1998 or so. Functional yes, attractive compared to the alternatives, not in the slightest.</p><p>X was so poorly designed that network transparency, which should have been its greatest strength, was essentially unusable anywhere other than the local LAN, and still is to this day.  RDP runs circles around what X can do, for example, across any real network.  To get X to perform like RDP you have to have an intermediary layer like NX that uses all sorts of tricks to work around the design deficiencies of X in the first place.  You have to use some sort of wrapping protocol just to get rudimentary security, so you can actually open a remote terminal session across the Internet, a wrapper for which there are no real standards, and which doesn't come configured or installed on a default basis practically anywhere. Let's run SSH, map a bunch of ports, and set a half dozen environment variables!  No thank you.</p><p>Regrettably, the history of X largely consists of undoing or making extensions to work around the severe limitations of the original design, limitations that (among other things) made X programming more difficult than practically any other graphics system on the planet, with the possible exception of (horror of horrors) Win32.<br>[end rant]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ begin rant ] X is precisely everything the Amiga was not , an innovation that set open systems graphics back by at least a decade .
Aside from an SGI app here or there I never saw an X interface that looked good until 1998 or so .
Functional yes , attractive compared to the alternatives , not in the slightest.X was so poorly designed that network transparency , which should have been its greatest strength , was essentially unusable anywhere other than the local LAN , and still is to this day .
RDP runs circles around what X can do , for example , across any real network .
To get X to perform like RDP you have to have an intermediary layer like NX that uses all sorts of tricks to work around the design deficiencies of X in the first place .
You have to use some sort of wrapping protocol just to get rudimentary security , so you can actually open a remote terminal session across the Internet , a wrapper for which there are no real standards , and which does n't come configured or installed on a default basis practically anywhere .
Let 's run SSH , map a bunch of ports , and set a half dozen environment variables !
No thank you.Regrettably , the history of X largely consists of undoing or making extensions to work around the severe limitations of the original design , limitations that ( among other things ) made X programming more difficult than practically any other graphics system on the planet , with the possible exception of ( horror of horrors ) Win32 .
[ end rant ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[begin rant] X is precisely everything the Amiga was not, an innovation that set open systems graphics back by at least a decade.
Aside from an SGI app here or there I never saw an X interface that looked good until 1998 or so.
Functional yes, attractive compared to the alternatives, not in the slightest.X was so poorly designed that network transparency, which should have been its greatest strength, was essentially unusable anywhere other than the local LAN, and still is to this day.
RDP runs circles around what X can do, for example, across any real network.
To get X to perform like RDP you have to have an intermediary layer like NX that uses all sorts of tricks to work around the design deficiencies of X in the first place.
You have to use some sort of wrapping protocol just to get rudimentary security, so you can actually open a remote terminal session across the Internet, a wrapper for which there are no real standards, and which doesn't come configured or installed on a default basis practically anywhere.
Let's run SSH, map a bunch of ports, and set a half dozen environment variables!
No thank you.Regrettably, the history of X largely consists of undoing or making extensions to work around the severe limitations of the original design, limitations that (among other things) made X programming more difficult than practically any other graphics system on the planet, with the possible exception of (horror of horrors) Win32.
[end rant]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629646</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was on in a fraction of a second, sure, but what could you do with it?</p><p>In the Commodore 64's case, you could write programs in BASIC. That's all.</p><p>In Amiga's case, you couldn't do anything. (You either had to insert a game or Workbench floppy, or have Workbench boot from a HDD which took anything from 15 seconds to a minute, depending on how it was set up. And you still couldn't do much. I wouldn't say modern OS'es are the inferior party here.)</p><p>And if you think about it, the one place where booting is a pain in the ass, namely laptops, has this capability known as hibernation. Most laptops recover from hibernation in less than five seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was on in a fraction of a second , sure , but what could you do with it ? In the Commodore 64 's case , you could write programs in BASIC .
That 's all.In Amiga 's case , you could n't do anything .
( You either had to insert a game or Workbench floppy , or have Workbench boot from a HDD which took anything from 15 seconds to a minute , depending on how it was set up .
And you still could n't do much .
I would n't say modern OS'es are the inferior party here .
) And if you think about it , the one place where booting is a pain in the ass , namely laptops , has this capability known as hibernation .
Most laptops recover from hibernation in less than five seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was on in a fraction of a second, sure, but what could you do with it?In the Commodore 64's case, you could write programs in BASIC.
That's all.In Amiga's case, you couldn't do anything.
(You either had to insert a game or Workbench floppy, or have Workbench boot from a HDD which took anything from 15 seconds to a minute, depending on how it was set up.
And you still couldn't do much.
I wouldn't say modern OS'es are the inferior party here.
)And if you think about it, the one place where booting is a pain in the ass, namely laptops, has this capability known as hibernation.
Most laptops recover from hibernation in less than five seconds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631112</id>
	<title>Re:what personal computing lost</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262526420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On NeXTSTEP, and later OS X, the first of these is performed by Filter Services.  These take a pasteboard with one type of data and return a pasteboard with another type.  Any application can take advantage of them trivially.<p>
IFF had an equivalent on Window 3.1: RIFF (actually, almost identical to IFF but with the byte order reversed).  Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bmp,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi files are all RIFF files.  It's worth noting that IFF wasn't an Amiga invention, it came from Electronic Arts and was heavily used on both Amiga and Mac before Microsoft started using it, and is still used on both Microsoft and Apple platforms.  It's not particularly useful, because just being able to parse the metadata doesn't let you understand the file contents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On NeXTSTEP , and later OS X , the first of these is performed by Filter Services .
These take a pasteboard with one type of data and return a pasteboard with another type .
Any application can take advantage of them trivially .
IFF had an equivalent on Window 3.1 : RIFF ( actually , almost identical to IFF but with the byte order reversed ) .
Windows .bmp , .wav , and .avi files are all RIFF files .
It 's worth noting that IFF was n't an Amiga invention , it came from Electronic Arts and was heavily used on both Amiga and Mac before Microsoft started using it , and is still used on both Microsoft and Apple platforms .
It 's not particularly useful , because just being able to parse the metadata does n't let you understand the file contents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On NeXTSTEP, and later OS X, the first of these is performed by Filter Services.
These take a pasteboard with one type of data and return a pasteboard with another type.
Any application can take advantage of them trivially.
IFF had an equivalent on Window 3.1: RIFF (actually, almost identical to IFF but with the byte order reversed).
Windows .bmp, .wav, and .avi files are all RIFF files.
It's worth noting that IFF wasn't an Amiga invention, it came from Electronic Arts and was heavily used on both Amiga and Mac before Microsoft started using it, and is still used on both Microsoft and Apple platforms.
It's not particularly useful, because just being able to parse the metadata doesn't let you understand the file contents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>HeadSoft</author>
	<datestamp>1262441640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another feature I miss from the past was common in 8-bit systems like the Commodore 64: Instant booting.   You pressed power and the system was on!  It was pretty bare, but it booted (from ROM) in less than one second. There are still times when I would gladly trade the modern features like disk caching for instant booting or shutting down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another feature I miss from the past was common in 8-bit systems like the Commodore 64 : Instant booting .
You pressed power and the system was on !
It was pretty bare , but it booted ( from ROM ) in less than one second .
There are still times when I would gladly trade the modern features like disk caching for instant booting or shutting down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another feature I miss from the past was common in 8-bit systems like the Commodore 64: Instant booting.
You pressed power and the system was on!
It was pretty bare, but it booted (from ROM) in less than one second.
There are still times when I would gladly trade the modern features like disk caching for instant booting or shutting down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628528</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262445600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Well, DOS did that too. But there&rsquo;s a reason this is not used anymore: Cache. Especially disk cache. So if you disable all caching, you can turn your system off at any time. Of course be sure to first close any apps that might be killed in mid-air.<br>Or use hibernate or sleep mode. It allows you to do the same with cache enabled. Just that if you want your ram be powered off, it has to be saved on disk, which because of today&rsquo;s HDD speed, takes a little while. (Or use non-volatile RAM.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>That&rsquo;s exactly what I do with the CompizFusion cube (and some window rules, enforcing fullscreen, etc). But you can do it with any window manager that supports multiple virtual desktops. The top menu would then be the virtual desktop chooser.<br>There are even tools to do this in Windows. But I bet it&rsquo;s more comfortable and elegant in XMonad.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>Well, in UNIX environments, everything is a file. I bet it&rsquo;s easy to run a text-to-speech daemon that listens on a pipe (and socket) for a text stream. Should be up and running in a few minutes in Linux.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</p></div><p>Well, we try to prevent losing sectors in the first place. And bidirectional is not much better than unidirectional. So we try to do much more advanced solutions. There are b-trees, and really cool stuff, which definitely is better than a simple linked list. I&rsquo;d recommend ZFS with scrubbing or something alike.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5. The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div><p>Well, you know those drawer-like things that you can mount below the table top, so you can put the keyboard on it? I think that solves it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>Well, I&rsquo;m all for taking out everyone who develops a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner\_platform\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">inner platform</a> [wikipedia.org], and shooting him.<br>But I&rsquo;m also for abstraction where it makes sense.<br>The thing is, that abstraction does not have to be mutually exclusive to extremely tight integration. My Gentoo Linux is compiled in a way that it runs only on my CPU and on my system. The abstraction is at the source code level. Not so much at the binary level.<br>Only in Linux desktop environments (which rape and torture the whole UNIX philosophy by the way) are there loads of stupid abstractions and frameworks. (Nearly as a OS running is a browser.) But there is a project to circumvent the whole X system. (I think it&rsquo;s called Wayland.)<br>Then again, you don&rsquo;t expect everyone to program straight to the metal, do you? I think things like OpenGL, which are already very tightly integrated into the graphics card and driver, and also mostly just an abstraction on the source code level, are very much making sense and not slowing things down at all. Quite the opposite.</p><p>You see, that&rsquo;s why I love Linux. You <em>can</em> at least do it (or choose the option), if you want it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Oh, and with the proper window manager and lightweight apps, it also will be much smoother than even AmigaOS. Just don&rsquo;t expect to have the cake (modern effects and all the neat little stuff) and eat it too (still have the same smoothness). Your choice.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Well , DOS did that too .
But there    s a reason this is not used anymore : Cache .
Especially disk cache .
So if you disable all caching , you can turn your system off at any time .
Of course be sure to first close any apps that might be killed in mid-air.Or use hibernate or sleep mode .
It allows you to do the same with cache enabled .
Just that if you want your ram be powered off , it has to be saved on disk , which because of today    s HDD speed , takes a little while .
( Or use non-volatile RAM. ) 2 .
Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.That    s exactly what I do with the CompizFusion cube ( and some window rules , enforcing fullscreen , etc ) .
But you can do it with any window manager that supports multiple virtual desktops .
The top menu would then be the virtual desktop chooser.There are even tools to do this in Windows .
But I bet it    s more comfortable and elegant in XMonad.3 .
Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? Well , in UNIX environments , everything is a file .
I bet it    s easy to run a text-to-speech daemon that listens on a pipe ( and socket ) for a text stream .
Should be up and running in a few minutes in Linux.4 .
Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) Well , we try to prevent losing sectors in the first place .
And bidirectional is not much better than unidirectional .
So we try to do much more advanced solutions .
There are b-trees , and really cool stuff , which definitely is better than a simple linked list .
I    d recommend ZFS with scrubbing or something alike.5 .
The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.Well , you know those drawer-like things that you can mount below the table top , so you can put the keyboard on it ?
I think that solves it.6 .
Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? Well , I    m all for taking out everyone who develops a inner platform [ wikipedia.org ] , and shooting him.But I    m also for abstraction where it makes sense.The thing is , that abstraction does not have to be mutually exclusive to extremely tight integration .
My Gentoo Linux is compiled in a way that it runs only on my CPU and on my system .
The abstraction is at the source code level .
Not so much at the binary level.Only in Linux desktop environments ( which rape and torture the whole UNIX philosophy by the way ) are there loads of stupid abstractions and frameworks .
( Nearly as a OS running is a browser .
) But there is a project to circumvent the whole X system .
( I think it    s called Wayland .
) Then again , you don    t expect everyone to program straight to the metal , do you ?
I think things like OpenGL , which are already very tightly integrated into the graphics card and driver , and also mostly just an abstraction on the source code level , are very much making sense and not slowing things down at all .
Quite the opposite.You see , that    s why I love Linux .
You can at least do it ( or choose the option ) , if you want it .
: ) Oh , and with the proper window manager and lightweight apps , it also will be much smoother than even AmigaOS .
Just don    t expect to have the cake ( modern effects and all the neat little stuff ) and eat it too ( still have the same smoothness ) .
Your choice .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Well, DOS did that too.
But there’s a reason this is not used anymore: Cache.
Especially disk cache.
So if you disable all caching, you can turn your system off at any time.
Of course be sure to first close any apps that might be killed in mid-air.Or use hibernate or sleep mode.
It allows you to do the same with cache enabled.
Just that if you want your ram be powered off, it has to be saved on disk, which because of today’s HDD speed, takes a little while.
(Or use non-volatile RAM.)2.
Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.That’s exactly what I do with the CompizFusion cube (and some window rules, enforcing fullscreen, etc).
But you can do it with any window manager that supports multiple virtual desktops.
The top menu would then be the virtual desktop chooser.There are even tools to do this in Windows.
But I bet it’s more comfortable and elegant in XMonad.3.
Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?Well, in UNIX environments, everything is a file.
I bet it’s easy to run a text-to-speech daemon that listens on a pipe (and socket) for a text stream.
Should be up and running in a few minutes in Linux.4.
Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)Well, we try to prevent losing sectors in the first place.
And bidirectional is not much better than unidirectional.
So we try to do much more advanced solutions.
There are b-trees, and really cool stuff, which definitely is better than a simple linked list.
I’d recommend ZFS with scrubbing or something alike.5.
The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.Well, you know those drawer-like things that you can mount below the table top, so you can put the keyboard on it?
I think that solves it.6.
Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?Well, I’m all for taking out everyone who develops a inner platform [wikipedia.org], and shooting him.But I’m also for abstraction where it makes sense.The thing is, that abstraction does not have to be mutually exclusive to extremely tight integration.
My Gentoo Linux is compiled in a way that it runs only on my CPU and on my system.
The abstraction is at the source code level.
Not so much at the binary level.Only in Linux desktop environments (which rape and torture the whole UNIX philosophy by the way) are there loads of stupid abstractions and frameworks.
(Nearly as a OS running is a browser.
) But there is a project to circumvent the whole X system.
(I think it’s called Wayland.
)Then again, you don’t expect everyone to program straight to the metal, do you?
I think things like OpenGL, which are already very tightly integrated into the graphics card and driver, and also mostly just an abstraction on the source code level, are very much making sense and not slowing things down at all.
Quite the opposite.You see, that’s why I love Linux.
You can at least do it (or choose the option), if you want it.
:)Oh, and with the proper window manager and lightweight apps, it also will be much smoother than even AmigaOS.
Just don’t expect to have the cake (modern effects and all the neat little stuff) and eat it too (still have the same smoothness).
Your choice.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628650</id>
	<title>Re:My First Computer</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1262447040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>It was better than the Mac in it's day</em></p><p>Better than the original Mac, absolutely.  Better than the Mac II, for many things, yes. Video production, games, most entry level applications, yes.  The Mac II was *expensive* and often slow by comparison.</p><p>For graphic design and desktop publishing not so much.  That is where the Mac II really shined. There was nothing comparable to Quark on the Amiga. Device independent or high bit depth raster graphics on the Amiga were the exception, not the rule.  The sort of thing that made the Mac slower at first, and the Amiga lacking a few years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was better than the Mac in it 's dayBetter than the original Mac , absolutely .
Better than the Mac II , for many things , yes .
Video production , games , most entry level applications , yes .
The Mac II was * expensive * and often slow by comparison.For graphic design and desktop publishing not so much .
That is where the Mac II really shined .
There was nothing comparable to Quark on the Amiga .
Device independent or high bit depth raster graphics on the Amiga were the exception , not the rule .
The sort of thing that made the Mac slower at first , and the Amiga lacking a few years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was better than the Mac in it's dayBetter than the original Mac, absolutely.
Better than the Mac II, for many things, yes.
Video production, games, most entry level applications, yes.
The Mac II was *expensive* and often slow by comparison.For graphic design and desktop publishing not so much.
That is where the Mac II really shined.
There was nothing comparable to Quark on the Amiga.
Device independent or high bit depth raster graphics on the Amiga were the exception, not the rule.
The sort of thing that made the Mac slower at first, and the Amiga lacking a few years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628464</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>toejam13</author>
	<datestamp>1262444700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Which prevented the use of native filesystem write caching due to the chance of data corruption.  That's why all writes under AmigaOS were immediate.  Heck, if you turned your computer off during a write, even without caching, you could still fubar your filesystem.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>Windows, X11 and the like all support full-screen modes for programs.  As for window shades, I always considered it a gimmick and never used it much.  ALT-TAB is better.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>ls | myspeechprog</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</p></div><p>Too much overhead.  That's why Commodore removed inline datablock pointers in FFS.  Besides, use a journaling filesystem and chances of corruption go way down.  My HAMMER filesystem on my DragonFlyBSD system hasn't corrupted once.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5. The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div><p>At work, I have a $10 hunk of Chinese plastic called a monitor stand that includes a keyboard caddy.  Works just as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>
I think you have nostalgia clouding your memory.
<br> <br>
I have an Amiga 3000/040-25 with a Cybervision 64 (S3-Trio64) in my closet of misfit hardware that I occasionally boot up to test portability of some of my C programming.  It boots to Workbench fairly fast, but most programs really slow down when you run your desktop higher than 800&#215;600.
<br> <br>
Regardless, hardware abstraction is what made the move from PCI to AGP to PCIe so simple.  It would have made the migration from Zorro to PCI a heck of a lot easier.  It is also what makes writing drivers much easier due to their modular design.  Lastly, it doesn't add as much overhead as you think it does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Which prevented the use of native filesystem write caching due to the chance of data corruption .
That 's why all writes under AmigaOS were immediate .
Heck , if you turned your computer off during a write , even without caching , you could still fubar your filesystem.2 .
Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Windows , X11 and the like all support full-screen modes for programs .
As for window shades , I always considered it a gimmick and never used it much .
ALT-TAB is better.3 .
Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? ls | myspeechprog4 .
Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) Too much overhead .
That 's why Commodore removed inline datablock pointers in FFS .
Besides , use a journaling filesystem and chances of corruption go way down .
My HAMMER filesystem on my DragonFlyBSD system has n't corrupted once.5 .
The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.At work , I have a $ 10 hunk of Chinese plastic called a monitor stand that includes a keyboard caddy .
Works just as well.6 .
Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ?
I think you have nostalgia clouding your memory .
I have an Amiga 3000/040-25 with a Cybervision 64 ( S3-Trio64 ) in my closet of misfit hardware that I occasionally boot up to test portability of some of my C programming .
It boots to Workbench fairly fast , but most programs really slow down when you run your desktop higher than 800   600 .
Regardless , hardware abstraction is what made the move from PCI to AGP to PCIe so simple .
It would have made the migration from Zorro to PCI a heck of a lot easier .
It is also what makes writing drivers much easier due to their modular design .
Lastly , it does n't add as much overhead as you think it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Which prevented the use of native filesystem write caching due to the chance of data corruption.
That's why all writes under AmigaOS were immediate.
Heck, if you turned your computer off during a write, even without caching, you could still fubar your filesystem.2.
Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Windows, X11 and the like all support full-screen modes for programs.
As for window shades, I always considered it a gimmick and never used it much.
ALT-TAB is better.3.
Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?ls | myspeechprog4.
Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)Too much overhead.
That's why Commodore removed inline datablock pointers in FFS.
Besides, use a journaling filesystem and chances of corruption go way down.
My HAMMER filesystem on my DragonFlyBSD system hasn't corrupted once.5.
The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.At work, I have a $10 hunk of Chinese plastic called a monitor stand that includes a keyboard caddy.
Works just as well.6.
Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?
I think you have nostalgia clouding your memory.
I have an Amiga 3000/040-25 with a Cybervision 64 (S3-Trio64) in my closet of misfit hardware that I occasionally boot up to test portability of some of my C programming.
It boots to Workbench fairly fast, but most programs really slow down when you run your desktop higher than 800×600.
Regardless, hardware abstraction is what made the move from PCI to AGP to PCIe so simple.
It would have made the migration from Zorro to PCI a heck of a lot easier.
It is also what makes writing drivers much easier due to their modular design.
Lastly, it doesn't add as much overhead as you think it does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627178</id>
	<title>2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262434020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>..Year of the Amiga Desktop</htmltext>
<tokenext>..Year of the Amiga Desktop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..Year of the Amiga Desktop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628746</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262447880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>disk caching is one thing... but waiting on an unresponsive Windows app was, and still is, the real issue.</p><p>Even recently there are issues with unexpected behaviors using multiple screens/desktops; the Amiga was doing this, seamlessly, 15+ years ago.</p><p>Your "brute force" sprite/pallette switches, polling was fine, but you could never do anything else significant at the same time; 100\% cpu and unable to do anything else like multitask.</p><p>Don't kid yourself; even with modern Windows in realtime modes on your 2ghz cpu it is still impossible to be hard-realtime, unless you offload to your hardware (which Amiga did back then, invisibly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>disk caching is one thing... but waiting on an unresponsive Windows app was , and still is , the real issue.Even recently there are issues with unexpected behaviors using multiple screens/desktops ; the Amiga was doing this , seamlessly , 15 + years ago.Your " brute force " sprite/pallette switches , polling was fine , but you could never do anything else significant at the same time ; 100 \ % cpu and unable to do anything else like multitask.Do n't kid yourself ; even with modern Windows in realtime modes on your 2ghz cpu it is still impossible to be hard-realtime , unless you offload to your hardware ( which Amiga did back then , invisibly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>disk caching is one thing... but waiting on an unresponsive Windows app was, and still is, the real issue.Even recently there are issues with unexpected behaviors using multiple screens/desktops; the Amiga was doing this, seamlessly, 15+ years ago.Your "brute force" sprite/pallette switches, polling was fine, but you could never do anything else significant at the same time; 100\% cpu and unable to do anything else like multitask.Don't kid yourself; even with modern Windows in realtime modes on your 2ghz cpu it is still impossible to be hard-realtime, unless you offload to your hardware (which Amiga did back then, invisibly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627954</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262439480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MacInTalk (or whatever they call it now) has been in Mac OS since day one in 1984. One of the famous demos involved the original Mac "introducing itself" using it.</p><p>Now, I think, every OS has that support. Not sure if Windows has a CLI command for it, but it wouldn't be tough to write a quick VBScript or something to provide one, if you really had a need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MacInTalk ( or whatever they call it now ) has been in Mac OS since day one in 1984 .
One of the famous demos involved the original Mac " introducing itself " using it.Now , I think , every OS has that support .
Not sure if Windows has a CLI command for it , but it would n't be tough to write a quick VBScript or something to provide one , if you really had a need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MacInTalk (or whatever they call it now) has been in Mac OS since day one in 1984.
One of the famous demos involved the original Mac "introducing itself" using it.Now, I think, every OS has that support.
Not sure if Windows has a CLI command for it, but it wouldn't be tough to write a quick VBScript or something to provide one, if you really had a need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632324</id>
	<title>Amiga is just another name for short-sighted</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262541240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I love my Amigas.  Have a 1200, a 1000, and a bunch of 3000 boxes.</p><p>but talk about a computer with so much promise and serious epic fail.</p><p>Here's what I don't understand.</p><p>Why back when, when whomever bought and decided to go with some non common (and expensive) hardware to keep the Amigas alive past it's prime, what the hell they were thinking?</p><p>Seriously, The Amigas natural procession (IMO) would of been a desktop/workspace over a linux kernel.</p><p>Don't worry about backwards compatability, seriously, screw it.</p><p>of course, now it's too late to do that, and I guess they are sort of trying a work around.</p><p>But they left me behind years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I love my Amigas .
Have a 1200 , a 1000 , and a bunch of 3000 boxes.but talk about a computer with so much promise and serious epic fail.Here 's what I do n't understand.Why back when , when whomever bought and decided to go with some non common ( and expensive ) hardware to keep the Amigas alive past it 's prime , what the hell they were thinking ? Seriously , The Amigas natural procession ( IMO ) would of been a desktop/workspace over a linux kernel.Do n't worry about backwards compatability , seriously , screw it.of course , now it 's too late to do that , and I guess they are sort of trying a work around.But they left me behind years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I love my Amigas.
Have a 1200, a 1000, and a bunch of 3000 boxes.but talk about a computer with so much promise and serious epic fail.Here's what I don't understand.Why back when, when whomever bought and decided to go with some non common (and expensive) hardware to keep the Amigas alive past it's prime, what the hell they were thinking?Seriously, The Amigas natural procession (IMO) would of been a desktop/workspace over a linux kernel.Don't worry about backwards compatability, seriously, screw it.of course, now it's too late to do that, and I guess they are sort of trying a work around.But they left me behind years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629448</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</p></div></blockquote><p>This was very useful on unreliable floppies, but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower. Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off doesn't seem worth it.</p></div><p>Actually, modern file systems do have backup copies of the most important file system structures. In addition, some of them, like NTFS (gasp), have this marvelous thing called journaling so in the event of a power failure the filesystem driver can always go back to a non-corrupt state.</p><p>(File system metadata is journaled; data is not journaled unless you use something like Transactional NTFS, which is overkill for anything but say banking purposes.)</p><p>Modern file systems are far more robust than anything the Amiga had to offer. And far better performing too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) This was very useful on unreliable floppies , but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower .
Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off does n't seem worth it.Actually , modern file systems do have backup copies of the most important file system structures .
In addition , some of them , like NTFS ( gasp ) , have this marvelous thing called journaling so in the event of a power failure the filesystem driver can always go back to a non-corrupt state .
( File system metadata is journaled ; data is not journaled unless you use something like Transactional NTFS , which is overkill for anything but say banking purposes .
) Modern file systems are far more robust than anything the Amiga had to offer .
And far better performing too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)This was very useful on unreliable floppies, but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower.
Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off doesn't seem worth it.Actually, modern file systems do have backup copies of the most important file system structures.
In addition, some of them, like NTFS (gasp), have this marvelous thing called journaling so in the event of a power failure the filesystem driver can always go back to a non-corrupt state.
(File system metadata is journaled; data is not journaled unless you use something like Transactional NTFS, which is overkill for anything but say banking purposes.
)Modern file systems are far more robust than anything the Amiga had to offer.
And far better performing too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627748</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here are some ideas I'm still waiting for:</p><p>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.  There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Years ago, I volunteered in a school that had a lab full of Amiga 2000 machines. The students were dogged by corrupted files on their floppy disks, and the school had a technician check out the hardware. There was nothing wrong with it--  when the kids were saving their files to floppy disks, they'd wait until the light on the drive turned off before powering off the machine. BUT! That wasn't enough, and what they had to do was wait for the light on the floppy drive to go out, and then wait for it to come on again, then wait for it to turn off.</p><p>On an Amiga, you have to sit and wait for all the disk activity to cease before you power off the machine, or you'll have corrupted files. On Linux, you can do "shutdown -P" and walk away, letting the computer ensure that all write activity is done. On the other hand, if it matters that much to you, you can do it the Amiga way on Linux.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sliding screens.  Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>The comparison to workspaces in modern window managers has been done ad nauseum, but I want to note that the sliding screens trick worked because on OCS/ECS Amiga systems, all of the screenmodes shared the same pixel clock (or an even multiple), so sliding screens were a simple copper trick. On AGA systems, the sliding screens didn't always work so well because trying to display two screenmodes with different pixel clocks distorted one or more of the screens. Some of the later "RTG" systems, like Picasso96 IIRC, used brute force methods like scaling and copying large blocks of data around to implement sliding screens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Simple speech device.  What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>Agreed. Where's my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/speak?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tight integration of hardware with O.S.  O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>I'd like to point out that the same tight integration of the hardware with the OS that made the Amiga so phenomenal back in the day also doomed it to obsolescence, since there was no layer of abstraction to allow swapping out the original chipset once the rest of the industry started producing hardware that far outpaced the old Amiga hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some ideas I 'm still waiting for : To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Years ago , I volunteered in a school that had a lab full of Amiga 2000 machines .
The students were dogged by corrupted files on their floppy disks , and the school had a technician check out the hardware .
There was nothing wrong with it-- when the kids were saving their files to floppy disks , they 'd wait until the light on the drive turned off before powering off the machine .
BUT ! That was n't enough , and what they had to do was wait for the light on the floppy drive to go out , and then wait for it to come on again , then wait for it to turn off.On an Amiga , you have to sit and wait for all the disk activity to cease before you power off the machine , or you 'll have corrupted files .
On Linux , you can do " shutdown -P " and walk away , letting the computer ensure that all write activity is done .
On the other hand , if it matters that much to you , you can do it the Amiga way on Linux.Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.The comparison to workspaces in modern window managers has been done ad nauseum , but I want to note that the sliding screens trick worked because on OCS/ECS Amiga systems , all of the screenmodes shared the same pixel clock ( or an even multiple ) , so sliding screens were a simple copper trick .
On AGA systems , the sliding screens did n't always work so well because trying to display two screenmodes with different pixel clocks distorted one or more of the screens .
Some of the later " RTG " systems , like Picasso96 IIRC , used brute force methods like scaling and copying large blocks of data around to implement sliding screens.Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? Agreed .
Where 's my /dev/speak ? Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? I 'd like to point out that the same tight integration of the hardware with the OS that made the Amiga so phenomenal back in the day also doomed it to obsolescence , since there was no layer of abstraction to allow swapping out the original chipset once the rest of the industry started producing hardware that far outpaced the old Amiga hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some ideas I'm still waiting for:To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Years ago, I volunteered in a school that had a lab full of Amiga 2000 machines.
The students were dogged by corrupted files on their floppy disks, and the school had a technician check out the hardware.
There was nothing wrong with it--  when the kids were saving their files to floppy disks, they'd wait until the light on the drive turned off before powering off the machine.
BUT! That wasn't enough, and what they had to do was wait for the light on the floppy drive to go out, and then wait for it to come on again, then wait for it to turn off.On an Amiga, you have to sit and wait for all the disk activity to cease before you power off the machine, or you'll have corrupted files.
On Linux, you can do "shutdown -P" and walk away, letting the computer ensure that all write activity is done.
On the other hand, if it matters that much to you, you can do it the Amiga way on Linux.Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.The comparison to workspaces in modern window managers has been done ad nauseum, but I want to note that the sliding screens trick worked because on OCS/ECS Amiga systems, all of the screenmodes shared the same pixel clock (or an even multiple), so sliding screens were a simple copper trick.
On AGA systems, the sliding screens didn't always work so well because trying to display two screenmodes with different pixel clocks distorted one or more of the screens.
Some of the later "RTG" systems, like Picasso96 IIRC, used brute force methods like scaling and copying large blocks of data around to implement sliding screens.Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?Agreed.
Where's my /dev/speak?Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?I'd like to point out that the same tight integration of the hardware with the OS that made the Amiga so phenomenal back in the day also doomed it to obsolescence, since there was no layer of abstraction to allow swapping out the original chipset once the rest of the industry started producing hardware that far outpaced the old Amiga hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631134</id>
	<title>Dead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262526840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just teased us today with some new photos of a coming motherboard wtih pci express and most like at least dual core.<br>http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&amp;topic\_id=30351&amp;forum=2&amp;start=0&amp;viewmode=flat&amp;order=0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just teased us today with some new photos of a coming motherboard wtih pci express and most like at least dual core.http : //amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php ? mode = viewtopic&amp;topic \ _id = 30351&amp;forum = 2&amp;start = 0&amp;viewmode = flat&amp;order = 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just teased us today with some new photos of a coming motherboard wtih pci express and most like at least dual core.http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&amp;topic\_id=30351&amp;forum=2&amp;start=0&amp;viewmode=flat&amp;order=0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630322</id>
	<title>Re:MorphOS</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262510100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MorpOS, Pegasos, Efika, Amithlon. Or how Amiga Inc. operated for the last decade. See, AmigaOS 4.x camp doesn't mention those things.</p><p>That's also what helped in killing Amiga, fragmentation. Not that it would make much of a difference...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MorpOS , Pegasos , Efika , Amithlon .
Or how Amiga Inc. operated for the last decade .
See , AmigaOS 4.x camp does n't mention those things.That 's also what helped in killing Amiga , fragmentation .
Not that it would make much of a difference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MorpOS, Pegasos, Efika, Amithlon.
Or how Amiga Inc. operated for the last decade.
See, AmigaOS 4.x camp doesn't mention those things.That's also what helped in killing Amiga, fragmentation.
Not that it would make much of a difference...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627574</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div></blockquote><p>Disk caches would disagree with such behaviour. Syncing disks every time a single byte is written would kill performance these days.</p><blockquote><div><p>Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div></blockquote><p>We've got hardware-composited desktops - using 3D hardware to display window contents however we like, rather than relying on a quirk of how a video signal is generated.</p><blockquote><div><p>Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div></blockquote><p>Will "ls | say" on a Mac suffice?</p><blockquote><div><p>Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</p></div></blockquote><p>Journalled filesystems say hi.</p><blockquote><div><p>The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm typing this on a laptop which, not too many years ago, would have easily been qualified as a supercomputer, home entertainment system, radio, television and all sorts. It fits on my lap, and hasn't cooked my bollocks off or crushed my pelvis yet. Computers moved beyond desks.</p><blockquote><div><p>Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div></blockquote><p>Levels of abstraction which mean that software is not stuck on that particular hardware. This Apple laptop will run software designed for an entirely different processor architecture, on a graphics subsystem designed by a completely different company, you name it - it's not tied to hardware decisions made in the mid 1980s. HAM modes and four-channel sound were nice hardware hacks for the time, but they were utterly irrelevant even by the mid-90s.</p><p>And modern computers are no slouch - let me know when any Amiga plays back multiple 1080p streams of hardware-accelerated H.264 video, or throws around 30-megapixel RAW files from a dSLR in the blink of an eye, or throws information over a network at a gigabit per second...</p><p>Amigas were incredible for their time, but the clever hardware and software hacks which made them possible weren't exactly friendly towards sustained development...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Disk caches would disagree with such behaviour .
Syncing disks every time a single byte is written would kill performance these days.Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.We 've got hardware-composited desktops - using 3D hardware to display window contents however we like , rather than relying on a quirk of how a video signal is generated.Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? Will " ls | say " on a Mac suffice ? Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) Journalled filesystems say hi.The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.I 'm typing this on a laptop which , not too many years ago , would have easily been qualified as a supercomputer , home entertainment system , radio , television and all sorts .
It fits on my lap , and has n't cooked my bollocks off or crushed my pelvis yet .
Computers moved beyond desks.Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? Levels of abstraction which mean that software is not stuck on that particular hardware .
This Apple laptop will run software designed for an entirely different processor architecture , on a graphics subsystem designed by a completely different company , you name it - it 's not tied to hardware decisions made in the mid 1980s .
HAM modes and four-channel sound were nice hardware hacks for the time , but they were utterly irrelevant even by the mid-90s.And modern computers are no slouch - let me know when any Amiga plays back multiple 1080p streams of hardware-accelerated H.264 video , or throws around 30-megapixel RAW files from a dSLR in the blink of an eye , or throws information over a network at a gigabit per second...Amigas were incredible for their time , but the clever hardware and software hacks which made them possible were n't exactly friendly towards sustained development.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Disk caches would disagree with such behaviour.
Syncing disks every time a single byte is written would kill performance these days.Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.We've got hardware-composited desktops - using 3D hardware to display window contents however we like, rather than relying on a quirk of how a video signal is generated.Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?Will "ls | say" on a Mac suffice?Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)Journalled filesystems say hi.The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.I'm typing this on a laptop which, not too many years ago, would have easily been qualified as a supercomputer, home entertainment system, radio, television and all sorts.
It fits on my lap, and hasn't cooked my bollocks off or crushed my pelvis yet.
Computers moved beyond desks.Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?Levels of abstraction which mean that software is not stuck on that particular hardware.
This Apple laptop will run software designed for an entirely different processor architecture, on a graphics subsystem designed by a completely different company, you name it - it's not tied to hardware decisions made in the mid 1980s.
HAM modes and four-channel sound were nice hardware hacks for the time, but they were utterly irrelevant even by the mid-90s.And modern computers are no slouch - let me know when any Amiga plays back multiple 1080p streams of hardware-accelerated H.264 video, or throws around 30-megapixel RAW files from a dSLR in the blink of an eye, or throws information over a network at a gigabit per second...Amigas were incredible for their time, but the clever hardware and software hacks which made them possible weren't exactly friendly towards sustained development...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629156</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1262452140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p># To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>And what did a person do about unparked heads?</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>This is a feature I do not understand, conceptually - unless you are referring to something like OSX's Expose or the Awesome window manager's tags. Screenshot?</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>Something like:</p><p>ls -m --color=never | festival --tts</p><p>Does the trick just fine. Or was Amiga really all that hot that it made TTS not sound like someone with a puckered asshole?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div><p>What? Is this even a valid complaint? I've got a drawer under my computer desk where my keyboard hides. It fits the qualified description.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>You're going to have to be more specific - for those of us who have never seen an Amiga.</p><p>Personally, what you're describing to me sounds like a buggy video card being able to overwrite my disk due to a leak in the driver, or some such thing. I don't care for that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...And what did a person do about unparked heads ? # Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.This is a feature I do not understand , conceptually - unless you are referring to something like OSX 's Expose or the Awesome window manager 's tags .
Screenshot ? # Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? Something like : ls -m --color = never | festival --ttsDoes the trick just fine .
Or was Amiga really all that hot that it made TTS not sound like someone with a puckered asshole ? The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.What ?
Is this even a valid complaint ?
I 've got a drawer under my computer desk where my keyboard hides .
It fits the qualified description.Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? You 're going to have to be more specific - for those of us who have never seen an Amiga.Personally , what you 're describing to me sounds like a buggy video card being able to overwrite my disk due to a leak in the driver , or some such thing .
I do n't care for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext># To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...And what did a person do about unparked heads?# Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.This is a feature I do not understand, conceptually - unless you are referring to something like OSX's Expose or the Awesome window manager's tags.
Screenshot?# Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?Something like:ls -m --color=never | festival --ttsDoes the trick just fine.
Or was Amiga really all that hot that it made TTS not sound like someone with a puckered asshole?The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.What?
Is this even a valid complaint?
I've got a drawer under my computer desk where my keyboard hides.
It fits the qualified description.Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?You're going to have to be more specific - for those of us who have never seen an Amiga.Personally, what you're describing to me sounds like a buggy video card being able to overwrite my disk due to a leak in the driver, or some such thing.
I don't care for that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629056</id>
	<title>We moved to Windows, Orion Blastar.</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1262450880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it wasn't more than a few days ago he was crying about a lack of Amiga coverage on Slashdot, now he's gone and created his own submission.  That would normally be fine, but the asshole makes remarks like "gasp shock, Microsoft Windows".  It might surprise you to learn that after years of nursing a dying machine with a dried up software library that many of us didn't want to move to yet another platform with a limited selection.  I personally knew six other Amiga users "back in the day".  <b>None</b> of them gave two shits about anything Unix related.  To us, the Amiga was about ideas that move computers forward, not trying to recycle old ideas.  Only one of them moved to a Mac, the others moved to Windows, including myself.</p><p>For the record, when you mention emulators you give people a link to UAE, which is horribly out of date. UAE is far behind WinUAE, the Windows port.  As usual on the emulation scene, the Windows version is better developed and has far more features.  What does that mean?  It means if you want the fastest, most accurate Amiga emulation, you need to be using Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it was n't more than a few days ago he was crying about a lack of Amiga coverage on Slashdot , now he 's gone and created his own submission .
That would normally be fine , but the asshole makes remarks like " gasp shock , Microsoft Windows " .
It might surprise you to learn that after years of nursing a dying machine with a dried up software library that many of us did n't want to move to yet another platform with a limited selection .
I personally knew six other Amiga users " back in the day " .
None of them gave two shits about anything Unix related .
To us , the Amiga was about ideas that move computers forward , not trying to recycle old ideas .
Only one of them moved to a Mac , the others moved to Windows , including myself.For the record , when you mention emulators you give people a link to UAE , which is horribly out of date .
UAE is far behind WinUAE , the Windows port .
As usual on the emulation scene , the Windows version is better developed and has far more features .
What does that mean ?
It means if you want the fastest , most accurate Amiga emulation , you need to be using Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it wasn't more than a few days ago he was crying about a lack of Amiga coverage on Slashdot, now he's gone and created his own submission.
That would normally be fine, but the asshole makes remarks like "gasp shock, Microsoft Windows".
It might surprise you to learn that after years of nursing a dying machine with a dried up software library that many of us didn't want to move to yet another platform with a limited selection.
I personally knew six other Amiga users "back in the day".
None of them gave two shits about anything Unix related.
To us, the Amiga was about ideas that move computers forward, not trying to recycle old ideas.
Only one of them moved to a Mac, the others moved to Windows, including myself.For the record, when you mention emulators you give people a link to UAE, which is horribly out of date.
UAE is far behind WinUAE, the Windows port.
As usual on the emulation scene, the Windows version is better developed and has far more features.
What does that mean?
It means if you want the fastest, most accurate Amiga emulation, you need to be using Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629190</id>
	<title>Re:From one generation to another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262452500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell yeah.  I wasn't at Woodstock, but I had an Amiga.  And when the 90s came round, I got into raving.  Because moving on and developing new ideas is what we do.</p><p>Love nostalgia, but you can't rest on your laurels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell yeah .
I was n't at Woodstock , but I had an Amiga .
And when the 90s came round , I got into raving .
Because moving on and developing new ideas is what we do.Love nostalgia , but you ca n't rest on your laurels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell yeah.
I wasn't at Woodstock, but I had an Amiga.
And when the 90s came round, I got into raving.
Because moving on and developing new ideas is what we do.Love nostalgia, but you can't rest on your laurels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628442</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Carrot007</author>
	<datestamp>1262444460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggle</p><p>Not have the OS lock up when a new volume is attached for one. (I'm pretty sure it is just in windows these days because people expect it though!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggleNot have the OS lock up when a new volume is attached for one .
( I 'm pretty sure it is just in windows these days because people expect it though !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggleNot have the OS lock up when a new volume is attached for one.
(I'm pretty sure it is just in windows these days because people expect it though!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had an Amiga and it was great, however the world has moved on since then. To answer your points:</p><blockquote><div><p>1. To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you waited for the disk light to stop flashing and then turned it off, hoping that all applications had flushed out all of their data. The Amiga got away with it (mostly) by not really having a lot of long lived service-type applications.</p><blockquote><div><p>2. Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div></blockquote><p>I do miss this - having each application on its own screen (with its own screen mode) was very useful. Now that we are all running high-res desktops with 24 bit colour, the different screen modes aren't so important, and software like "Spaces" on MacOSX fills much the same need.</p><blockquote><div><p>3. Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div></blockquote><p>That was cool, but fairly niche. I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further, the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago.</p><blockquote><div><p>4. Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</p></div></blockquote><p>This was very useful on unreliable floppies, but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower. Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off doesn't seem worth it.</p><blockquote><div><p>5. The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p> 6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div></blockquote><p>What you are basically wishing for is MacOSX, where one company controls both the hardware and the software, and it does (suck it, haters) produce better computers. However, even MacOSX has abstraction layers and drivers because Amiga-style direct hardware intergration turned out to be a terrible long-term plan. The clever hardware tricks that made the Amiga1000/500 so cheap and fast back in the early 80s ended up holding back Amiga development 5 years later.</p><p>To sum up, while the Amiga was (in a lot of ways) ahead of its time, modern computers (and I am including Windows in this as well) do more and operate in a different environment than in the 80s. Although the Amiga was fast and amazingly inexpensive for the time, for the equivalent money today you could buy a high-spec iMac that is better in every way. Those who pine after the lost Amiga are living in the past.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an Amiga and it was great , however the world has moved on since then .
To answer your points : 1 .
To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...No , you waited for the disk light to stop flashing and then turned it off , hoping that all applications had flushed out all of their data .
The Amiga got away with it ( mostly ) by not really having a lot of long lived service-type applications.2 .
Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.I do miss this - having each application on its own screen ( with its own screen mode ) was very useful .
Now that we are all running high-res desktops with 24 bit colour , the different screen modes are n't so important , and software like " Spaces " on MacOSX fills much the same need.3 .
Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? That was cool , but fairly niche .
I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further , the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago.4 .
Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) This was very useful on unreliable floppies , but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower .
Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off does n't seem worth it.5 .
The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof .
6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? What you are basically wishing for is MacOSX , where one company controls both the hardware and the software , and it does ( suck it , haters ) produce better computers .
However , even MacOSX has abstraction layers and drivers because Amiga-style direct hardware intergration turned out to be a terrible long-term plan .
The clever hardware tricks that made the Amiga1000/500 so cheap and fast back in the early 80s ended up holding back Amiga development 5 years later.To sum up , while the Amiga was ( in a lot of ways ) ahead of its time , modern computers ( and I am including Windows in this as well ) do more and operate in a different environment than in the 80s .
Although the Amiga was fast and amazingly inexpensive for the time , for the equivalent money today you could buy a high-spec iMac that is better in every way .
Those who pine after the lost Amiga are living in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an Amiga and it was great, however the world has moved on since then.
To answer your points:1.
To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...No, you waited for the disk light to stop flashing and then turned it off, hoping that all applications had flushed out all of their data.
The Amiga got away with it (mostly) by not really having a lot of long lived service-type applications.2.
Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.I do miss this - having each application on its own screen (with its own screen mode) was very useful.
Now that we are all running high-res desktops with 24 bit colour, the different screen modes aren't so important, and software like "Spaces" on MacOSX fills much the same need.3.
Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?That was cool, but fairly niche.
I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further, the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago.4.
Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)This was very useful on unreliable floppies, but used precious space on the disk and made updating files slower.
Now that removable storage is more reliable the trade-off doesn't seem worth it.5.
The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.
6. Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?What you are basically wishing for is MacOSX, where one company controls both the hardware and the software, and it does (suck it, haters) produce better computers.
However, even MacOSX has abstraction layers and drivers because Amiga-style direct hardware intergration turned out to be a terrible long-term plan.
The clever hardware tricks that made the Amiga1000/500 so cheap and fast back in the early 80s ended up holding back Amiga development 5 years later.To sum up, while the Amiga was (in a lot of ways) ahead of its time, modern computers (and I am including Windows in this as well) do more and operate in a different environment than in the 80s.
Although the Amiga was fast and amazingly inexpensive for the time, for the equivalent money today you could buy a high-spec iMac that is better in every way.
Those who pine after the lost Amiga are living in the past.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627942</id>
	<title>amiga users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262439360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>amiga users take it up the ass</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>amiga users take it up the ass</tokentext>
<sentencetext>amiga users take it up the ass</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629650</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget that stuff! Why don't we have assigns? I've been waiting for the Linux dorks to give us something like assigns for ages. Unionfs is a half-assed substitute for it, but is a pain to use compared to Amiga assigns.</p><p>
&nbsp; On an Amiga, you could do "ASSIGN FONTS: SYS:Fonts/ CD0:/CoolFonts/ DH1:Downloads/Fonts DH0:Myfonts/" and then "DIR FONTS:" would show you a list of all the fonts in those directories, just as though they were all in the one directory together. Anything added to FONTS: would be dropped into the last directory (DH0:Myfonts/) leaving the others unaltered. You could issue a new assign command at any time, adding new directories or rewriting the list on a whim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget that stuff !
Why do n't we have assigns ?
I 've been waiting for the Linux dorks to give us something like assigns for ages .
Unionfs is a half-assed substitute for it , but is a pain to use compared to Amiga assigns .
  On an Amiga , you could do " ASSIGN FONTS : SYS : Fonts/ CD0 : /CoolFonts/ DH1 : Downloads/Fonts DH0 : Myfonts/ " and then " DIR FONTS : " would show you a list of all the fonts in those directories , just as though they were all in the one directory together .
Anything added to FONTS : would be dropped into the last directory ( DH0 : Myfonts/ ) leaving the others unaltered .
You could issue a new assign command at any time , adding new directories or rewriting the list on a whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget that stuff!
Why don't we have assigns?
I've been waiting for the Linux dorks to give us something like assigns for ages.
Unionfs is a half-assed substitute for it, but is a pain to use compared to Amiga assigns.
  On an Amiga, you could do "ASSIGN FONTS: SYS:Fonts/ CD0:/CoolFonts/ DH1:Downloads/Fonts DH0:Myfonts/" and then "DIR FONTS:" would show you a list of all the fonts in those directories, just as though they were all in the one directory together.
Anything added to FONTS: would be dropped into the last directory (DH0:Myfonts/) leaving the others unaltered.
You could issue a new assign command at any time, adding new directories or rewriting the list on a whim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30652338</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1262682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That was cool, but fairly niche. I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further, the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago."</p><p>This is just not true.  There are a lot of legacy voices included with OS X, but the Alex voice is quite natural sounding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That was cool , but fairly niche .
I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further , the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago .
" This is just not true .
There are a lot of legacy voices included with OS X , but the Alex voice is quite natural sounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That was cool, but fairly niche.
I am disappointed that computer generated speech as not come further, the MacOSX voices sound only marginally better than the old Amiga voice from 25 years ago.
"This is just not true.
There are a lot of legacy voices included with OS X, but the Alex voice is quite natural sounding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629994</id>
	<title>I think I still have mine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought my Amiga1000 in 1985.  I also have a genlock, the 256 kb memory expansion pack, and another 2 MB of ram on the side.  Kickin' stuff there.  Also a Progressive Peripherals Framegrabber.  I think I still have all of this stuff somewhere (along with kickstart and workbench disks, somewhere).  Oh, and Amiga Basic and an Amiga Basic compiler.  Somewhere.  I know I didn't sell any of this stuff, but haven't used any of it for more than about 20 years.  I currently have Linux on a Corei7-920 (I've had for about a year).  It kinda beats the Amiga in speed and graphics ability (Nvidia 9600GT, twin Samsung p2270 monitors, 12GB of triple channel memory, 1.5 TB of disk space in the box, plus another 320 GB outside the box).   The Amiga is a real nice, 20 year old machine.  My motherboard can accept a Corei9 (and I'm tempted).  The Amiga, try as it might, can't compete against that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought my Amiga1000 in 1985 .
I also have a genlock , the 256 kb memory expansion pack , and another 2 MB of ram on the side .
Kickin ' stuff there .
Also a Progressive Peripherals Framegrabber .
I think I still have all of this stuff somewhere ( along with kickstart and workbench disks , somewhere ) .
Oh , and Amiga Basic and an Amiga Basic compiler .
Somewhere. I know I did n't sell any of this stuff , but have n't used any of it for more than about 20 years .
I currently have Linux on a Corei7-920 ( I 've had for about a year ) .
It kinda beats the Amiga in speed and graphics ability ( Nvidia 9600GT , twin Samsung p2270 monitors , 12GB of triple channel memory , 1.5 TB of disk space in the box , plus another 320 GB outside the box ) .
The Amiga is a real nice , 20 year old machine .
My motherboard can accept a Corei9 ( and I 'm tempted ) .
The Amiga , try as it might , ca n't compete against that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought my Amiga1000 in 1985.
I also have a genlock, the 256 kb memory expansion pack, and another 2 MB of ram on the side.
Kickin' stuff there.
Also a Progressive Peripherals Framegrabber.
I think I still have all of this stuff somewhere (along with kickstart and workbench disks, somewhere).
Oh, and Amiga Basic and an Amiga Basic compiler.
Somewhere.  I know I didn't sell any of this stuff, but haven't used any of it for more than about 20 years.
I currently have Linux on a Corei7-920 (I've had for about a year).
It kinda beats the Amiga in speed and graphics ability (Nvidia 9600GT, twin Samsung p2270 monitors, 12GB of triple channel memory, 1.5 TB of disk space in the box, plus another 320 GB outside the box).
The Amiga is a real nice, 20 year old machine.
My motherboard can accept a Corei9 (and I'm tempted).
The Amiga, try as it might, can't compete against that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627442</id>
	<title>Re:2010</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1262435700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, no, see, the Haiku guys have brought BeOS back from the dead now, so really 2010 will actually be the Year of the BeOS Desktop.<br><br>HTH.HAND.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , see , the Haiku guys have brought BeOS back from the dead now , so really 2010 will actually be the Year of the BeOS Desktop.HTH.HAND .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, see, the Haiku guys have brought BeOS back from the dead now, so really 2010 will actually be the Year of the BeOS Desktop.HTH.HAND.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631870</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1262536440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell shuts down their computer? More to the point, who does so and sits there watching it? I hit the hibernate button, stand up and walk away. I hear the PSU flip off before I get out of the room - quite quick enough for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell shuts down their computer ?
More to the point , who does so and sits there watching it ?
I hit the hibernate button , stand up and walk away .
I hear the PSU flip off before I get out of the room - quite quick enough for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell shuts down their computer?
More to the point, who does so and sits there watching it?
I hit the hibernate button, stand up and walk away.
I hear the PSU flip off before I get out of the room - quite quick enough for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630636</id>
	<title>Re:What was that Amiga tank game?</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1262516340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the screenshots of the "Firepower" game mentioned by the anonymous coward, then I'm pretty sure you'd love the hell out of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return\_Fire" title="wikipedia.org">Return Fire</a> [wikipedia.org] (assuming the AC is right and Firepower was the game you were talking about).  There's a sequel, too, but I haven't played it.  I've only played it on PC, but Wikipedia says it's available on the Saturn, Playstation, and 3DO as well.</p><p>Huh, reading the intro paragraph, it appears that it was made by the same people as Firepower and is a sequel of sorts.  That explains the similarity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the screenshots of the " Firepower " game mentioned by the anonymous coward , then I 'm pretty sure you 'd love the hell out of Return Fire [ wikipedia.org ] ( assuming the AC is right and Firepower was the game you were talking about ) .
There 's a sequel , too , but I have n't played it .
I 've only played it on PC , but Wikipedia says it 's available on the Saturn , Playstation , and 3DO as well.Huh , reading the intro paragraph , it appears that it was made by the same people as Firepower and is a sequel of sorts .
That explains the similarity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the screenshots of the "Firepower" game mentioned by the anonymous coward, then I'm pretty sure you'd love the hell out of Return Fire [wikipedia.org] (assuming the AC is right and Firepower was the game you were talking about).
There's a sequel, too, but I haven't played it.
I've only played it on PC, but Wikipedia says it's available on the Saturn, Playstation, and 3DO as well.Huh, reading the intro paragraph, it appears that it was made by the same people as Firepower and is a sequel of sorts.
That explains the similarity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627754</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Amiga had a very cool feature where it would access removable media by label, and ask the user to insert the correct media if it was unavailable.  It was also possible to alias a label to a drawer [directory] on the hard drive.  This feature would be extremely handy today for CDs, USB keydrives and SD cards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Amiga had a very cool feature where it would access removable media by label , and ask the user to insert the correct media if it was unavailable .
It was also possible to alias a label to a drawer [ directory ] on the hard drive .
This feature would be extremely handy today for CDs , USB keydrives and SD cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Amiga had a very cool feature where it would access removable media by label, and ask the user to insert the correct media if it was unavailable.
It was also possible to alias a label to a drawer [directory] on the hard drive.
This feature would be extremely handy today for CDs, USB keydrives and SD cards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627844</id>
	<title>Amiga Forever</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1262438580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVD set is a must (Ofcourse The various Kick's are needed but that is simple to get from the original disks or rom's.) Running all old code projects and to get at old content not available anymore because ooffice does not support Final writer and so on...</p><p><a href="http://www.last.fm/music/16+Bit/INAXYCVGTGB" title="www.last.fm">http://www.last.fm/music/16+Bit/INAXYCVGTGB</a> [www.last.fm]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVD set is a must ( Ofcourse The various Kick 's are needed but that is simple to get from the original disks or rom 's .
) Running all old code projects and to get at old content not available anymore because ooffice does not support Final writer and so on...http : //www.last.fm/music/16 + Bit/INAXYCVGTGB [ www.last.fm ] : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVD set is a must (Ofcourse The various Kick's are needed but that is simple to get from the original disks or rom's.
) Running all old code projects and to get at old content not available anymore because ooffice does not support Final writer and so on...http://www.last.fm/music/16+Bit/INAXYCVGTGB [www.last.fm] :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628940</id>
	<title>Commercial Amiga OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262449740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides AROS and UAE, Hyperion is keeping the old OS updated. It seems you can buy it online for the current 'mig powerpc board (and the hardware if you lack it). http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product\_info.php?products\_id=839</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides AROS and UAE , Hyperion is keeping the old OS updated .
It seems you can buy it online for the current 'mig powerpc board ( and the hardware if you lack it ) .
http : //amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product \ _info.php ? products \ _id = 839</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides AROS and UAE, Hyperion is keeping the old OS updated.
It seems you can buy it online for the current 'mig powerpc board (and the hardware if you lack it).
http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product\_info.php?products\_id=839</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628376</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262443620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Sorry, you can keep this feature. I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.</em></p><p>In order to safely flip the power switch to power off an early Amiga, you had to wait until all pending disk writes were complete.  This was pretty easy to do if you didn't have any disk writing background tasks running. Just wait for the drive lights to go out and then wait another couple of seconds for the superblock write to happen (which causes the drive light to flash a second time), and then you were good.</p><p>Woe be to the person who didn't wait for the second flash, because he/she would generally have to repair the disk on reboot.  That happened to me a couple of times before I learned my lesson.</p><p>The real performance advantage of the early Amigas over many modern PCs is *no virtual memory*.  It is amazingly fast to do just about anything if half of your applications haven't paged out to disk, as Linux is wont to do for inactive processes even when there are gigabytes of free memory in the system.</p><p>The Amiga, of course, originally didn't have any memory protection, which made programmers very careful. If you want to develop something for a quasi-embedded system it is ten times easier to debug "kernel level" code on an Amiga than for practically any other system, because the debugger, editor, test tools, etc. are all running in the same address space as what is being tested.</p><p>If you develop kernel mode code your kernel will crash and burn anyway, especially painful if you are on the same system, so it is awfully convenient to take advantage of the simplicity it allows. Even with memory protection turned on, Amiga OS is a single address space operating system.  It is ridiculously simple to develop multitasking systems for a single address space OS compared to the hoops you have to jump through to do the same things in user mode in a more traditional Unix style operating system.  Much higher performance too, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , you can keep this feature .
I , for one , like having things like disk caching that works.In order to safely flip the power switch to power off an early Amiga , you had to wait until all pending disk writes were complete .
This was pretty easy to do if you did n't have any disk writing background tasks running .
Just wait for the drive lights to go out and then wait another couple of seconds for the superblock write to happen ( which causes the drive light to flash a second time ) , and then you were good.Woe be to the person who did n't wait for the second flash , because he/she would generally have to repair the disk on reboot .
That happened to me a couple of times before I learned my lesson.The real performance advantage of the early Amigas over many modern PCs is * no virtual memory * .
It is amazingly fast to do just about anything if half of your applications have n't paged out to disk , as Linux is wont to do for inactive processes even when there are gigabytes of free memory in the system.The Amiga , of course , originally did n't have any memory protection , which made programmers very careful .
If you want to develop something for a quasi-embedded system it is ten times easier to debug " kernel level " code on an Amiga than for practically any other system , because the debugger , editor , test tools , etc .
are all running in the same address space as what is being tested.If you develop kernel mode code your kernel will crash and burn anyway , especially painful if you are on the same system , so it is awfully convenient to take advantage of the simplicity it allows .
Even with memory protection turned on , Amiga OS is a single address space operating system .
It is ridiculously simple to develop multitasking systems for a single address space OS compared to the hoops you have to jump through to do the same things in user mode in a more traditional Unix style operating system .
Much higher performance too , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, you can keep this feature.
I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.In order to safely flip the power switch to power off an early Amiga, you had to wait until all pending disk writes were complete.
This was pretty easy to do if you didn't have any disk writing background tasks running.
Just wait for the drive lights to go out and then wait another couple of seconds for the superblock write to happen (which causes the drive light to flash a second time), and then you were good.Woe be to the person who didn't wait for the second flash, because he/she would generally have to repair the disk on reboot.
That happened to me a couple of times before I learned my lesson.The real performance advantage of the early Amigas over many modern PCs is *no virtual memory*.
It is amazingly fast to do just about anything if half of your applications haven't paged out to disk, as Linux is wont to do for inactive processes even when there are gigabytes of free memory in the system.The Amiga, of course, originally didn't have any memory protection, which made programmers very careful.
If you want to develop something for a quasi-embedded system it is ten times easier to debug "kernel level" code on an Amiga than for practically any other system, because the debugger, editor, test tools, etc.
are all running in the same address space as what is being tested.If you develop kernel mode code your kernel will crash and burn anyway, especially painful if you are on the same system, so it is awfully convenient to take advantage of the simplicity it allows.
Even with memory protection turned on, Amiga OS is a single address space operating system.
It is ridiculously simple to develop multitasking systems for a single address space OS compared to the hoops you have to jump through to do the same things in user mode in a more traditional Unix style operating system.
Much higher performance too, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627596</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262436720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p># To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Most drivers did a sync when you did a soft reboot, e.g. ctrl-amiga-amiga. This only applies if you had write-delayed caching, which was not the default for most early storage devices.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>Yes, that was very cool for its day. But now we have Expo.</p><p><div class="quote"><p># Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>You can pipe text to an executable on windows or Unix today.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div><p>They make stands that do this that don't necessitate a retarded case with little expansion room like the A1000.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tight integration of hardware with O.S.</p></div><p>We added layers of abstraction to allow the hardware to do new things, and to permit the use of arbitrary third-party hardware instead of being locked in. You can get a PowerPC Amiga-ish board today, it's six hundred bucks. Or for that you could build the system I'm using now, a Phenom II 720 (3-core, 2.8GHz) with 4GB RAM, 250 GB 7200RPM/16MB cache disk, and more I/O than you can shake a stick at... And the gaming performance is not astoundingly worse than scripted demo performance, which is to say that I scarcely care if I get 90\% or 98\% of the capabilities of this hardware.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>Har de har de har. Even file management was pathetic comparing a 25MHz Amiga to this system running Ubuntu, which has a footprint bigger than the whole hard disk in my A2500. You're succumbing to the temptation to view the past through rose-colored glasses. It wasn't that rosy. The Amiga <em>was</em> an amazing platform for its day, and a $600 Amiga could beat the pants off a $2500 PC in most ways. But it's an enthusiast's platform today, and you can get much more out of a PC costing much less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Most drivers did a sync when you did a soft reboot , e.g .
ctrl-amiga-amiga. This only applies if you had write-delayed caching , which was not the default for most early storage devices.Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Yes , that was very cool for its day .
But now we have Expo. # Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? You can pipe text to an executable on windows or Unix today.The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.They make stands that do this that do n't necessitate a retarded case with little expansion room like the A1000.Tight integration of hardware with O.S.We added layers of abstraction to allow the hardware to do new things , and to permit the use of arbitrary third-party hardware instead of being locked in .
You can get a PowerPC Amiga-ish board today , it 's six hundred bucks .
Or for that you could build the system I 'm using now , a Phenom II 720 ( 3-core , 2.8GHz ) with 4GB RAM , 250 GB 7200RPM/16MB cache disk , and more I/O than you can shake a stick at... And the gaming performance is not astoundingly worse than scripted demo performance , which is to say that I scarcely care if I get 90 \ % or 98 \ % of the capabilities of this hardware.why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? Har de har de har .
Even file management was pathetic comparing a 25MHz Amiga to this system running Ubuntu , which has a footprint bigger than the whole hard disk in my A2500 .
You 're succumbing to the temptation to view the past through rose-colored glasses .
It was n't that rosy .
The Amiga was an amazing platform for its day , and a $ 600 Amiga could beat the pants off a $ 2500 PC in most ways .
But it 's an enthusiast 's platform today , and you can get much more out of a PC costing much less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext># To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Most drivers did a sync when you did a soft reboot, e.g.
ctrl-amiga-amiga. This only applies if you had write-delayed caching, which was not the default for most early storage devices.Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Yes, that was very cool for its day.
But now we have Expo.# Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?You can pipe text to an executable on windows or Unix today.The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.They make stands that do this that don't necessitate a retarded case with little expansion room like the A1000.Tight integration of hardware with O.S.We added layers of abstraction to allow the hardware to do new things, and to permit the use of arbitrary third-party hardware instead of being locked in.
You can get a PowerPC Amiga-ish board today, it's six hundred bucks.
Or for that you could build the system I'm using now, a Phenom II 720 (3-core, 2.8GHz) with 4GB RAM, 250 GB 7200RPM/16MB cache disk, and more I/O than you can shake a stick at... And the gaming performance is not astoundingly worse than scripted demo performance, which is to say that I scarcely care if I get 90\% or 98\% of the capabilities of this hardware.why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?Har de har de har.
Even file management was pathetic comparing a 25MHz Amiga to this system running Ubuntu, which has a footprint bigger than the whole hard disk in my A2500.
You're succumbing to the temptation to view the past through rose-colored glasses.
It wasn't that rosy.
The Amiga was an amazing platform for its day, and a $600 Amiga could beat the pants off a $2500 PC in most ways.
But it's an enthusiast's platform today, and you can get much more out of a PC costing much less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631078</id>
	<title>Re: X vs. Amiga</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262525940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the big problem with X with regards to network transparency is xlib, not the X11 protocol.  The protocol is very well designed for remote use (although not as nice as NeWS or DPS), but xlib was designed to make X11 programming 'easy' and so wrapped an asynchronous protocol in a synchronous API.  Run a typical xlib program over the network and you'll see that the network is not saturated and the CPU load on both machines is tiny.  The reason for this is that the client is spending most of its time in blocking xlib calls.  If you have a 100Mb/s network with 100ms latency, you can only make ten blocking xlib calls per second, which doesn't come close to using the network throughput.
</p><p>
XCB does a lot to improve on this.  It's very close to the protocol and designed for asynchronous use.  If you write good XCB code, your app will be very responsive over the network (or all apps using your toolkit, if you are using the XCB to write a toolkit).
</p><p>Xlib is too low level to be nice for writing apps and too high level to be nice for writing toolkits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the big problem with X with regards to network transparency is xlib , not the X11 protocol .
The protocol is very well designed for remote use ( although not as nice as NeWS or DPS ) , but xlib was designed to make X11 programming 'easy ' and so wrapped an asynchronous protocol in a synchronous API .
Run a typical xlib program over the network and you 'll see that the network is not saturated and the CPU load on both machines is tiny .
The reason for this is that the client is spending most of its time in blocking xlib calls .
If you have a 100Mb/s network with 100ms latency , you can only make ten blocking xlib calls per second , which does n't come close to using the network throughput .
XCB does a lot to improve on this .
It 's very close to the protocol and designed for asynchronous use .
If you write good XCB code , your app will be very responsive over the network ( or all apps using your toolkit , if you are using the XCB to write a toolkit ) .
Xlib is too low level to be nice for writing apps and too high level to be nice for writing toolkits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the big problem with X with regards to network transparency is xlib, not the X11 protocol.
The protocol is very well designed for remote use (although not as nice as NeWS or DPS), but xlib was designed to make X11 programming 'easy' and so wrapped an asynchronous protocol in a synchronous API.
Run a typical xlib program over the network and you'll see that the network is not saturated and the CPU load on both machines is tiny.
The reason for this is that the client is spending most of its time in blocking xlib calls.
If you have a 100Mb/s network with 100ms latency, you can only make ten blocking xlib calls per second, which doesn't come close to using the network throughput.
XCB does a lot to improve on this.
It's very close to the protocol and designed for asynchronous use.
If you write good XCB code, your app will be very responsive over the network (or all apps using your toolkit, if you are using the XCB to write a toolkit).
Xlib is too low level to be nice for writing apps and too high level to be nice for writing toolkits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631638</id>
	<title>It sucked back then, and still sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262533980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Floppy disc eating piece of garbage pwned by 520st</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Floppy disc eating piece of garbage pwned by 520st</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Floppy disc eating piece of garbage pwned by 520st</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629688</id>
	<title>What would be really cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone could recreate an amiga on an ARM cpu netbook.</p><p>Imagine Amiga OS running on 512mb of memory and 16gb flash drive.<br>You could probably run every amiga program ever made on a 16gb flash drive!</p><p>Now imagine if you had a button that would bring up Amiga OS and another button that would bring up a C64 screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone could recreate an amiga on an ARM cpu netbook.Imagine Amiga OS running on 512mb of memory and 16gb flash drive.You could probably run every amiga program ever made on a 16gb flash drive ! Now imagine if you had a button that would bring up Amiga OS and another button that would bring up a C64 screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone could recreate an amiga on an ARM cpu netbook.Imagine Amiga OS running on 512mb of memory and 16gb flash drive.You could probably run every amiga program ever made on a 16gb flash drive!Now imagine if you had a button that would bring up Amiga OS and another button that would bring up a C64 screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633490</id>
	<title>great Amiga ideas Mac is catching after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262549820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line "say". I just tried and "ls | say" read out my directory from the terminal.</p></div><p>So Macintosh got a command line and SAY command after 20 years since Amiga did?</p><p>Certainly Mac is not the smartest guy in the town...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>Ehi Houston, listen these news: A little step for Amiga requires a giant leap, much money, a whole change of OS Kernel and huuuuge amount of time for Macintoshes to reach.</p><p>Ridiculous.</p><p>What's next?</p><p>(Or better... What's NeXT?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># 3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line " say " .
I just tried and " ls | say " read out my directory from the terminal.So Macintosh got a command line and SAY command after 20 years since Amiga did ? Certainly Mac is not the smartest guy in the town... : -DEhi Houston , listen these news : A little step for Amiga requires a giant leap , much money , a whole change of OS Kernel and huuuuge amount of time for Macintoshes to reach.Ridiculous.What 's next ?
( Or better... What 's NeXT ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line "say".
I just tried and "ls | say" read out my directory from the terminal.So Macintosh got a command line and SAY command after 20 years since Amiga did?Certainly Mac is not the smartest guy in the town... :-DEhi Houston, listen these news: A little step for Amiga requires a giant leap, much money, a whole change of OS Kernel and huuuuge amount of time for Macintoshes to reach.Ridiculous.What's next?
(Or better... What's NeXT?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632308</id>
	<title>Re:ugg boot dealer discount ugg online</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1262541120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugg Classic Spam Chinese Sweatshop bizkickz.com</p><p>Let's see what Google does with that !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugg Classic Spam Chinese Sweatshop bizkickz.comLet 's see what Google does with that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugg Classic Spam Chinese Sweatshop bizkickz.comLet's see what Google does with that !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629364</id>
	<title>Re:From one generation to another</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1262454840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 2000's: "I was on MySpace!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 2000 's : " I was on MySpace !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 2000's: "I was on MySpace!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633862</id>
	<title>Re:what personal computing lost</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>* Single metadata format for everything.</i></p><p>What killed that off was the Internet.</p><p>The same could be said about Mac OS Classic, with it's two-fork filesystem. While the resource fork was *awesome* for application development, tracking of meta-data, and the like... well... you can't send the damned thing over the Internet. There's workarounds, like MacBinary or BinHex, but they were never very reliable since it was a compete crapshoot whether the Windows or Linux PC on the other end had any clue what to do with them.</p><p>(Even if you send a Mac Classic file to a Windows PC, and the Windows email client knows what a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hqx file was, the obvious problem was: where do you put the stuff in the resource fork? You could go through all the PICT resources, for example, and create separate files for all of them, but that's assuming you know how to read the image type in each PICT. Ditto with snd resources, or TEXT resources in the file.)</p><p>There's never been a good way of sending meta-data over the Internet, unfortunately. The only formats that make this work are formats that encode the meta-data in the file itself, like MP3... but that's an extremely inflexible way of doing it.</p><p>So if you want to blame anybody for the lack of meta-data in the modern computing world, blame Unix and Linux-- the Internet was all their stuff originally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Single metadata format for everything.What killed that off was the Internet.The same could be said about Mac OS Classic , with it 's two-fork filesystem .
While the resource fork was * awesome * for application development , tracking of meta-data , and the like... well... you ca n't send the damned thing over the Internet .
There 's workarounds , like MacBinary or BinHex , but they were never very reliable since it was a compete crapshoot whether the Windows or Linux PC on the other end had any clue what to do with them .
( Even if you send a Mac Classic file to a Windows PC , and the Windows email client knows what a .hqx file was , the obvious problem was : where do you put the stuff in the resource fork ?
You could go through all the PICT resources , for example , and create separate files for all of them , but that 's assuming you know how to read the image type in each PICT .
Ditto with snd resources , or TEXT resources in the file .
) There 's never been a good way of sending meta-data over the Internet , unfortunately .
The only formats that make this work are formats that encode the meta-data in the file itself , like MP3... but that 's an extremely inflexible way of doing it.So if you want to blame anybody for the lack of meta-data in the modern computing world , blame Unix and Linux-- the Internet was all their stuff originally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Single metadata format for everything.What killed that off was the Internet.The same could be said about Mac OS Classic, with it's two-fork filesystem.
While the resource fork was *awesome* for application development, tracking of meta-data, and the like... well... you can't send the damned thing over the Internet.
There's workarounds, like MacBinary or BinHex, but they were never very reliable since it was a compete crapshoot whether the Windows or Linux PC on the other end had any clue what to do with them.
(Even if you send a Mac Classic file to a Windows PC, and the Windows email client knows what a .hqx file was, the obvious problem was: where do you put the stuff in the resource fork?
You could go through all the PICT resources, for example, and create separate files for all of them, but that's assuming you know how to read the image type in each PICT.
Ditto with snd resources, or TEXT resources in the file.
)There's never been a good way of sending meta-data over the Internet, unfortunately.
The only formats that make this work are formats that encode the meta-data in the file itself, like MP3... but that's an extremely inflexible way of doing it.So if you want to blame anybody for the lack of meta-data in the modern computing world, blame Unix and Linux-- the Internet was all their stuff originally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627600</id>
	<title>My First Computer</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1262436720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first computer was an Amiga 500. It was 1991. I was 4. It was the most amazing machine on the planet. I could draw pictures on it. I could play Thomas the Tank Engine. I could even make it say things out loud.</p><p>We only got rid of it, when the video chip fried itself. It was better than the Mac in it's day. Too bad it's almost gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first computer was an Amiga 500 .
It was 1991 .
I was 4 .
It was the most amazing machine on the planet .
I could draw pictures on it .
I could play Thomas the Tank Engine .
I could even make it say things out loud.We only got rid of it , when the video chip fried itself .
It was better than the Mac in it 's day .
Too bad it 's almost gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first computer was an Amiga 500.
It was 1991.
I was 4.
It was the most amazing machine on the planet.
I could draw pictures on it.
I could play Thomas the Tank Engine.
I could even make it say things out loud.We only got rid of it, when the video chip fried itself.
It was better than the Mac in it's day.
Too bad it's almost gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262435880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>#3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line "say". I just tried and "ls | say" read out my directory from the terminal. #1 I totally agree with, I understand about modern disk caches and the like, but hitting the button and walking away would be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext># 3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line " say " .
I just tried and " ls | say " read out my directory from the terminal .
# 1 I totally agree with , I understand about modern disk caches and the like , but hitting the button and walking away would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#3 is taken care of by the little known mac command line "say".
I just tried and "ls | say" read out my directory from the terminal.
#1 I totally agree with, I understand about modern disk caches and the like, but hitting the button and walking away would be nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627696</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. To shutdown the Amiga, you closed the applications and waited until it had finished accessing the disk(s), then you turned it off. Any unsaved state was lost. That kind of design is entirely unreasonable for systems with background processes. If you limit yourself to the capabilities of an 80s Amiga, you can do the instant shutdown stunt with modern systems: Think live Linux system with a data directory on disk.</p><p>2. We have desktop managers and if you want things to move they can be animated too. The vertically sliding screens were a result of the way the Amiga display hardware worked. The Copper coprocessor could set any display parameter at precisely defined raster positions, which allowed the programmers to switch from one screen to another by reprogramming the graphics chip at an exact raster position. PC graphics used a stricter framebuffer concept and gained the necessary animation capabilities much later, but in return PC graphics are not limited to a few hardware-determined "special effects".</p><p>3. Software speech synthesizers exist for all desktop platforms and far exceed the quality of the Amiga speech synthesizer. It was pretty good and far ahead at the time though.</p><p>4. The bad block is still gone. Modern storage systems use a more general redundancy concept.</p><p>5. There are keyboard drawers and you can build (probably buy) a monitor stand which serves as a keyboard garage if you want.</p><p>6. The abstractions enable improvements without having to throw everything away and start over just because you changed the hardware. Since that problem is one of the reasons why "nobody" is using Amigas anymore, good riddance to missing abstraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
To shutdown the Amiga , you closed the applications and waited until it had finished accessing the disk ( s ) , then you turned it off .
Any unsaved state was lost .
That kind of design is entirely unreasonable for systems with background processes .
If you limit yourself to the capabilities of an 80s Amiga , you can do the instant shutdown stunt with modern systems : Think live Linux system with a data directory on disk.2 .
We have desktop managers and if you want things to move they can be animated too .
The vertically sliding screens were a result of the way the Amiga display hardware worked .
The Copper coprocessor could set any display parameter at precisely defined raster positions , which allowed the programmers to switch from one screen to another by reprogramming the graphics chip at an exact raster position .
PC graphics used a stricter framebuffer concept and gained the necessary animation capabilities much later , but in return PC graphics are not limited to a few hardware-determined " special effects " .3 .
Software speech synthesizers exist for all desktop platforms and far exceed the quality of the Amiga speech synthesizer .
It was pretty good and far ahead at the time though.4 .
The bad block is still gone .
Modern storage systems use a more general redundancy concept.5 .
There are keyboard drawers and you can build ( probably buy ) a monitor stand which serves as a keyboard garage if you want.6 .
The abstractions enable improvements without having to throw everything away and start over just because you changed the hardware .
Since that problem is one of the reasons why " nobody " is using Amigas anymore , good riddance to missing abstraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
To shutdown the Amiga, you closed the applications and waited until it had finished accessing the disk(s), then you turned it off.
Any unsaved state was lost.
That kind of design is entirely unreasonable for systems with background processes.
If you limit yourself to the capabilities of an 80s Amiga, you can do the instant shutdown stunt with modern systems: Think live Linux system with a data directory on disk.2.
We have desktop managers and if you want things to move they can be animated too.
The vertically sliding screens were a result of the way the Amiga display hardware worked.
The Copper coprocessor could set any display parameter at precisely defined raster positions, which allowed the programmers to switch from one screen to another by reprogramming the graphics chip at an exact raster position.
PC graphics used a stricter framebuffer concept and gained the necessary animation capabilities much later, but in return PC graphics are not limited to a few hardware-determined "special effects".3.
Software speech synthesizers exist for all desktop platforms and far exceed the quality of the Amiga speech synthesizer.
It was pretty good and far ahead at the time though.4.
The bad block is still gone.
Modern storage systems use a more general redundancy concept.5.
There are keyboard drawers and you can build (probably buy) a monitor stand which serves as a keyboard garage if you want.6.
The abstractions enable improvements without having to throw everything away and start over just because you changed the hardware.
Since that problem is one of the reasons why "nobody" is using Amigas anymore, good riddance to missing abstraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629320</id>
	<title>Video Toaster + Awesomeness</title>
	<author>pestilence669</author>
	<datestamp>1262454240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That low-level access gave the Amiga several firsts:</p><p>Hardware accelerated 4-channel digital audio</p><p>4,096 colors (when the PC was limited to 16... Hercules offered hi-res monochrome)</p><p>Hollywood acceptance as an A/B video editor + SFX engine (commercials of the 1980's &amp; Babylon 5 + others)</p><p>The exclusive screenshots to every PC title for a decade</p><p>Granted, computers have come far today. Consider their inspiration. The Amiga really did pave the way for advanced technology. It was a brief moment in PC technology that shaped the entire industry. Had Commodore had decent management, they would have ruled the world. The Amiga was at least 10 years ahead of everything that followed. Claiming superiority more than 20 years later is slightly lame. Of course we've surpassed the original hardware. You still need to acknowledge the masters of history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That low-level access gave the Amiga several firsts : Hardware accelerated 4-channel digital audio4,096 colors ( when the PC was limited to 16... Hercules offered hi-res monochrome ) Hollywood acceptance as an A/B video editor + SFX engine ( commercials of the 1980 's &amp; Babylon 5 + others ) The exclusive screenshots to every PC title for a decadeGranted , computers have come far today .
Consider their inspiration .
The Amiga really did pave the way for advanced technology .
It was a brief moment in PC technology that shaped the entire industry .
Had Commodore had decent management , they would have ruled the world .
The Amiga was at least 10 years ahead of everything that followed .
Claiming superiority more than 20 years later is slightly lame .
Of course we 've surpassed the original hardware .
You still need to acknowledge the masters of history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That low-level access gave the Amiga several firsts:Hardware accelerated 4-channel digital audio4,096 colors (when the PC was limited to 16... Hercules offered hi-res monochrome)Hollywood acceptance as an A/B video editor + SFX engine (commercials of the 1980's &amp; Babylon 5 + others)The exclusive screenshots to every PC title for a decadeGranted, computers have come far today.
Consider their inspiration.
The Amiga really did pave the way for advanced technology.
It was a brief moment in PC technology that shaped the entire industry.
Had Commodore had decent management, they would have ruled the world.
The Amiga was at least 10 years ahead of everything that followed.
Claiming superiority more than 20 years later is slightly lame.
Of course we've surpassed the original hardware.
You still need to acknowledge the masters of history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629596</id>
	<title>Re:From one generation to another</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1262457720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had an Apple ][+. I guess that's the 80s equivalent of "I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an Apple ] [ + .
I guess that 's the 80s equivalent of " I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an Apple ][+.
I guess that's the 80s equivalent of "I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629396</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1262455260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice part about Amiga sliding screens is that each sliding screen could be at a different resolution and bit depth.</p><p>Haven't seen anything like that since.</p><p>Thus when sliding a screen down, if the screen(s) underneath needed something "better" the monitor automatically adjusted.</p><p>This trick was also used by "playing fields"... really made for some nice graphical tricks.</p><p>I'll miss the Amiga.  Ahead of it's time, and STILL ahead of the times (sadly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice part about Amiga sliding screens is that each sliding screen could be at a different resolution and bit depth.Have n't seen anything like that since.Thus when sliding a screen down , if the screen ( s ) underneath needed something " better " the monitor automatically adjusted.This trick was also used by " playing fields " ... really made for some nice graphical tricks.I 'll miss the Amiga .
Ahead of it 's time , and STILL ahead of the times ( sadly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice part about Amiga sliding screens is that each sliding screen could be at a different resolution and bit depth.Haven't seen anything like that since.Thus when sliding a screen down, if the screen(s) underneath needed something "better" the monitor automatically adjusted.This trick was also used by "playing fields"... really made for some nice graphical tricks.I'll miss the Amiga.
Ahead of it's time, and STILL ahead of the times (sadly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30648150</id>
	<title>Here's what I still miss from AmigaOS</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1262608260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intelligent Window Manager.</p><p>When you're running an application in AmigaOS, let's say it's so busy, it's not reading window messages (Windows would report this app as "not responding"). For most applications, you could still move the window around, shrink it, grow it back, etc. At worst, the contents of just that window don't refresh. You don't have the window "stuck" not responding, you don't have parts of other windows getting into each other, as you often see in other OSs. You can even resize the window (again, you MAY not see it refresh properly, or you may, depending on the nature of the window itself).</p><p>Datatypes</p><p>System level objects used everywhere. You don't care about the kind of graphic file or video you're opening, you just open an IMAGE or a VIDEO or a DOCUMENT or whatever in your program, and you can open any of these known to the system. BeOS implemented a similar idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Sure, there are programs that do this for you, and different systems within the same OS to deal with SOME media types. But nothing as complete, not at least that I've seen.</p><p>AREXX</p><p>Every program of consequence had an AREXX port. Basically, any command the program could understand was available in AREXX (standard scripting language, originally invented at IBM). So you could build very interesting interactions between running programs. Linux users get a taste of this, between a million command lines and pipes, but this was so much more powerful. And very well supported, pretty much in every commercial application.</p><p>ASYNCHRONOUS I/O</p><p>Every I/O operation to every device driver could be done synchronously or asynchronously. So what becomes a pain in the butt in an OS like Linux was a couple of extra lines of code in AmigaOS. Of course, in those days, there was no point of asynchronous I/O for Windows or MacOS, since they didn't multitask and pretty much had to dedicate the CPU to loading or unloading your I/O, anyway. But it was a beautiful thing in AmigaOS, in the day.</p><p>Probably some other stuff, but I gotta go. It's not that I plan on firing up my A3000 when I get home, rather than that home-integrated Q9550 PC with nVidia 8800GT graphics, 8GB RAM, twin 1920x1200 monitors in 24-bit, and 11TB of total attached storage. My old Amiga was weak at electronics CAD, and I'd still be waiting for that first AVC render for Blu-Ray creation to finish... not to mention the lack of support for huge drives and all. But it's a shame when you have to leave behind better ideas just to move forward a bit.</p><p>And don't even get me started on word processing... all the power I had with Scribe at CMU in the 80s, to be stuck with things like Word or OpenOffice, it's crime. I do like the WYSIWYG editing, just wish they didn't have to remove 100 IQ points from the formatting engine to get that....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intelligent Window Manager.When you 're running an application in AmigaOS , let 's say it 's so busy , it 's not reading window messages ( Windows would report this app as " not responding " ) .
For most applications , you could still move the window around , shrink it , grow it back , etc .
At worst , the contents of just that window do n't refresh .
You do n't have the window " stuck " not responding , you do n't have parts of other windows getting into each other , as you often see in other OSs .
You can even resize the window ( again , you MAY not see it refresh properly , or you may , depending on the nature of the window itself ) .DatatypesSystem level objects used everywhere .
You do n't care about the kind of graphic file or video you 're opening , you just open an IMAGE or a VIDEO or a DOCUMENT or whatever in your program , and you can open any of these known to the system .
BeOS implemented a similar idea , but I have n't seen it anywhere else .
Sure , there are programs that do this for you , and different systems within the same OS to deal with SOME media types .
But nothing as complete , not at least that I 've seen.AREXXEvery program of consequence had an AREXX port .
Basically , any command the program could understand was available in AREXX ( standard scripting language , originally invented at IBM ) .
So you could build very interesting interactions between running programs .
Linux users get a taste of this , between a million command lines and pipes , but this was so much more powerful .
And very well supported , pretty much in every commercial application.ASYNCHRONOUS I/OEvery I/O operation to every device driver could be done synchronously or asynchronously .
So what becomes a pain in the butt in an OS like Linux was a couple of extra lines of code in AmigaOS .
Of course , in those days , there was no point of asynchronous I/O for Windows or MacOS , since they did n't multitask and pretty much had to dedicate the CPU to loading or unloading your I/O , anyway .
But it was a beautiful thing in AmigaOS , in the day.Probably some other stuff , but I got ta go .
It 's not that I plan on firing up my A3000 when I get home , rather than that home-integrated Q9550 PC with nVidia 8800GT graphics , 8GB RAM , twin 1920x1200 monitors in 24-bit , and 11TB of total attached storage .
My old Amiga was weak at electronics CAD , and I 'd still be waiting for that first AVC render for Blu-Ray creation to finish... not to mention the lack of support for huge drives and all .
But it 's a shame when you have to leave behind better ideas just to move forward a bit.And do n't even get me started on word processing... all the power I had with Scribe at CMU in the 80s , to be stuck with things like Word or OpenOffice , it 's crime .
I do like the WYSIWYG editing , just wish they did n't have to remove 100 IQ points from the formatting engine to get that... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intelligent Window Manager.When you're running an application in AmigaOS, let's say it's so busy, it's not reading window messages (Windows would report this app as "not responding").
For most applications, you could still move the window around, shrink it, grow it back, etc.
At worst, the contents of just that window don't refresh.
You don't have the window "stuck" not responding, you don't have parts of other windows getting into each other, as you often see in other OSs.
You can even resize the window (again, you MAY not see it refresh properly, or you may, depending on the nature of the window itself).DatatypesSystem level objects used everywhere.
You don't care about the kind of graphic file or video you're opening, you just open an IMAGE or a VIDEO or a DOCUMENT or whatever in your program, and you can open any of these known to the system.
BeOS implemented a similar idea, but I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Sure, there are programs that do this for you, and different systems within the same OS to deal with SOME media types.
But nothing as complete, not at least that I've seen.AREXXEvery program of consequence had an AREXX port.
Basically, any command the program could understand was available in AREXX (standard scripting language, originally invented at IBM).
So you could build very interesting interactions between running programs.
Linux users get a taste of this, between a million command lines and pipes, but this was so much more powerful.
And very well supported, pretty much in every commercial application.ASYNCHRONOUS I/OEvery I/O operation to every device driver could be done synchronously or asynchronously.
So what becomes a pain in the butt in an OS like Linux was a couple of extra lines of code in AmigaOS.
Of course, in those days, there was no point of asynchronous I/O for Windows or MacOS, since they didn't multitask and pretty much had to dedicate the CPU to loading or unloading your I/O, anyway.
But it was a beautiful thing in AmigaOS, in the day.Probably some other stuff, but I gotta go.
It's not that I plan on firing up my A3000 when I get home, rather than that home-integrated Q9550 PC with nVidia 8800GT graphics, 8GB RAM, twin 1920x1200 monitors in 24-bit, and 11TB of total attached storage.
My old Amiga was weak at electronics CAD, and I'd still be waiting for that first AVC render for Blu-Ray creation to finish... not to mention the lack of support for huge drives and all.
But it's a shame when you have to leave behind better ideas just to move forward a bit.And don't even get me started on word processing... all the power I had with Scribe at CMU in the 80s, to be stuck with things like Word or OpenOffice, it's crime.
I do like the WYSIWYG editing, just wish they didn't have to remove 100 IQ points from the formatting engine to get that....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629712</id>
	<title>Re:What does one DO with it?</title>
	<author>Rantastic</author>
	<datestamp>1262459100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's one do with an Amiga VM?</p></div><p>I suppose that for some people it is like hooking up the old betamax to wax nostalgic over your first porno. (Yes, pun intended)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's one do with an Amiga VM ? I suppose that for some people it is like hooking up the old betamax to wax nostalgic over your first porno .
( Yes , pun intended )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's one do with an Amiga VM?I suppose that for some people it is like hooking up the old betamax to wax nostalgic over your first porno.
(Yes, pun intended)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628522</id>
	<title>What does one DO with it?</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262445540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mean to be a whippersnapper, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why would one install this? What does one do that constitutes "play"?  Are there games you're nostalgic for, or is there something useful about it?  I can understand running a VM of a current OS for development or sandboxing, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there's tasks there that can be made useful by that.  What's one do with an Amiga VM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean to be a whippersnapper , but ... why would one install this ?
What does one do that constitutes " play " ?
Are there games you 're nostalgic for , or is there something useful about it ?
I can understand running a VM of a current OS for development or sandboxing , but ... there 's tasks there that can be made useful by that .
What 's one do with an Amiga VM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean to be a whippersnapper, but ... why would one install this?
What does one do that constitutes "play"?
Are there games you're nostalgic for, or is there something useful about it?
I can understand running a VM of a current OS for development or sandboxing, but ... there's tasks there that can be made useful by that.
What's one do with an Amiga VM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580</id>
	<title>What was that Amiga tank game?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262446020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when I was in college one of my dorm mates had an Amiga.</p><p>It had a two-player tank game where you basically raided the other guy's base.  You could drop mines, and shoot his tank or his base.</p><p>Does anyone know what this game was called?  Is there an online or PC version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when I was in college one of my dorm mates had an Amiga.It had a two-player tank game where you basically raided the other guy 's base .
You could drop mines , and shoot his tank or his base.Does anyone know what this game was called ?
Is there an online or PC version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when I was in college one of my dorm mates had an Amiga.It had a two-player tank game where you basically raided the other guy's base.
You could drop mines, and shoot his tank or his base.Does anyone know what this game was called?
Is there an online or PC version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631038</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262525160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was instant boot because it wasn't really booting, it was resuming from a snapshotted suspend state.  Remember how long it took the C-64 to load any program after the OS?  That's how long it would have taken to do a real boot.  Instead, the initial state of the OS was burned into ROM and hard-wired into the processor's address space.  My modern system can go from a state where it's consuming no power to a state where I'm running a dozen applications in a few seconds.  I open the lid and it resumes from suspend to disk, demand-paging in most of the memory as it's accessed.  My C-64 takes around ten minutes to go from being turned off to running a single program, and then takes another ten minutes to task switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was instant boot because it was n't really booting , it was resuming from a snapshotted suspend state .
Remember how long it took the C-64 to load any program after the OS ?
That 's how long it would have taken to do a real boot .
Instead , the initial state of the OS was burned into ROM and hard-wired into the processor 's address space .
My modern system can go from a state where it 's consuming no power to a state where I 'm running a dozen applications in a few seconds .
I open the lid and it resumes from suspend to disk , demand-paging in most of the memory as it 's accessed .
My C-64 takes around ten minutes to go from being turned off to running a single program , and then takes another ten minutes to task switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was instant boot because it wasn't really booting, it was resuming from a snapshotted suspend state.
Remember how long it took the C-64 to load any program after the OS?
That's how long it would have taken to do a real boot.
Instead, the initial state of the OS was burned into ROM and hard-wired into the processor's address space.
My modern system can go from a state where it's consuming no power to a state where I'm running a dozen applications in a few seconds.
I open the lid and it resumes from suspend to disk, demand-paging in most of the memory as it's accessed.
My C-64 takes around ten minutes to go from being turned off to running a single program, and then takes another ten minutes to task switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630412</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1262512080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.  There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Sorry, you can keep this feature. I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.</p></div><p>Why couldn't disk caching possibly ever work with "instant shutdown"? Isn't the OS doing this whilst the OS is running, and shouldn't the OS be doing this in a way that the OS can survive power failures?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Sorry , you can keep this feature .
I , for one , like having things like disk caching that works.Why could n't disk caching possibly ever work with " instant shutdown " ?
Is n't the OS doing this whilst the OS is running , and should n't the OS be doing this in a way that the OS can survive power failures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Sorry, you can keep this feature.
I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.Why couldn't disk caching possibly ever work with "instant shutdown"?
Isn't the OS doing this whilst the OS is running, and shouldn't the OS be doing this in a way that the OS can survive power failures?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308</id>
	<title>Misplaced sentiment.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262453880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole Amiga OS story is utterly misplaced and foolish.  Amiga, for those who were into PCs, really, was a story about hardware that was way ahead of its time for the price. You had a 32 bit processor in the 68k married up with 4 channel waveform audio and hardware accelerated bitmap graphics.  It was amazing, it really was.  But as someone who learned C on the Amiga, I never thought the Operating System was really all that great.  Indeed, I had a really fun summer working on a game engine with a friend of mine and our biggest triumph was NOT to use the operating system to manage the Blitter because it was too damned slow.  I mean, Intuition had its upsides, for sure, but overall, the whole Amiga story was about the hardware.  People bought that Hardware Reference Manual because it was so well written, and, in those days, you had IBM PC's with CGA / EGA graphics and the best sound you got from them was a dopy Adlib or SoundBlaster with tinny crappy FM synthesis and Amiga had faux true-color displays with quadraphonic sound playing.  It was a revolution.</p><p>For me, to get that same kind of hardware buzz, since then, has really been in workstations.  I loved my Dual Pentium II with first a FireGL and then a Voodoo2 and then an nVidia GeForce board, that was Amiga to me.  I loved my Dual Opteron, that was Amiga to me.  And right now, I have my dual Nehalem Xeon with a GeForce GTS, that is Amiga to me.  Amiga's not a software story, never has been.  It's about hardware that makes you imagine entirely new kinds of applications with just the sheer power available, power that makes you drool, or at least, is really fun to screw around with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole Amiga OS story is utterly misplaced and foolish .
Amiga , for those who were into PCs , really , was a story about hardware that was way ahead of its time for the price .
You had a 32 bit processor in the 68k married up with 4 channel waveform audio and hardware accelerated bitmap graphics .
It was amazing , it really was .
But as someone who learned C on the Amiga , I never thought the Operating System was really all that great .
Indeed , I had a really fun summer working on a game engine with a friend of mine and our biggest triumph was NOT to use the operating system to manage the Blitter because it was too damned slow .
I mean , Intuition had its upsides , for sure , but overall , the whole Amiga story was about the hardware .
People bought that Hardware Reference Manual because it was so well written , and , in those days , you had IBM PC 's with CGA / EGA graphics and the best sound you got from them was a dopy Adlib or SoundBlaster with tinny crappy FM synthesis and Amiga had faux true-color displays with quadraphonic sound playing .
It was a revolution.For me , to get that same kind of hardware buzz , since then , has really been in workstations .
I loved my Dual Pentium II with first a FireGL and then a Voodoo2 and then an nVidia GeForce board , that was Amiga to me .
I loved my Dual Opteron , that was Amiga to me .
And right now , I have my dual Nehalem Xeon with a GeForce GTS , that is Amiga to me .
Amiga 's not a software story , never has been .
It 's about hardware that makes you imagine entirely new kinds of applications with just the sheer power available , power that makes you drool , or at least , is really fun to screw around with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole Amiga OS story is utterly misplaced and foolish.
Amiga, for those who were into PCs, really, was a story about hardware that was way ahead of its time for the price.
You had a 32 bit processor in the 68k married up with 4 channel waveform audio and hardware accelerated bitmap graphics.
It was amazing, it really was.
But as someone who learned C on the Amiga, I never thought the Operating System was really all that great.
Indeed, I had a really fun summer working on a game engine with a friend of mine and our biggest triumph was NOT to use the operating system to manage the Blitter because it was too damned slow.
I mean, Intuition had its upsides, for sure, but overall, the whole Amiga story was about the hardware.
People bought that Hardware Reference Manual because it was so well written, and, in those days, you had IBM PC's with CGA / EGA graphics and the best sound you got from them was a dopy Adlib or SoundBlaster with tinny crappy FM synthesis and Amiga had faux true-color displays with quadraphonic sound playing.
It was a revolution.For me, to get that same kind of hardware buzz, since then, has really been in workstations.
I loved my Dual Pentium II with first a FireGL and then a Voodoo2 and then an nVidia GeForce board, that was Amiga to me.
I loved my Dual Opteron, that was Amiga to me.
And right now, I have my dual Nehalem Xeon with a GeForce GTS, that is Amiga to me.
Amiga's not a software story, never has been.
It's about hardware that makes you imagine entirely new kinds of applications with just the sheer power available, power that makes you drool, or at least, is really fun to screw around with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262435940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.  There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</p></div><p>Sorry, you can keep this feature. I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sliding screens.  Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</p></div><p>Fullscreen windows. Why slide them up and down when you can switch with Alt+Tab or Cmd+Tab. Also check out Virtual desktops, you might like them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Simple speech device.  What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p>On the Mac at least you can do this:<br>ls | say</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bidirectional linked list filesystem.  If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.  (Disk doctor)</p></div><p>Filesystems have come a long way, check out something like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs" title="wikipedia.org">btrfs</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The keyboard garage.  The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</p></div><p>How about tucking the slim and very flat keyboard on top of the foot of an iMac. Or, use a wireless keyboard where you can move it out of the way anywhere you like.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tight integration of hardware with O.S.  O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p></div><p>I like to have modern abstractions, like a HAL, so my OS doesn't need to be written in hand-tuned assembly specifically for the hardware I'm running it on. Even in the relatively closed ecosystem that runs Mac OS X there's far more variety in hardware that the one OS image will run on than there was in Amiga land. What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggle? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Even back in the mid 90's when Amiga fans were extolling the virtues of the custom hardware in the Amiga, on the PC side of things we were able to achieve much of the same by brute force. Copper Bars - done by palette switching very quickly in the horizontal retrace interval. Sprites - once again, done using brute force on the CPU, or with graphics card hardware. Even compiling the sprite to assembly to speed up it's operations. Using the blitter to move/copy memory quickly. Done using, once again, brute force or DMA access and done as quickly.<br><br>I'm all for nostalgia, but don't let it cloud your vision with just how far computers have done today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Sorry , you can keep this feature .
I , for one , like having things like disk caching that works.Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Fullscreen windows .
Why slide them up and down when you can switch with Alt + Tab or Cmd + Tab .
Also check out Virtual desktops , you might like them.Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ? On the Mac at least you can do this : ls | sayBidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) Filesystems have come a long way , check out something like btrfs [ wikipedia.org ] The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof.How about tucking the slim and very flat keyboard on top of the foot of an iMac .
Or , use a wireless keyboard where you can move it out of the way anywhere you like.Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ? I like to have modern abstractions , like a HAL , so my OS does n't need to be written in hand-tuned assembly specifically for the hardware I 'm running it on .
Even in the relatively closed ecosystem that runs Mac OS X there 's far more variety in hardware that the one OS image will run on than there was in Amiga land .
What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggle ?
I ca n't think of anything off the top of my head .
Even back in the mid 90 's when Amiga fans were extolling the virtues of the custom hardware in the Amiga , on the PC side of things we were able to achieve much of the same by brute force .
Copper Bars - done by palette switching very quickly in the horizontal retrace interval .
Sprites - once again , done using brute force on the CPU , or with graphics card hardware .
Even compiling the sprite to assembly to speed up it 's operations .
Using the blitter to move/copy memory quickly .
Done using , once again , brute force or DMA access and done as quickly.I 'm all for nostalgia , but do n't let it cloud your vision with just how far computers have done today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...Sorry, you can keep this feature.
I, for one, like having things like disk caching that works.Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.Fullscreen windows.
Why slide them up and down when you can switch with Alt+Tab or Cmd+Tab.
Also check out Virtual desktops, you might like them.Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?On the Mac at least you can do this:ls | sayBidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)Filesystems have come a long way, check out something like btrfs [wikipedia.org] The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.How about tucking the slim and very flat keyboard on top of the foot of an iMac.
Or, use a wireless keyboard where you can move it out of the way anywhere you like.Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?I like to have modern abstractions, like a HAL, so my OS doesn't need to be written in hand-tuned assembly specifically for the hardware I'm running it on.
Even in the relatively closed ecosystem that runs Mac OS X there's far more variety in hardware that the one OS image will run on than there was in Amiga land.
What kinds of tasks could a 7MHz Amiga do that would cause your 2GHz PC to struggle?
I can't think of anything off the top of my head.
Even back in the mid 90's when Amiga fans were extolling the virtues of the custom hardware in the Amiga, on the PC side of things we were able to achieve much of the same by brute force.
Copper Bars - done by palette switching very quickly in the horizontal retrace interval.
Sprites - once again, done using brute force on the CPU, or with graphics card hardware.
Even compiling the sprite to assembly to speed up it's operations.
Using the blitter to move/copy memory quickly.
Done using, once again, brute force or DMA access and done as quickly.I'm all for nostalgia, but don't let it cloud your vision with just how far computers have done today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630288</id>
	<title>Loved the False language sample</title>
	<author>tirnacopu</author>
	<datestamp>1262509620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seen <a href="http://aros.sourceforge.net/pictures/screenshots/20011022/false.png" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">here</a> [sourceforge.net].<br>
Makes Perl look like fucking Shakespeare.<br>
Other than that - it's an OS created to run games, that doesn't run games, but has the GNU toolchain ported. Is this Linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>seen here [ sourceforge.net ] .
Makes Perl look like fucking Shakespeare .
Other than that - it 's an OS created to run games , that does n't run games , but has the GNU toolchain ported .
Is this Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seen here [sourceforge.net].
Makes Perl look like fucking Shakespeare.
Other than that - it's an OS created to run games, that doesn't run games, but has the GNU toolchain ported.
Is this Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118</id>
	<title>what personal computing lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262440800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died.</p><p>* Abstraction of data handlers from apps.  Datatype handlers were stored in their own directory.  You could drop new ones in, and more or less *every* app of that type (sound/video/images/text/etc) would suddenly be able to read the new format.  No farting about with "this app only handles image formats X and Y, but not Z".  Drop in a datatype for Z, and it now handles Z.  Sound editor didn't support saving in mp3?  Drop in a datatype.  Now it (and every other sound app on your system) does.  It wasn't perfect, and some apps didn't support it, but many did.</p><p>* Single metadata format for everything.  We now have 92340860159 different file formats, many replicating the same functionality as other ones.  The Amiga had IFF (Interchange File Format).  Ok, eventually all the stupid PC formats (then typically without any metadata to speak of and far less well designed) were supported, but originally IFF was just about it once you got above ASCII.  Apps could be built to handle just a subset of the data from a file- e.g, just the sound from a video multimedia file, for example.  You could parse the container without having to understand all the data in it.  Granted, there are many other formats now which do that, but in the 80's it was groundbreaking, and with ONE container format instead of a million, you stood a much bigger chance of any given app supporting the scheme.  To boot, it was open: most apps published their storage formats, and were typically good about using established standards for images, movies, sound, etc.</p><p>* About 10 years of time loss while DOS and later Windows PCs caught up to what the Amiga started out with.  Who knows where we'd be now if they hadn't been so far behind from the start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died .
* Abstraction of data handlers from apps .
Datatype handlers were stored in their own directory .
You could drop new ones in , and more or less * every * app of that type ( sound/video/images/text/etc ) would suddenly be able to read the new format .
No farting about with " this app only handles image formats X and Y , but not Z " .
Drop in a datatype for Z , and it now handles Z. Sound editor did n't support saving in mp3 ?
Drop in a datatype .
Now it ( and every other sound app on your system ) does .
It was n't perfect , and some apps did n't support it , but many did .
* Single metadata format for everything .
We now have 92340860159 different file formats , many replicating the same functionality as other ones .
The Amiga had IFF ( Interchange File Format ) .
Ok , eventually all the stupid PC formats ( then typically without any metadata to speak of and far less well designed ) were supported , but originally IFF was just about it once you got above ASCII .
Apps could be built to handle just a subset of the data from a file- e.g , just the sound from a video multimedia file , for example .
You could parse the container without having to understand all the data in it .
Granted , there are many other formats now which do that , but in the 80 's it was groundbreaking , and with ONE container format instead of a million , you stood a much bigger chance of any given app supporting the scheme .
To boot , it was open : most apps published their storage formats , and were typically good about using established standards for images , movies , sound , etc .
* About 10 years of time loss while DOS and later Windows PCs caught up to what the Amiga started out with .
Who knows where we 'd be now if they had n't been so far behind from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died.
* Abstraction of data handlers from apps.
Datatype handlers were stored in their own directory.
You could drop new ones in, and more or less *every* app of that type (sound/video/images/text/etc) would suddenly be able to read the new format.
No farting about with "this app only handles image formats X and Y, but not Z".
Drop in a datatype for Z, and it now handles Z.  Sound editor didn't support saving in mp3?
Drop in a datatype.
Now it (and every other sound app on your system) does.
It wasn't perfect, and some apps didn't support it, but many did.
* Single metadata format for everything.
We now have 92340860159 different file formats, many replicating the same functionality as other ones.
The Amiga had IFF (Interchange File Format).
Ok, eventually all the stupid PC formats (then typically without any metadata to speak of and far less well designed) were supported, but originally IFF was just about it once you got above ASCII.
Apps could be built to handle just a subset of the data from a file- e.g, just the sound from a video multimedia file, for example.
You could parse the container without having to understand all the data in it.
Granted, there are many other formats now which do that, but in the 80's it was groundbreaking, and with ONE container format instead of a million, you stood a much bigger chance of any given app supporting the scheme.
To boot, it was open: most apps published their storage formats, and were typically good about using established standards for images, movies, sound, etc.
* About 10 years of time loss while DOS and later Windows PCs caught up to what the Amiga started out with.
Who knows where we'd be now if they hadn't been so far behind from the start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630264</id>
	<title>The virtues of a decent OS</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1262552280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are neglecting the merits of having a (preemptively) multitasking operating system with a decent user interface in the first place, something that was a major attraction to a lot of people.  Windows was ugly by comparison, up until the day Windows NT 4 was released.</p><p>The OS overhead could be a bit much for games, but slow compared to not having a blitter at all? There were plenty of games that didn't need to go outside the operating system, other than occasionally writing to the frame buffer of course (which was perfectly legitimate).  Why reinvent functionality that is perfectly adequate (for what you are doing) in the first place?</p><p>The operating system made a *big* difference though.  The Atari ST had decent hardware, and lots of great games, but the operating system was basically a DOS clone with a non-multitasking (and rather simple minded) graphical environment thrown on top of it. On the Amiga, open a half dozen command line shells, an editor, and a paint program - no problem.  On the Atari ST, with its comparable hardware (in most respects) it was all one program at a time, which made it *much* less fun in real life.  That is the difference the OS makes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are neglecting the merits of having a ( preemptively ) multitasking operating system with a decent user interface in the first place , something that was a major attraction to a lot of people .
Windows was ugly by comparison , up until the day Windows NT 4 was released.The OS overhead could be a bit much for games , but slow compared to not having a blitter at all ?
There were plenty of games that did n't need to go outside the operating system , other than occasionally writing to the frame buffer of course ( which was perfectly legitimate ) .
Why reinvent functionality that is perfectly adequate ( for what you are doing ) in the first place ? The operating system made a * big * difference though .
The Atari ST had decent hardware , and lots of great games , but the operating system was basically a DOS clone with a non-multitasking ( and rather simple minded ) graphical environment thrown on top of it .
On the Amiga , open a half dozen command line shells , an editor , and a paint program - no problem .
On the Atari ST , with its comparable hardware ( in most respects ) it was all one program at a time , which made it * much * less fun in real life .
That is the difference the OS makes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are neglecting the merits of having a (preemptively) multitasking operating system with a decent user interface in the first place, something that was a major attraction to a lot of people.
Windows was ugly by comparison, up until the day Windows NT 4 was released.The OS overhead could be a bit much for games, but slow compared to not having a blitter at all?
There were plenty of games that didn't need to go outside the operating system, other than occasionally writing to the frame buffer of course (which was perfectly legitimate).
Why reinvent functionality that is perfectly adequate (for what you are doing) in the first place?The operating system made a *big* difference though.
The Atari ST had decent hardware, and lots of great games, but the operating system was basically a DOS clone with a non-multitasking (and rather simple minded) graphical environment thrown on top of it.
On the Amiga, open a half dozen command line shells, an editor, and a paint program - no problem.
On the Atari ST, with its comparable hardware (in most respects) it was all one program at a time, which made it *much* less fun in real life.
That is the difference the OS makes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627658</id>
	<title>Obligatory //gs whine</title>
	<author>cpu\_fusion</author>
	<datestamp>1262437140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sound is more important than graphics!  Amigas can't run GS/OS!<br>Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//gs+ is coming out any day now !!1!11!!</p><p>(If you don't understand this, please don't rate it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sound is more important than graphics !
Amigas ca n't run GS/OS ! Apple //gs + is coming out any day now ! ! 1 ! 11 ! !
( If you do n't understand this , please do n't rate it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sound is more important than graphics!
Amigas can't run GS/OS!Apple //gs+ is coming out any day now !!1!11!!
(If you don't understand this, please don't rate it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627476</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1262435820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</p> </div><p>

Um, what hardware monopolies are you talking about? Yeah, just about everything is x86 now, but I wouldn't call either AMD or Intel a monopoly in CPU terms. Same with graphics cards, its about 50\% nVidia and 50\% ATI though most everyone who isn't a gamer uses integrated graphics. <br> <br>

And if you want things to work really well on -your- hardware then try running Gentoo and compiling everything with high levels of optimization. <br> <br>

One of the main reasons why everything isn't hardware centric is because people upgrade at different points. For example, not everyone is running a Core i7 at the moment, someone might be reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. on a low-end Intel Atom, A Pentium 4, an older Athlon, or any number of different CPUs. Its bad enough that a Pentium 4 is now considered sluggish for most modern games and OSes, but think of how worse upgrading would be if it would simply refuse to run on a Pentium 4 because it didn't support some of the features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ?
Um , what hardware monopolies are you talking about ?
Yeah , just about everything is x86 now , but I would n't call either AMD or Intel a monopoly in CPU terms .
Same with graphics cards , its about 50 \ % nVidia and 50 \ % ATI though most everyone who is n't a gamer uses integrated graphics .
And if you want things to work really well on -your- hardware then try running Gentoo and compiling everything with high levels of optimization .
One of the main reasons why everything is n't hardware centric is because people upgrade at different points .
For example , not everyone is running a Core i7 at the moment , someone might be reading / .
on a low-end Intel Atom , A Pentium 4 , an older Athlon , or any number of different CPUs .
Its bad enough that a Pentium 4 is now considered sluggish for most modern games and OSes , but think of how worse upgrading would be if it would simply refuse to run on a Pentium 4 because it did n't support some of the features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?
Um, what hardware monopolies are you talking about?
Yeah, just about everything is x86 now, but I wouldn't call either AMD or Intel a monopoly in CPU terms.
Same with graphics cards, its about 50\% nVidia and 50\% ATI though most everyone who isn't a gamer uses integrated graphics.
And if you want things to work really well on -your- hardware then try running Gentoo and compiling everything with high levels of optimization.
One of the main reasons why everything isn't hardware centric is because people upgrade at different points.
For example, not everyone is running a Core i7 at the moment, someone might be reading /.
on a low-end Intel Atom, A Pentium 4, an older Athlon, or any number of different CPUs.
Its bad enough that a Pentium 4 is now considered sluggish for most modern games and OSes, but think of how worse upgrading would be if it would simply refuse to run on a Pentium 4 because it didn't support some of the features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628232</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262442000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised no one mentioned the obvious regarding your first point. You can just press a button and walk away. I do it every day on my Debian system with acpi support, and my parents can do the same with their Vista system. The shutdown is not instantaneous, but who cares? You don't have to watch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one mentioned the obvious regarding your first point .
You can just press a button and walk away .
I do it every day on my Debian system with acpi support , and my parents can do the same with their Vista system .
The shutdown is not instantaneous , but who cares ?
You do n't have to watch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one mentioned the obvious regarding your first point.
You can just press a button and walk away.
I do it every day on my Debian system with acpi support, and my parents can do the same with their Vista system.
The shutdown is not instantaneous, but who cares?
You don't have to watch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632360</id>
	<title>Re:people love old crap, not news</title>
	<author>rajanala83</author>
	<datestamp>1262541480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My father did collect paper bags; and there is even a paper bag museum in germany, he gave some of his collection for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My father did collect paper bags ; and there is even a paper bag museum in germany , he gave some of his collection for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father did collect paper bags; and there is even a paper bag museum in germany, he gave some of his collection for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633438</id>
	<title>what personal computing lost &amp; what New Amigas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262549160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died.</p><p>*</p><p>I think you missed the point Amiga it is still alive and kick(start)ing...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p><p>Perhaps modern AmigaOS and MorphOS have REGGAE stream data muxer and demuxer system.</p><p>It is something other OSes will catch (again as usual) in next 20 years from today.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died .
* I think you missed the point Amiga it is still alive and kick ( start ) ing... : -DPerhaps modern AmigaOS and MorphOS have REGGAE stream data muxer and demuxer system.It is something other OSes will catch ( again as usual ) in next 20 years from today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are a few things that personal computing lost when the Amiga died.
*I think you missed the point Amiga it is still alive and kick(start)ing... :-DPerhaps modern AmigaOS and MorphOS have REGGAE stream data muxer and demuxer system.It is something other OSes will catch (again as usual) in next 20 years from today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630356</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1262511120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</p></div><p> <tt>ls | say</tt><br>At least in Mac OS X.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ?
ls | sayAt least in Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?
ls | sayAt least in Mac OS X.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30643708</id>
	<title>Re:Misplaced sentiment.</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1262632680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed the modern PC, at least a decent one, is very Amiga-like. Except that the OS properly supports the features via APIs like DirectX, OpenGL, OpenCL, and so on.</p><p>AmigaOS, even in the 90s, could have succeeded if refactored for mobile devices (cf. the original PalmOS with all its limitations). Hyperion have done a lot of good work to keep it alive and improve it, but architecturally it is behind in many areas.</p><p>Some things that required hardware back then, like the screen dragging, are trivial to do in software, or by using the hardware differently (using OpenGL/Compiz to do screen dragging shouldn't be a hard task).</p><p>Commodore did keep the platform back though by not improving it as expediently as possible. Not improving the chipset meant that other computers caught up, and overtook with fast 256 colour bitmap displays.</p><p>On the other hand, imagine the cruft of 25 years of bitmap graphics enhancements if we had AGA++AA++AA++++++ chipset now. Although the compatibility stuff would probably fit in a couple of square millimetres of silicon... Not that such an Amiga would be recognisable as one now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed the modern PC , at least a decent one , is very Amiga-like .
Except that the OS properly supports the features via APIs like DirectX , OpenGL , OpenCL , and so on.AmigaOS , even in the 90s , could have succeeded if refactored for mobile devices ( cf .
the original PalmOS with all its limitations ) .
Hyperion have done a lot of good work to keep it alive and improve it , but architecturally it is behind in many areas.Some things that required hardware back then , like the screen dragging , are trivial to do in software , or by using the hardware differently ( using OpenGL/Compiz to do screen dragging should n't be a hard task ) .Commodore did keep the platform back though by not improving it as expediently as possible .
Not improving the chipset meant that other computers caught up , and overtook with fast 256 colour bitmap displays.On the other hand , imagine the cruft of 25 years of bitmap graphics enhancements if we had AGA + + AA + + AA + + + + + + chipset now .
Although the compatibility stuff would probably fit in a couple of square millimetres of silicon... Not that such an Amiga would be recognisable as one now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed the modern PC, at least a decent one, is very Amiga-like.
Except that the OS properly supports the features via APIs like DirectX, OpenGL, OpenCL, and so on.AmigaOS, even in the 90s, could have succeeded if refactored for mobile devices (cf.
the original PalmOS with all its limitations).
Hyperion have done a lot of good work to keep it alive and improve it, but architecturally it is behind in many areas.Some things that required hardware back then, like the screen dragging, are trivial to do in software, or by using the hardware differently (using OpenGL/Compiz to do screen dragging shouldn't be a hard task).Commodore did keep the platform back though by not improving it as expediently as possible.
Not improving the chipset meant that other computers caught up, and overtook with fast 256 colour bitmap displays.On the other hand, imagine the cruft of 25 years of bitmap graphics enhancements if we had AGA++AA++AA++++++ chipset now.
Although the compatibility stuff would probably fit in a couple of square millimetres of silicon... Not that such an Amiga would be recognisable as one now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628586</id>
	<title>MorphOS</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1262446140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it odd that no one has mentioned <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MorphOS" title="wikipedia.org">MorphOS</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that no one has mentioned MorphOS [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that no one has mentioned MorphOS [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627796</id>
	<title>"AROS is best run inside an emulator"</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1262438220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629340</id>
	<title>Re:What was that Amiga tank game?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262454600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it be <a href="http://www.lemonamiga.com/?mainurl=http\%3A//www.lemonamiga.com/games/details.php\%3Fid\%3D411" title="lemonamiga.com" rel="nofollow">Firepower</a> [lemonamiga.com]?</p><p>Me and a buddy used to play this one all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be Firepower [ lemonamiga.com ] ? Me and a buddy used to play this one all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be Firepower [lemonamiga.com]?Me and a buddy used to play this one all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630014</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1262462340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...***</p><p>You could do that with Windows 95 and 98.  You frequently had to in Windows 98 since Win98 shutdown was not very reliable.  They fixed that with NT based Windows which actually does need a formal shutdown.  And, BTW, I find Linux GUI shutdown to be nothing to write home about in terms of either reliability or speed.</p><p>***Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.***</p><p>You can do something like that with Linux using workspaces and many of us do.  I imagine that there are replacement/add-on shells for Windows that do workspaces.</p><p>====</p><p>As a user am decidedly underwhelmed by the last decade of purported "progress" in GUI OSes.  Maybe going back to Amiga or Windows 95 and trying again would not be all that bad an idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever... * * * You could do that with Windows 95 and 98 .
You frequently had to in Windows 98 since Win98 shutdown was not very reliable .
They fixed that with NT based Windows which actually does need a formal shutdown .
And , BTW , I find Linux GUI shutdown to be nothing to write home about in terms of either reliability or speed .
* * * Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens .
* * * You can do something like that with Linux using workspaces and many of us do .
I imagine that there are replacement/add-on shells for Windows that do workspaces. = = = = As a user am decidedly underwhelmed by the last decade of purported " progress " in GUI OSes .
Maybe going back to Amiga or Windows 95 and trying again would not be all that bad an idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...***You could do that with Windows 95 and 98.
You frequently had to in Windows 98 since Win98 shutdown was not very reliable.
They fixed that with NT based Windows which actually does need a formal shutdown.
And, BTW, I find Linux GUI shutdown to be nothing to write home about in terms of either reliability or speed.
***Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.
***You can do something like that with Linux using workspaces and many of us do.
I imagine that there are replacement/add-on shells for Windows that do workspaces.====As a user am decidedly underwhelmed by the last decade of purported "progress" in GUI OSes.
Maybe going back to Amiga or Windows 95 and trying again would not be all that bad an idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628068</id>
	<title>Instead</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1262440380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Amiga crowd might be placated by an X-Windows interface skinned to look and behave like Amiga. Then port everything to keep it alive on Linux.</p><p>Yes I didn't read the whole thing and the part I skimmed I didn't understand, but I have the moral right on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. to comment especially after not reading properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Amiga crowd might be placated by an X-Windows interface skinned to look and behave like Amiga .
Then port everything to keep it alive on Linux.Yes I did n't read the whole thing and the part I skimmed I did n't understand , but I have the moral right on / .
to comment especially after not reading properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Amiga crowd might be placated by an X-Windows interface skinned to look and behave like Amiga.
Then port everything to keep it alive on Linux.Yes I didn't read the whole thing and the part I skimmed I didn't understand, but I have the moral right on /.
to comment especially after not reading properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628158</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1262441160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could go back in time and make just one change to the Amiga, it would be to have ensured that the A1000, or at least the 500 &amp; 2000 onward, had a 68010 instead of a 68000. Nothing, and I mean *nothing*, caused more software to crash and burn on Amigas with 68020+ microprocessors than the damn Move SR, instruction (privileged on everything from the 68010 onward, but nonprivileged on the 68000 -- and used by just about every Amiga copy protection scheme.) From what I remember, a 68010 cost a whopping $10 back around 1988. In "Commodore quantities", it probably would have cost a buck or two more than a 68000, and would have made it a lot easier for Commodore to sell higher-end Amigas with greater markup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could go back in time and make just one change to the Amiga , it would be to have ensured that the A1000 , or at least the 500 &amp; 2000 onward , had a 68010 instead of a 68000 .
Nothing , and I mean * nothing * , caused more software to crash and burn on Amigas with 68020 + microprocessors than the damn Move SR , instruction ( privileged on everything from the 68010 onward , but nonprivileged on the 68000 -- and used by just about every Amiga copy protection scheme .
) From what I remember , a 68010 cost a whopping $ 10 back around 1988 .
In " Commodore quantities " , it probably would have cost a buck or two more than a 68000 , and would have made it a lot easier for Commodore to sell higher-end Amigas with greater markup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could go back in time and make just one change to the Amiga, it would be to have ensured that the A1000, or at least the 500 &amp; 2000 onward, had a 68010 instead of a 68000.
Nothing, and I mean *nothing*, caused more software to crash and burn on Amigas with 68020+ microprocessors than the damn Move SR, instruction (privileged on everything from the 68010 onward, but nonprivileged on the 68000 -- and used by just about every Amiga copy protection scheme.
) From what I remember, a 68010 cost a whopping $10 back around 1988.
In "Commodore quantities", it probably would have cost a buck or two more than a 68000, and would have made it a lot easier for Commodore to sell higher-end Amigas with greater markup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898</id>
	<title>From one generation to another</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1262439060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 1960's: "I was at Woodstock!"<br>The 1980's: "I had an Amiga!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1960 's : " I was at Woodstock !
" The 1980 's : " I had an Amiga !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1960's: "I was at Woodstock!
"The 1980's: "I had an Amiga!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628388</id>
	<title>Amiga Dead !?</title>
	<author>Rotorua</author>
	<datestamp>1262443740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>who gives a Sh#$ !

Another peice of dead technology.....

guess it's a slow news day !!</htmltext>
<tokenext>who gives a Sh # $ !
Another peice of dead technology.... . guess it 's a slow news day !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who gives a Sh#$ !
Another peice of dead technology.....

guess it's a slow news day !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</id>
	<title>A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262435040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's common knowledge (at least to Amigaphiles) that the 1985 Amiga was at least a decade ahead of the Microsoft game with hardware graphics, built in speech synthesis, preemptive multitasking...  What surprises me is how many Amiga ideas died with the Amiga.  Must the whole industry suffer from Microsoft's monopoly and Commodore's mismanagement?  Here are some ideas I'm still waiting for:

<ol>
<li>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.  There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</li>
<li>Sliding screens.  Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</li>
<li>Simple speech device.  What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</li>
<li>Bidirectional linked list filesystem.  If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.  (Disk doctor)</li>
<li>The keyboard garage.  The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</li>
<li>Tight integration of hardware with O.S.  O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</li>

</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's common knowledge ( at least to Amigaphiles ) that the 1985 Amiga was at least a decade ahead of the Microsoft game with hardware graphics , built in speech synthesis , preemptive multitasking... What surprises me is how many Amiga ideas died with the Amiga .
Must the whole industry suffer from Microsoft 's monopoly and Commodore 's mismanagement ?
Here are some ideas I 'm still waiting for : To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever.. . Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens .
Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ?
Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof .
Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's common knowledge (at least to Amigaphiles) that the 1985 Amiga was at least a decade ahead of the Microsoft game with hardware graphics, built in speech synthesis, preemptive multitasking...  What surprises me is how many Amiga ideas died with the Amiga.
Must the whole industry suffer from Microsoft's monopoly and Commodore's mismanagement?
Here are some ideas I'm still waiting for:


To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...
Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.
Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?
Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor)
The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.
Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630354</id>
	<title>ugg boot dealer  discount ugg online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-1.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic cardy</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-short-c-2.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic short boots</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-short-c-2.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic short 5825</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic tall</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic tall boots</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic tall 5815</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-mini-c-4.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg classic mini </a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-mini-c-4.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg mini boots</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-tall-metalli-c-5.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg classic tall metalli</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-australia-tall-c-6.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg australia tall</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-crochet-short-c-7.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg classic crochet short</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-crochet-short-c-7.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg boots crochet</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-paisley-classic-short-c-9.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg paisley classic short</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-knights-brige-c-10.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg knihts brige</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-nightfall-c-11.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg nightfall</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-ultra-tall-c-12.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg Ultra tall </a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-ultra-tall-c-12.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg ultra 5245</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-ultra-short-c-13.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg Ultra short 5255</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-lo-pro-button-c-14.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg Lo Pro Button</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-lo-pro-button-c-14.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg boots 5691</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-lo-pro-classic-tall-c-15.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg boots 5715</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-sundance-ii-c-16.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg boots 5325 chestnut</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-coquette-slipper-c-17.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg slippers</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-sunburst-tall-c-18.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg snburst tall 5218</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-bailey-button-c-19.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg bailey boots 5803</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-argyle-knit-c-20.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg classic Argyle Knit 5879</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-tall-stripe-cable-knit-c-21.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">ugg stripe cable Knit 5822</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-adirondack-tall-boot-c-24.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg Adirondack Tall boot 5498</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-broome-c-25.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg Broome 5511</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/ugg-classic-tall-baroque-c-26.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Ugg Classic Tall Baroque 5852</a> [bizkickz.com]
<a href="http://www.bizkickz.com/australia-tall-ugg-boots-5818-chestnut-p-28.html" title="bizkickz.com" rel="nofollow">Austrlia Tall ugg boot 5818</a> [bizkickz.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugg classic cardy [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic short boots [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic short 5825 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic tall [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic tall boots [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic tall 5815 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg classic mini [ bizkickz.com ] ugg mini boots [ bizkickz.com ] ugg classic tall metalli [ bizkickz.com ] ugg australia tall [ bizkickz.com ] ugg classic crochet short [ bizkickz.com ] ugg boots crochet [ bizkickz.com ] ugg paisley classic short [ bizkickz.com ] ugg knihts brige [ bizkickz.com ] ugg nightfall [ bizkickz.com ] ugg Ultra tall [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg ultra 5245 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg Ultra short 5255 [ bizkickz.com ] ugg Lo Pro Button [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg boots 5691 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg boots 5715 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg boots 5325 chestnut [ bizkickz.com ] ugg slippers [ bizkickz.com ] ugg snburst tall 5218 [ bizkickz.com ] ugg bailey boots 5803 [ bizkickz.com ] ugg classic Argyle Knit 5879 [ bizkickz.com ] ugg stripe cable Knit 5822 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg Adirondack Tall boot 5498 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg Broome 5511 [ bizkickz.com ] Ugg Classic Tall Baroque 5852 [ bizkickz.com ] Austrlia Tall ugg boot 5818 [ bizkickz.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugg classic cardy [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic short boots [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic short 5825 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic tall [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic tall boots [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic tall 5815 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg classic mini  [bizkickz.com]
ugg mini boots [bizkickz.com]
ugg classic tall metalli [bizkickz.com]
ugg australia tall [bizkickz.com]
ugg classic crochet short [bizkickz.com]
ugg boots crochet [bizkickz.com]
ugg paisley classic short [bizkickz.com]
ugg knihts brige [bizkickz.com]
ugg nightfall [bizkickz.com]
ugg Ultra tall  [bizkickz.com]
Ugg ultra 5245 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg Ultra short 5255 [bizkickz.com]
ugg Lo Pro Button [bizkickz.com]
Ugg boots 5691 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg boots 5715 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg boots 5325 chestnut [bizkickz.com]
ugg slippers [bizkickz.com]
ugg snburst tall 5218 [bizkickz.com]
ugg bailey boots 5803 [bizkickz.com]
ugg classic Argyle Knit 5879 [bizkickz.com]
ugg stripe cable Knit 5822 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg Adirondack Tall boot 5498 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg Broome 5511 [bizkickz.com]
Ugg Classic Tall Baroque 5852 [bizkickz.com]
Austrlia Tall ugg boot 5818 [bizkickz.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628700</id>
	<title>people love old crap, not news</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262447460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the amiga was dead 20 years ago if we want to be truthful about it guys. this is just a case of people doing stuff because they can. there's also a guy out there who collects brown paper bags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the amiga was dead 20 years ago if we want to be truthful about it guys .
this is just a case of people doing stuff because they can .
there 's also a guy out there who collects brown paper bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the amiga was dead 20 years ago if we want to be truthful about it guys.
this is just a case of people doing stuff because they can.
there's also a guy out there who collects brown paper bags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627982</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262439660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>honestly. what a load of crap.<br>1) To shutdown the Amiga you turned it off. --- Hopefully whilst it's not writing to floppy or (if you had one) a hard drive.<br>
&nbsp; 2) Sliding screen - different approach to multiple desktops on modern window managers. Interesting though, not seen anything similar since<br>
&nbsp; 3) 'Built in' speech - in the sense that typing 'speak' ran a program from disk called 'speak'. The 8-bit Acorn BBC Model B had this in 1982 (thanks Superior Software)!<br>
&nbsp; 4) linked file system - utter crap. You can repair FAT disks in the same way - and most other file systems<br>
&nbsp; 5) wow, like most PCs since 1982. And the Amiga 1000 flopped like an overweight lead balloon.<br>
&nbsp; 6) some synergy comment that makes virtually no sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>honestly .
what a load of crap.1 ) To shutdown the Amiga you turned it off .
--- Hopefully whilst it 's not writing to floppy or ( if you had one ) a hard drive .
  2 ) Sliding screen - different approach to multiple desktops on modern window managers .
Interesting though , not seen anything similar since   3 ) 'Built in ' speech - in the sense that typing 'speak ' ran a program from disk called 'speak' .
The 8-bit Acorn BBC Model B had this in 1982 ( thanks Superior Software ) !
  4 ) linked file system - utter crap .
You can repair FAT disks in the same way - and most other file systems   5 ) wow , like most PCs since 1982 .
And the Amiga 1000 flopped like an overweight lead balloon .
  6 ) some synergy comment that makes virtually no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>honestly.
what a load of crap.1) To shutdown the Amiga you turned it off.
--- Hopefully whilst it's not writing to floppy or (if you had one) a hard drive.
  2) Sliding screen - different approach to multiple desktops on modern window managers.
Interesting though, not seen anything similar since
  3) 'Built in' speech - in the sense that typing 'speak' ran a program from disk called 'speak'.
The 8-bit Acorn BBC Model B had this in 1982 (thanks Superior Software)!
  4) linked file system - utter crap.
You can repair FAT disks in the same way - and most other file systems
  5) wow, like most PCs since 1982.
And the Amiga 1000 flopped like an overweight lead balloon.
  6) some synergy comment that makes virtually no sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627664</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262437200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off. There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever...</i> </p><p>The Amiga didn't commit changes to disc synchronously, but it provided no sure-fire way to flush all pending write buffers.</p><p> <i>Sliding screens. Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.</i> </p><p>That was a workaround for low resolution displays with small colour palettes. With 1920x1200, 24bpp displays being common place these days, it's easier to just have applications in windows. Remember that nearly 15 Amiga "hi-res" (640x256 for PAL) screens will fit in on a single desktop these days. And we have virtual desktops and multihead, if you need more than that.</p><p> <i>Simple speech device. What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?</i> </p><p> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080329114418/http://www.speechio.org/speechd.html" title="archive.org">speechd claims to provide equivalent functionality</a> [archive.org] </p><p> <i>Bidirectional linked list filesystem. If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector. (Disk doctor)</i> </p><p>On the other hand, we have RAID1(0), RAID scrubbing and SMART these days. If used correctly, you're less likely to lose a bad sector in the first place. Furthermore, Amiga floppy handling was particularly unsafe; writing a sector caused the whole track to be rewritten, without verification (unless you used TrackSalve to patch trackdisk.device, If you insist, you can always use the affs (Amiga FFS) filesystem under Linux. Thought I'm not a filesystem expert, I suspect that it's been superceded by more modern filesystems.</p><p> <i>The keyboard garage. The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.</i> </p><p>USB rollable waterproof keyboards made out of rubber?</p><p> <i>Tight integration of hardware with O.S. O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S. monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?</i> </p><p>And cement those monopolies further and make it hard to expand in the future (cf. the trouble Amigans had to go to to introduce support for 'chunky' graphics devices and 24bpp displays)? No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To shutdown the Amiga , you turned it off .
There was no delay , no Start- &gt; Shutdown...wait possibly forever... The Amiga did n't commit changes to disc synchronously , but it provided no sure-fire way to flush all pending write buffers .
Sliding screens .
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens .
That was a workaround for low resolution displays with small colour palettes .
With 1920x1200 , 24bpp displays being common place these days , it 's easier to just have applications in windows .
Remember that nearly 15 Amiga " hi-res " ( 640x256 for PAL ) screens will fit in on a single desktop these days .
And we have virtual desktops and multihead , if you need more than that .
Simple speech device .
What could be easier than " LIST &gt; speak : " to say a directory listing ?
speechd claims to provide equivalent functionality [ archive.org ] Bidirectional linked list filesystem .
If you lose a sector or sector link , most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector .
( Disk doctor ) On the other hand , we have RAID1 ( 0 ) , RAID scrubbing and SMART these days .
If used correctly , you 're less likely to lose a bad sector in the first place .
Furthermore , Amiga floppy handling was particularly unsafe ; writing a sector caused the whole track to be rewritten , without verification ( unless you used TrackSalve to patch trackdisk.device , If you insist , you can always use the affs ( Amiga FFS ) filesystem under Linux .
Thought I 'm not a filesystem expert , I suspect that it 's been superceded by more modern filesystems .
The keyboard garage .
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it did n't take up desk space , was hidden from children 's fingers and was spill-proof .
USB rollable waterproof keyboards made out of rubber ?
Tight integration of hardware with O.S .
O.k. this works against everything we 've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S .
monopoly , a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly , why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did ?
And cement those monopolies further and make it hard to expand in the future ( cf .
the trouble Amigans had to go to to introduce support for 'chunky ' graphics devices and 24bpp displays ) ?
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> To shutdown the Amiga, you turned it off.
There was no delay, no Start-&gt;Shutdown...wait possibly forever... The Amiga didn't commit changes to disc synchronously, but it provided no sure-fire way to flush all pending write buffers.
Sliding screens.
Why not give each application its own full screen and allow the user to pull down the top menu to slide between these screens.
That was a workaround for low resolution displays with small colour palettes.
With 1920x1200, 24bpp displays being common place these days, it's easier to just have applications in windows.
Remember that nearly 15 Amiga "hi-res" (640x256 for PAL) screens will fit in on a single desktop these days.
And we have virtual desktops and multihead, if you need more than that.
Simple speech device.
What could be easier than "LIST &gt; speak:" to say a directory listing?
speechd claims to provide equivalent functionality [archive.org]  Bidirectional linked list filesystem.
If you lose a sector or sector link, most of the file could be rebuilt by following links from both ends towards the bad sector.
(Disk doctor) On the other hand, we have RAID1(0), RAID scrubbing and SMART these days.
If used correctly, you're less likely to lose a bad sector in the first place.
Furthermore, Amiga floppy handling was particularly unsafe; writing a sector caused the whole track to be rewritten, without verification (unless you used TrackSalve to patch trackdisk.device, If you insist, you can always use the affs (Amiga FFS) filesystem under Linux.
Thought I'm not a filesystem expert, I suspect that it's been superceded by more modern filesystems.
The keyboard garage.
The 1985 Amiga 1000 keyboard tucked neatly under the computer where it didn't take up desk space, was hidden from children's fingers and was spill-proof.
USB rollable waterproof keyboards made out of rubber?
Tight integration of hardware with O.S.
O.k. this works against everything we've been taught about abstracting everything but since the PC world has boiled down to little more than an O.S.
monopoly, a hardware monopoly and a graphics card monopoly, why not eliminate some of the levels of abstraction that will never be used and make my 2Ghz PC perform every day tasks at least as well as my 7Mhz Amiga did?
And cement those monopolies further and make it hard to expand in the future (cf.
the trouble Amigans had to go to to introduce support for 'chunky' graphics devices and 24bpp displays)?
No thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632124</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262539140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would someone who loves MAC feel it necessary to pee in the cornflackes of nostalgic Amiga folks ?  self eseteem issues aside - the Amiga was ahead of it's time and ahead of it's competition in it's day.   Times change, people change, and another generation of h8rs are being born to take the place of those dissing the Amiga now.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Enjoy the moment - your time will be up soon enough.  I loved my Amiga and look fondly at those who still keep the legacy alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would someone who loves MAC feel it necessary to pee in the cornflackes of nostalgic Amiga folks ?
self eseteem issues aside - the Amiga was ahead of it 's time and ahead of it 's competition in it 's day .
Times change , people change , and another generation of h8rs are being born to take the place of those dissing the Amiga now .
: ) Enjoy the moment - your time will be up soon enough .
I loved my Amiga and look fondly at those who still keep the legacy alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would someone who loves MAC feel it necessary to pee in the cornflackes of nostalgic Amiga folks ?
self eseteem issues aside - the Amiga was ahead of it's time and ahead of it's competition in it's day.
Times change, people change, and another generation of h8rs are being born to take the place of those dissing the Amiga now.
:)  Enjoy the moment - your time will be up soon enough.
I loved my Amiga and look fondly at those who still keep the legacy alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30644588</id>
	<title>Anubis is interesting</title>
	<author>Dasher42</author>
	<datestamp>1262636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have for some time wondered why more projects don't take the approach Anubis is; getting rid of the parts of the Linux kernel they don't like or need and keeping the rest to get the hardware support.  We've got Linux, the BSDs, and interesting L4-based kernels like Genode.  Why not put something together that allows for a common driver framework?  It's a shame that projects like Haiku have to limp along such a tiny list of hardware options when they're doing such interesting things with the user space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have for some time wondered why more projects do n't take the approach Anubis is ; getting rid of the parts of the Linux kernel they do n't like or need and keeping the rest to get the hardware support .
We 've got Linux , the BSDs , and interesting L4-based kernels like Genode .
Why not put something together that allows for a common driver framework ?
It 's a shame that projects like Haiku have to limp along such a tiny list of hardware options when they 're doing such interesting things with the user space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have for some time wondered why more projects don't take the approach Anubis is; getting rid of the parts of the Linux kernel they don't like or need and keeping the rest to get the hardware support.
We've got Linux, the BSDs, and interesting L4-based kernels like Genode.
Why not put something together that allows for a common driver framework?
It's a shame that projects like Haiku have to limp along such a tiny list of hardware options when they're doing such interesting things with the user space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627582</id>
	<title>Re:A few great Amiga ideas I'm still waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262436660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Babylon 5 had its visual effects done on an Amiga. Then they moved to Pentium based systems then Alpha based ones. Amiga never moved on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Babylon 5 had its visual effects done on an Amiga .
Then they moved to Pentium based systems then Alpha based ones .
Amiga never moved on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Babylon 5 had its visual effects done on an Amiga.
Then they moved to Pentium based systems then Alpha based ones.
Amiga never moved on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631450</id>
	<title>2 player lemmings - 2 mice</title>
	<author>EdgeyEdgey</author>
	<datestamp>1262531940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could plug two mice into the Amiga and play 2 player split screen lemmings.  <br>
I haven't seen this emulated anywhere yet.  Anyone know how to get two mice running on an Amiga emulator?
<br> <br>
Cheers</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could plug two mice into the Amiga and play 2 player split screen lemmings .
I have n't seen this emulated anywhere yet .
Anyone know how to get two mice running on an Amiga emulator ?
Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could plug two mice into the Amiga and play 2 player split screen lemmings.
I haven't seen this emulated anywhere yet.
Anyone know how to get two mice running on an Amiga emulator?
Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30643708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_232200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30652338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30643708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30631038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30633490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30652338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30629650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30627982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30628700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_232200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30630354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_232200.30632308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
