<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_2358224</id>
	<title>Testing a Pre-Release, Parallel Firefox</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262624160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors), though Chrome and Internet Explorer 8 both have this feature. A Firefox project called <a href="http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2009-06-16/electrolysis-making-mozilla-faster-and-more-stable-using-multiple-processes/">Electrolysis</a> is underway to close this gap. A blog author tested a <a href="http://hg.mozilla.org/projects/electrolysis">pre-release version of Firefox</a> that loads different tabs in parallel, and he <a href="http://www.myoutsourcedbrain.com/2009/11/firefox-in-parallel-pre-release-version.html">chronicles his findings</a>, including a huge speedup in Javascript vs. Firefox version 3.5 (though the pre-release still lags Chrome in many of the tests).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox , in its official version , still lacks support for multi-threading ( running on different processors ) , though Chrome and Internet Explorer 8 both have this feature .
A Firefox project called Electrolysis is underway to close this gap .
A blog author tested a pre-release version of Firefox that loads different tabs in parallel , and he chronicles his findings , including a huge speedup in Javascript vs. Firefox version 3.5 ( though the pre-release still lags Chrome in many of the tests ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors), though Chrome and Internet Explorer 8 both have this feature.
A Firefox project called Electrolysis is underway to close this gap.
A blog author tested a pre-release version of Firefox that loads different tabs in parallel, and he chronicles his findings, including a huge speedup in Javascript vs. Firefox version 3.5 (though the pre-release still lags Chrome in many of the tests).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652560</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, MS does ships a 64bit IE8 build. Ofcource no flash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , MS does ships a 64bit IE8 build .
Ofcource no flash : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, MS does ships a 64bit IE8 build.
Ofcource no flash :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651628</id>
	<title>Re:Tabbed processes would be better</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262630640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, Electrolysis aims to have tabs in a separate process from the browser UI as a first cut, then work on separate tabs in separate processes.  That's not enabled by default, though, so the guy who wrote this blog post wasn't testing it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , Electrolysis aims to have tabs in a separate process from the browser UI as a first cut , then work on separate tabs in separate processes .
That 's not enabled by default , though , so the guy who wrote this blog post was n't testing it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, Electrolysis aims to have tabs in a separate process from the browser UI as a first cut, then work on separate tabs in separate processes.
That's not enabled by default, though, so the guy who wrote this blog post wasn't testing it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652836</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ur a wanker</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ur a wanker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ur a wanker</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651810</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I sure loved waiting hours for tasks to finish on a Pentium 4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I sure loved waiting hours for tasks to finish on a Pentium 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I sure loved waiting hours for tasks to finish on a Pentium 4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390</id>
	<title>Thread != Process</title>
	<author>kiltyj</author>
	<datestamp>1262628240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading</p></div><p>Firefox certainly supports multi-threading. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread\_(computer\_science)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">thread</a> [wikipedia.org] is not the same thing as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process\_(computing)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">process</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox , in its official version , still lacks support for multi-threadingFirefox certainly supports multi-threading .
A thread [ wikipedia.org ] is not the same thing as a process [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threadingFirefox certainly supports multi-threading.
A thread [wikipedia.org] is not the same thing as a process [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653230</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It means you can kill a process (and a process=webpage) at the operating system level and it won't take down the other webpages. So it makes it easier to kill bad pages safely. It also means that misbehaving plugins can be killed without affecting the browser.

A entirely separate issue is that all JavaScript engines are becoming multithreaded now and may use multiple CPUs. JavaScript itself now has some multithreading support in HTML5 browsers and didn't have any multi-threading interface but browsers were infact multithreading parts of JS anyway.

You can't kill the javascript part of a page but you couldn't ever do this anyway, but you will be able to kill webpages so that's an improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It means you can kill a process ( and a process = webpage ) at the operating system level and it wo n't take down the other webpages .
So it makes it easier to kill bad pages safely .
It also means that misbehaving plugins can be killed without affecting the browser .
A entirely separate issue is that all JavaScript engines are becoming multithreaded now and may use multiple CPUs .
JavaScript itself now has some multithreading support in HTML5 browsers and did n't have any multi-threading interface but browsers were infact multithreading parts of JS anyway .
You ca n't kill the javascript part of a page but you could n't ever do this anyway , but you will be able to kill webpages so that 's an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means you can kill a process (and a process=webpage) at the operating system level and it won't take down the other webpages.
So it makes it easier to kill bad pages safely.
It also means that misbehaving plugins can be killed without affecting the browser.
A entirely separate issue is that all JavaScript engines are becoming multithreaded now and may use multiple CPUs.
JavaScript itself now has some multithreading support in HTML5 browsers and didn't have any multi-threading interface but browsers were infact multithreading parts of JS anyway.
You can't kill the javascript part of a page but you couldn't ever do this anyway, but you will be able to kill webpages so that's an improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651618</id>
	<title>Re:Thread != Process</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1262630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're going to assert that Firefox does indeed support multi-threading, I think it'd be more informative if you could post evidence that Firefox is in fact threaded than the difference between a thread and a process. Or is the issue here that people are incorrectly using the term multithreading? If thats the case, I think you should make that point instead. Whatever your point is, its like saying Intel supports SLI. PCI Express is not the same as ISA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to assert that Firefox does indeed support multi-threading , I think it 'd be more informative if you could post evidence that Firefox is in fact threaded than the difference between a thread and a process .
Or is the issue here that people are incorrectly using the term multithreading ?
If thats the case , I think you should make that point instead .
Whatever your point is , its like saying Intel supports SLI .
PCI Express is not the same as ISA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to assert that Firefox does indeed support multi-threading, I think it'd be more informative if you could post evidence that Firefox is in fact threaded than the difference between a thread and a process.
Or is the issue here that people are incorrectly using the term multithreading?
If thats the case, I think you should make that point instead.
Whatever your point is, its like saying Intel supports SLI.
PCI Express is not the same as ISA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651530</id>
	<title>Greatgreat!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>W W W Working ing ng g f fi fine for m m me. K Ku Kud Kudo Kudos! !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>W W W Working ing ng g f fi fine for m m me .
K Ku Kud Kudo Kudos !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>W W W Working ing ng g f fi fine for m m me.
K Ku Kud Kudo Kudos!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653170</id>
	<title>Correct me if I am wrong, bit complex, &amp; here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Firefox does support multithreading, what it doesn't support is multiprocessing"</b> - by A12m0v (1315511) on Tuesday January 05, @12:05AM (#30651402)</p></div><p>Does it doesn't HAVE to support "explicit multithreading" (specifically targetting a thread of execution towards a particular processor, via API calls such as SetThreadAffinity) though?</p><p>See, the way I have always understood it, is this: First of all, there are diff. kinds of "multithreading".</p><p>The first being "coarse" (where threads work on diff. datasets, NOT the same one (more difficult to do is the latter, w/out "race conditions")). An example here might be say, using Excel to calculate some cells in 1 thread, while printing or reformatting other cells in a worksheet on another thread.</p><p>The second being "fine-grained multithreading" (where multiple threads process the same dataset as other threads present).</p><p>Now, in EITHER CASE?</p><p>The Operating System memory and process mgt. subsystems will send a thread to whatever the least saturated CPU core present &amp; especially when CPU 0 is 100\% cycle saturated (and CPU 1-N present, are not) in EITHER case above...</p><p>Thus - the kernel mode subsystems I noted will take care of it FOR the PID in question, for the multithreaded process.</p><p>Those kernel mode process mgt. subsystem can send a thread of execution beyond the parent core process off to any CPUs (as in SMP) or, to any cores (as in multicore CPUs of today) present that are NOT 100\% saturated by other running processes OR threads, but, ONLY IF the first CPU where the parent thread of the PARENT PROCESS is completely 100\% cpu cycle saturated (meaning NO FREE CYCLES ARE AVAILABLE ON IT).</p><p>AND?</p><p>IF the FF team has to go SEPARATE PROCESSES?</p><p>There are API calls for that, on Win32 @ least, such as SetProcessAffinity on Win32 (which can direct ENTIRE PROCESSES to diff. CPU cores)!</p><p>However, since FF is multiplatform?</p><p>I am not 110\% absolutely certain that other OS platforms have API calls &amp;/or kernels ready for this!</p><p>(Yes, by today/nowadays though? I'd have to say MOST if not ALL, do!)</p><p>See, I state that, because I know Linux had to gain abilities like this in order to be classified as an 'enterprise ready platform' to do concurrent kernel mode threading, whereas it only had "round-robin usermode threads" which are sometimes called "cooperatively scheduled threads" by the by (driven by a single kernel mode thread though) before a certain kernel build (not sure of how early that was though).</p><p>I had a fairly large discussion w/ some folks a few years back on this, here -&gt; <a href="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/42110/" title="hardwareanalysis.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/42110/</a> [hardwareanalysis.com] &amp;, it's part of the "why" of why I noted all this "madness-N-lunacy"... but, I didn't get as "in-depth" there as I did here (but I did put up some good examples of where &amp; why threads can be useless too, with an easy to understand MATH example as to why as well) &amp; especially on what went on in Linux early on.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; We're probably on the "same wavelength" here, but these discussions, without being TOTALLY SPECIFIC? It can be 'confusing' as to what is meant...</p><p>E.G.-&gt;  As in the diff.'s between "coarse multithreading"- where you have threads working on DIFFERENT TASKS, instead of the same one &amp; same dataset being worked on vs. "fine-grained multithreading" - where 2-N threads work on the SAME dataset @ the same time/concurrently.</p><p>It can be confusing, especially w/out noting specifics &amp; circumstances, such as the type of multithreaded design involved (coarse vs. fine-grained etc. et al) AND, if the program is trying to send off specific threads of execution to SPECIFIC CPU's (SMP) or CPU cores (cpus that folks have today with multiple cores on them) itself (explicit multithreading by the app itself &amp; with the app directing what CPU the thread runs on)... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Firefox does support multithreading , what it does n't support is multiprocessing " - by A12m0v ( 1315511 ) on Tuesday January 05 , @ 12 : 05AM ( # 30651402 ) Does it does n't HAVE to support " explicit multithreading " ( specifically targetting a thread of execution towards a particular processor , via API calls such as SetThreadAffinity ) though ? See , the way I have always understood it , is this : First of all , there are diff .
kinds of " multithreading " .The first being " coarse " ( where threads work on diff .
datasets , NOT the same one ( more difficult to do is the latter , w/out " race conditions " ) ) .
An example here might be say , using Excel to calculate some cells in 1 thread , while printing or reformatting other cells in a worksheet on another thread.The second being " fine-grained multithreading " ( where multiple threads process the same dataset as other threads present ) .Now , in EITHER CASE ? The Operating System memory and process mgt .
subsystems will send a thread to whatever the least saturated CPU core present &amp; especially when CPU 0 is 100 \ % cycle saturated ( and CPU 1-N present , are not ) in EITHER case above...Thus - the kernel mode subsystems I noted will take care of it FOR the PID in question , for the multithreaded process.Those kernel mode process mgt .
subsystem can send a thread of execution beyond the parent core process off to any CPUs ( as in SMP ) or , to any cores ( as in multicore CPUs of today ) present that are NOT 100 \ % saturated by other running processes OR threads , but , ONLY IF the first CPU where the parent thread of the PARENT PROCESS is completely 100 \ % cpu cycle saturated ( meaning NO FREE CYCLES ARE AVAILABLE ON IT ) .AND ? IF the FF team has to go SEPARATE PROCESSES ? There are API calls for that , on Win32 @ least , such as SetProcessAffinity on Win32 ( which can direct ENTIRE PROCESSES to diff .
CPU cores ) ! However , since FF is multiplatform ? I am not 110 \ % absolutely certain that other OS platforms have API calls &amp;/or kernels ready for this !
( Yes , by today/nowadays though ?
I 'd have to say MOST if not ALL , do !
) See , I state that , because I know Linux had to gain abilities like this in order to be classified as an 'enterprise ready platform ' to do concurrent kernel mode threading , whereas it only had " round-robin usermode threads " which are sometimes called " cooperatively scheduled threads " by the by ( driven by a single kernel mode thread though ) before a certain kernel build ( not sure of how early that was though ) .I had a fairly large discussion w/ some folks a few years back on this , here - &gt; http : //www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/42110/ [ hardwareanalysis.com ] &amp; , it 's part of the " why " of why I noted all this " madness-N-lunacy " ... but , I did n't get as " in-depth " there as I did here ( but I did put up some good examples of where &amp; why threads can be useless too , with an easy to understand MATH example as to why as well ) &amp; especially on what went on in Linux early on.APKP.S. = &gt; We 're probably on the " same wavelength " here , but these discussions , without being TOTALLY SPECIFIC ?
It can be 'confusing ' as to what is meant...E.G.- &gt; As in the diff .
's between " coarse multithreading " - where you have threads working on DIFFERENT TASKS , instead of the same one &amp; same dataset being worked on vs. " fine-grained multithreading " - where 2-N threads work on the SAME dataset @ the same time/concurrently.It can be confusing , especially w/out noting specifics &amp; circumstances , such as the type of multithreaded design involved ( coarse vs. fine-grained etc .
et al ) AND , if the program is trying to send off specific threads of execution to SPECIFIC CPU 's ( SMP ) or CPU cores ( cpus that folks have today with multiple cores on them ) itself ( explicit multithreading by the app itself &amp; with the app directing what CPU the thread runs on ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Firefox does support multithreading, what it doesn't support is multiprocessing" - by A12m0v (1315511) on Tuesday January 05, @12:05AM (#30651402)Does it doesn't HAVE to support "explicit multithreading" (specifically targetting a thread of execution towards a particular processor, via API calls such as SetThreadAffinity) though?See, the way I have always understood it, is this: First of all, there are diff.
kinds of "multithreading".The first being "coarse" (where threads work on diff.
datasets, NOT the same one (more difficult to do is the latter, w/out "race conditions")).
An example here might be say, using Excel to calculate some cells in 1 thread, while printing or reformatting other cells in a worksheet on another thread.The second being "fine-grained multithreading" (where multiple threads process the same dataset as other threads present).Now, in EITHER CASE?The Operating System memory and process mgt.
subsystems will send a thread to whatever the least saturated CPU core present &amp; especially when CPU 0 is 100\% cycle saturated (and CPU 1-N present, are not) in EITHER case above...Thus - the kernel mode subsystems I noted will take care of it FOR the PID in question, for the multithreaded process.Those kernel mode process mgt.
subsystem can send a thread of execution beyond the parent core process off to any CPUs (as in SMP) or, to any cores (as in multicore CPUs of today) present that are NOT 100\% saturated by other running processes OR threads, but, ONLY IF the first CPU where the parent thread of the PARENT PROCESS is completely 100\% cpu cycle saturated (meaning NO FREE CYCLES ARE AVAILABLE ON IT).AND?IF the FF team has to go SEPARATE PROCESSES?There are API calls for that, on Win32 @ least, such as SetProcessAffinity on Win32 (which can direct ENTIRE PROCESSES to diff.
CPU cores)!However, since FF is multiplatform?I am not 110\% absolutely certain that other OS platforms have API calls &amp;/or kernels ready for this!
(Yes, by today/nowadays though?
I'd have to say MOST if not ALL, do!
)See, I state that, because I know Linux had to gain abilities like this in order to be classified as an 'enterprise ready platform' to do concurrent kernel mode threading, whereas it only had "round-robin usermode threads" which are sometimes called "cooperatively scheduled threads" by the by (driven by a single kernel mode thread though) before a certain kernel build (not sure of how early that was though).I had a fairly large discussion w/ some folks a few years back on this, here -&gt; http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/42110/ [hardwareanalysis.com] &amp;, it's part of the "why" of why I noted all this "madness-N-lunacy"... but, I didn't get as "in-depth" there as I did here (but I did put up some good examples of where &amp; why threads can be useless too, with an easy to understand MATH example as to why as well) &amp; especially on what went on in Linux early on.APKP.S.=&gt; We're probably on the "same wavelength" here, but these discussions, without being TOTALLY SPECIFIC?
It can be 'confusing' as to what is meant...E.G.-&gt;  As in the diff.
's between "coarse multithreading"- where you have threads working on DIFFERENT TASKS, instead of the same one &amp; same dataset being worked on vs. "fine-grained multithreading" - where 2-N threads work on the SAME dataset @ the same time/concurrently.It can be confusing, especially w/out noting specifics &amp; circumstances, such as the type of multithreaded design involved (coarse vs. fine-grained etc.
et al) AND, if the program is trying to send off specific threads of execution to SPECIFIC CPU's (SMP) or CPU cores (cpus that folks have today with multiple cores on them) itself (explicit multithreading by the app itself &amp; with the app directing what CPU the thread runs on)... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651666</id>
	<title>extensions</title>
	<author>gandalfu</author>
	<datestamp>1262630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ill wait for firefox to use my cores, for now im quite happy with the extensions, cant live without  firebug, adblockplus, webdeveloper.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ill wait for firefox to use my cores , for now im quite happy with the extensions , cant live without firebug , adblockplus , webdeveloper.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ill wait for firefox to use my cores, for now im quite happy with the extensions, cant live without  firebug, adblockplus, webdeveloper.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651720</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you start running plugins in separate processes you don't really need 64bit plugins for a 64bit browser.</p><p>-Posted from 64-bit Safari with 32-bit Flash (and 64-bit ClickToFlash)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you start running plugins in separate processes you do n't really need 64bit plugins for a 64bit browser.-Posted from 64-bit Safari with 32-bit Flash ( and 64-bit ClickToFlash )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you start running plugins in separate processes you don't really need 64bit plugins for a 64bit browser.-Posted from 64-bit Safari with 32-bit Flash (and 64-bit ClickToFlash)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653114</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A computer is now a disposable consumer good, meaning many people can buy (many of) them. Of the people who use them for entertainment, most don't buy high end rigs because they don't want to waste money on a machine intended for DVDs, music, pictures, email, and facebook. Only a select few buy expensive processors to play games, edit movies, etc. Even fewer buy expensive rigs just for the hell of it.</p><p>That said, lots of people do put their personal computers to good work. Some people use their computers to create art for others to enjoy. I'm sure many engineers do CAD on their personal computers for developing things like building, bridge, and heart-valve layouts. Such activities have a tangible and beneficial impact on our surroundings.</p><p>Ultimately though, who cares if a lot of computers aren't always put to their best use? Or if people aren't productive outside of their work environment? Most people need to unwind and listen to the music, literally, and computers can be an effective tool for doing this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer is now a disposable consumer good , meaning many people can buy ( many of ) them .
Of the people who use them for entertainment , most do n't buy high end rigs because they do n't want to waste money on a machine intended for DVDs , music , pictures , email , and facebook .
Only a select few buy expensive processors to play games , edit movies , etc .
Even fewer buy expensive rigs just for the hell of it.That said , lots of people do put their personal computers to good work .
Some people use their computers to create art for others to enjoy .
I 'm sure many engineers do CAD on their personal computers for developing things like building , bridge , and heart-valve layouts .
Such activities have a tangible and beneficial impact on our surroundings.Ultimately though , who cares if a lot of computers are n't always put to their best use ?
Or if people are n't productive outside of their work environment ?
Most people need to unwind and listen to the music , literally , and computers can be an effective tool for doing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer is now a disposable consumer good, meaning many people can buy (many of) them.
Of the people who use them for entertainment, most don't buy high end rigs because they don't want to waste money on a machine intended for DVDs, music, pictures, email, and facebook.
Only a select few buy expensive processors to play games, edit movies, etc.
Even fewer buy expensive rigs just for the hell of it.That said, lots of people do put their personal computers to good work.
Some people use their computers to create art for others to enjoy.
I'm sure many engineers do CAD on their personal computers for developing things like building, bridge, and heart-valve layouts.
Such activities have a tangible and beneficial impact on our surroundings.Ultimately though, who cares if a lot of computers aren't always put to their best use?
Or if people aren't productive outside of their work environment?
Most people need to unwind and listen to the music, literally, and computers can be an effective tool for doing this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652282</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>kryptKnight</author>
	<datestamp>1262724480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is modding this crap up?<p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain (e.g. gamers) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g. SETI@HOME).</p></div><p>What about CAD, or complicated simulations?  Are you saying that modern methods of research and engineering don't produce anything of use?!?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it. Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.</p></div><p>Yeah, and automotive technology has been more than sufficient for 80 years or more; who really needs to got more than 50 mph, or have air conditioning?  I'm not really sure what your even complaining about.  Are you trying to say spending resources on having fun is unethical, and that there's no point in increasing the standard of living? And what does any of that have to do with parallel processing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is modding this crap up ? Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain ( e.g .
gamers ) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use ( e.g .
SETI @ HOME ) .What about CAD , or complicated simulations ?
Are you saying that modern methods of research and engineering do n't produce anything of use ? !
? The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more ... If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it .
Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.Yeah , and automotive technology has been more than sufficient for 80 years or more ; who really needs to got more than 50 mph , or have air conditioning ?
I 'm not really sure what your even complaining about .
Are you trying to say spending resources on having fun is unethical , and that there 's no point in increasing the standard of living ?
And what does any of that have to do with parallel processing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is modding this crap up?Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain (e.g.
gamers) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g.
SETI@HOME).What about CAD, or complicated simulations?
Are you saying that modern methods of research and engineering don't produce anything of use?!
?The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more ... If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it.
Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.Yeah, and automotive technology has been more than sufficient for 80 years or more; who really needs to got more than 50 mph, or have air conditioning?
I'm not really sure what your even complaining about.
Are you trying to say spending resources on having fun is unethical, and that there's no point in increasing the standard of living?
And what does any of that have to do with parallel processing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653772</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262700300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell? The 64-bit version of Flash has been available for more than a year now (at least on Linux), and it works just fine!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell ?
The 64-bit version of Flash has been available for more than a year now ( at least on Linux ) , and it works just fine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell?
The 64-bit version of Flash has been available for more than a year now (at least on Linux), and it works just fine!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30664346</id>
	<title>Re:Staged loading</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1262704200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is a setting to limit the number of simultaneous connections. I forget what it is called, but I'm sure you can find it in about:config<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...looking with the search filter, I think it is <a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.http.max-connections" title="mozillazine.org">network.http.max-connections</a> [mozillazine.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there appear to be settings per server too.

</p><p>Though, what I think the real problem there is Firefox should just use the cached copy there, since I assume with what you are doing it would have it. Isn't this the point of having a cache--so the browser doesn't have to constantly reload from the network all the time?

</p><p>It also seems to do this when saving files and restoring from crash. Lots of bandwidth wasted, also sometimes I don't have network access while I use these features, so it doesn't work. I thought it used to access the cache for saving. I wonder what changed.

</p><p>I do have to say one thing they did really well. They did do a great job with crash recovery, now you don't loose your links. I have a messed up machine. It used to lock up quite a bit, fixed that, but sometimes the video doesn't come back after wake up, so I have to switch to a vt, kill -2 firefox (to make sure it quits nicely), and reboot. As well as I can remember, every time Firefox still has the tabs saved somewhere and asks me if I want to reopen them or not. Kudos to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is a setting to limit the number of simultaneous connections .
I forget what it is called , but I 'm sure you can find it in about : config ...looking with the search filter , I think it is network.http.max-connections [ mozillazine.org ] ... there appear to be settings per server too .
Though , what I think the real problem there is Firefox should just use the cached copy there , since I assume with what you are doing it would have it .
Is n't this the point of having a cache--so the browser does n't have to constantly reload from the network all the time ?
It also seems to do this when saving files and restoring from crash .
Lots of bandwidth wasted , also sometimes I do n't have network access while I use these features , so it does n't work .
I thought it used to access the cache for saving .
I wonder what changed .
I do have to say one thing they did really well .
They did do a great job with crash recovery , now you do n't loose your links .
I have a messed up machine .
It used to lock up quite a bit , fixed that , but sometimes the video does n't come back after wake up , so I have to switch to a vt , kill -2 firefox ( to make sure it quits nicely ) , and reboot .
As well as I can remember , every time Firefox still has the tabs saved somewhere and asks me if I want to reopen them or not .
Kudos to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is a setting to limit the number of simultaneous connections.
I forget what it is called, but I'm sure you can find it in about:config ...looking with the search filter, I think it is network.http.max-connections [mozillazine.org] ... there appear to be settings per server too.
Though, what I think the real problem there is Firefox should just use the cached copy there, since I assume with what you are doing it would have it.
Isn't this the point of having a cache--so the browser doesn't have to constantly reload from the network all the time?
It also seems to do this when saving files and restoring from crash.
Lots of bandwidth wasted, also sometimes I don't have network access while I use these features, so it doesn't work.
I thought it used to access the cache for saving.
I wonder what changed.
I do have to say one thing they did really well.
They did do a great job with crash recovery, now you don't loose your links.
I have a messed up machine.
It used to lock up quite a bit, fixed that, but sometimes the video doesn't come back after wake up, so I have to switch to a vt, kill -2 firefox (to make sure it quits nicely), and reboot.
As well as I can remember, every time Firefox still has the tabs saved somewhere and asks me if I want to reopen them or not.
Kudos to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651856</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>caspy7</author>
	<datestamp>1262633280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)</p><p>Seriously?  Someone from Slashdot wrote this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Firefox , in its official version , still lacks support for multi-threading ( running on different processors ) Seriously ?
Someone from Slashdot wrote this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Firefox, in its official version, still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)Seriously?
Someone from Slashdot wrote this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652840</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to jump in to this, but I have to point out that I am far more productive today with two monitors and a modern dual- or quad-core processor than I ever could have been on a 200MHz Pentium Pro.  IDEs can be sluggish enough as it is, and even small speed increases can make a tangible difference in my productivity; your attitude of "200MHz ought to be enough for everyone" is simply ridiculous.  I got a lot done on my old 133 MHz Pentium I on my old laptop in high school, but even then I knew my productivity was restricted by my CPU, RAM, and hard disk size.  I'm not talking about gaming - I'm talking about programming.</p><p>But let's look at some real-world situations where even your coveted Pentium IV Prescott single-core CPU machine isn't even close to good enough: basically any data visualization application.  2000-era machines simply can't handle the size of the datasets commonly examined nowadays.  Ever tried to load a detailed dataset representing the entire east coast into a modern water-flow data modeling application on a 2000-era machine?  I have.  It doesn't work.</p><p>Or another:  Have you ever tried debugging an 1M LOC MFC-based C++ application that uses OpenGL on a single-core Pentium 4 with a 2000-era video card?  I have.  I spent a lot of time reading books instead of working, because the processor couldn't keep up with things.  Heck, Visual Studio would take 15 minutes just to load the project and process the data it needs for intellisense to work properly.  I'd click on things (to duplicate a bug) and it'd take several seconds to update the display with what I had clicked.  Switching to a cheap Core 2 Duo machine solved... <i>all</i> of those problems.</p><p>I won't bother addressing your power-drain concerns; the fact that you're sticking with your Pentium 4 exposes your utter hypocrisy (or your deliberate ignorance, whichever you'd prefer to admit to).  Core 2 Duos (especially 45nm) run on much less power than Pentium 4s, and they're undeniably faster and more efficient.  "Power consumption" is about the <i>stupidest</i> reason you could have chosen for not upgrading from a single-core P4 to a C2D.  ("Cost" and "I hate Intel" are probably the only vaguely legitimate reasons, but you mentioned disliking Intel just once before turning around and admitting you use their products.  Shouldn't you switch to AMD if you hate Intel so much?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to jump in to this , but I have to point out that I am far more productive today with two monitors and a modern dual- or quad-core processor than I ever could have been on a 200MHz Pentium Pro .
IDEs can be sluggish enough as it is , and even small speed increases can make a tangible difference in my productivity ; your attitude of " 200MHz ought to be enough for everyone " is simply ridiculous .
I got a lot done on my old 133 MHz Pentium I on my old laptop in high school , but even then I knew my productivity was restricted by my CPU , RAM , and hard disk size .
I 'm not talking about gaming - I 'm talking about programming.But let 's look at some real-world situations where even your coveted Pentium IV Prescott single-core CPU machine is n't even close to good enough : basically any data visualization application .
2000-era machines simply ca n't handle the size of the datasets commonly examined nowadays .
Ever tried to load a detailed dataset representing the entire east coast into a modern water-flow data modeling application on a 2000-era machine ?
I have .
It does n't work.Or another : Have you ever tried debugging an 1M LOC MFC-based C + + application that uses OpenGL on a single-core Pentium 4 with a 2000-era video card ?
I have .
I spent a lot of time reading books instead of working , because the processor could n't keep up with things .
Heck , Visual Studio would take 15 minutes just to load the project and process the data it needs for intellisense to work properly .
I 'd click on things ( to duplicate a bug ) and it 'd take several seconds to update the display with what I had clicked .
Switching to a cheap Core 2 Duo machine solved... all of those problems.I wo n't bother addressing your power-drain concerns ; the fact that you 're sticking with your Pentium 4 exposes your utter hypocrisy ( or your deliberate ignorance , whichever you 'd prefer to admit to ) .
Core 2 Duos ( especially 45nm ) run on much less power than Pentium 4s , and they 're undeniably faster and more efficient .
" Power consumption " is about the stupidest reason you could have chosen for not upgrading from a single-core P4 to a C2D .
( " Cost " and " I hate Intel " are probably the only vaguely legitimate reasons , but you mentioned disliking Intel just once before turning around and admitting you use their products .
Should n't you switch to AMD if you hate Intel so much ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to jump in to this, but I have to point out that I am far more productive today with two monitors and a modern dual- or quad-core processor than I ever could have been on a 200MHz Pentium Pro.
IDEs can be sluggish enough as it is, and even small speed increases can make a tangible difference in my productivity; your attitude of "200MHz ought to be enough for everyone" is simply ridiculous.
I got a lot done on my old 133 MHz Pentium I on my old laptop in high school, but even then I knew my productivity was restricted by my CPU, RAM, and hard disk size.
I'm not talking about gaming - I'm talking about programming.But let's look at some real-world situations where even your coveted Pentium IV Prescott single-core CPU machine isn't even close to good enough: basically any data visualization application.
2000-era machines simply can't handle the size of the datasets commonly examined nowadays.
Ever tried to load a detailed dataset representing the entire east coast into a modern water-flow data modeling application on a 2000-era machine?
I have.
It doesn't work.Or another:  Have you ever tried debugging an 1M LOC MFC-based C++ application that uses OpenGL on a single-core Pentium 4 with a 2000-era video card?
I have.
I spent a lot of time reading books instead of working, because the processor couldn't keep up with things.
Heck, Visual Studio would take 15 minutes just to load the project and process the data it needs for intellisense to work properly.
I'd click on things (to duplicate a bug) and it'd take several seconds to update the display with what I had clicked.
Switching to a cheap Core 2 Duo machine solved... all of those problems.I won't bother addressing your power-drain concerns; the fact that you're sticking with your Pentium 4 exposes your utter hypocrisy (or your deliberate ignorance, whichever you'd prefer to admit to).
Core 2 Duos (especially 45nm) run on much less power than Pentium 4s, and they're undeniably faster and more efficient.
"Power consumption" is about the stupidest reason you could have chosen for not upgrading from a single-core P4 to a C2D.
("Cost" and "I hate Intel" are probably the only vaguely legitimate reasons, but you mentioned disliking Intel just once before turning around and admitting you use their products.
Shouldn't you switch to AMD if you hate Intel so much?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653208</id>
	<title>Lean Muscle X</title>
	<author>gratas</author>
	<datestamp>1262692620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it looks its a OS problem. Try doing automatic updates, if that doesn't help try reinstalling vista. you probably have the installation disk. if that doesn't work just send it back and they will send you a new one.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Lean-Muscle-X-Review---Does-Lean-Muscle-X-Really-Work?&amp;id=3222093" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Lean Muscle X</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it looks its a OS problem .
Try doing automatic updates , if that does n't help try reinstalling vista .
you probably have the installation disk .
if that does n't work just send it back and they will send you a new one .
Lean Muscle X [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it looks its a OS problem.
Try doing automatic updates, if that doesn't help try reinstalling vista.
you probably have the installation disk.
if that doesn't work just send it back and they will send you a new one.
Lean Muscle X [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30655460</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1262709840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin</i></p><p>So exactly the same as the 32-bit version<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still call it alpha , but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start , but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 binSo exactly the same as the 32-bit version ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 binSo exactly the same as the 32-bit version ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653310</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262693760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You gotta tell me what you're smoking because it gotta be good!</p><p>I'm rendering a 3d scene with LuxRender on my home machine, you know how long it's been running? 3 damn days! and that's on a high end Core 2 Duo chip. It will probably run for another day or two until I'm satisfied with the quality.</p><p>I hear good things about the i7 offerings, they are supposed to speed up LuxRender(and other CPU intensive stuff) by an order of magnitude. Call it what you want but I would love rendering an image for 1 day instead of almost a week!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got ta tell me what you 're smoking because it got ta be good ! I 'm rendering a 3d scene with LuxRender on my home machine , you know how long it 's been running ?
3 damn days !
and that 's on a high end Core 2 Duo chip .
It will probably run for another day or two until I 'm satisfied with the quality.I hear good things about the i7 offerings , they are supposed to speed up LuxRender ( and other CPU intensive stuff ) by an order of magnitude .
Call it what you want but I would love rendering an image for 1 day instead of almost a week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You gotta tell me what you're smoking because it gotta be good!I'm rendering a 3d scene with LuxRender on my home machine, you know how long it's been running?
3 damn days!
and that's on a high end Core 2 Duo chip.
It will probably run for another day or two until I'm satisfied with the quality.I hear good things about the i7 offerings, they are supposed to speed up LuxRender(and other CPU intensive stuff) by an order of magnitude.
Call it what you want but I would love rendering an image for 1 day instead of almost a week!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653356</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post is not surprising. You (inaccurately) make an accusation, followed by inaccurate technical claims, and then claim (more or less) that people who disagree are wrong.</p><p>You do this all in the name of being 'green'. And you are painfully wrong.</p><p>What can I use my 2.4GHz Phenom II x3 for (that's 3 cores running at that speed)? Well, for one... they down-throttle when I'm not using them, so their combined MHz is still only 2400.</p><p>Look up the power use for some of the newer hardware vs. the power use for your older hardware. Newer processors use less power than older processors, by quite a bit. DDR3 uses less power than DDR2. These components also run cooler (lower voltage RAM, etc.) than the older stuff, so I need fewer high-RPM fans.</p><p>You do realize that people have been watching 4+ hours of TV a day for well over a decade, right? Computers able to watch Hulu aren't changing anything here; if anything, people are spending less time watching mindless material, and certainly fewer ads.</p><p>I remember my computers from a decade ago. They ran hot and loud compared to computers of today. I also hated having to sit there waiting for the simplest of applications to load (word processor, etc.) - something I don't experience much at all anymore. Oh, and guess what? There were plenty of games back then, too.</p><p>Now, please get off my lawn. If you're not a kid, you're thinking like one with your "omg save the planet" reactionary bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is not surprising .
You ( inaccurately ) make an accusation , followed by inaccurate technical claims , and then claim ( more or less ) that people who disagree are wrong.You do this all in the name of being 'green' .
And you are painfully wrong.What can I use my 2.4GHz Phenom II x3 for ( that 's 3 cores running at that speed ) ?
Well , for one... they down-throttle when I 'm not using them , so their combined MHz is still only 2400.Look up the power use for some of the newer hardware vs. the power use for your older hardware .
Newer processors use less power than older processors , by quite a bit .
DDR3 uses less power than DDR2 .
These components also run cooler ( lower voltage RAM , etc .
) than the older stuff , so I need fewer high-RPM fans.You do realize that people have been watching 4 + hours of TV a day for well over a decade , right ?
Computers able to watch Hulu are n't changing anything here ; if anything , people are spending less time watching mindless material , and certainly fewer ads.I remember my computers from a decade ago .
They ran hot and loud compared to computers of today .
I also hated having to sit there waiting for the simplest of applications to load ( word processor , etc .
) - something I do n't experience much at all anymore .
Oh , and guess what ?
There were plenty of games back then , too.Now , please get off my lawn .
If you 're not a kid , you 're thinking like one with your " omg save the planet " reactionary bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post is not surprising.
You (inaccurately) make an accusation, followed by inaccurate technical claims, and then claim (more or less) that people who disagree are wrong.You do this all in the name of being 'green'.
And you are painfully wrong.What can I use my 2.4GHz Phenom II x3 for (that's 3 cores running at that speed)?
Well, for one... they down-throttle when I'm not using them, so their combined MHz is still only 2400.Look up the power use for some of the newer hardware vs. the power use for your older hardware.
Newer processors use less power than older processors, by quite a bit.
DDR3 uses less power than DDR2.
These components also run cooler (lower voltage RAM, etc.
) than the older stuff, so I need fewer high-RPM fans.You do realize that people have been watching 4+ hours of TV a day for well over a decade, right?
Computers able to watch Hulu aren't changing anything here; if anything, people are spending less time watching mindless material, and certainly fewer ads.I remember my computers from a decade ago.
They ran hot and loud compared to computers of today.
I also hated having to sit there waiting for the simplest of applications to load (word processor, etc.
) - something I don't experience much at all anymore.
Oh, and guess what?
There were plenty of games back then, too.Now, please get off my lawn.
If you're not a kid, you're thinking like one with your "omg save the planet" reactionary bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653392</id>
	<title>Competition is good</title>
	<author>HyperQuantum</author>
	<datestamp>1262694660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one who took the lead a while ago is now lagging a bit behind. Go Firefox!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one who took the lead a while ago is now lagging a bit behind .
Go Firefox !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one who took the lead a while ago is now lagging a bit behind.
Go Firefox!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652390</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Fackamato</author>
	<datestamp>1262682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an early 64-bit version of Adobe's flash plugin: <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html" title="adobe.com">http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html</a> [adobe.com] (Linux only)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an early 64-bit version of Adobe 's flash plugin : http : //labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [ adobe.com ] ( Linux only )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an early 64-bit version of Adobe's flash plugin: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [adobe.com] (Linux only)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570</id>
	<title>ummm...</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1262629920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Process-per-tab shouldn't speed up Javascript unless you're doing something else in a second tab that's hogging CPU.  Most likely the Javascript performance gains came simply from the fact that he was using a 3.7 branch of the code.  Which is kind of sad, considering bleeding-edge Firefox still lags behind Chrome by a considerable margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Process-per-tab should n't speed up Javascript unless you 're doing something else in a second tab that 's hogging CPU .
Most likely the Javascript performance gains came simply from the fact that he was using a 3.7 branch of the code .
Which is kind of sad , considering bleeding-edge Firefox still lags behind Chrome by a considerable margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Process-per-tab shouldn't speed up Javascript unless you're doing something else in a second tab that's hogging CPU.
Most likely the Javascript performance gains came simply from the fact that he was using a 3.7 branch of the code.
Which is kind of sad, considering bleeding-edge Firefox still lags behind Chrome by a considerable margin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654406</id>
	<title>Staged loading</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1262705040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I reload firefox using TabMix or SessionManager, it attempts to load every tab at once, sometimes upwards of 100-150 tabs.  This is maniacal and crushes my poor little home router (which surprising performs better than the multimillion dollar work infrastructure I use).<br><br>Can we get staged loading of tabs, say load 4 or 5 at a time, rather than 150 all at once?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I reload firefox using TabMix or SessionManager , it attempts to load every tab at once , sometimes upwards of 100-150 tabs .
This is maniacal and crushes my poor little home router ( which surprising performs better than the multimillion dollar work infrastructure I use ) .Can we get staged loading of tabs , say load 4 or 5 at a time , rather than 150 all at once ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I reload firefox using TabMix or SessionManager, it attempts to load every tab at once, sometimes upwards of 100-150 tabs.
This is maniacal and crushes my poor little home router (which surprising performs better than the multimillion dollar work infrastructure I use).Can we get staged loading of tabs, say load 4 or 5 at a time, rather than 150 all at once?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651616</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle</p> </div><p>

Flash is used on just about every site out there. Java isn't. About the -only- issue I've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook. I haven't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and haven't experienced any loss due to it. However, the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A) YouTube B) Flash game sites C) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.</p> </div><p>

Who would use it? I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS. I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing. Really, I don't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there isn't any software that is 64 bit only, but a lot of software is 32 bit only. <br> <br>

For Windows its even worse, why would someone pay extra for an OS? If its pre-installed people may use it, but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions. Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and there 's no official 64 bit version .
I 've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin , flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother .
But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that 's half the battle Flash is used on just about every site out there .
Java is n't .
About the -only- issue I 've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook .
I have n't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and have n't experienced any loss due to it .
However , the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A ) YouTube B ) Flash game sites C ) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D ) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation .
I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin .
Who would use it ?
I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS .
I 'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU , I really do n't see the need in changing .
Really , I do n't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there is n't any software that is 64 bit only , but a lot of software is 32 bit only .
For Windows its even worse , why would someone pay extra for an OS ?
If its pre-installed people may use it , but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions .
Unless you want a huge amount of RAM , theres little need to get a 64 bit OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and there's no official 64 bit version.
I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother.
But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle 

Flash is used on just about every site out there.
Java isn't.
About the -only- issue I've had with Java not being installed was that I had to use the simple uploader to upload pictures on Facebook.
I haven't had a Java plugin installed in 2-3 years and haven't experienced any loss due to it.
However, the lack of Flash would make most sites unusable that the average person goes to A) YouTube B) Flash game sites C) Flash cartoon sites like Homestar Runner D) A -lot- of sites have Flash for navigation.
I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.
Who would use it?
I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing.
Really, I don't expect to upgrade my RAM past 2 GB anytime soon and there isn't any software that is 64 bit only, but a lot of software is 32 bit only.
For Windows its even worse, why would someone pay extra for an OS?
If its pre-installed people may use it, but most of the time even Windows 7 is shipping in 32 bit versions.
Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651962</id>
	<title>so can I still assign affinity?</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1262634540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because otherwise it will peg <b>both</b> my cpus whenever I go to one of <i>those</i> websites. And why can't ff handle these still? It's ridiculous that this browser can still hang  cause of some website waiting for some unavailable resource.</htmltext>
<tokenext>because otherwise it will peg both my cpus whenever I go to one of those websites .
And why ca n't ff handle these still ?
It 's ridiculous that this browser can still hang cause of some website waiting for some unavailable resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because otherwise it will peg both my cpus whenever I go to one of those websites.
And why can't ff handle these still?
It's ridiculous that this browser can still hang  cause of some website waiting for some unavailable resource.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652156</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Riiiiggghhhttttt...such fluffy things like compiling applications, \_working\_ with video or music, visualization, CAD, simulations, data analysis...</p><p>Just because you got stuck in 2004, love to heat your room eletrically and all you do is text editing drawing conclusions for the rest of the world is pretty shortsighted.</p><p>Did it ever occur to you that people update because usually it provides them some extra value? Maybe, if you think hard, you can even remember that intel didn't force you to update your driver (or whatever you mean by stopped supporting). You should've just stuck with your working system but apparently something made you update it....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Riiiiggghhhttttt...such fluffy things like compiling applications , \ _working \ _ with video or music , visualization , CAD , simulations , data analysis...Just because you got stuck in 2004 , love to heat your room eletrically and all you do is text editing drawing conclusions for the rest of the world is pretty shortsighted.Did it ever occur to you that people update because usually it provides them some extra value ?
Maybe , if you think hard , you can even remember that intel did n't force you to update your driver ( or whatever you mean by stopped supporting ) .
You should 've just stuck with your working system but apparently something made you update it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riiiiggghhhttttt...such fluffy things like compiling applications, \_working\_ with video or music, visualization, CAD, simulations, data analysis...Just because you got stuck in 2004, love to heat your room eletrically and all you do is text editing drawing conclusions for the rest of the world is pretty shortsighted.Did it ever occur to you that people update because usually it provides them some extra value?
Maybe, if you think hard, you can even remember that intel didn't force you to update your driver (or whatever you mean by stopped supporting).
You should've just stuck with your working system but apparently something made you update it....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651762</id>
	<title>No multithreading in FF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just checked in Task Manager and Firefox has 27 threads open. You were saying?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked in Task Manager and Firefox has 27 threads open .
You were saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked in Task Manager and Firefox has 27 threads open.
You were saying?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651938</id>
	<title>incomplete story</title>
	<author>shiretoko</author>
	<datestamp>1262634360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the code name is electrolysis, it is called Content Processes. According to this <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content\_Processes#Phase\_II:\_Parallel\_Improvements" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content\_Processes#Phase\_II:\_Parallel\_Improvements</a> [mozilla.org] , the project is still lagged behind on completing Phase 2, projected to be completed November 1st, 2009.  The real multiprocess work isn't even going to hit until Phase 4, which is going to be months from now.  I'm really not sure what the author of that blog tested, since the only multiprocess aspects of the electrolysis build are disabled by default, requiring dom.ipc.plugins.enabled to be set to true in about:config.  It is not necessary to compile the build yourself either, as the latest electrolysis nightly build can be found here: <a href="http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-electrolysis/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-electrolysis/</a> [mozilla.org] precompiled for your enjoyment, not that it matters.. since it's so early in the development process that there is no benefit whatsoever outside of helping them track bugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the code name is electrolysis , it is called Content Processes .
According to this https : //wiki.mozilla.org/Content \ _Processes # Phase \ _II : \ _Parallel \ _Improvements [ mozilla.org ] , the project is still lagged behind on completing Phase 2 , projected to be completed November 1st , 2009 .
The real multiprocess work is n't even going to hit until Phase 4 , which is going to be months from now .
I 'm really not sure what the author of that blog tested , since the only multiprocess aspects of the electrolysis build are disabled by default , requiring dom.ipc.plugins.enabled to be set to true in about : config .
It is not necessary to compile the build yourself either , as the latest electrolysis nightly build can be found here : http : //ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-electrolysis/ [ mozilla.org ] precompiled for your enjoyment , not that it matters.. since it 's so early in the development process that there is no benefit whatsoever outside of helping them track bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the code name is electrolysis, it is called Content Processes.
According to this https://wiki.mozilla.org/Content\_Processes#Phase\_II:\_Parallel\_Improvements [mozilla.org] , the project is still lagged behind on completing Phase 2, projected to be completed November 1st, 2009.
The real multiprocess work isn't even going to hit until Phase 4, which is going to be months from now.
I'm really not sure what the author of that blog tested, since the only multiprocess aspects of the electrolysis build are disabled by default, requiring dom.ipc.plugins.enabled to be set to true in about:config.
It is not necessary to compile the build yourself either, as the latest electrolysis nightly build can be found here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-electrolysis/ [mozilla.org] precompiled for your enjoyment, not that it matters.. since it's so early in the development process that there is no benefit whatsoever outside of helping them track bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652812</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1262686980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Entertainment produces happiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Entertainment produces happiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entertainment produces happiness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651678</id>
	<title>thank god</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe now firefox won't need both cores</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe now firefox wo n't need both cores</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe now firefox won't need both cores</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</id>
	<title>Good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a good thing. Firefox desperately needs to modernize. About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization. Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good thing .
Firefox desperately needs to modernize .
About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization .
Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed , features , and standards support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good thing.
Firefox desperately needs to modernize.
About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization.
Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518</id>
	<title>The first sentence is wrong</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1262629380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>On so many levels !!
first of all - The title of the Electrolysis page clearly mentions using multiple processes - where the heck did anyone mention multi-threading?
Secondly - multi-threading is not the same as running on different processors. You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code.
Third - firefox already supports multi-threading. The only problem is that threads are still connected to the same PID and killing that in windows/linux/mac will kill all threads along with it.
The original article states they are starting from a chromium base. That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On so many levels ! !
first of all - The title of the Electrolysis page clearly mentions using multiple processes - where the heck did anyone mention multi-threading ?
Secondly - multi-threading is not the same as running on different processors .
You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code .
Third - firefox already supports multi-threading .
The only problem is that threads are still connected to the same PID and killing that in windows/linux/mac will kill all threads along with it .
The original article states they are starting from a chromium base .
That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On so many levels !!
first of all - The title of the Electrolysis page clearly mentions using multiple processes - where the heck did anyone mention multi-threading?
Secondly - multi-threading is not the same as running on different processors.
You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code.
Third - firefox already supports multi-threading.
The only problem is that threads are still connected to the same PID and killing that in windows/linux/mac will kill all threads along with it.
The original article states they are starting from a chromium base.
That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659454</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS. I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&amp;item=ubuntu\_32\_pae&amp;num=1" title="phoronix.com" rel="nofollow">Recent benchmarks</a> [phoronix.com] pin 64bit Ubuntu as faster than 32bit Ubuntu on a variety of operations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.</p></div><p> <a href="http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=93648&amp;catid=317" title="amd.com" rel="nofollow">Not true</a> [amd.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>but a lot of software is 32 bit only.</p> </div><p>Not a problem for FOSS, plus a 64bit kernel has no problem running 32bit apps (as per article there is a 1-2\% hit, but</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS .
I 'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU , I really do n't see the need in changing .
Recent benchmarks [ phoronix.com ] pin 64bit Ubuntu as faster than 32bit Ubuntu on a variety of operations.Unless you want a huge amount of RAM , theres little need to get a 64 bit OS .
Not true [ amd.com ] but a lot of software is 32 bit only .
Not a problem for FOSS , plus a 64bit kernel has no problem running 32bit apps ( as per article there is a 1-2 \ % hit , but</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still use a 32 bit OS because I see no need in switching to a 64 bit OS.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 32 bit on a 64 bit CPU, I really don't see the need in changing.
Recent benchmarks [phoronix.com] pin 64bit Ubuntu as faster than 32bit Ubuntu on a variety of operations.Unless you want a huge amount of RAM, theres little need to get a 64 bit OS.
Not true [amd.com] but a lot of software is 32 bit only.
Not a problem for FOSS, plus a 64bit kernel has no problem running 32bit apps (as per article there is a 1-2\% hit, but
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651874</id>
	<title>Re:The first sentence is wrong</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test?</p></div><p>Sorry, in this case it really is &ldquo;JavaScript (scripts) test&ldquo;.<br>Java is something completely different than JavaScript. As much as C++ and Python are different, but the first one was partially inspired the second one. Java was originally called Oak. And JavaScript can be called ECMAScript. Maybe that makes it easier to keep them apart.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test ? Sorry , in this case it really is    JavaScript ( scripts ) test    .Java is something completely different than JavaScript .
As much as C + + and Python are different , but the first one was partially inspired the second one .
Java was originally called Oak .
And JavaScript can be called ECMAScript .
Maybe that makes it easier to keep them apart .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be the reason for speedup in Java scripts test?Sorry, in this case it really is “JavaScript (scripts) test“.Java is something completely different than JavaScript.
As much as C++ and Python are different, but the first one was partially inspired the second one.
Java was originally called Oak.
And JavaScript can be called ECMAScript.
Maybe that makes it easier to keep them apart.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656610</id>
	<title>Re:No multithreading in FF?</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1262714100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, I have 15 threads in Firefox 3.5 in Linux. FYI, get this from:<br>
grep Threads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/proc/`pgrep firefox`/status</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , I have 15 threads in Firefox 3.5 in Linux .
FYI , get this from : grep Threads /proc/ ` pgrep firefox ` /status</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, I have 15 threads in Firefox 3.5 in Linux.
FYI, get this from:
grep Threads /proc/`pgrep firefox`/status</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654</id>
	<title>Re:Thread != Process</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1262630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The writer's mistake is more basic than just conflating threads and processes. You left out the parenthesis:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)</p></div><p>Which not only conflates cores and processors, but also suggests that multithreading isn't useful if you don't have multiple cores/processors.</p><p>When I was writing <a href="http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/essential/concurrency/index.html" title="sun.com">the concurrency chapter</a> [sun.com] in the Java Tutorial, the experts would give me a <i>very</i> hard time if I allowed even a vague suggestion that this was true. The fact is, threads are extremely useful even if you only have one core to work with. For example, any well-written GUI program will not handle user interaction in the same thread with other functions; if it did, the GUI would freeze every time the program were waiting on something.</p><p>Multithreading is a big topic these days because everybody wants to maximize their utilization of all these <i>n</i>-core processors. But it's not a <i>new</i> topic.</p><p>This mistake seems to be <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+multithreaded" title="google.com">very common</a> [google.com]. Which leaves me confused as to what's new here. It's not parallel downloading of files &mdash; Mozilla/Firefox has always done that. A more robust parallelism mechanism? Or maybe they're copying Chrome and giving each tab its own process (not thread!).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The writer 's mistake is more basic than just conflating threads and processes .
You left out the parenthesis : still lacks support for multi-threading ( running on different processors ) Which not only conflates cores and processors , but also suggests that multithreading is n't useful if you do n't have multiple cores/processors.When I was writing the concurrency chapter [ sun.com ] in the Java Tutorial , the experts would give me a very hard time if I allowed even a vague suggestion that this was true .
The fact is , threads are extremely useful even if you only have one core to work with .
For example , any well-written GUI program will not handle user interaction in the same thread with other functions ; if it did , the GUI would freeze every time the program were waiting on something.Multithreading is a big topic these days because everybody wants to maximize their utilization of all these n-core processors .
But it 's not a new topic.This mistake seems to be very common [ google.com ] .
Which leaves me confused as to what 's new here .
It 's not parallel downloading of files    Mozilla/Firefox has always done that .
A more robust parallelism mechanism ?
Or maybe they 're copying Chrome and giving each tab its own process ( not thread !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The writer's mistake is more basic than just conflating threads and processes.
You left out the parenthesis:still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)Which not only conflates cores and processors, but also suggests that multithreading isn't useful if you don't have multiple cores/processors.When I was writing the concurrency chapter [sun.com] in the Java Tutorial, the experts would give me a very hard time if I allowed even a vague suggestion that this was true.
The fact is, threads are extremely useful even if you only have one core to work with.
For example, any well-written GUI program will not handle user interaction in the same thread with other functions; if it did, the GUI would freeze every time the program were waiting on something.Multithreading is a big topic these days because everybody wants to maximize their utilization of all these n-core processors.
But it's not a new topic.This mistake seems to be very common [google.com].
Which leaves me confused as to what's new here.
It's not parallel downloading of files — Mozilla/Firefox has always done that.
A more robust parallelism mechanism?
Or maybe they're copying Chrome and giving each tab its own process (not thread!
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262633220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, sorry? I use 64 bit Flash on Linux <em>right now</em>. Yes, from Adobe.<br>They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin Windows release version.<br>Also, video playback is <em>much</em> faster with it.</p><p>Also, no 64 plug-in is a lousy excuse. As we use Flash on 64 bit systems trough multilib/&ldquo;emulation&rdquo; since forever.<br>Oh, and since my Firefox <em>is</em> self-compiled, I&rsquo;m pretty sure it also is 64 bit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , sorry ?
I use 64 bit Flash on Linux right now .
Yes , from Adobe.They still call it alpha , but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start , but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin Windows release version.Also , video playback is much faster with it.Also , no 64 plug-in is a lousy excuse .
As we use Flash on 64 bit systems trough multilib/    emulation    since forever.Oh , and since my Firefox is self-compiled , I    m pretty sure it also is 64 bit .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, sorry?
I use 64 bit Flash on Linux right now.
Yes, from Adobe.They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin Windows release version.Also, video playback is much faster with it.Also, no 64 plug-in is a lousy excuse.
As we use Flash on 64 bit systems trough multilib/“emulation” since forever.Oh, and since my Firefox is self-compiled, I’m pretty sure it also is 64 bit.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652308</id>
	<title>Firefox if I am allowed only one browser</title>
	<author>Rsriram</author>
	<datestamp>1262724780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Chrome for the speed. But on some websites, I am forced to use Firefox, especially when there are forms and text boxes with formatting tools in the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Chrome for the speed .
But on some websites , I am forced to use Firefox , especially when there are forms and text boxes with formatting tools in the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Chrome for the speed.
But on some websites, I am forced to use Firefox, especially when there are forms and text boxes with formatting tools in the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652692</id>
	<title>You are all behind the times</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1262685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really sure but you can ask them why after you download it from <a href="http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html" title="adobe.com">http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html</a> [adobe.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version ? Not really sure but you can ask them why after you download it from http : //labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [ adobe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version?Not really sure but you can ask them why after you download it from http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [adobe.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656508</id>
	<title>Firefox was fast?</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1262713740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feels slow like an evil year here.<br>Especially the wonderbar thing (or whatever they called it), its very slow at the start - nice feature. Slow to deliver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feels slow like an evil year here.Especially the wonderbar thing ( or whatever they called it ) , its very slow at the start - nice feature .
Slow to deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feels slow like an evil year here.Especially the wonderbar thing (or whatever they called it), its very slow at the start - nice feature.
Slow to deliver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262629380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version?  As much as people hate it around here, it would take a 64-bit version of IE being the default to really spur them.  I look at our website statistics and over 80\% of our hits are from some type of MSIE.  This causes much gnashing of teeth, but...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version ?
As much as people hate it around here , it would take a 64-bit version of IE being the default to really spur them .
I look at our website statistics and over 80 \ % of our hits are from some type of MSIE .
This causes much gnashing of teeth , but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would that spur Adobe to make a 64-bit version?
As much as people hate it around here, it would take a 64-bit version of IE being the default to really spur them.
I look at our website statistics and over 80\% of our hits are from some type of MSIE.
This causes much gnashing of teeth, but...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651914</id>
	<title>Re:Entertainment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a fairly complicated comment there. Let's dig a little.</p><p>This has so many red herrings I will skip it entirely. The second part gets more interesting.</p><p>"...productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume, consume, consume..."</p><p>"Being productive" is more than creating text &amp; spreadsheets. "Make the recreation more efficient". *TV* is one of the most inefficient recreations out there! Not the show - the timing schedule. A lot of "risky" shows are arriving with 16 episode contracts instead of 24, spread out over longer periods to eke out some more "remember me" mindshare. However, it was the internet entertainment multiverse that thrashed the TV mentality to smithereens. Instead of having to wrench our lives to see "our show" for seven months of the year, batch it on Hulu and churn through it on four Saturday Graveyard blocks from 2AM to 7AM. Remember the misery of "nothing good being on"? And even when you're watching it, you can do low level work during the boring scenes. I gained two virtual years of life back while still being satisfied with four show's worth of entertainment.</p><p>But if you're now looking askance at processing power, "the cool work" these days eats processor power like a hog. Multimedia editing audio commercials, online collaboration, enterprise accounting, onscreen CAD, information modeling rendering, etc. I bought a quad core machine precisely because the "document machines" couldn't cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a fairly complicated comment there .
Let 's dig a little.This has so many red herrings I will skip it entirely .
The second part gets more interesting .
" ...productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume , consume , consume... " " Being productive " is more than creating text &amp; spreadsheets .
" Make the recreation more efficient " .
* TV * is one of the most inefficient recreations out there !
Not the show - the timing schedule .
A lot of " risky " shows are arriving with 16 episode contracts instead of 24 , spread out over longer periods to eke out some more " remember me " mindshare .
However , it was the internet entertainment multiverse that thrashed the TV mentality to smithereens .
Instead of having to wrench our lives to see " our show " for seven months of the year , batch it on Hulu and churn through it on four Saturday Graveyard blocks from 2AM to 7AM .
Remember the misery of " nothing good being on " ?
And even when you 're watching it , you can do low level work during the boring scenes .
I gained two virtual years of life back while still being satisfied with four show 's worth of entertainment.But if you 're now looking askance at processing power , " the cool work " these days eats processor power like a hog .
Multimedia editing audio commercials , online collaboration , enterprise accounting , onscreen CAD , information modeling rendering , etc .
I bought a quad core machine precisely because the " document machines " could n't cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a fairly complicated comment there.
Let's dig a little.This has so many red herrings I will skip it entirely.
The second part gets more interesting.
"...productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume, consume, consume...""Being productive" is more than creating text &amp; spreadsheets.
"Make the recreation more efficient".
*TV* is one of the most inefficient recreations out there!
Not the show - the timing schedule.
A lot of "risky" shows are arriving with 16 episode contracts instead of 24, spread out over longer periods to eke out some more "remember me" mindshare.
However, it was the internet entertainment multiverse that thrashed the TV mentality to smithereens.
Instead of having to wrench our lives to see "our show" for seven months of the year, batch it on Hulu and churn through it on four Saturday Graveyard blocks from 2AM to 7AM.
Remember the misery of "nothing good being on"?
And even when you're watching it, you can do low level work during the boring scenes.
I gained two virtual years of life back while still being satisfied with four show's worth of entertainment.But if you're now looking askance at processing power, "the cool work" these days eats processor power like a hog.
Multimedia editing audio commercials, online collaboration, enterprise accounting, onscreen CAD, information modeling rendering, etc.
I bought a quad core machine precisely because the "document machines" couldn't cut it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651372</id>
	<title>A true breakthrough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the hungry CompSci master's thesis and for the fidgeting moron who can't wait an additional 100ms for the page load. <br> <br>

Ahh, progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the hungry CompSci master 's thesis and for the fidgeting moron who ca n't wait an additional 100ms for the page load .
Ahh , progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the hungry CompSci master's thesis and for the fidgeting moron who can't wait an additional 100ms for the page load.
Ahh, progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651572</id>
	<title>Multi-threading != running on different processors</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1262629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Multi-threading is running multiple threads of execution on a single cpu, which has been done on <b>single-cpu processors</b> for decades. That's not  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing" title="wikipedia.org">multiprocessing</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p><p>
I thought this was a tech site.
</p><p>
What next - an article about how someone just bought a new hard disk to upgrade their ram, because it was cheaper than chips and a lot bigger?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>still lacks support for multi-threading ( running on different processors ) Multi-threading is running multiple threads of execution on a single cpu , which has been done on single-cpu processors for decades .
That 's not multiprocessing [ wikipedia.org ] .
I thought this was a tech site .
What next - an article about how someone just bought a new hard disk to upgrade their ram , because it was cheaper than chips and a lot bigger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)

Multi-threading is running multiple threads of execution on a single cpu, which has been done on single-cpu processors for decades.
That's not  multiprocessing [wikipedia.org].
I thought this was a tech site.
What next - an article about how someone just bought a new hard disk to upgrade their ram, because it was cheaper than chips and a lot bigger?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651926</id>
	<title>Will foundations like mozilla stand up to big biz?</title>
	<author>zeroRenegade</author>
	<datestamp>1262634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I made the switch from Firefox to Chrome, and I have not looked back.

The idea of an individual process per tab intrigued me when Chrome was first released. The fluid tab/window transition is an awesome feature, which dragged me over to the other side.

I tend to have 3+ windows with 30+ tabs each. Is a individual process per page really the most viable solution. I want my web applications to be even distributed across all my cores, not abstract nesting.

Each page is free to crash on its own, though if a plugin crashes, the plugin crashes for all tabs. Sometimes, when I close 50+ tabs, Chrome takes a crap right in the middle of the parade (something Firefox did somewhat less of).

I seem to be completely satisfied with Chrome, and I have no reason to return. Implementing a feature I already have in Chrome is not going to excite me enough to make the switch back.

When browser games become even more popular, and they start accessing graphics hardware directly, individual processes are a good idea since they would nest the abstract layer.

The only thing that ever brings me back to Firefox are the wonderful addons like firebug, imacros, and noscript. But the large number of addons I had installed was also a determining factor for me to leave firefox, which I felt was kind of like leaving a wife after she puts on weight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made the switch from Firefox to Chrome , and I have not looked back .
The idea of an individual process per tab intrigued me when Chrome was first released .
The fluid tab/window transition is an awesome feature , which dragged me over to the other side .
I tend to have 3 + windows with 30 + tabs each .
Is a individual process per page really the most viable solution .
I want my web applications to be even distributed across all my cores , not abstract nesting .
Each page is free to crash on its own , though if a plugin crashes , the plugin crashes for all tabs .
Sometimes , when I close 50 + tabs , Chrome takes a crap right in the middle of the parade ( something Firefox did somewhat less of ) .
I seem to be completely satisfied with Chrome , and I have no reason to return .
Implementing a feature I already have in Chrome is not going to excite me enough to make the switch back .
When browser games become even more popular , and they start accessing graphics hardware directly , individual processes are a good idea since they would nest the abstract layer .
The only thing that ever brings me back to Firefox are the wonderful addons like firebug , imacros , and noscript .
But the large number of addons I had installed was also a determining factor for me to leave firefox , which I felt was kind of like leaving a wife after she puts on weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made the switch from Firefox to Chrome, and I have not looked back.
The idea of an individual process per tab intrigued me when Chrome was first released.
The fluid tab/window transition is an awesome feature, which dragged me over to the other side.
I tend to have 3+ windows with 30+ tabs each.
Is a individual process per page really the most viable solution.
I want my web applications to be even distributed across all my cores, not abstract nesting.
Each page is free to crash on its own, though if a plugin crashes, the plugin crashes for all tabs.
Sometimes, when I close 50+ tabs, Chrome takes a crap right in the middle of the parade (something Firefox did somewhat less of).
I seem to be completely satisfied with Chrome, and I have no reason to return.
Implementing a feature I already have in Chrome is not going to excite me enough to make the switch back.
When browser games become even more popular, and they start accessing graphics hardware directly, individual processes are a good idea since they would nest the abstract layer.
The only thing that ever brings me back to Firefox are the wonderful addons like firebug, imacros, and noscript.
But the large number of addons I had installed was also a determining factor for me to leave firefox, which I felt was kind of like leaving a wife after she puts on weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30658198</id>
	<title>Google is misleading Mozilla</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, man, when you really think about it, Google is misleading Mozilla, whether deliberately or not.</p><p>When push comes to shove, who really *needs* a multi-process browser? It is not as if we are running distributed computation on our web browsers!<br>Yes, there is a case to be made for some stability and security with multi-process browsing, but it is a fairly weak one.<br>There is no point in wasting all that manpower trying to be fashionably unproductive.</p><p>What Mozilla really needs to work on is a truly secure sandbox for Firefox add-ons. This is where good computer science must be applied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , man , when you really think about it , Google is misleading Mozilla , whether deliberately or not.When push comes to shove , who really * needs * a multi-process browser ?
It is not as if we are running distributed computation on our web browsers ! Yes , there is a case to be made for some stability and security with multi-process browsing , but it is a fairly weak one.There is no point in wasting all that manpower trying to be fashionably unproductive.What Mozilla really needs to work on is a truly secure sandbox for Firefox add-ons .
This is where good computer science must be applied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, man, when you really think about it, Google is misleading Mozilla, whether deliberately or not.When push comes to shove, who really *needs* a multi-process browser?
It is not as if we are running distributed computation on our web browsers!Yes, there is a case to be made for some stability and security with multi-process browsing, but it is a fairly weak one.There is no point in wasting all that manpower trying to be fashionably unproductive.What Mozilla really needs to work on is a truly secure sandbox for Firefox add-ons.
This is where good computer science must be applied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653246</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1262692980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about that.</p><p>Every once in a while I'll give other browsers a shot, just to see how everyone's doing.</p><p>About the time that Firefox 3.5 came out, I gave the latest Opera a try (think it was 10). Its UI is decent, and it is fast. But it didn't perform as well as Firefox on a system with 512Mb, not by a long shot.</p><p>I seem to be able to consistently crash IE8 on a Windows 7 virtual machine I've got. It's also painfully slow at loading pages, opening new tabs, responding to keyboard input, and the like - whereas Firefox 3.5 in the same VM performs just fine (almost as fast as FF 3.5 on the host machine). IE8 also seems to have to access disk much more often than Firefox (even with the VM not running out of RAM), which is likely part of the fault of the slowness and why IE8 uses less memory than FF. (I'll take the RAM use to slowness, thanks.)</p><p>Really, the only browser which competes with Firefox is Chrome (on Windows), as far as I'm concerned. And I'll stick with Firefox for its extensions and the fact that it's got over a decade of bookmarks at this point.</p><p>Multiprocess Firefox is something I've been looking forward to for some time. On a low-end system (ie single core) it may not perform as well as the single-process Firefox, but we will see.</p><p>The fact that Chrome is not open source, and Google's global dominance and Big Brother type information hiding are reasons enough for me to be suspicious about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about that.Every once in a while I 'll give other browsers a shot , just to see how everyone 's doing.About the time that Firefox 3.5 came out , I gave the latest Opera a try ( think it was 10 ) .
Its UI is decent , and it is fast .
But it did n't perform as well as Firefox on a system with 512Mb , not by a long shot.I seem to be able to consistently crash IE8 on a Windows 7 virtual machine I 've got .
It 's also painfully slow at loading pages , opening new tabs , responding to keyboard input , and the like - whereas Firefox 3.5 in the same VM performs just fine ( almost as fast as FF 3.5 on the host machine ) .
IE8 also seems to have to access disk much more often than Firefox ( even with the VM not running out of RAM ) , which is likely part of the fault of the slowness and why IE8 uses less memory than FF .
( I 'll take the RAM use to slowness , thanks .
) Really , the only browser which competes with Firefox is Chrome ( on Windows ) , as far as I 'm concerned .
And I 'll stick with Firefox for its extensions and the fact that it 's got over a decade of bookmarks at this point.Multiprocess Firefox is something I 've been looking forward to for some time .
On a low-end system ( ie single core ) it may not perform as well as the single-process Firefox , but we will see.The fact that Chrome is not open source , and Google 's global dominance and Big Brother type information hiding are reasons enough for me to be suspicious about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about that.Every once in a while I'll give other browsers a shot, just to see how everyone's doing.About the time that Firefox 3.5 came out, I gave the latest Opera a try (think it was 10).
Its UI is decent, and it is fast.
But it didn't perform as well as Firefox on a system with 512Mb, not by a long shot.I seem to be able to consistently crash IE8 on a Windows 7 virtual machine I've got.
It's also painfully slow at loading pages, opening new tabs, responding to keyboard input, and the like - whereas Firefox 3.5 in the same VM performs just fine (almost as fast as FF 3.5 on the host machine).
IE8 also seems to have to access disk much more often than Firefox (even with the VM not running out of RAM), which is likely part of the fault of the slowness and why IE8 uses less memory than FF.
(I'll take the RAM use to slowness, thanks.
)Really, the only browser which competes with Firefox is Chrome (on Windows), as far as I'm concerned.
And I'll stick with Firefox for its extensions and the fact that it's got over a decade of bookmarks at this point.Multiprocess Firefox is something I've been looking forward to for some time.
On a low-end system (ie single core) it may not perform as well as the single-process Firefox, but we will see.The fact that Chrome is not open source, and Google's global dominance and Big Brother type information hiding are reasons enough for me to be suspicious about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651908</id>
	<title>is firefox the greatest ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262634060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what can you say about firefox? i s it the most popular now a days ? or there are other browsers that dig this firefox to the ground?

regards,
<a href="http://tipzonehost.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">robert</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>what can you say about firefox ?
i s it the most popular now a days ?
or there are other browsers that dig this firefox to the ground ?
regards , robert [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what can you say about firefox?
i s it the most popular now a days ?
or there are other browsers that dig this firefox to the ground?
regards,
robert [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653222</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use 64-bit Flash as well. It has worked for a while with a charm, but either an update in Firefox or Debian broke the thing. It always crashes the browser when I play an YouTube video and then close the tab. It looks like the Flash process is not killed properly, but I don't know <em>why</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use 64-bit Flash as well .
It has worked for a while with a charm , but either an update in Firefox or Debian broke the thing .
It always crashes the browser when I play an YouTube video and then close the tab .
It looks like the Flash process is not killed properly , but I do n't know why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use 64-bit Flash as well.
It has worked for a while with a charm, but either an update in Firefox or Debian broke the thing.
It always crashes the browser when I play an YouTube video and then close the tab.
It looks like the Flash process is not killed properly, but I don't know why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651852</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>Z80xxc!</author>
	<datestamp>1262633280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do realize that your P4 consumes <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-cpu-power-consumption,1750-9.html" title="tomshardware.com">a lot more power</a> [tomshardware.com] than a previous-generation (65nm) Core 2 Duo, and in some tests even more than a Core 2 Extreme. Modern 45nm chips use even less power. So really, you're dumping money down the power/heat drain by not using a newer processor. Even if you don't need the speed, it makes a difference in terms of the electric bills. Your point about electricity is completely and entirely invalid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do realize that your P4 consumes a lot more power [ tomshardware.com ] than a previous-generation ( 65nm ) Core 2 Duo , and in some tests even more than a Core 2 Extreme .
Modern 45nm chips use even less power .
So really , you 're dumping money down the power/heat drain by not using a newer processor .
Even if you do n't need the speed , it makes a difference in terms of the electric bills .
Your point about electricity is completely and entirely invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do realize that your P4 consumes a lot more power [tomshardware.com] than a previous-generation (65nm) Core 2 Duo, and in some tests even more than a Core 2 Extreme.
Modern 45nm chips use even less power.
So really, you're dumping money down the power/heat drain by not using a newer processor.
Even if you don't need the speed, it makes a difference in terms of the electric bills.
Your point about electricity is completely and entirely invalid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</id>
	<title>FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, I love FireFox and it's my preferred browser but I do feel like it's falling behind in a lack of ability to take advantage of certain hardware and software advances.</p><p>First as noted, FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core's and there's no official 64 bit version. I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother. But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle and I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , I love FireFox and it 's my preferred browser but I do feel like it 's falling behind in a lack of ability to take advantage of certain hardware and software advances.First as noted , FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core 's and there 's no official 64 bit version .
I 've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin , flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother .
But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that 's half the battle and I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, I love FireFox and it's my preferred browser but I do feel like it's falling behind in a lack of ability to take advantage of certain hardware and software advances.First as noted, FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core's and there's no official 64 bit version.
I've read that the developers opinion is that why have a 64 bit version if the most necessary plugin, flash is not available in a 64 bit version so why bother.
But Sun does make a 64 bit JRE and that's half the battle and I honestly believe that if a 64 bit official version of FireFox were released that would spur Adobe to jump on the band wagon and produce a 64 bit Flash plugin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396</id>
	<title>Tabbed processes would be better</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262628240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multithreading still relies on a single point of failure - the shared memory space.</p><p>By doing what Chrome did, and breaking each tab instance into its own process, any single tab can crash/hang without affecting any other page.</p><p>I know when I load an MPG video that it sometimes hangs the browser, and I can't do anything (close/minimize/switch away) while the media player is being loaded. This sometimes causes me stress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multithreading still relies on a single point of failure - the shared memory space.By doing what Chrome did , and breaking each tab instance into its own process , any single tab can crash/hang without affecting any other page.I know when I load an MPG video that it sometimes hangs the browser , and I ca n't do anything ( close/minimize/switch away ) while the media player is being loaded .
This sometimes causes me stress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multithreading still relies on a single point of failure - the shared memory space.By doing what Chrome did, and breaking each tab instance into its own process, any single tab can crash/hang without affecting any other page.I know when I load an MPG video that it sometimes hangs the browser, and I can't do anything (close/minimize/switch away) while the media player is being loaded.
This sometimes causes me stress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652140</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1262723040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get off my lawn! You kids and your fancy-shmancy calculatamigigs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my lawn !
You kids and your fancy-shmancy calculatamigigs .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my lawn!
You kids and your fancy-shmancy calculatamigigs.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652276</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>vipw</author>
	<datestamp>1262724360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it takes advantage of multiple cpu cores. Just look how many threads it's running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it takes advantage of multiple cpu cores .
Just look how many threads it 's running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it takes advantage of multiple cpu cores.
Just look how many threads it's running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651538</id>
	<title>Re:Summary is wrong!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262629560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how does this relate to poorly written scripts that peg out one of my cpus?<br>
Will both of my cpus be pegged out or will I be able to kill just the one tab with the bad script in it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how does this relate to poorly written scripts that peg out one of my cpus ?
Will both of my cpus be pegged out or will I be able to kill just the one tab with the bad script in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how does this relate to poorly written scripts that peg out one of my cpus?
Will both of my cpus be pegged out or will I be able to kill just the one tab with the bad script in it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652684</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1262685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a good thing. Firefox desperately needs to modernize. About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization. Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.</p></div><p>Yeah... the *only* thing preventing me from leaving Firefox is...<br>Sage, ScrapBook, TinyMenu, Zotero, Tree Style Tab, Xmarks, Greasemonkey, Downthemall, Adblockplus, Delicious, and refSpoof.</p><p>The moment a browser has all these features available *AND* is better to Firefox, I will install it to test if I *reaaaaaally* need to migrate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good thing .
Firefox desperately needs to modernize .
About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization .
Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed , features , and standards support.Yeah... the * only * thing preventing me from leaving Firefox is...Sage , ScrapBook , TinyMenu , Zotero , Tree Style Tab , Xmarks , Greasemonkey , Downthemall , Adblockplus , Delicious , and refSpoof.The moment a browser has all these features available * AND * is better to Firefox , I will install it to test if I * reaaaaaally * need to migrate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good thing.
Firefox desperately needs to modernize.
About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization.
Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.Yeah... the *only* thing preventing me from leaving Firefox is...Sage, ScrapBook, TinyMenu, Zotero, Tree Style Tab, Xmarks, Greasemonkey, Downthemall, Adblockplus, Delicious, and refSpoof.The moment a browser has all these features available *AND* is better to Firefox, I will install it to test if I *reaaaaaally* need to migrate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652030</id>
	<title>Sorry, bud... Processors still matter!</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1262721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power. Now all one is buying CPUs for is "fluff" -- watching TV on ones computer, playing games, etc. I.e. it produces nothing, it contributes nothing, it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.</i></p><p>I have an Athlon XP 3200+. It's a nice chip, and all, a 32bit one. And for many tasks, it is more than adequate. But when watching flash video full screen on my 32" HiDef TV, it's very jerky. Yes, it's because of Flash being poorly optimized. But it's also what I want to do with my computer, because I DO watch TV. And rather than spend too much money to get Cable TV or Dish, I've switched to all 100\% online TV. It saves me $75/month and is a better user experience! I no longer have to pre-plan my viewing, I just watch whatever's available when I want, on demand, right from the beginning of the show.</p><p>But while it works well on the Mac mini in my bedroom, and my Dell laptop, it doesn't work so well on the old Athlon. So, I go to Pricewatch.com and buy a new Athlon X/2 motherboard/video card combo upgrade board with 2.1 Ghz of RAM for $150, and now I have a 64-bit, dual-core MB, good RAM, fast processor. Flash plays nicely, and all for less than the cost of a decent DVD player.</p><p>Are you still telling me that the CPU doesn't matter? Maybe you are happy with the ancient processor from 10 years ago, and for many tasks, it's probably good enough, but not for everything...</p><p>Sorry about your camera, dude. I use a $59 generic digital camera I got in the shrink-wrap isle at the local Best Buy. It's 10 Mpixel with optical zoom, records decent quality video, and came with a free 2 GB memory card. It doesn't have every bell and whistle, but does a good job taking pictures and video. Armed with rechargeable batteries and a cheap external USB drive, my pictures cost almost nothing at all and I don't give a hoot about compatibility since it uses standard flash cards and image format. (JPG/WMV)</p><p>What else do YOU want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU 's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power .
Now all one is buying CPUs for is " fluff " -- watching TV on ones computer , playing games , etc .
I.e. it produces nothing , it contributes nothing , it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.I have an Athlon XP 3200 + .
It 's a nice chip , and all , a 32bit one .
And for many tasks , it is more than adequate .
But when watching flash video full screen on my 32 " HiDef TV , it 's very jerky .
Yes , it 's because of Flash being poorly optimized .
But it 's also what I want to do with my computer , because I DO watch TV .
And rather than spend too much money to get Cable TV or Dish , I 've switched to all 100 \ % online TV .
It saves me $ 75/month and is a better user experience !
I no longer have to pre-plan my viewing , I just watch whatever 's available when I want , on demand , right from the beginning of the show.But while it works well on the Mac mini in my bedroom , and my Dell laptop , it does n't work so well on the old Athlon .
So , I go to Pricewatch.com and buy a new Athlon X/2 motherboard/video card combo upgrade board with 2.1 Ghz of RAM for $ 150 , and now I have a 64-bit , dual-core MB , good RAM , fast processor .
Flash plays nicely , and all for less than the cost of a decent DVD player.Are you still telling me that the CPU does n't matter ?
Maybe you are happy with the ancient processor from 10 years ago , and for many tasks , it 's probably good enough , but not for everything...Sorry about your camera , dude .
I use a $ 59 generic digital camera I got in the shrink-wrap isle at the local Best Buy .
It 's 10 Mpixel with optical zoom , records decent quality video , and came with a free 2 GB memory card .
It does n't have every bell and whistle , but does a good job taking pictures and video .
Armed with rechargeable batteries and a cheap external USB drive , my pictures cost almost nothing at all and I do n't give a hoot about compatibility since it uses standard flash cards and image format .
( JPG/WMV ) What else do YOU want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power.
Now all one is buying CPUs for is "fluff" -- watching TV on ones computer, playing games, etc.
I.e. it produces nothing, it contributes nothing, it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.I have an Athlon XP 3200+.
It's a nice chip, and all, a 32bit one.
And for many tasks, it is more than adequate.
But when watching flash video full screen on my 32" HiDef TV, it's very jerky.
Yes, it's because of Flash being poorly optimized.
But it's also what I want to do with my computer, because I DO watch TV.
And rather than spend too much money to get Cable TV or Dish, I've switched to all 100\% online TV.
It saves me $75/month and is a better user experience!
I no longer have to pre-plan my viewing, I just watch whatever's available when I want, on demand, right from the beginning of the show.But while it works well on the Mac mini in my bedroom, and my Dell laptop, it doesn't work so well on the old Athlon.
So, I go to Pricewatch.com and buy a new Athlon X/2 motherboard/video card combo upgrade board with 2.1 Ghz of RAM for $150, and now I have a 64-bit, dual-core MB, good RAM, fast processor.
Flash plays nicely, and all for less than the cost of a decent DVD player.Are you still telling me that the CPU doesn't matter?
Maybe you are happy with the ancient processor from 10 years ago, and for many tasks, it's probably good enough, but not for everything...Sorry about your camera, dude.
I use a $59 generic digital camera I got in the shrink-wrap isle at the local Best Buy.
It's 10 Mpixel with optical zoom, records decent quality video, and came with a free 2 GB memory card.
It doesn't have every bell and whistle, but does a good job taking pictures and video.
Armed with rechargeable batteries and a cheap external USB drive, my pictures cost almost nothing at all and I don't give a hoot about compatibility since it uses standard flash cards and image format.
(JPG/WMV)What else do YOU want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654252</id>
	<title>Re:When has threads ever simplified anything?</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1262704080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you are talking about cases where threads need to synchronize using locks, which of course can be hard if you wanna get best performance. It does not have to be hard. You could make your life easier by using coarse locks and lose some performance. So locks does not always equal problems. That said there are lots of completely parallel tasks that can be written easily using user-level threads. In this case, the purpose of the threads is only to express parallelism that exists in the program.
 Sorry I cant think of an example right on top of my head early morning. But I am sure you can come up with one too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you are talking about cases where threads need to synchronize using locks , which of course can be hard if you wan na get best performance .
It does not have to be hard .
You could make your life easier by using coarse locks and lose some performance .
So locks does not always equal problems .
That said there are lots of completely parallel tasks that can be written easily using user-level threads .
In this case , the purpose of the threads is only to express parallelism that exists in the program .
Sorry I cant think of an example right on top of my head early morning .
But I am sure you can come up with one too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you are talking about cases where threads need to synchronize using locks, which of course can be hard if you wanna get best performance.
It does not have to be hard.
You could make your life easier by using coarse locks and lose some performance.
So locks does not always equal problems.
That said there are lots of completely parallel tasks that can be written easily using user-level threads.
In this case, the purpose of the threads is only to express parallelism that exists in the program.
Sorry I cant think of an example right on top of my head early morning.
But I am sure you can come up with one too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</id>
	<title>Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1262631540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are observing a competition between the browsers and the CPU manufacturers.  And the thing that you fail to understand is that "it does not matter".  I am NEVER going to buy another machine with an Intel processor (because they burnt me a decade ago) and I view payback as sweet.  Current CPU's are more than fast enough for most applications, i.e. a Pentium IV Prescott (single CPU) (which I inherited, so didn't have to purchase) works fine.  N years ago (perhaps 8-10) I was able to work and be productive using a Pentium Pro @ 200 MHz (circa Y2000).  Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain (e.g. gamers) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g. SETI@HOME).</p><p>Yes, I am taking direct aim at people who really don't know what they are doing.  So sue me.  Or perhaps more productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume, consume, consume (electricity or otherwise).  You decide.</p><p>The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power.  Now all one is buying CPUs for is "fluff" -- watching TV on ones computer, playing games, etc.  I.e. it produces nothing, it contributes nothing, it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.  Sad IMO.  "Yes, I completely support driving society into a non-productive cloned mentality" (i.e. one manufacturer rules all).  "I support current business models because that will contribute to driving us into submission".  One has to ask oneself, "When will Intel say "stop"?  When will they say we dedicate ourselves to a more efficient, less Earth-damaging) processor, like ARM?" or "We embrace competition because it will further motivate our developers to be creative?"</p><p>The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more.  What you are currently witnessing is whether or not one should view the competition as being valuable.  I would currently argue not, and therefore Intel is proceeding towards a monopoly, in which it cares little about the customer.  Which is the same place I found myself in the mid-1990's when the chose to desupport the Intel camera that I was using.  Does the concept of "sorry, we are going to force you to upgrade" (because it increases our profit margins) ring any bells?" (I don't care that your current computer is completely sufficient for your needs -- you need to do more, need more, that requires an upgrade, etc.  Watch my commercials to prove that that is the case.)</p><p>If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it.  Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.</p><p>Regards<br>Robert Bradbury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are observing a competition between the browsers and the CPU manufacturers .
And the thing that you fail to understand is that " it does not matter " .
I am NEVER going to buy another machine with an Intel processor ( because they burnt me a decade ago ) and I view payback as sweet .
Current CPU 's are more than fast enough for most applications , i.e .
a Pentium IV Prescott ( single CPU ) ( which I inherited , so did n't have to purchase ) works fine .
N years ago ( perhaps 8-10 ) I was able to work and be productive using a Pentium Pro @ 200 MHz ( circa Y2000 ) .
Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain ( e.g .
gamers ) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use ( e.g .
SETI @ HOME ) .Yes , I am taking direct aim at people who really do n't know what they are doing .
So sue me .
Or perhaps more productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume , consume , consume ( electricity or otherwise ) .
You decide.The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU 's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power .
Now all one is buying CPUs for is " fluff " -- watching TV on ones computer , playing games , etc .
I.e. it produces nothing , it contributes nothing , it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me .
Sad IMO .
" Yes , I completely support driving society into a non-productive cloned mentality " ( i.e .
one manufacturer rules all ) .
" I support current business models because that will contribute to driving us into submission " .
One has to ask oneself , " When will Intel say " stop " ?
When will they say we dedicate ourselves to a more efficient , less Earth-damaging ) processor , like ARM ?
" or " We embrace competition because it will further motivate our developers to be creative ?
" The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more .
What you are currently witnessing is whether or not one should view the competition as being valuable .
I would currently argue not , and therefore Intel is proceeding towards a monopoly , in which it cares little about the customer .
Which is the same place I found myself in the mid-1990 's when the chose to desupport the Intel camera that I was using .
Does the concept of " sorry , we are going to force you to upgrade " ( because it increases our profit margins ) ring any bells ?
" ( I do n't care that your current computer is completely sufficient for your needs -- you need to do more , need more , that requires an upgrade , etc .
Watch my commercials to prove that that is the case .
) If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it .
Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.RegardsRobert Bradbury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are observing a competition between the browsers and the CPU manufacturers.
And the thing that you fail to understand is that "it does not matter".
I am NEVER going to buy another machine with an Intel processor (because they burnt me a decade ago) and I view payback as sweet.
Current CPU's are more than fast enough for most applications, i.e.
a Pentium IV Prescott (single CPU) (which I inherited, so didn't have to purchase) works fine.
N years ago (perhaps 8-10) I was able to work and be productive using a Pentium Pro @ 200 MHz (circa Y2000).
Anyone who needs/wants more processing power is dumping the electricity down the non-productive heat drain (e.g.
gamers) or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g.
SETI@HOME).Yes, I am taking direct aim at people who really don't know what they are doing.
So sue me.
Or perhaps more productively engage in a constructive discussion with me with respect to the most efficient way to use the resources at our disposal and how to get to the point where that is the focus of our society rather than consume, consume, consume (electricity or otherwise).
You decide.The bottom line is that you have to run up against the fact that a decade ago CPU's could satisfy any reasonable need for processing power.
Now all one is buying CPUs for is "fluff" -- watching TV on ones computer, playing games, etc.
I.e. it produces nothing, it contributes nothing, it is simply a consumer computing mentality -- my computer exists to entertain me.
Sad IMO.
"Yes, I completely support driving society into a non-productive cloned mentality" (i.e.
one manufacturer rules all).
"I support current business models because that will contribute to driving us into submission".
One has to ask oneself, "When will Intel say "stop"?
When will they say we dedicate ourselves to a more efficient, less Earth-damaging) processor, like ARM?
" or "We embrace competition because it will further motivate our developers to be creative?
"The processors have been more than sufficient for a decade or more.
What you are currently witnessing is whether or not one should view the competition as being valuable.
I would currently argue not, and therefore Intel is proceeding towards a monopoly, in which it cares little about the customer.
Which is the same place I found myself in the mid-1990's when the chose to desupport the Intel camera that I was using.
Does the concept of "sorry, we are going to force you to upgrade" (because it increases our profit margins) ring any bells?
" (I don't care that your current computer is completely sufficient for your needs -- you need to do more, need more, that requires an upgrade, etc.
Watch my commercials to prove that that is the case.
)If the old software/hardware works fine then be comfortable with it.
Do not easily accept that upgrading is a requirement.RegardsRobert Bradbury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30667142</id>
	<title>A better use of parallelism</title>
	<author>hardwarefreak</author>
	<datestamp>1262773740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of the Firefox behavior of loading and processing a web page sequentially, pausing every time it hits an embedded image or other URL where the server these things are hosted on is slow or not responding.  Doing this needlessly holds up the entire rest of the page load.  Usually these are adds and crap on remote domains.  If the devs really want to speed up Firefox, they'd download an entire web page, scan all the URLs, and then grab the remote content in parallel, so that a single slow server doesn't bring the entire show to a crawl.</p><p>Or, does this feature already exist, but is hidden from the average user in about:config?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of the Firefox behavior of loading and processing a web page sequentially , pausing every time it hits an embedded image or other URL where the server these things are hosted on is slow or not responding .
Doing this needlessly holds up the entire rest of the page load .
Usually these are adds and crap on remote domains .
If the devs really want to speed up Firefox , they 'd download an entire web page , scan all the URLs , and then grab the remote content in parallel , so that a single slow server does n't bring the entire show to a crawl.Or , does this feature already exist , but is hidden from the average user in about : config ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of the Firefox behavior of loading and processing a web page sequentially, pausing every time it hits an embedded image or other URL where the server these things are hosted on is slow or not responding.
Doing this needlessly holds up the entire rest of the page load.
Usually these are adds and crap on remote domains.
If the devs really want to speed up Firefox, they'd download an entire web page, scan all the URLs, and then grab the remote content in parallel, so that a single slow server doesn't bring the entire show to a crawl.Or, does this feature already exist, but is hidden from the average user in about:config?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654932</id>
	<title>Re:Thread != Process</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1262707560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;<br>still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)<br>&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>If Firefox supported threading, you would expect it to register over 100\% on multi-core processors.  It doesn't.  So either one of two things is going on:<br><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Firefox doesn't support threading.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2. top/taskmgr do not support measuring multi-core performance of a single process using threads.<br><br>I'm willing to believe either or both of those are true.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>still lacks support for multi-threading ( running on different processors ) If Firefox supported threading , you would expect it to register over 100 \ % on multi-core processors .
It does n't .
So either one of two things is going on :     1 .
Firefox does n't support threading .
    2. top/taskmgr do not support measuring multi-core performance of a single process using threads.I 'm willing to believe either or both of those are true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)If Firefox supported threading, you would expect it to register over 100\% on multi-core processors.
It doesn't.
So either one of two things is going on:
    1.
Firefox doesn't support threading.
    2. top/taskmgr do not support measuring multi-core performance of a single process using threads.I'm willing to believe either or both of those are true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652878</id>
	<title>Re:Tabbed processes would be better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but no, but yes....  Multi-process applications may need/want to share memory space too... explicitly... and if they do then they'll need to place locks in that memory, and coordinate things nicely to avoid corrupting the memory or depriving other processes of access.  Facilities for growing and allocating from shared memory regions tend to be more limited and clumsy, and hence if the same level of memory efficiency and speed is required, perhaps more crash-prone anyway.  If processes don't share memory, then there are other down-sides, such as failure to cache and share elements common to several browser tabs.  Threads can indeed corrupt more of another thread's memory space, but what proportion of the time does an out-of-control drag down others, versus just SIGSEGV or lock up itself?  Varies with the complexity of code: pages, HTML, plug-ins.  The balance of these things is hard to generalise about... only post-crash stats can say anything meaningful, and I'm sure the major browser projects are collecting them.  In a perfect world, I'd like to have the option of choosing either, configuring sites or plugins that trigger one explicitly etc..  But, there's only so much time, and perhaps if the developers focus on either exclusively they can get better results, and which one might not even matter so much....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but no , but yes.... Multi-process applications may need/want to share memory space too... explicitly... and if they do then they 'll need to place locks in that memory , and coordinate things nicely to avoid corrupting the memory or depriving other processes of access .
Facilities for growing and allocating from shared memory regions tend to be more limited and clumsy , and hence if the same level of memory efficiency and speed is required , perhaps more crash-prone anyway .
If processes do n't share memory , then there are other down-sides , such as failure to cache and share elements common to several browser tabs .
Threads can indeed corrupt more of another thread 's memory space , but what proportion of the time does an out-of-control drag down others , versus just SIGSEGV or lock up itself ?
Varies with the complexity of code : pages , HTML , plug-ins .
The balance of these things is hard to generalise about... only post-crash stats can say anything meaningful , and I 'm sure the major browser projects are collecting them .
In a perfect world , I 'd like to have the option of choosing either , configuring sites or plugins that trigger one explicitly etc.. But , there 's only so much time , and perhaps if the developers focus on either exclusively they can get better results , and which one might not even matter so much... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but no, but yes....  Multi-process applications may need/want to share memory space too... explicitly... and if they do then they'll need to place locks in that memory, and coordinate things nicely to avoid corrupting the memory or depriving other processes of access.
Facilities for growing and allocating from shared memory regions tend to be more limited and clumsy, and hence if the same level of memory efficiency and speed is required, perhaps more crash-prone anyway.
If processes don't share memory, then there are other down-sides, such as failure to cache and share elements common to several browser tabs.
Threads can indeed corrupt more of another thread's memory space, but what proportion of the time does an out-of-control drag down others, versus just SIGSEGV or lock up itself?
Varies with the complexity of code: pages, HTML, plug-ins.
The balance of these things is hard to generalise about... only post-crash stats can say anything meaningful, and I'm sure the major browser projects are collecting them.
In a perfect world, I'd like to have the option of choosing either, configuring sites or plugins that trigger one explicitly etc..  But, there's only so much time, and perhaps if the developers focus on either exclusively they can get better results, and which one might not even matter so much....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654834</id>
	<title>Re:When has threads ever simplified anything?</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1262707080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Threads simplify asynchronous applications. This means you do not have to have a central event dispatcher and make sure to return to it at regular intervals. Instead you can have jobs written as a single slow function, and let the rest of the program work unaffected in parallel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Threads simplify asynchronous applications .
This means you do not have to have a central event dispatcher and make sure to return to it at regular intervals .
Instead you can have jobs written as a single slow function , and let the rest of the program work unaffected in parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Threads simplify asynchronous applications.
This means you do not have to have a central event dispatcher and make sure to return to it at regular intervals.
Instead you can have jobs written as a single slow function, and let the rest of the program work unaffected in parallel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651724</id>
	<title>Inevitable</title>
	<author>diefuchsjagden</author>
	<datestamp>1262631840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this such a big issue? Multi-threading will make its way to FF when its good and ready to, by which point I fear Chrome will have a strong enough foot hold to give Google the Leg up it needs, with its vast financial backing to keep FF a second best Browser I used it from day one until Chrome hit and I just switched the interface being more intuitive, and streamlined or so it appeared to this damaged brain?  It's only a matter of time until Google's world Domination is complete as they rightfully usurp Micro$oft and take their thrown, I only hope it does not go to Google's head as it did with M$ and lead to bad products such as Windows 98(!98SE), ME || Vista but we shall see, as they say "only time will tell"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this such a big issue ?
Multi-threading will make its way to FF when its good and ready to , by which point I fear Chrome will have a strong enough foot hold to give Google the Leg up it needs , with its vast financial backing to keep FF a second best Browser I used it from day one until Chrome hit and I just switched the interface being more intuitive , and streamlined or so it appeared to this damaged brain ?
It 's only a matter of time until Google 's world Domination is complete as they rightfully usurp Micro $ oft and take their thrown , I only hope it does not go to Google 's head as it did with M $ and lead to bad products such as Windows 98 ( ! 98SE ) , ME | | Vista but we shall see , as they say " only time will tell "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this such a big issue?
Multi-threading will make its way to FF when its good and ready to, by which point I fear Chrome will have a strong enough foot hold to give Google the Leg up it needs, with its vast financial backing to keep FF a second best Browser I used it from day one until Chrome hit and I just switched the interface being more intuitive, and streamlined or so it appeared to this damaged brain?
It's only a matter of time until Google's world Domination is complete as they rightfully usurp Micro$oft and take their thrown, I only hope it does not go to Google's head as it did with M$ and lead to bad products such as Windows 98(!98SE), ME || Vista but we shall see, as they say "only time will tell"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654848</id>
	<title>Why so much focus on speed?</title>
	<author>SuseLover</author>
	<datestamp>1262707140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On my Linux system, Firefox starts up in less 1/2 to 1 second, surely that's fast enough for anyone.

The time it takes for a page to load is still limited more by my internet connection speed and the speed of the server than anything.  I notice little difference between other browsers and Firefox even on our corporate network speed.

Is our society so caught up on "more, faster, now" that no one can wait a couple extra milliseconds for something to happen?

How fast is fast enough?  No one can read that fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On my Linux system , Firefox starts up in less 1/2 to 1 second , surely that 's fast enough for anyone .
The time it takes for a page to load is still limited more by my internet connection speed and the speed of the server than anything .
I notice little difference between other browsers and Firefox even on our corporate network speed .
Is our society so caught up on " more , faster , now " that no one can wait a couple extra milliseconds for something to happen ?
How fast is fast enough ?
No one can read that fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my Linux system, Firefox starts up in less 1/2 to 1 second, surely that's fast enough for anyone.
The time it takes for a page to load is still limited more by my internet connection speed and the speed of the server than anything.
I notice little difference between other browsers and Firefox even on our corporate network speed.
Is our society so caught up on "more, faster, now" that no one can wait a couple extra milliseconds for something to happen?
How fast is fast enough?
No one can read that fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656760</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>PaladinAlpha</author>
	<datestamp>1262714520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g. SETI@HOME).</p></div><p>Guys!  This guy here knows ahead of time which scientific endeavors will produce results!  Finally, an oracle to guide us!</p><p>Also, you are not a final authority on whether my CPU cycles are productive.</p><p>Do you like software?  Do you know what it takes to compile a modern codebase?  Do you like the internet?  Have you ever balanced load on a webserver?  There are <i>plenty</i> of jobs that are still CPU-bound and benefit people.  Although now that I think about it, you're probably just going to dismiss the internet as group-think brainwashing, or some other nonsense.</p><p>Plenty of companies <i>are</i> making strides for more efficient processors, including the generation <i>directly after</i> the one you are using.  Your anti-progress-mentality is hurting the planet a lot more than the things you cry out against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or pursuits which will never produce anything of use ( e.g .
SETI @ HOME ) .Guys ! This guy here knows ahead of time which scientific endeavors will produce results !
Finally , an oracle to guide us ! Also , you are not a final authority on whether my CPU cycles are productive.Do you like software ?
Do you know what it takes to compile a modern codebase ?
Do you like the internet ?
Have you ever balanced load on a webserver ?
There are plenty of jobs that are still CPU-bound and benefit people .
Although now that I think about it , you 're probably just going to dismiss the internet as group-think brainwashing , or some other nonsense.Plenty of companies are making strides for more efficient processors , including the generation directly after the one you are using .
Your anti-progress-mentality is hurting the planet a lot more than the things you cry out against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> or pursuits which will never produce anything of use (e.g.
SETI@HOME).Guys!  This guy here knows ahead of time which scientific endeavors will produce results!
Finally, an oracle to guide us!Also, you are not a final authority on whether my CPU cycles are productive.Do you like software?
Do you know what it takes to compile a modern codebase?
Do you like the internet?
Have you ever balanced load on a webserver?
There are plenty of jobs that are still CPU-bound and benefit people.
Although now that I think about it, you're probably just going to dismiss the internet as group-think brainwashing, or some other nonsense.Plenty of companies are making strides for more efficient processors, including the generation directly after the one you are using.
Your anti-progress-mentality is hurting the planet a lot more than the things you cry out against.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651636</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1262630700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First as noted, FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core's and there's no official 64 bit version.</p></div><p>Ahh nostalgia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who would have thought back then that in 2010 a web browser would ever have the need to take advantage of multiple cores!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First as noted , FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core 's and there 's no official 64 bit version.Ahh nostalgia ... who would have thought back then that in 2010 a web browser would ever have the need to take advantage of multiple cores !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First as noted, FireFox does not really take advantage of multiple Cpu core's and there's no official 64 bit version.Ahh nostalgia ... who would have thought back then that in 2010 a web browser would ever have the need to take advantage of multiple cores!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652368</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there is a 64bit IE.<br>The fact that I have a start menu item of 64bit IE as well as the default IE leads me to believe this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there is a 64bit IE.The fact that I have a start menu item of 64bit IE as well as the default IE leads me to believe this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there is a 64bit IE.The fact that I have a start menu item of 64bit IE as well as the default IE leads me to believe this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30658180</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1262719200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a 64 bit Adobe Flash, and there have long been official 64 bit nightlies of FF and SeaMonkey - that's all I run. Of course, if you are on a lesser platform, like Windows or Mac, you are out of luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a 64 bit Adobe Flash , and there have long been official 64 bit nightlies of FF and SeaMonkey - that 's all I run .
Of course , if you are on a lesser platform , like Windows or Mac , you are out of luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a 64 bit Adobe Flash, and there have long been official 64 bit nightlies of FF and SeaMonkey - that's all I run.
Of course, if you are on a lesser platform, like Windows or Mac, you are out of luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402</id>
	<title>Summary is wrong!</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1262628300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox does support multithreading, what it doesn't support is multiprocessing. Firefox runs as a single process, whereas Chrome has a separate process for every site, plugin and extension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox does support multithreading , what it does n't support is multiprocessing .
Firefox runs as a single process , whereas Chrome has a separate process for every site , plugin and extension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox does support multithreading, what it doesn't support is multiprocessing.
Firefox runs as a single process, whereas Chrome has a separate process for every site, plugin and extension.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651694</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1262631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.</i></p><p>They're lacking the 'Eat your Memory' feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed , features , and standards support.They 're lacking the 'Eat your Memory ' feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.They're lacking the 'Eat your Memory' feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652998</id>
	<title>Re:ummm...</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1262689500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Chrome now lags Opera by a considerable margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Chrome now lags Opera by a considerable margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Chrome now lags Opera by a considerable margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651976</id>
	<title>Javascript testing is pointless</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1262634720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are making the point that being able to run Javascript more efficiently is good.  I would argue that any external program being able to run another program (i.e. executing Javascript) on ones computer is fundamentally evil and bad.  It is MY computer!  No external sources of programs should be able to use it for computing unless I have explicitly approved them.  To do otherwise is "theft" (of my CPU resources).  Failure to recognize this on the part of browser manufacturers/distributors contributes to the problems in which we currently find ourselves enmeshed.  I don't want to run Javascript except under very explicit circumstances.  I did not startup my browser to run other people's programs.  Every single browser should on every single page that requests the ability to run Javascript -- i.e. say "May I?"  -- until that point is reached any advancements in Javascript speed are completely useless to me -- because I view it running Javascript as anti-green, anti-security and anti-moving the world in a forward direction.  HTML was laid out as a language to display information -- it was not laid out as a language (once enabled by Javascript) to allow advertisers (or others) to manipulate ones personal computer.  One of the biggest mis-steps in the history of HTML/web development was Netscape's development of the ability of the server's to control the browser's through Javascript.  That destroyed the fundamental principles of the web (your machine is your machine and I am simply providing you with information, which BTW works as a model for Google (with whom I have no connection with) but simply points out how they got it right the first time around, and we are going to have to work very very hard to recover those principles).  Otherwise we are going to have to put up with a web where suppliers are always sticking their noses into our business in order to sell us something.  Which if they did it with a passive browser would be fine (IMO), but once they do it with an active browser (i.e. Javascript enabled) they are a friggen pain in the rear end.</p><p>So Firefox, get the message.  There are lots of us who DO NOT WANT friggen faster Javascript, in fact we would prefer, if like chromium, there were a startup option to completely disable it!  (Though I can now effectively start Firefox w/o Javascript by "fudging" the preferences file.  In which case the battle is forwarded to the vendors that insist that one "must" have Javascript for their sites to work -- go shove one's Javascript in a dark place, if you have designed your web site so that it only works with Javascript enabled, which was NOT the way the web was envisioned, and being drawn and quartered would probably be too good for you, I'm debating in my mind the difference between being keel-hauled and impaled...).</p><p>The bottom line is that browser vendors focused on Javascript performance are next-to-useless.  The real test IMO is vendors who replace the default gtk poll function with something more intelligent that reduces power consumption (more green) while maintaining performance (but both Firefox and Chromium have yet to do that -- in spite of the fact, that at bug reports have been filed, at least with Firefox)) -- so the user base awaits... [1]</p><p>1. It would appear that neither the Firefox nor the Chromium developers have bothered to strace their primary processes (the ones which accumulate the CPU time) and recognized that there are a significant number of poll() and/or gettimeofday() calls which seem to by and large DO NOTHING).  Any programmer concerned with efficiency would suggest there is either a flaw in the process model or a flaw in the implementation.  Sad, that even in this modern era (where if the ice caps melt and you are living in a coastal area you are going to need to relocate), consideration of CPU use under Linux is going so disregarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are making the point that being able to run Javascript more efficiently is good .
I would argue that any external program being able to run another program ( i.e .
executing Javascript ) on ones computer is fundamentally evil and bad .
It is MY computer !
No external sources of programs should be able to use it for computing unless I have explicitly approved them .
To do otherwise is " theft " ( of my CPU resources ) .
Failure to recognize this on the part of browser manufacturers/distributors contributes to the problems in which we currently find ourselves enmeshed .
I do n't want to run Javascript except under very explicit circumstances .
I did not startup my browser to run other people 's programs .
Every single browser should on every single page that requests the ability to run Javascript -- i.e .
say " May I ?
" -- until that point is reached any advancements in Javascript speed are completely useless to me -- because I view it running Javascript as anti-green , anti-security and anti-moving the world in a forward direction .
HTML was laid out as a language to display information -- it was not laid out as a language ( once enabled by Javascript ) to allow advertisers ( or others ) to manipulate ones personal computer .
One of the biggest mis-steps in the history of HTML/web development was Netscape 's development of the ability of the server 's to control the browser 's through Javascript .
That destroyed the fundamental principles of the web ( your machine is your machine and I am simply providing you with information , which BTW works as a model for Google ( with whom I have no connection with ) but simply points out how they got it right the first time around , and we are going to have to work very very hard to recover those principles ) .
Otherwise we are going to have to put up with a web where suppliers are always sticking their noses into our business in order to sell us something .
Which if they did it with a passive browser would be fine ( IMO ) , but once they do it with an active browser ( i.e .
Javascript enabled ) they are a friggen pain in the rear end.So Firefox , get the message .
There are lots of us who DO NOT WANT friggen faster Javascript , in fact we would prefer , if like chromium , there were a startup option to completely disable it !
( Though I can now effectively start Firefox w/o Javascript by " fudging " the preferences file .
In which case the battle is forwarded to the vendors that insist that one " must " have Javascript for their sites to work -- go shove one 's Javascript in a dark place , if you have designed your web site so that it only works with Javascript enabled , which was NOT the way the web was envisioned , and being drawn and quartered would probably be too good for you , I 'm debating in my mind the difference between being keel-hauled and impaled... ) .The bottom line is that browser vendors focused on Javascript performance are next-to-useless .
The real test IMO is vendors who replace the default gtk poll function with something more intelligent that reduces power consumption ( more green ) while maintaining performance ( but both Firefox and Chromium have yet to do that -- in spite of the fact , that at bug reports have been filed , at least with Firefox ) ) -- so the user base awaits... [ 1 ] 1. It would appear that neither the Firefox nor the Chromium developers have bothered to strace their primary processes ( the ones which accumulate the CPU time ) and recognized that there are a significant number of poll ( ) and/or gettimeofday ( ) calls which seem to by and large DO NOTHING ) .
Any programmer concerned with efficiency would suggest there is either a flaw in the process model or a flaw in the implementation .
Sad , that even in this modern era ( where if the ice caps melt and you are living in a coastal area you are going to need to relocate ) , consideration of CPU use under Linux is going so disregarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are making the point that being able to run Javascript more efficiently is good.
I would argue that any external program being able to run another program (i.e.
executing Javascript) on ones computer is fundamentally evil and bad.
It is MY computer!
No external sources of programs should be able to use it for computing unless I have explicitly approved them.
To do otherwise is "theft" (of my CPU resources).
Failure to recognize this on the part of browser manufacturers/distributors contributes to the problems in which we currently find ourselves enmeshed.
I don't want to run Javascript except under very explicit circumstances.
I did not startup my browser to run other people's programs.
Every single browser should on every single page that requests the ability to run Javascript -- i.e.
say "May I?
"  -- until that point is reached any advancements in Javascript speed are completely useless to me -- because I view it running Javascript as anti-green, anti-security and anti-moving the world in a forward direction.
HTML was laid out as a language to display information -- it was not laid out as a language (once enabled by Javascript) to allow advertisers (or others) to manipulate ones personal computer.
One of the biggest mis-steps in the history of HTML/web development was Netscape's development of the ability of the server's to control the browser's through Javascript.
That destroyed the fundamental principles of the web (your machine is your machine and I am simply providing you with information, which BTW works as a model for Google (with whom I have no connection with) but simply points out how they got it right the first time around, and we are going to have to work very very hard to recover those principles).
Otherwise we are going to have to put up with a web where suppliers are always sticking their noses into our business in order to sell us something.
Which if they did it with a passive browser would be fine (IMO), but once they do it with an active browser (i.e.
Javascript enabled) they are a friggen pain in the rear end.So Firefox, get the message.
There are lots of us who DO NOT WANT friggen faster Javascript, in fact we would prefer, if like chromium, there were a startup option to completely disable it!
(Though I can now effectively start Firefox w/o Javascript by "fudging" the preferences file.
In which case the battle is forwarded to the vendors that insist that one "must" have Javascript for their sites to work -- go shove one's Javascript in a dark place, if you have designed your web site so that it only works with Javascript enabled, which was NOT the way the web was envisioned, and being drawn and quartered would probably be too good for you, I'm debating in my mind the difference between being keel-hauled and impaled...).The bottom line is that browser vendors focused on Javascript performance are next-to-useless.
The real test IMO is vendors who replace the default gtk poll function with something more intelligent that reduces power consumption (more green) while maintaining performance (but both Firefox and Chromium have yet to do that -- in spite of the fact, that at bug reports have been filed, at least with Firefox)) -- so the user base awaits... [1]1. It would appear that neither the Firefox nor the Chromium developers have bothered to strace their primary processes (the ones which accumulate the CPU time) and recognized that there are a significant number of poll() and/or gettimeofday() calls which seem to by and large DO NOTHING).
Any programmer concerned with efficiency would suggest there is either a flaw in the process model or a flaw in the implementation.
Sad, that even in this modern era (where if the ice caps melt and you are living in a coastal area you are going to need to relocate), consideration of CPU use under Linux is going so disregarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659436</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and <b>standards support</b>.</p></div><p>Except the black sheep of all browsers... Doesn't need mentioning.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization.</p></div><p>About that's the only killer feature *missing* (compared to FF) from the other browsers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed , features , and standards support.Except the black sheep of all browsers... Does n't need mentioning.About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization.About that 's the only killer feature * missing * ( compared to FF ) from the other browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other browsers have already caught up to Firefox in speed, features, and standards support.Except the black sheep of all browsers... Doesn't need mentioning.About the only killer feature left in Firefox is customization.About that's the only killer feature *missing* (compared to FF) from the other browsers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651668</id>
	<title>Re:ummm...</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But yes, you're right that the multi-process parts of electrolysis (which this guy didn't enable and hence wasn't testing) have nothing to do with JS performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But yes , you 're right that the multi-process parts of electrolysis ( which this guy did n't enable and hence was n't testing ) have nothing to do with JS performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But yes, you're right that the multi-process parts of electrolysis (which this guy didn't enable and hence wasn't testing) have nothing to do with JS performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653722</id>
	<title>gui vs networking</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1262699700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can we also have gui in a separate thread from the networking stuff?</p><p>too often i find the gui is frozen for a few fractions of a second (or more), while the browser is fetching stuff over the network</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can we also have gui in a separate thread from the networking stuff ? too often i find the gui is frozen for a few fractions of a second ( or more ) , while the browser is fetching stuff over the network</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can we also have gui in a separate thread from the networking stuff?too often i find the gui is frozen for a few fractions of a second (or more), while the browser is fetching stuff over the network</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186</id>
	<title>When has threads ever simplified anything?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262692380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code.</p></div><p>Ermm... maybe I just don't have sufficient experience writing real-world code, but when do threads <em>ever</em> simplify anything?</p><p>I mean, you have to worry about race conditions and deadlocks all of the sudden, which means you have to pretty much lock everything, and in some consistent order.</p><p>Plus, if you have some nice abstraction (say, a shared hash map) which does all its own locking the right way, making every operation (insert, delete, retrieve, etc.) a transaction, you need to break the abstraction and poke at the internal locks to make those operations part of a larger transaction.</p><p>Have a look at what Hans Boehm has to say about getting C++ threads right, and what Simon Peyton-Jones has to say about Software Transaction Memory.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrvAqvtWYb4" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrvAqvtWYb4</a> [youtube.com] for C++ threads; I can't find SPJ talking about STM, but there are plenty other talks about it on google video and youtube.</p><p>But you might of course be right, so I'm eager to hear an example.  Please tell me how threads can simplify things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code.Ermm... maybe I just do n't have sufficient experience writing real-world code , but when do threads ever simplify anything ? I mean , you have to worry about race conditions and deadlocks all of the sudden , which means you have to pretty much lock everything , and in some consistent order.Plus , if you have some nice abstraction ( say , a shared hash map ) which does all its own locking the right way , making every operation ( insert , delete , retrieve , etc .
) a transaction , you need to break the abstraction and poke at the internal locks to make those operations part of a larger transaction.Have a look at what Hans Boehm has to say about getting C + + threads right , and what Simon Peyton-Jones has to say about Software Transaction Memory.See http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = mrvAqvtWYb4 [ youtube.com ] for C + + threads ; I ca n't find SPJ talking about STM , but there are plenty other talks about it on google video and youtube.But you might of course be right , so I 'm eager to hear an example .
Please tell me how threads can simplify things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can potentially split a program into user level threads just to simplify code.Ermm... maybe I just don't have sufficient experience writing real-world code, but when do threads ever simplify anything?I mean, you have to worry about race conditions and deadlocks all of the sudden, which means you have to pretty much lock everything, and in some consistent order.Plus, if you have some nice abstraction (say, a shared hash map) which does all its own locking the right way, making every operation (insert, delete, retrieve, etc.
) a transaction, you need to break the abstraction and poke at the internal locks to make those operations part of a larger transaction.Have a look at what Hans Boehm has to say about getting C++ threads right, and what Simon Peyton-Jones has to say about Software Transaction Memory.See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrvAqvtWYb4 [youtube.com] for C++ threads; I can't find SPJ talking about STM, but there are plenty other talks about it on google video and youtube.But you might of course be right, so I'm eager to hear an example.
Please tell me how threads can simplify things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652294</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Safari works pretty well on Windows too since 4.x.  Its my browser choice because its mostly the same on both platforms, and coverflow history is just awesome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Safari works pretty well on Windows too since 4.x .
Its my browser choice because its mostly the same on both platforms , and coverflow history is just awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Safari works pretty well on Windows too since 4.x.
Its my browser choice because its mostly the same on both platforms, and coverflow history is just awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651690</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>crazybilly</author>
	<datestamp>1262631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Unfortunately, I have quibbles with the rest of the browsers as well.
<ul>
<li>Opera != FOSS</li>
<li>Chrome and Epiphany's customization and extension selection suck</li>
<li>IE. enough said</li>
<li>Safari = Mac</li>
<li>Midori, Kahaekahakehshaz and Konqueror are all unusably buggy (or were last time I checked)</li>
</ul><p>

If Opera would open up their code, I'd dump Firefox like a bag of rocks.
</p><p>
Oh, the only other thing FF is great for is web development: Firebug is irreplaceable (although I haven't yet used Opera's DragonFly). For every day browsing, though, I run a FF profile without Firebug--it drags Google Aps (reader and gmail) down too much, so I'm sure I could get by just using it when I'm coding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Unfortunately , I have quibbles with the rest of the browsers as well .
Opera ! = FOSS Chrome and Epiphany 's customization and extension selection suck IE .
enough said Safari = Mac Midori , Kahaekahakehshaz and Konqueror are all unusably buggy ( or were last time I checked ) If Opera would open up their code , I 'd dump Firefox like a bag of rocks .
Oh , the only other thing FF is great for is web development : Firebug is irreplaceable ( although I have n't yet used Opera 's DragonFly ) .
For every day browsing , though , I run a FF profile without Firebug--it drags Google Aps ( reader and gmail ) down too much , so I 'm sure I could get by just using it when I 'm coding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Unfortunately, I have quibbles with the rest of the browsers as well.
Opera != FOSS
Chrome and Epiphany's customization and extension selection suck
IE.
enough said
Safari = Mac
Midori, Kahaekahakehshaz and Konqueror are all unusably buggy (or were last time I checked)


If Opera would open up their code, I'd dump Firefox like a bag of rocks.
Oh, the only other thing FF is great for is web development: Firebug is irreplaceable (although I haven't yet used Opera's DragonFly).
For every day browsing, though, I run a FF profile without Firebug--it drags Google Aps (reader and gmail) down too much, so I'm sure I could get by just using it when I'm coding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652706</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing</title>
	<author>Freultwah</author>
	<datestamp>1262686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far, neither Opera or Chrome support smart cards at all and Safari's support for them is mostly crippled (on OS X) or also nonexistent (on Windows). Around these here parts, those who do their banking/taxes/billing etc online, are pretty much forced to choose between IE and Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , neither Opera or Chrome support smart cards at all and Safari 's support for them is mostly crippled ( on OS X ) or also nonexistent ( on Windows ) .
Around these here parts , those who do their banking/taxes/billing etc online , are pretty much forced to choose between IE and Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, neither Opera or Chrome support smart cards at all and Safari's support for them is mostly crippled (on OS X) or also nonexistent (on Windows).
Around these here parts, those who do their banking/taxes/billing etc online, are pretty much forced to choose between IE and Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30663858</id>
	<title>Re:Thread != Process</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262700900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a power-user's point of view, multithreading is the most obvious way to get a speed boost if you have multiple cores. Most any app that isn't multithreading can only use one core. That's where the conflation comes from. They don't know (or don't care) that multithreading has advantages beyond performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a power-user 's point of view , multithreading is the most obvious way to get a speed boost if you have multiple cores .
Most any app that is n't multithreading can only use one core .
That 's where the conflation comes from .
They do n't know ( or do n't care ) that multithreading has advantages beyond performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a power-user's point of view, multithreading is the most obvious way to get a speed boost if you have multiple cores.
Most any app that isn't multithreading can only use one core.
That's where the conflation comes from.
They don't know (or don't care) that multithreading has advantages beyond performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652616</id>
	<title>Re:Processors do not matter...</title>
	<author>ihavnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's why Intel started to sell those cheap processors called 'Atom'.  Performance worse than a Prescott, while having less than 1/10 of the power consumption.</p><p>The reason behind the problem of 'why can't I have the same level of experience compared to 10 years ago using the same hardware?' isn't just about forcing upgrades.  It's tightly related to software developer productivity.  such as:</p><p>- using interpreted or JIT-compiled languages like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET CLR, javascript, Adobe Flash, Java, python, etc.  instead of the good'ol 'native' executives<br>- using generic, reusable libraries instead of application-specific, fine-tuned implementations,<br>- writing more readible code rather than dirty-but-blazingly-fast code<br>- and, having mediocore developers write non-performance-critical code (lower labor cost)</p><p>If you don't want upgrades, so be it.  Unfortunately, there won't be enough people to write 'new' softwsare for you, because it will be more expensive to develop.</p><p>However, I find that I upgrade every three or four years, not because of insufficient performance, but because of (my laptop's) typical wear-and-tear.  After four years of routine usage, I find that buying a new one is generlly cheaper than repairing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's why Intel started to sell those cheap processors called 'Atom' .
Performance worse than a Prescott , while having less than 1/10 of the power consumption.The reason behind the problem of 'why ca n't I have the same level of experience compared to 10 years ago using the same hardware ?
' is n't just about forcing upgrades .
It 's tightly related to software developer productivity .
such as : - using interpreted or JIT-compiled languages like .NET CLR , javascript , Adobe Flash , Java , python , etc .
instead of the good'ol 'native ' executives- using generic , reusable libraries instead of application-specific , fine-tuned implementations,- writing more readible code rather than dirty-but-blazingly-fast code- and , having mediocore developers write non-performance-critical code ( lower labor cost ) If you do n't want upgrades , so be it .
Unfortunately , there wo n't be enough people to write 'new ' softwsare for you , because it will be more expensive to develop.However , I find that I upgrade every three or four years , not because of insufficient performance , but because of ( my laptop 's ) typical wear-and-tear .
After four years of routine usage , I find that buying a new one is generlly cheaper than repairing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's why Intel started to sell those cheap processors called 'Atom'.
Performance worse than a Prescott, while having less than 1/10 of the power consumption.The reason behind the problem of 'why can't I have the same level of experience compared to 10 years ago using the same hardware?
' isn't just about forcing upgrades.
It's tightly related to software developer productivity.
such as:- using interpreted or JIT-compiled languages like .NET CLR, javascript, Adobe Flash, Java, python, etc.
instead of the good'ol 'native' executives- using generic, reusable libraries instead of application-specific, fine-tuned implementations,- writing more readible code rather than dirty-but-blazingly-fast code- and, having mediocore developers write non-performance-critical code (lower labor cost)If you don't want upgrades, so be it.
Unfortunately, there won't be enough people to write 'new' softwsare for you, because it will be more expensive to develop.However, I find that I upgrade every three or four years, not because of insufficient performance, but because of (my laptop's) typical wear-and-tear.
After four years of routine usage, I find that buying a new one is generlly cheaper than repairing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652088</id>
	<title>Re:FireFox is great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why exactly did you need &gt; 4GB of RAM in a Browser? I know it's firefox but still....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why exactly did you need &gt; 4GB of RAM in a Browser ?
I know it 's firefox but still... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why exactly did you need &gt; 4GB of RAM in a Browser?
I know it's firefox but still....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30664346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30663858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30658180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30655460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2358224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30667142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30658180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30655460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30663858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30654406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30664346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2358224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30653246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30656508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30659436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30652684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2358224.30651694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
