<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_150205</id>
	<title>What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263400740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq writes <i>"The <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/windows/what-microsoft-has-in-store-windows-7-service-pack-1-234">first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program</a> are beginning to emerge, with <a href="http://www.withinwindows.com/2010/01/02/microsoft-prepares-windows-7-for-external-sp1-testing/">hidden registry keys</a> and a <a href="http://geeksmack.net/index.php/microsoft/944-post-windows-7-rtm-build-strings-revealed-possibly-windows-8">leaked list of post-RTM build numbers</a> surfacing on the Web. 'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard. Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy. 'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge , with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web .
'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches , we 'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard .
Likewise , enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in , allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever, ' writes InfoWorld 's Randall Kennedy .
'But perhaps the most significant " update " to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all , and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge, with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web.
'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard.
Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy.
'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755526</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1263374580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, you haven't *ever* been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , you have n't * ever * been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, you haven't *ever* been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755258</id>
	<title>Useless BT stack</title>
	<author>HideyoshiJP</author>
	<datestamp>1263373560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my dealings with bluetooth, a lot of vendors like to use Broadcom chips. These utilize Broadcom's own WIDCOMM stack, a finicky piece of crap that bothers you all the time about being undiscoverable and doesn't like to remember your settings. Sadly, people using these probably won't ever see the Windows 7 BT stack, as WIDCOMM pretty much says FU to it. Sad, as I've always enjoyed the Windows stack for its integration and simplicity. I know you can hack most Broadcom chips to use the Windows stack, but after dealing with the Dell 365/370 modules, which require a hardware reset after bootup before Windows sees them, I'm just totally put off by them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my dealings with bluetooth , a lot of vendors like to use Broadcom chips .
These utilize Broadcom 's own WIDCOMM stack , a finicky piece of crap that bothers you all the time about being undiscoverable and does n't like to remember your settings .
Sadly , people using these probably wo n't ever see the Windows 7 BT stack , as WIDCOMM pretty much says FU to it .
Sad , as I 've always enjoyed the Windows stack for its integration and simplicity .
I know you can hack most Broadcom chips to use the Windows stack , but after dealing with the Dell 365/370 modules , which require a hardware reset after bootup before Windows sees them , I 'm just totally put off by them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my dealings with bluetooth, a lot of vendors like to use Broadcom chips.
These utilize Broadcom's own WIDCOMM stack, a finicky piece of crap that bothers you all the time about being undiscoverable and doesn't like to remember your settings.
Sadly, people using these probably won't ever see the Windows 7 BT stack, as WIDCOMM pretty much says FU to it.
Sad, as I've always enjoyed the Windows stack for its integration and simplicity.
I know you can hack most Broadcom chips to use the Windows stack, but after dealing with the Dell 365/370 modules, which require a hardware reset after bootup before Windows sees them, I'm just totally put off by them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752430</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1263405720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm.... XP SP5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm.... XP SP5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm.... XP SP5?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765140</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263487980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Total BS. The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7.</p></div><p>Total BS, as least from the end user's POV. We just bought a Drobo and had a choice between setting up a 16TB volume for use with Vista and 7, or <a href="http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a\_id/23/kw/xp\%20compatible/r\_id/100004" title="datarobotics.com">a set of 2TB volumes</a> [datarobotics.com] for compatibility with XP. Now, my cursory understanding (as I didn't bother to dig into it beyond verifying that the issue exists) is that it involves partition table formats and not NTFS itself. As a user, though, that's a meaningless distinction. The net effect is that I can easily make NTFS filesystems that are compatible with Vista and 7 but not with XP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Total BS .
The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7.Total BS , as least from the end user 's POV .
We just bought a Drobo and had a choice between setting up a 16TB volume for use with Vista and 7 , or a set of 2TB volumes [ datarobotics.com ] for compatibility with XP .
Now , my cursory understanding ( as I did n't bother to dig into it beyond verifying that the issue exists ) is that it involves partition table formats and not NTFS itself .
As a user , though , that 's a meaningless distinction .
The net effect is that I can easily make NTFS filesystems that are compatible with Vista and 7 but not with XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total BS.
The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7.Total BS, as least from the end user's POV.
We just bought a Drobo and had a choice between setting up a 16TB volume for use with Vista and 7, or a set of 2TB volumes [datarobotics.com] for compatibility with XP.
Now, my cursory understanding (as I didn't bother to dig into it beyond verifying that the issue exists) is that it involves partition table formats and not NTFS itself.
As a user, though, that's a meaningless distinction.
The net effect is that I can easily make NTFS filesystems that are compatible with Vista and 7 but not with XP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755556</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but that's just wrong. You CANNOT connect to a domain in XP Home. Same with Vista Home Premium. Not without applying various hacks anyway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but that 's just wrong .
You CAN NOT connect to a domain in XP Home .
Same with Vista Home Premium .
Not without applying various hacks anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but that's just wrong.
You CANNOT connect to a domain in XP Home.
Same with Vista Home Premium.
Not without applying various hacks anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756510</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.  What's so hard?</p></div><p>I work as tech support, while using cable would be a perfect solution, no one goes that route anymore and everyone wants wireless. Trying to get a noob in windows 7 to connect to a wireless network was a PAIN IN THE A**. As he couldnt find the icon on the lower right for a network, we had to goto control panel, after spending 2 minutes to get to the menu that looks like a flag (didnt know what start menu was). Then he couldnt find control panel as he only looked in the left pane, and didnt understand what a pane was when trying to get him to look on the right side. Had him try searching for control panel but when he typed it all that came up was parental controls.... After finally getting him to see control panel and then connect to the internet, then connect to a wireless, then clicking on the wireless icon, then saying yes to connect to unsecured network, then having him automatically connnect, then having him say public location. now he can get online.</p><p>XP = double click pc with wavey lines, then double click network, then just say connect anyway. done</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done .
What 's so hard ? I work as tech support , while using cable would be a perfect solution , no one goes that route anymore and everyone wants wireless .
Trying to get a noob in windows 7 to connect to a wireless network was a PAIN IN THE A * * .
As he couldnt find the icon on the lower right for a network , we had to goto control panel , after spending 2 minutes to get to the menu that looks like a flag ( didnt know what start menu was ) .
Then he couldnt find control panel as he only looked in the left pane , and didnt understand what a pane was when trying to get him to look on the right side .
Had him try searching for control panel but when he typed it all that came up was parental controls.... After finally getting him to see control panel and then connect to the internet , then connect to a wireless , then clicking on the wireless icon , then saying yes to connect to unsecured network , then having him automatically connnect , then having him say public location .
now he can get online.XP = double click pc with wavey lines , then double click network , then just say connect anyway .
done</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.
What's so hard?I work as tech support, while using cable would be a perfect solution, no one goes that route anymore and everyone wants wireless.
Trying to get a noob in windows 7 to connect to a wireless network was a PAIN IN THE A**.
As he couldnt find the icon on the lower right for a network, we had to goto control panel, after spending 2 minutes to get to the menu that looks like a flag (didnt know what start menu was).
Then he couldnt find control panel as he only looked in the left pane, and didnt understand what a pane was when trying to get him to look on the right side.
Had him try searching for control panel but when he typed it all that came up was parental controls.... After finally getting him to see control panel and then connect to the internet, then connect to a wireless, then clicking on the wireless icon, then saying yes to connect to unsecured network, then having him automatically connnect, then having him say public location.
now he can get online.XP = double click pc with wavey lines, then double click network, then just say connect anyway.
done
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856</id>
	<title>USB performance under Windows</title>
	<author>UberMorlock</author>
	<datestamp>1263411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm interested to see Windows 7's USB performance with an upgrade to USB v3.  While I am still on XP myself, I am definitely underwhelmed by Windows' ability to transfer large amounts of data via USB.  I just had to back up a bunch of stuff (25G) this past Friday and, since I was already logged into Windows and was feeling lazy, I decided to just do that from Windows.  It took 5 hours to transfer the files and this was a USB2 drive plugged into a USB2 port.  When I later copied the same data back, I did it while logged into Linux (Fedora 11, specifically) and it only took 20 minutes.  I've had the same experience transferring files to a USB1 drive plugged into a USB2 port: 15G transferred to that drive in 17 minutes in Linux, but Windows was telling me it was going to take something on the order of 23 hours!

I concede that I have not attempted this experiment with Windows 7 at all, yet (No one I know has it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested to see Windows 7 's USB performance with an upgrade to USB v3 .
While I am still on XP myself , I am definitely underwhelmed by Windows ' ability to transfer large amounts of data via USB .
I just had to back up a bunch of stuff ( 25G ) this past Friday and , since I was already logged into Windows and was feeling lazy , I decided to just do that from Windows .
It took 5 hours to transfer the files and this was a USB2 drive plugged into a USB2 port .
When I later copied the same data back , I did it while logged into Linux ( Fedora 11 , specifically ) and it only took 20 minutes .
I 've had the same experience transferring files to a USB1 drive plugged into a USB2 port : 15G transferred to that drive in 17 minutes in Linux , but Windows was telling me it was going to take something on the order of 23 hours !
I concede that I have not attempted this experiment with Windows 7 at all , yet ( No one I know has it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested to see Windows 7's USB performance with an upgrade to USB v3.
While I am still on XP myself, I am definitely underwhelmed by Windows' ability to transfer large amounts of data via USB.
I just had to back up a bunch of stuff (25G) this past Friday and, since I was already logged into Windows and was feeling lazy, I decided to just do that from Windows.
It took 5 hours to transfer the files and this was a USB2 drive plugged into a USB2 port.
When I later copied the same data back, I did it while logged into Linux (Fedora 11, specifically) and it only took 20 minutes.
I've had the same experience transferring files to a USB1 drive plugged into a USB2 port: 15G transferred to that drive in 17 minutes in Linux, but Windows was telling me it was going to take something on the order of 23 hours!
I concede that I have not attempted this experiment with Windows 7 at all, yet (No one I know has it).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753200</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1263408480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for security,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Security is largely a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User\_error" title="wikipedia.org">PEBKAC</a> [wikipedia.org] issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for security , ...Security is largely a PEBKAC [ wikipedia.org ] issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for security, ...Security is largely a PEBKAC [wikipedia.org] issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753350</id>
	<title>Re:I kind of wish they'd work on Vista...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1263409020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.</p></div><p>Or if your company is switching to Windows 7 and has an Enterprise copy, just install Windows 7 on your current system!  I'm sure there will be some bug fixing going on in Vista still, but don't expect them to put much effort into it seeing as how Vista never sold too well and most people are more than eager to switch over to Win 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got this computer from work , so it 'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.Or if your company is switching to Windows 7 and has an Enterprise copy , just install Windows 7 on your current system !
I 'm sure there will be some bug fixing going on in Vista still , but do n't expect them to put much effort into it seeing as how Vista never sold too well and most people are more than eager to switch over to Win 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.Or if your company is switching to Windows 7 and has an Enterprise copy, just install Windows 7 on your current system!
I'm sure there will be some bug fixing going on in Vista still, but don't expect them to put much effort into it seeing as how Vista never sold too well and most people are more than eager to switch over to Win 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</id>
	<title>Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Shaman</author>
	<datestamp>1263404580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.  Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise.  All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing , difficult to configure network properties of any Windows .
Granted , I like how it differentiates between " new " network connections as far as work , public , home for the purposes of firewall config , but it 's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise .
All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise.
All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208</id>
	<title>Signals?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1263404940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'</p></div></blockquote><p>An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready.  People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom.  This has not been lost on Microsoft.</p><p>If MS's marketing dept. sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products.  So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.</p><p>Marketers are often sleezebags.  Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'But perhaps the most significant " update " to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all , and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments .
'An initial release of an OS was Microsoft 's " signal " that it was ready .
People eventually realized that MS 's " signal " could n't be trusted , and they adapted by developing their own " wait for SP1 " wisdom .
This has not been lost on Microsoft.If MS 's marketing dept .
sees that it takes " SP1 " to get people to buy their OS , they 'll call something " SP1 " whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products .
So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.Marketers are often sleezebags .
Their goal is to drive sales , regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.
'An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready.
People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom.
This has not been lost on Microsoft.If MS's marketing dept.
sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products.
So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.Marketers are often sleezebags.
Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756128</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an XPsp3 machine which has (since sp2 and continues to today) periodically "forgotten" the WPA2 config and the only way to "fix"  the problem is to delete the connection and re-establish wireless networking exactly as the parent described.  I have a very long key and it is quite irritating to have to go through this process every few months.  3.5 year old macbook pro (10.4, 10.5 and now 10.6) on the same network has never had any problems.  I am really disappointed to hear that Vista has the same problem.  Can anyone with Win7 comment on similar "senior moments" with WPA2 or the lack thereof?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an XPsp3 machine which has ( since sp2 and continues to today ) periodically " forgotten " the WPA2 config and the only way to " fix " the problem is to delete the connection and re-establish wireless networking exactly as the parent described .
I have a very long key and it is quite irritating to have to go through this process every few months .
3.5 year old macbook pro ( 10.4 , 10.5 and now 10.6 ) on the same network has never had any problems .
I am really disappointed to hear that Vista has the same problem .
Can anyone with Win7 comment on similar " senior moments " with WPA2 or the lack thereof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an XPsp3 machine which has (since sp2 and continues to today) periodically "forgotten" the WPA2 config and the only way to "fix"  the problem is to delete the connection and re-establish wireless networking exactly as the parent described.
I have a very long key and it is quite irritating to have to go through this process every few months.
3.5 year old macbook pro (10.4, 10.5 and now 10.6) on the same network has never had any problems.
I am really disappointed to hear that Vista has the same problem.
Can anyone with Win7 comment on similar "senior moments" with WPA2 or the lack thereof?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752662</id>
	<title>There's a reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS did it to add value to the MSCE. If they made it too easy, there wouldn't be any need for it, would there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS did it to add value to the MSCE .
If they made it too easy , there would n't be any need for it , would there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS did it to add value to the MSCE.
If they made it too easy, there wouldn't be any need for it, would there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30769860</id>
	<title>No need to Wait</title>
	<author>MSFT\_AlexT</author>
	<datestamp>1263460320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like some commenters noted, there is no need to wait until SP1.
Windows 7 has been through a very wide Beta, then RC, RTM and finally the GA last October. During this whole process, IT Pros around the world have been able to test the new OS for performance and stability and have found Windows 7 to be great!

If you want to follow us on Twitter (@MSSpringboard for IT Pros or @CIOsConnect for... CIOs) we can point you to people's feedbacks on the topic.

Alex
Microsoft Windows Client Team</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like some commenters noted , there is no need to wait until SP1 .
Windows 7 has been through a very wide Beta , then RC , RTM and finally the GA last October .
During this whole process , IT Pros around the world have been able to test the new OS for performance and stability and have found Windows 7 to be great !
If you want to follow us on Twitter ( @ MSSpringboard for IT Pros or @ CIOsConnect for... CIOs ) we can point you to people 's feedbacks on the topic .
Alex Microsoft Windows Client Team</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like some commenters noted, there is no need to wait until SP1.
Windows 7 has been through a very wide Beta, then RC, RTM and finally the GA last October.
During this whole process, IT Pros around the world have been able to test the new OS for performance and stability and have found Windows 7 to be great!
If you want to follow us on Twitter (@MSSpringboard for IT Pros or @CIOsConnect for... CIOs) we can point you to people's feedbacks on the topic.
Alex
Microsoft Windows Client Team</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760348</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263399420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, so what makes it so different to Vista? Nothing that I can see, or maybe you are easily impressed by a wallpaper and new theme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , so what makes it so different to Vista ?
Nothing that I can see , or maybe you are easily impressed by a wallpaper and new theme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, so what makes it so different to Vista?
Nothing that I can see, or maybe you are easily impressed by a wallpaper and new theme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760470</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263400380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, to the average person, nothing?</p><p>Why should I care about 64-bit, bitlocker, powershell, or anything else.</p><p>What a joke, that should have been in a SP already, not a full OS?</p><p>I guess you guys really like paying for new themes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , to the average person , nothing ? Why should I care about 64-bit , bitlocker , powershell , or anything else.What a joke , that should have been in a SP already , not a full OS ? I guess you guys really like paying for new themes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, to the average person, nothing?Why should I care about 64-bit, bitlocker, powershell, or anything else.What a joke, that should have been in a SP already, not a full OS?I guess you guys really like paying for new themes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</id>
	<title>Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1263412620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just bought two brand new machines - an EeePC netbook and a custom-built, quad-core desktop. The netbook came with Windows7 Home Basic pre-installed and the Desktop had Windows7 Home Premium. I then installed Ubuntu 9.10 and OpenSuSE 11.2 Linux on each machine allowing me to triple boot.
<p>With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:
</p><p>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
</p><p>HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported -  Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
</p><p>NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).
</p><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
</p><p>Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.
</p><p>Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
</p><p>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
</p><p>Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds
</p><p>I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just bought two brand new machines - an EeePC netbook and a custom-built , quad-core desktop .
The netbook came with Windows7 Home Basic pre-installed and the Desktop had Windows7 Home Premium .
I then installed Ubuntu 9.10 and OpenSuSE 11.2 Linux on each machine allowing me to triple boot .
With all patches and updates , here is the question : will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work : Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly NOTES : Fair 's fair : the netbook 's WiFi Linux driver ( both O/S 's ) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs ( WPA works fine ) .
All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this .
Windows7 Home ( all versions ) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity .
Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature ' to the home edition ( s ) - you ca n't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example .
The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista .
Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine : Win7 - 64 seconds , Ubuntu - 32 seconds I wo n't editorialize - draw your own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just bought two brand new machines - an EeePC netbook and a custom-built, quad-core desktop.
The netbook came with Windows7 Home Basic pre-installed and the Desktop had Windows7 Home Premium.
I then installed Ubuntu 9.10 and OpenSuSE 11.2 Linux on each machine allowing me to triple boot.
With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:
Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported -  Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).
All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.
Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds
I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752610</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you want to get technical and silly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_NT#Releases" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Windows 7 is NT v.6.1</a> [wikipedia.org], with NT v.6.0 being Vista.  Soo... although version numbers are hardly a way to settle an argument, Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is to Windows Vista (NT v.6.0) as Windows XP (NT 5.1) is to Windows 2000 (NT v.5.0), and they're all service packs of the venerable Windows NT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you want to get technical and silly , Windows 7 is NT v.6.1 [ wikipedia.org ] , with NT v.6.0 being Vista .
Soo... although version numbers are hardly a way to settle an argument , Windows 7 ( NT 6.1 ) is to Windows Vista ( NT v.6.0 ) as Windows XP ( NT 5.1 ) is to Windows 2000 ( NT v.5.0 ) , and they 're all service packs of the venerable Windows NT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you want to get technical and silly, Windows 7 is NT v.6.1 [wikipedia.org], with NT v.6.0 being Vista.
Soo... although version numbers are hardly a way to settle an argument, Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is to Windows Vista (NT v.6.0) as Windows XP (NT 5.1) is to Windows 2000 (NT v.5.0), and they're all service packs of the venerable Windows NT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752904</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cue the cretins talking about the hypothetical morons where no evidence of such exists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue the cretins talking about the hypothetical morons where no evidence of such exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue the cretins talking about the hypothetical morons where no evidence of such exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753832</id>
	<title>I've had no luck with that firewall</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1263411120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd install a few apps and after that the firewall would just disable internet access. Sure, some of the time it'd say "app Y is trying to access the net, you cool with that?" but sometimes it wouldn't. (And then it wouldn't mention which one it was complaining about.) Oh, the first time this happened it was actually worse. The firewall decided to block an app while I was at the log-in screen. As in no keyboard access at all. I had to log into Win7 in safe mode, disable the newly installed app just to log in. I'm guessing a 3rd party firewall would be an improvement. (Since it couldn't be worse.) Oh, I've had no problems with the Vista firewall which is odd. (Since I figure the one in 7 is just an upgraded version.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd install a few apps and after that the firewall would just disable internet access .
Sure , some of the time it 'd say " app Y is trying to access the net , you cool with that ?
" but sometimes it would n't .
( And then it would n't mention which one it was complaining about .
) Oh , the first time this happened it was actually worse .
The firewall decided to block an app while I was at the log-in screen .
As in no keyboard access at all .
I had to log into Win7 in safe mode , disable the newly installed app just to log in .
I 'm guessing a 3rd party firewall would be an improvement .
( Since it could n't be worse .
) Oh , I 've had no problems with the Vista firewall which is odd .
( Since I figure the one in 7 is just an upgraded version .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd install a few apps and after that the firewall would just disable internet access.
Sure, some of the time it'd say "app Y is trying to access the net, you cool with that?
" but sometimes it wouldn't.
(And then it wouldn't mention which one it was complaining about.
) Oh, the first time this happened it was actually worse.
The firewall decided to block an app while I was at the log-in screen.
As in no keyboard access at all.
I had to log into Win7 in safe mode, disable the newly installed app just to log in.
I'm guessing a 3rd party firewall would be an improvement.
(Since it couldn't be worse.
) Oh, I've had no problems with the Vista firewall which is odd.
(Since I figure the one in 7 is just an upgraded version.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755530</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>BtRB\_Ver2</author>
	<datestamp>1263374580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose this is probably feeding a troll, but I'll bite never the less.</p><p>Your experience does not at all match mine.</p><p>My performance has been flawless, Phenom II booting in 30 seconds, instant on from standby.</p><p>Yes, companies haven't been adapting old drivers to 64-bit, but that beats the hit/miss Linux driver support.  And at least you can count on your wireless working.  My Mandriva 2010 Free install has decided to stop connecting to certain networks.  And it never automatically reconnects when resuming from sleep- despite a check box telling it to do otherwise.</p><p>So, YMMV I suppose, but it's really not as bad as all that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose this is probably feeding a troll , but I 'll bite never the less.Your experience does not at all match mine.My performance has been flawless , Phenom II booting in 30 seconds , instant on from standby.Yes , companies have n't been adapting old drivers to 64-bit , but that beats the hit/miss Linux driver support .
And at least you can count on your wireless working .
My Mandriva 2010 Free install has decided to stop connecting to certain networks .
And it never automatically reconnects when resuming from sleep- despite a check box telling it to do otherwise.So , YMMV I suppose , but it 's really not as bad as all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose this is probably feeding a troll, but I'll bite never the less.Your experience does not at all match mine.My performance has been flawless, Phenom II booting in 30 seconds, instant on from standby.Yes, companies haven't been adapting old drivers to 64-bit, but that beats the hit/miss Linux driver support.
And at least you can count on your wireless working.
My Mandriva 2010 Free install has decided to stop connecting to certain networks.
And it never automatically reconnects when resuming from sleep- despite a check box telling it to do otherwise.So, YMMV I suppose, but it's really not as bad as all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756658</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1263379140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say for the most part, it is quite easy but I have run into a problem lately.  My laptop is part of a domain at work.  I take it home and log on "To this computer" only with a local account.  When I go to try to map a network drive to my NAS device, it displays a user name box, a password box, and under it the name of the domain I am joined to.  No option to change that...just the name of the domain.  I select "Log On as different user" and yet the domain information stays.</p><p>So it is constantly trying to log in as mydomain\ajlisows.  As my NAS isn't part of the domain it doesn't allow me to log in.  Really, really annoying.  Let ME tell the device if I want to login using a domain account. I didn't have that problem with any XP boxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say for the most part , it is quite easy but I have run into a problem lately .
My laptop is part of a domain at work .
I take it home and log on " To this computer " only with a local account .
When I go to try to map a network drive to my NAS device , it displays a user name box , a password box , and under it the name of the domain I am joined to .
No option to change that...just the name of the domain .
I select " Log On as different user " and yet the domain information stays.So it is constantly trying to log in as mydomain \ ajlisows .
As my NAS is n't part of the domain it does n't allow me to log in .
Really , really annoying .
Let ME tell the device if I want to login using a domain account .
I did n't have that problem with any XP boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say for the most part, it is quite easy but I have run into a problem lately.
My laptop is part of a domain at work.
I take it home and log on "To this computer" only with a local account.
When I go to try to map a network drive to my NAS device, it displays a user name box, a password box, and under it the name of the domain I am joined to.
No option to change that...just the name of the domain.
I select "Log On as different user" and yet the domain information stays.So it is constantly trying to log in as mydomain\ajlisows.
As my NAS isn't part of the domain it doesn't allow me to log in.
Really, really annoying.
Let ME tell the device if I want to login using a domain account.
I didn't have that problem with any XP boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760980</id>
	<title>Don't forget the "Gotchas"</title>
	<author>A\_Non\_Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1263405960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) SCSI cards: 29160U is not supported.  I was pleasantly surprised, as that was my<br>32bit Xp install, but seriously no support for this card?  Humm.</p><p>2) Ok, some esoteric cards I can understand, but a RocketRaid 464 has had Win2k/Xp<br>drivers built into the OS (not sure about Vista).  An IDE card that does RAID 0/1<br>onboard and 5 w/CPU, but in addition to not seeing the card, it would CORRUPT the<br>filesystem.  During setup w/o driver, corrupt.  left unconnected and as soon as<br>I'd check under xp = OK, 7 = corrupt.  Of the two times it could read the disks<br>any copy to the drive (formatted under xp and 7) it would BSOD the memory mgmt<br>module.</p><p>Joy.  Luckily recovery was easy, but JFC 6 hours+ to get it all back each time.</p><p>7 was/is fast, easy to get used to and GPU folding was pretty peppy, but can't<br>live w/o that RAID card when all is said and done.</p><p>I will give 7 some credit, I've got a dual boot of XP and 2k3 both 64bit and<br>guess what?  both the SCSI and RAID work flawlessly.  Not folding as fast as 7,<br>but smoother than xp32 by a smidgen.</p><p>Strangely I've got an itch to get redhat AS4 installed, but not when I've got<br>school to deal with.  Next break, perhaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) SCSI cards : 29160U is not supported .
I was pleasantly surprised , as that was my32bit Xp install , but seriously no support for this card ?
Humm.2 ) Ok , some esoteric cards I can understand , but a RocketRaid 464 has had Win2k/Xpdrivers built into the OS ( not sure about Vista ) .
An IDE card that does RAID 0/1onboard and 5 w/CPU , but in addition to not seeing the card , it would CORRUPT thefilesystem .
During setup w/o driver , corrupt .
left unconnected and as soon asI 'd check under xp = OK , 7 = corrupt .
Of the two times it could read the disksany copy to the drive ( formatted under xp and 7 ) it would BSOD the memory mgmtmodule.Joy .
Luckily recovery was easy , but JFC 6 hours + to get it all back each time.7 was/is fast , easy to get used to and GPU folding was pretty peppy , but can'tlive w/o that RAID card when all is said and done.I will give 7 some credit , I 've got a dual boot of XP and 2k3 both 64bit andguess what ?
both the SCSI and RAID work flawlessly .
Not folding as fast as 7,but smoother than xp32 by a smidgen.Strangely I 've got an itch to get redhat AS4 installed , but not when I 've gotschool to deal with .
Next break , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) SCSI cards: 29160U is not supported.
I was pleasantly surprised, as that was my32bit Xp install, but seriously no support for this card?
Humm.2) Ok, some esoteric cards I can understand, but a RocketRaid 464 has had Win2k/Xpdrivers built into the OS (not sure about Vista).
An IDE card that does RAID 0/1onboard and 5 w/CPU, but in addition to not seeing the card, it would CORRUPT thefilesystem.
During setup w/o driver, corrupt.
left unconnected and as soon asI'd check under xp = OK, 7 = corrupt.
Of the two times it could read the disksany copy to the drive (formatted under xp and 7) it would BSOD the memory mgmtmodule.Joy.
Luckily recovery was easy, but JFC 6 hours+ to get it all back each time.7 was/is fast, easy to get used to and GPU folding was pretty peppy, but can'tlive w/o that RAID card when all is said and done.I will give 7 some credit, I've got a dual boot of XP and 2k3 both 64bit andguess what?
both the SCSI and RAID work flawlessly.
Not folding as fast as 7,but smoother than xp32 by a smidgen.Strangely I've got an itch to get redhat AS4 installed, but not when I've gotschool to deal with.
Next break, perhaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752436</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Crudely\_Indecent</author>
	<datestamp>1263405720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be an end user</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be an end user</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be an end user</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752596</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263406320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that the way its been since like... Windows 95?</p><p>I haven't had to manually enter an IP since I wanted to port forward. Does Windows 7 automagically know which ports are needed for incoming connections, and set that up on your router or modem?</p><p>The only extra step to Wireless setup that I can think of was specifying what kind of encryption you are using (AES2 etc) which I understand can be confusing to new users, has Windows 7 taken that part out? Just enter the key and go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that the way its been since like... Windows 95 ? I have n't had to manually enter an IP since I wanted to port forward .
Does Windows 7 automagically know which ports are needed for incoming connections , and set that up on your router or modem ? The only extra step to Wireless setup that I can think of was specifying what kind of encryption you are using ( AES2 etc ) which I understand can be confusing to new users , has Windows 7 taken that part out ?
Just enter the key and go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that the way its been since like... Windows 95?I haven't had to manually enter an IP since I wanted to port forward.
Does Windows 7 automagically know which ports are needed for incoming connections, and set that up on your router or modem?The only extra step to Wireless setup that I can think of was specifying what kind of encryption you are using (AES2 etc) which I understand can be confusing to new users, has Windows 7 taken that part out?
Just enter the key and go?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756620</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1263378900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sort of agree with this. Finding the actual network devices takes a little more time, and configuring the Firewall looks horrendously intimidating at first, but is easy to do after peering through it a little bit. Most of the other networking tasks are either the same as they were on XP (namely, IP/DNS/WINS [?] configuration, etc.), others are even easier (like connecting to a wireless network).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of agree with this .
Finding the actual network devices takes a little more time , and configuring the Firewall looks horrendously intimidating at first , but is easy to do after peering through it a little bit .
Most of the other networking tasks are either the same as they were on XP ( namely , IP/DNS/WINS [ ?
] configuration , etc .
) , others are even easier ( like connecting to a wireless network ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of agree with this.
Finding the actual network devices takes a little more time, and configuring the Firewall looks horrendously intimidating at first, but is easy to do after peering through it a little bit.
Most of the other networking tasks are either the same as they were on XP (namely, IP/DNS/WINS [?
] configuration, etc.
), others are even easier (like connecting to a wireless network).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30777414</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1263560640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>XP-64 doesn't count, it wasn't really XP</i><br>Assuming you mean XP proffessional x64 edition (and not XP 64-bit edition which was for the itanic) it is really 2003, not that I consider that a bad thing, using the same core components as a server release means more chance of drivers getting written.</p><p><i>and nobody wrote drivers for it</i><br>While i'm sure there are some shitty vendors who support x64 vista/2K8/7 but not 64-bit 2K3 i was actually surprised to find that all the hardware worked fine when I set it up on my office desktop. This includes all the perhipherals I was using!</p><p>The lack of a netware client is annoying though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP-64 does n't count , it was n't really XPAssuming you mean XP proffessional x64 edition ( and not XP 64-bit edition which was for the itanic ) it is really 2003 , not that I consider that a bad thing , using the same core components as a server release means more chance of drivers getting written.and nobody wrote drivers for itWhile i 'm sure there are some shitty vendors who support x64 vista/2K8/7 but not 64-bit 2K3 i was actually surprised to find that all the hardware worked fine when I set it up on my office desktop .
This includes all the perhipherals I was using ! The lack of a netware client is annoying though : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP-64 doesn't count, it wasn't really XPAssuming you mean XP proffessional x64 edition (and not XP 64-bit edition which was for the itanic) it is really 2003, not that I consider that a bad thing, using the same core components as a server release means more chance of drivers getting written.and nobody wrote drivers for itWhile i'm sure there are some shitty vendors who support x64 vista/2K8/7 but not 64-bit 2K3 i was actually surprised to find that all the hardware worked fine when I set it up on my office desktop.
This includes all the perhipherals I was using!The lack of a netware client is annoying though :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756796</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1263379800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quite like Windows 7 compared to Vista and I've finally switched from XP.<br>Sadly this guy is completely right though, I find it so confusing to use the networking Window now that I just use the keyword search down the bottom to find the section I'm looking for, using the menu is a nightmare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quite like Windows 7 compared to Vista and I 've finally switched from XP.Sadly this guy is completely right though , I find it so confusing to use the networking Window now that I just use the keyword search down the bottom to find the section I 'm looking for , using the menu is a nightmare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quite like Windows 7 compared to Vista and I've finally switched from XP.Sadly this guy is completely right though, I find it so confusing to use the networking Window now that I just use the keyword search down the bottom to find the section I'm looking for, using the menu is a nightmare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759278</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1263390960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude.....Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home Basic, and Windows Vista Home Premium all come without support for joining domains.  So......no.  Windows 7 Home is not a downgrade from Vista/XP in terms of that connectivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude.....Windows XP Home , Windows Vista Home Basic , and Windows Vista Home Premium all come without support for joining domains .
So......no. Windows 7 Home is not a downgrade from Vista/XP in terms of that connectivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.....Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home Basic, and Windows Vista Home Premium all come without support for joining domains.
So......no.  Windows 7 Home is not a downgrade from Vista/XP in terms of that connectivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30762284</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're either lying or stupid. The 3600N works fine (I should know, I sell 'em), neither XP home nor Vista home could join a domain, and the NTFS windows 7 uses is exactly the same as Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're either lying or stupid .
The 3600N works fine ( I should know , I sell 'em ) , neither XP home nor Vista home could join a domain , and the NTFS windows 7 uses is exactly the same as Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're either lying or stupid.
The 3600N works fine (I should know, I sell 'em), neither XP home nor Vista home could join a domain, and the NTFS windows 7 uses is exactly the same as Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753488</id>
	<title>Problems with explorer.exe &amp; networking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problems with explorer.exe.  No, not internet explorer.  Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you didn't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do.  For instance, if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you didn't want because the shift+click selected more or at least some that you didn't choose.  The next normal step is to delete them, often without reviewing the names (since explorer.exe doesn't allow you to review the names--unlike dolphin in KDE which provides you a list of files it is going to delete before it deletes them).</p><p>So, be careful or you could wipe out a lot of important data inadvertently.</p><p>There are also problems with networking.  After having Win7 on for a long time and having numerous computers access the files on the device over the network the computers network can begin to slow incredibly.  For instance playing media files, one after another, after a long time the network connection can slow so bad that the media files begin to skip or break up thus causing artifacts on the screen.  It only happens here under Win7, not Vista and not any Linux distro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problems with explorer.exe .
No , not internet explorer .
Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you did n't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do .
For instance , if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you did n't want because the shift + click selected more or at least some that you did n't choose .
The next normal step is to delete them , often without reviewing the names ( since explorer.exe does n't allow you to review the names--unlike dolphin in KDE which provides you a list of files it is going to delete before it deletes them ) .So , be careful or you could wipe out a lot of important data inadvertently.There are also problems with networking .
After having Win7 on for a long time and having numerous computers access the files on the device over the network the computers network can begin to slow incredibly .
For instance playing media files , one after another , after a long time the network connection can slow so bad that the media files begin to skip or break up thus causing artifacts on the screen .
It only happens here under Win7 , not Vista and not any Linux distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problems with explorer.exe.
No, not internet explorer.
Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you didn't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do.
For instance, if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you didn't want because the shift+click selected more or at least some that you didn't choose.
The next normal step is to delete them, often without reviewing the names (since explorer.exe doesn't allow you to review the names--unlike dolphin in KDE which provides you a list of files it is going to delete before it deletes them).So, be careful or you could wipe out a lot of important data inadvertently.There are also problems with networking.
After having Win7 on for a long time and having numerous computers access the files on the device over the network the computers network can begin to slow incredibly.
For instance playing media files, one after another, after a long time the network connection can slow so bad that the media files begin to skip or break up thus causing artifacts on the screen.
It only happens here under Win7, not Vista and not any Linux distro.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754946</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263415500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.  What's so hard?</p></div><p>In other words, "It works for me so must be fine"?  I've found it to be a pain in the ass to manually configure IP info -- it's still just as possible , but it takes twice the clicks to get to the appropriate screen. Not to mention the rather non-intuitive step of right-clicking on a hyperlink  (network connection name) to open the final properties dialog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done .
What 's so hard ? In other words , " It works for me so must be fine " ?
I 've found it to be a pain in the ass to manually configure IP info -- it 's still just as possible , but it takes twice the clicks to get to the appropriate screen .
Not to mention the rather non-intuitive step of right-clicking on a hyperlink ( network connection name ) to open the final properties dialog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.
What's so hard?In other words, "It works for me so must be fine"?
I've found it to be a pain in the ass to manually configure IP info -- it's still just as possible , but it takes twice the clicks to get to the appropriate screen.
Not to mention the rather non-intuitive step of right-clicking on a hyperlink  (network connection name) to open the final properties dialog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752426</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that.</p><p>It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute: power saving was enabled for the network card. Even a bittorrent client wouldn't stop it from going to sleep. Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that.It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute : power saving was enabled for the network card .
Even a bittorrent client would n't stop it from going to sleep .
Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that.It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute: power saving was enabled for the network card.
Even a bittorrent client wouldn't stop it from going to sleep.
Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752670</id>
	<title>Explosions! (n/t)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, explosions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , explosions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, explosions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756178</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Nemesisghost</author>
	<datestamp>1263377040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The home versions of Windows has NEVER allowed Domain joining.  XP Home, Vista Home, and all the versions of 7 Home.  This was the 1 major difference between XP Home &amp; XP Pro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The home versions of Windows has NEVER allowed Domain joining .
XP Home , Vista Home , and all the versions of 7 Home .
This was the 1 major difference between XP Home &amp; XP Pro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The home versions of Windows has NEVER allowed Domain joining.
XP Home, Vista Home, and all the versions of 7 Home.
This was the 1 major difference between XP Home &amp; XP Pro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754338</id>
	<title>Re:Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1263413220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer is simple: when Microsoft invited the Linux Samba team to share resources and exchange protocols at their labs, they re-worked the networking protocol so that Win7 would create proprietary (Win7 ONLY) network groups. There is currently no other way to connect to these groups unless you 'upgrade' every one of your machines to Win7. It's a lock-in sales tool. Plain and simple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is simple : when Microsoft invited the Linux Samba team to share resources and exchange protocols at their labs , they re-worked the networking protocol so that Win7 would create proprietary ( Win7 ONLY ) network groups .
There is currently no other way to connect to these groups unless you 'upgrade ' every one of your machines to Win7 .
It 's a lock-in sales tool .
Plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is simple: when Microsoft invited the Linux Samba team to share resources and exchange protocols at their labs, they re-worked the networking protocol so that Win7 would create proprietary (Win7 ONLY) network groups.
There is currently no other way to connect to these groups unless you 'upgrade' every one of your machines to Win7.
It's a lock-in sales tool.
Plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753384</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only moron I see is the one that can't see that it's just Microsoft trying to get rid of ME/VISTA.</p><p>Vista was not ready for release but they released it anyway. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. This is all about marketing and how to move product. I can see that it is effective, it sure has you fooled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only moron I see is the one that ca n't see that it 's just Microsoft trying to get rid of ME/VISTA.Vista was not ready for release but they released it anyway .
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been .
This is all about marketing and how to move product .
I can see that it is effective , it sure has you fooled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only moron I see is the one that can't see that it's just Microsoft trying to get rid of ME/VISTA.Vista was not ready for release but they released it anyway.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.
This is all about marketing and how to move product.
I can see that it is effective, it sure has you fooled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756126</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.</p></div><p>This is not correct - you haven't been able to join the Home versions of Windows to a domain since Windows 95/98/ME - neither XP nor Vista allowed for domain-joined Home clients.</p><p>Vista Ultimate and 7 Ultimate are able to join domains, along with the corporate editions, just like XP.</p><p>None the less, you don't require to be domain-joined in order to access resources which are in the domain - for example you can access the domain file server, assuming you have valid credentials in that domain (which is independent of the client OS). None of this is new in 7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.This is not correct - you have n't been able to join the Home versions of Windows to a domain since Windows 95/98/ME - neither XP nor Vista allowed for domain-joined Home clients.Vista Ultimate and 7 Ultimate are able to join domains , along with the corporate editions , just like XP.None the less , you do n't require to be domain-joined in order to access resources which are in the domain - for example you can access the domain file server , assuming you have valid credentials in that domain ( which is independent of the client OS ) .
None of this is new in 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.This is not correct - you haven't been able to join the Home versions of Windows to a domain since Windows 95/98/ME - neither XP nor Vista allowed for domain-joined Home clients.Vista Ultimate and 7 Ultimate are able to join domains, along with the corporate editions, just like XP.None the less, you don't require to be domain-joined in order to access resources which are in the domain - for example you can access the domain file server, assuming you have valid credentials in that domain (which is independent of the client OS).
None of this is new in 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752882</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1263407160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.</p><p>Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Windows 7 easily has the most confusing , difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752054</id>
	<title>Yes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But will it fix CmdrTaco's micropenis disorder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But will it fix CmdrTaco 's micropenis disorder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will it fix CmdrTaco's micropenis disorder?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752386</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>jongalbreath</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree.  I didn't have any great difficulty.  If anything, it's a vast improvement over Vista where at least 7 prompts that additional login information is required to establish a connection, such as in a hotel or hotspot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree .
I did n't have any great difficulty .
If anything , it 's a vast improvement over Vista where at least 7 prompts that additional login information is required to establish a connection , such as in a hotel or hotspot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree.
I didn't have any great difficulty.
If anything, it's a vast improvement over Vista where at least 7 prompts that additional login information is required to establish a connection, such as in a hotel or hotspot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752768</id>
	<title>I kind of wish they'd work on Vista...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1263406800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know everybody's probably already binned Vista, but I'd be happy if Microsoft fixed the bug where my search indexing daemon crashes in Vista before they started on the Windows 7 bugs. I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know everybody 's probably already binned Vista , but I 'd be happy if Microsoft fixed the bug where my search indexing daemon crashes in Vista before they started on the Windows 7 bugs .
I just got this computer from work , so it 'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know everybody's probably already binned Vista, but I'd be happy if Microsoft fixed the bug where my search indexing daemon crashes in Vista before they started on the Windows 7 bugs.
I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753666</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1263410520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Differentiating between the various work, public home is nice until you find that Windows 7 thinks your network is new every single time you boot the PC.  Fortunately I'm primarily a Ubuntu user so it doesn't bother me too much.  I am on a university network so it is probably slightly unusual though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Differentiating between the various work , public home is nice until you find that Windows 7 thinks your network is new every single time you boot the PC .
Fortunately I 'm primarily a Ubuntu user so it does n't bother me too much .
I am on a university network so it is probably slightly unusual though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Differentiating between the various work, public home is nice until you find that Windows 7 thinks your network is new every single time you boot the PC.
Fortunately I'm primarily a Ubuntu user so it doesn't bother me too much.
I am on a university network so it is probably slightly unusual though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752758</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either you should be modded funny or you learned how to use a computer from a TV show.</p><p>I guess (hope) most of the people here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. don't just want to have a default config.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you should be modded funny or you learned how to use a computer from a TV show.I guess ( hope ) most of the people here on / .
do n't just want to have a default config .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you should be modded funny or you learned how to use a computer from a TV show.I guess (hope) most of the people here on /.
don't just want to have a default config.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30761102</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a polished turd still stinks</p></div></blockquote><p>Trying to keep the Mythbusters busy, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a polished turd still stinksTrying to keep the Mythbusters busy , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a polished turd still stinksTrying to keep the Mythbusters busy, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756264</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263377460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ipconfig... now that wasn't too hard was it?  Is not any easier on Linux for most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ipconfig... now that was n't too hard was it ?
Is not any easier on Linux for most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ipconfig... now that wasn't too hard was it?
Is not any easier on Linux for most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753042</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to disagree - Vista was worse, so much worse that I just use netsh instead of the GUI for any changes I need on Vista. Win7 is actually usable, but maybe that's just because I was used to Vista<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to disagree - Vista was worse , so much worse that I just use netsh instead of the GUI for any changes I need on Vista .
Win7 is actually usable , but maybe that 's just because I was used to Vista : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to disagree - Vista was worse, so much worse that I just use netsh instead of the GUI for any changes I need on Vista.
Win7 is actually usable, but maybe that's just because I was used to Vista :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765790</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>exoren22</author>
	<datestamp>1263490200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have never had a problem with wireless using WPA 1 or 2 and both encryptions, not to mention all WEPs. Have you considered the possibility of a poor driver? And if so, how is that Microsoft's fault?

I agree it is hard to use the UI for those annoying times, but become familiar with ipconfig and you should be just fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never had a problem with wireless using WPA 1 or 2 and both encryptions , not to mention all WEPs .
Have you considered the possibility of a poor driver ?
And if so , how is that Microsoft 's fault ?
I agree it is hard to use the UI for those annoying times , but become familiar with ipconfig and you should be just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never had a problem with wireless using WPA 1 or 2 and both encryptions, not to mention all WEPs.
Have you considered the possibility of a poor driver?
And if so, how is that Microsoft's fault?
I agree it is hard to use the UI for those annoying times, but become familiar with ipconfig and you should be just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just plugged in the network cable</p></div><p>Cable? How quaint!</p><p>How's it work with WPA2-secured wireless?  Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience, and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.</p><p>Moreover wireless on Vista is almost, but not quite, as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears.  On more than one Vista machine I've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender.  I try resetting the router. I try rebooting.  No joy.  Only fix seems to be to go into the network config, remove the connection and re-enter the security key.  No rhyme or reason, and in one case there was a Macbook, a WinXP machine, an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine.  ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.</p><p>An therein lies the rub:  if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task  of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting, selecting the SSID, entering a key, putting in fixed network settings, the Windows network config UI is the suckiest, most regressive, confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION.  If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows, the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.</p><p>I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface?  Complete FAIL!  I don't care if they've refined it--a polished turd still stinks.  It needs to be completely redone again.  I know "technical details" can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible.  It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just plugged in the network cableCable ?
How quaint ! How 's it work with WPA2-secured wireless ?
Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience , and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.Moreover wireless on Vista is almost , but not quite , as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears .
On more than one Vista machine I 've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender .
I try resetting the router .
I try rebooting .
No joy .
Only fix seems to be to go into the network config , remove the connection and re-enter the security key .
No rhyme or reason , and in one case there was a Macbook , a WinXP machine , an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine .
ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.An therein lies the rub : if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting , selecting the SSID , entering a key , putting in fixed network settings , the Windows network config UI is the suckiest , most regressive , confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION .
If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows , the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface ?
Complete FAIL !
I do n't care if they 've refined it--a polished turd still stinks .
It needs to be completely redone again .
I know " technical details " can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible .
It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address , netmask , default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just plugged in the network cableCable?
How quaint!How's it work with WPA2-secured wireless?
Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience, and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.Moreover wireless on Vista is almost, but not quite, as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears.
On more than one Vista machine I've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender.
I try resetting the router.
I try rebooting.
No joy.
Only fix seems to be to go into the network config, remove the connection and re-enter the security key.
No rhyme or reason, and in one case there was a Macbook, a WinXP machine, an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine.
ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.An therein lies the rub:  if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task  of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting, selecting the SSID, entering a key, putting in fixed network settings, the Windows network config UI is the suckiest, most regressive, confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION.
If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows, the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface?
Complete FAIL!
I don't care if they've refined it--a polished turd still stinks.
It needs to be completely redone again.
I know "technical details" can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible.
It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756336</id>
	<title>Re:Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263377820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think corporate workers that have a corporate managed laptop (i.e, member of the corporate domain) but want to use same laptop at home to print to their printer shared from a home PC, or share files or media or whatever else.</p><p>Homegroup is a vaguely defined, home-user peer-to-peer authentication/authorisation system; designed to work without a domain controller.  They're arguably more secure than workgroups (you need a password to join rather than just type the name in), but far less than domains (which have kerebos authentication and an administrator can easily delete a computer or user from the domain.)</p><p>http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-homegroup-overview</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think corporate workers that have a corporate managed laptop ( i.e , member of the corporate domain ) but want to use same laptop at home to print to their printer shared from a home PC , or share files or media or whatever else.Homegroup is a vaguely defined , home-user peer-to-peer authentication/authorisation system ; designed to work without a domain controller .
They 're arguably more secure than workgroups ( you need a password to join rather than just type the name in ) , but far less than domains ( which have kerebos authentication and an administrator can easily delete a computer or user from the domain .
) http : //www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-homegroup-overview</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think corporate workers that have a corporate managed laptop (i.e, member of the corporate domain) but want to use same laptop at home to print to their printer shared from a home PC, or share files or media or whatever else.Homegroup is a vaguely defined, home-user peer-to-peer authentication/authorisation system; designed to work without a domain controller.
They're arguably more secure than workgroups (you need a password to join rather than just type the name in), but far less than domains (which have kerebos authentication and an administrator can easily delete a computer or user from the domain.
)http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-homegroup-overview</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30773722</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Caetel</author>
	<datestamp>1263477540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li> <a href="http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0027440\_0000466.asp?model=" title="canon-europe.com" rel="nofollow">Lide 30 Windows 7 driver</a> [canon-europe.com] </li><li>HP's website won't let me search at the moment, but apparently the Vista driver only package works with the Laserjet 3600N</li><li>The Home editions of XP &amp; Vista never had the ability to connect to a domain.</li><li>I haven't had a issue reading a Win 7 native NTFS partition, at least not with Vista.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lide 30 Windows 7 driver [ canon-europe.com ] HP 's website wo n't let me search at the moment , but apparently the Vista driver only package works with the Laserjet 3600NThe Home editions of XP &amp; Vista never had the ability to connect to a domain.I have n't had a issue reading a Win 7 native NTFS partition , at least not with Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 Lide 30 Windows 7 driver [canon-europe.com] HP's website won't let me search at the moment, but apparently the Vista driver only package works with the Laserjet 3600NThe Home editions of XP &amp; Vista never had the ability to connect to a domain.I haven't had a issue reading a Win 7 native NTFS partition, at least not with Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753620</id>
	<title>Re:Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can be in a homegroup in a domain because, surprise!, people take their laptops home after work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can be in a homegroup in a domain because , surprise ! , people take their laptops home after work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can be in a homegroup in a domain because, surprise!, people take their laptops home after work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30776422</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1263548520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anecdotal evidence, whatever shall we do?  Alas, the battle goes to WebCowboy this day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotal evidence , whatever shall we do ?
Alas , the battle goes to WebCowboy this day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotal evidence, whatever shall we do?
Alas, the battle goes to WebCowboy this day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754652</id>
	<title>Re:USB performance under Windows</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1263414300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.</p><p>In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.</p><p>I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.</p><p>Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to start a holy war here , but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics ?
I 've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac ( a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM ) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder .
20 minutes .
At home , on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4 , which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac , the same operation would take about 2 minutes .
If that.In addition , during this file transfer , Netscape will not work .
And everything else has ground to a halt .
Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.I wo n't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I 've encountered while working on various Macs , but suffice it to say there have been many , not the least of which is I 've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart , despite the Macs ' faster chip architecture .
My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times .
From a productivity standpoint , I do n't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.Mac addicts , flame me if you 'd like , but I 'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster , cheaper , more stable systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics?
I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder.
20 minutes.
At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes.
If that.In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work.
And everything else has ground to a halt.
Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture.
My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times.
From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753750</id>
	<title>screensaver</title>
	<author>Virmal</author>
	<datestamp>1263410820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...A brand new screensaver.  Ballmer throwing chairs at you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...A brand new screensaver .
Ballmer throwing chairs at you : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...A brand new screensaver.
Ballmer throwing chairs at you :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759580</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263392640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.</p><p>Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.</p><p>Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.</p> </div><p>Windows XP Home edition (have we forgotten that existed?) didn't allow connections to domains either, nor did it allow for group policy controls like Professional did (though, without domain, you couldn't easily push GP to Home machines anyway), and it had truncated controls for network and folder sharing, among other limitations.  Windows 7 Home not having domain support is nothing new at all.</p><p>OTOH, your inability to connect to a NAS is perplexing.  Connection to a NAS over Samba should be straightforward with either network folders or drive mapping, even with authentication, unless your NAS only allows connections to domain members over AD (and you have this setup at home?).  However, I will admit that Vista (and 7 might still have this problem) was pretty strict about authentication protocols that were allowed over Samba, which Debian's version of Samba didn't support.  I have to say I'm using the same NAS I had trouble with under Vista with 7 and it's working fine.  FUD much?</p><p>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp\_home\_pro.asp<br>http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/vista-which-version.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.Windows7 Home ( all versions ) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature ' to the home edition ( s ) - you ca n't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example .
Windows XP Home edition ( have we forgotten that existed ?
) did n't allow connections to domains either , nor did it allow for group policy controls like Professional did ( though , without domain , you could n't easily push GP to Home machines anyway ) , and it had truncated controls for network and folder sharing , among other limitations .
Windows 7 Home not having domain support is nothing new at all.OTOH , your inability to connect to a NAS is perplexing .
Connection to a NAS over Samba should be straightforward with either network folders or drive mapping , even with authentication , unless your NAS only allows connections to domain members over AD ( and you have this setup at home ? ) .
However , I will admit that Vista ( and 7 might still have this problem ) was pretty strict about authentication protocols that were allowed over Samba , which Debian 's version of Samba did n't support .
I have to say I 'm using the same NAS I had trouble with under Vista with 7 and it 's working fine .
FUD much ? http : //www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp \ _home \ _pro.asphttp : //www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/vista-which-version.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
Windows XP Home edition (have we forgotten that existed?
) didn't allow connections to domains either, nor did it allow for group policy controls like Professional did (though, without domain, you couldn't easily push GP to Home machines anyway), and it had truncated controls for network and folder sharing, among other limitations.
Windows 7 Home not having domain support is nothing new at all.OTOH, your inability to connect to a NAS is perplexing.
Connection to a NAS over Samba should be straightforward with either network folders or drive mapping, even with authentication, unless your NAS only allows connections to domain members over AD (and you have this setup at home?).
However, I will admit that Vista (and 7 might still have this problem) was pretty strict about authentication protocols that were allowed over Samba, which Debian's version of Samba didn't support.
I have to say I'm using the same NAS I had trouble with under Vista with 7 and it's working fine.
FUD much?http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp\_home\_pro.asphttp://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/vista-which-version.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756578</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you say you can connect Windows XP home to a domain then?<br>Interesting...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you say you can connect Windows XP home to a domain then ? Interesting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you say you can connect Windows XP home to a domain then?Interesting...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757294</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>KennyP</author>
	<datestamp>1263382140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're too late... Look up ^^^</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're too late... Look up ^ ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're too late... Look up ^^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756518</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.</i> <p>
Total BS.  The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7.  (Incidentally the format version number is 3.1.)  An NTFS 3.1 volume is completely backwards and forwards compatible across these OSes.  As a developer of NTFS, I cannot let your statement slide.  Please back up this claim with evidence or retract it.  Incidentally in Win7 there were some changes to the default partitioning scheme but that has to do with partitioning and has nothing to do with file systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista .
Total BS .
The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7 .
( Incidentally the format version number is 3.1 .
) An NTFS 3.1 volume is completely backwards and forwards compatible across these OSes .
As a developer of NTFS , I can not let your statement slide .
Please back up this claim with evidence or retract it .
Incidentally in Win7 there were some changes to the default partitioning scheme but that has to do with partitioning and has nothing to do with file systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
Total BS.
The NTFS filesystem format has not changed across XP/Vista/Win7.
(Incidentally the format version number is 3.1.
)  An NTFS 3.1 volume is completely backwards and forwards compatible across these OSes.
As a developer of NTFS, I cannot let your statement slide.
Please back up this claim with evidence or retract it.
Incidentally in Win7 there were some changes to the default partitioning scheme but that has to do with partitioning and has nothing to do with file systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752350</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1263405420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.</p> </div><p>How so?  You either plug in the cable and it does all the work (and setting your ip address, etc manually is equally easy as it has always been) or you choose a wireless point (enter your key) and it again does all the work for you.  My grandma was able to get her laptop with Win7 to connect to the router I set up for her without any help.  Why is it so hard for you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing , difficult to configure network properties of any Windows .
How so ?
You either plug in the cable and it does all the work ( and setting your ip address , etc manually is equally easy as it has always been ) or you choose a wireless point ( enter your key ) and it again does all the work for you .
My grandma was able to get her laptop with Win7 to connect to the router I set up for her without any help .
Why is it so hard for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
How so?
You either plug in the cable and it does all the work (and setting your ip address, etc manually is equally easy as it has always been) or you choose a wireless point (enter your key) and it again does all the work for you.
My grandma was able to get her laptop with Win7 to connect to the router I set up for her without any help.
Why is it so hard for you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752496</id>
	<title>What to expect from Windows Sp1...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1263406020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let me see...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...an update?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let me see... ...an update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me see... ...an update?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753118</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>these features were available in Windows Vista. "it's not that bad" should be the slogan, if it isn't already : P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these features were available in Windows Vista .
" it 's not that bad " should be the slogan , if it is n't already : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these features were available in Windows Vista.
"it's not that bad" should be the slogan, if it isn't already : P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759178</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263390480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT."</p><p>ipconfig<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address , netmask , default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT .
" ipconfig /all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.
"ipconfig /all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</id>
	<title>Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No doubt, I \_STILL\_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup.  I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either.  That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one.  I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows.  Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt , I \ _STILL \ _ do n't know exactly what a 'homegroup ' is and why I can be part of a domain ( or workgroup ) at the same time as a homegroup .
I do n't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it 's doing since I have the sharing service off , either .
That being said , the new firewall is money compared to the old one .
I just wish they would n't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows .
Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt, I \_STILL\_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup.
I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either.
That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one.
I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows.
Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.  What's so hard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done .
What 's so hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done.
What's so hard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756212</id>
	<title>PROTOOLS 8?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263377160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>never mind...  pull my finger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>never mind... pull my finger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never mind...  pull my finger</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1263373800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>Proper 64-bit support (XP-64 doesn't count, it wasn't really XP and nobody wrote drivers for it</li><li>Bitlocker - Enterprise management may be a bit lacking, but it's a shitload cheaper than the other options (Truecrypt doesn't count, it doesn't have *any* management features)</li><li>Pre-logon wireless support</li><li>All the Powershell v2 features (Though many of them have been backported to XP SP3 where possible)</li><li>Proper IPv6 support</li><li>Proper multimonitor support for RDP</li><li>Proper Gigabit Ethernet support</li><li>File copies that don't fail if one file out of 20,000 can't be read</li><li>DVD burning and ISO handling (Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though)</li><li>Much better driver support (Most current corporate desktops don't need any additional drivers installed)</li><li>XP Mode (And Med-V) for when you really, really can't get your apps to run on Win 7 (Very rare in my experience)</li></ul><p>That's just off the top of my head and yes, a lot of them were in Vista, but your comparison was to XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proper 64-bit support ( XP-64 does n't count , it was n't really XP and nobody wrote drivers for itBitlocker - Enterprise management may be a bit lacking , but it 's a shitload cheaper than the other options ( Truecrypt does n't count , it does n't have * any * management features ) Pre-logon wireless supportAll the Powershell v2 features ( Though many of them have been backported to XP SP3 where possible ) Proper IPv6 supportProper multimonitor support for RDPProper Gigabit Ethernet supportFile copies that do n't fail if one file out of 20,000 ca n't be readDVD burning and ISO handling ( Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though ) Much better driver support ( Most current corporate desktops do n't need any additional drivers installed ) XP Mode ( And Med-V ) for when you really , really ca n't get your apps to run on Win 7 ( Very rare in my experience ) That 's just off the top of my head and yes , a lot of them were in Vista , but your comparison was to XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Proper 64-bit support (XP-64 doesn't count, it wasn't really XP and nobody wrote drivers for itBitlocker - Enterprise management may be a bit lacking, but it's a shitload cheaper than the other options (Truecrypt doesn't count, it doesn't have *any* management features)Pre-logon wireless supportAll the Powershell v2 features (Though many of them have been backported to XP SP3 where possible)Proper IPv6 supportProper multimonitor support for RDPProper Gigabit Ethernet supportFile copies that don't fail if one file out of 20,000 can't be readDVD burning and ISO handling (Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though)Much better driver support (Most current corporate desktops don't need any additional drivers installed)XP Mode (And Med-V) for when you really, really can't get your apps to run on Win 7 (Very rare in my experience)That's just off the top of my head and yes, a lot of them were in Vista, but your comparison was to XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30763804</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.</p><p>Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.</p></div><p>Incorrect - No Home editions support Domains - that why they are for home use,  not corporate use.  Home users are not expected to have Domain Controllers and all the rest of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.Windows7 Home ( all versions ) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.Incorrect - No Home editions support Domains - that why they are for home use , not corporate use .
Home users are not expected to have Domain Controllers and all the rest of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.Incorrect - No Home editions support Domains - that why they are for home use,  not corporate use.
Home users are not expected to have Domain Controllers and all the rest of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756136</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't normally bother replying to whiners but your post needs some attention...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly</p></div><p>Yeah, it's an obsolete scanner that came out in 2002 that Canon no longer produces and hasn't actively supported in two or two and a half years - and the fact Canon didn't go back and write a Win 7 driver just for you since you're probably the only person who still has a functional LiDe 30 is Microsoft's fault how?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly</p></div><p>Wow....ever heard of this Internet thing?  HP's Website perhaps?  This website thing that HP maintains specifically tells you that your CLJ 3600N uses the Windows Vista driver.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.</p></div><p>No Home version of XP/Vista/W7 could become part of a Windows domain - that's one of the key difference between Home and Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a simple Google search would have pointed you to that...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.</p></div><p>No, sounds like you can't set up a proper multi-boot.  Again, Google before inserting whole foot in mouth.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.</p></div><p>I've come to the conclusion you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about...stick with what you know and don't misdirectedly rant about shit you haven't a clue about or are too lazy to bother to find or spend the 30 seconds of searching to find out how to fix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't normally bother replying to whiners but your post needs some attention...Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyYeah , it 's an obsolete scanner that came out in 2002 that Canon no longer produces and has n't actively supported in two or two and a half years - and the fact Canon did n't go back and write a Win 7 driver just for you since you 're probably the only person who still has a functional LiDe 30 is Microsoft 's fault how ? HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyWow....ever heard of this Internet thing ?
HP 's Website perhaps ?
This website thing that HP maintains specifically tells you that your CLJ 3600N uses the Windows Vista driver.All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.No Home version of XP/Vista/W7 could become part of a Windows domain - that 's one of the key difference between Home and Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate ... a simple Google search would have pointed you to that...The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.No , sounds like you ca n't set up a proper multi-boot .
Again , Google before inserting whole foot in mouth.I wo n't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.I 've come to the conclusion you have n't the faintest idea of what you 're talking about...stick with what you know and do n't misdirectedly rant about shit you have n't a clue about or are too lazy to bother to find or spend the 30 seconds of searching to find out how to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't normally bother replying to whiners but your post needs some attention...Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyYeah, it's an obsolete scanner that came out in 2002 that Canon no longer produces and hasn't actively supported in two or two and a half years - and the fact Canon didn't go back and write a Win 7 driver just for you since you're probably the only person who still has a functional LiDe 30 is Microsoft's fault how?HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyWow....ever heard of this Internet thing?
HP's Website perhaps?
This website thing that HP maintains specifically tells you that your CLJ 3600N uses the Windows Vista driver.All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.No Home version of XP/Vista/W7 could become part of a Windows domain - that's one of the key difference between Home and Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate ... a simple Google search would have pointed you to that...The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.No, sounds like you can't set up a proper multi-boot.
Again, Google before inserting whole foot in mouth.I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.I've come to the conclusion you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about...stick with what you know and don't misdirectedly rant about shit you haven't a clue about or are too lazy to bother to find or spend the 30 seconds of searching to find out how to fix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752392</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or (rather more likely) is trying to do something that isn't "1 NIC, DHCP, default firewall rules, no ICS, etc.)<br> <br>

If you are in an environment where that is all you need, I'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that wouldn't Just Work. Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot.<br> <br>

You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or ( rather more likely ) is trying to do something that is n't " 1 NIC , DHCP , default firewall rules , no ICS , etc .
) If you are in an environment where that is all you need , I 'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that would n't Just Work .
Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot .
You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or (rather more likely) is trying to do something that isn't "1 NIC, DHCP, default firewall rules, no ICS, etc.
) 

If you are in an environment where that is all you need, I'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that wouldn't Just Work.
Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot.
You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982</id>
	<title>They will try anything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away."
<br> <br>
The bad news is that t<b>he problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:</b> <br> <br>XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).<br>Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop &amp; purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).<br>Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).<br> <br>Corporations can't afford to replace 70\% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP. (Really, it is: I find XP boring now).<br> <br>As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments <i>still</i> think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.<br> <br> <b>There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to restart the dead corporate PC market .
M $ , Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away .
" The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any , or all , of the following : XP suffices for most corporate needs ( and it works on their 4-year-old hardware ) .Vista forced companies to stick with , and develop &amp; purchase line-of-business apps for , XP ( and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding , require local admin rights for everyone , and avoid UAC ) .Vista SP1 ( and SP2 ) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed , or even improved , by service packs ( honestly , build a clean Vista SP2 machine : it will still suck ) .
Corporations ca n't afford to replace 70 \ % of their desktops , and half of their core LOB apps , just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP .
( Really , it is : I find XP boring now ) .
As for security , most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure , even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft .
There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to restart the dead corporate PC market.
M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away.
"
 
The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:  XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop &amp; purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).
Corporations can't afford to replace 70\% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP.
(Really, it is: I find XP boring now).
As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.
There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754496</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>tenco</author>
	<datestamp>1263413760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Configuring an Internet connection as shared and another interface with a static LAN IP as being on a private network? Networking with Vista/7 just sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Configuring an Internet connection as shared and another interface with a static LAN IP as being on a private network ?
Networking with Vista/7 just sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Configuring an Internet connection as shared and another interface with a static LAN IP as being on a private network?
Networking with Vista/7 just sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753772</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1263410940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we cue the morons not running windows 7 who have lots to say about it also?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we cue the morons not running windows 7 who have lots to say about it also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we cue the morons not running windows 7 who have lots to say about it also?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753028</id>
	<title>Re:Signals?</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1263407760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this logic their next version of Windows will be called "Windows 8 SP1"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this logic their next version of Windows will be called " Windows 8 SP1 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this logic their next version of Windows will be called "Windows 8 SP1"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753626</id>
	<title>Forget Windows 7.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting until Windows 8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting until Windows 8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting until Windows 8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758818</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:</p><p>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly</p><p>HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly</p> </div><p>Since that's a problem with the drivers for the hardware itself, you should be bitching at Canon and HP, not MS, over the shitty drivers. Even if the drivers are bundled with the OS, they are written and provided by the hardware vendor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.</p> </div><p>How many domains are you planning on running with a home version of W7? The one NAS device I use works just fine, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean anyhow. But I guess for some people it's a valid point... however since the vast majority of users who need to connect to domains are business or enterprise class users, they shouldn't be using a slim home-version of the OS. More a matter of picking the right tool instead of complaining that the wrong tool isn't doing what you want it to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.</p></div><p>Big whoop. NTFS on XP/Vista isn't all that stable in the first place, and not very compatible with other OS's either. I haven't checked the compatibility with Win7 NTFS vs. Linux distro's yet, so I don't know how well they play with each other. I'd say the jury is still out on this- if the Win7 version is more stable &amp; works better with other OS's then it's a benefit, not a drawback. Besides, how often are you really planning on yanking drives out of XP/Vista boxes and dropping them into a Win7 system?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds</p> </div><p>37 seconds for me, 18 if it's only in hibernate/standby. Compared with XP and Vista this is a huge improvement. Haven't dropped a Linux distro on my Win7 box for a fair comparison yet however.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.</p></div><p>But you already did. My personal opinion... so far win7 is alright for me, but I could easily change my mind over time. It's certainly better than Vista, and I'd say much better than XP simply because XP is starting to age rapidly. If you're looking at an older machine it's probably best to just stick with XP, but if you're getting new hardware a lot of it is just not going to be fully utilized with XP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all patches and updates , here is the question : will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work : Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyHP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly Since that 's a problem with the drivers for the hardware itself , you should be bitching at Canon and HP , not MS , over the shitty drivers .
Even if the drivers are bundled with the OS , they are written and provided by the hardware vendor.All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this .
How many domains are you planning on running with a home version of W7 ?
The one NAS device I use works just fine , so I 'm not sure exactly what you mean anyhow .
But I guess for some people it 's a valid point... however since the vast majority of users who need to connect to domains are business or enterprise class users , they should n't be using a slim home-version of the OS .
More a matter of picking the right tool instead of complaining that the wrong tool is n't doing what you want it to.The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.Big whoop .
NTFS on XP/Vista is n't all that stable in the first place , and not very compatible with other OS 's either .
I have n't checked the compatibility with Win7 NTFS vs. Linux distro 's yet , so I do n't know how well they play with each other .
I 'd say the jury is still out on this- if the Win7 version is more stable &amp; works better with other OS 's then it 's a benefit , not a drawback .
Besides , how often are you really planning on yanking drives out of XP/Vista boxes and dropping them into a Win7 system ? Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine : Win7 - 64 seconds , Ubuntu - 32 seconds 37 seconds for me , 18 if it 's only in hibernate/standby .
Compared with XP and Vista this is a huge improvement .
Have n't dropped a Linux distro on my Win7 box for a fair comparison yet however.I wo n't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.But you already did .
My personal opinion... so far win7 is alright for me , but I could easily change my mind over time .
It 's certainly better than Vista , and I 'd say much better than XP simply because XP is starting to age rapidly .
If you 're looking at an older machine it 's probably best to just stick with XP , but if you 're getting new hardware a lot of it is just not going to be fully utilized with XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyHP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly Since that's a problem with the drivers for the hardware itself, you should be bitching at Canon and HP, not MS, over the shitty drivers.
Even if the drivers are bundled with the OS, they are written and provided by the hardware vendor.All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
How many domains are you planning on running with a home version of W7?
The one NAS device I use works just fine, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean anyhow.
But I guess for some people it's a valid point... however since the vast majority of users who need to connect to domains are business or enterprise class users, they shouldn't be using a slim home-version of the OS.
More a matter of picking the right tool instead of complaining that the wrong tool isn't doing what you want it to.The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.Big whoop.
NTFS on XP/Vista isn't all that stable in the first place, and not very compatible with other OS's either.
I haven't checked the compatibility with Win7 NTFS vs. Linux distro's yet, so I don't know how well they play with each other.
I'd say the jury is still out on this- if the Win7 version is more stable &amp; works better with other OS's then it's a benefit, not a drawback.
Besides, how often are you really planning on yanking drives out of XP/Vista boxes and dropping them into a Win7 system?Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds 37 seconds for me, 18 if it's only in hibernate/standby.
Compared with XP and Vista this is a huge improvement.
Haven't dropped a Linux distro on my Win7 box for a fair comparison yet however.I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.But you already did.
My personal opinion... so far win7 is alright for me, but I could easily change my mind over time.
It's certainly better than Vista, and I'd say much better than XP simply because XP is starting to age rapidly.
If you're looking at an older machine it's probably best to just stick with XP, but if you're getting new hardware a lot of it is just not going to be fully utilized with XP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757546</id>
	<title>Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so for</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263383280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so for big file moves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so for big file moves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so for big file moves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756014</id>
	<title>Re:Easiest Network config?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1263376380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've wondered how they can call it "better" when they make access to the actual interfaces so hard to get to.</p><p>Vista had the same problem, but you could hack the registry to enable display of all control panels.  Win7 has those registry keys locked out so they apparently can't be modified by anyone.</p><p>The locations scheme would make some sense if they included a way to store/configure adapter settings with each location.  I'm still wondering why I can't easily load a config for "home" with static IPs, "coffee shop" has dynamic, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered how they can call it " better " when they make access to the actual interfaces so hard to get to.Vista had the same problem , but you could hack the registry to enable display of all control panels .
Win7 has those registry keys locked out so they apparently ca n't be modified by anyone.The locations scheme would make some sense if they included a way to store/configure adapter settings with each location .
I 'm still wondering why I ca n't easily load a config for " home " with static IPs , " coffee shop " has dynamic , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered how they can call it "better" when they make access to the actual interfaces so hard to get to.Vista had the same problem, but you could hack the registry to enable display of all control panels.
Win7 has those registry keys locked out so they apparently can't be modified by anyone.The locations scheme would make some sense if they included a way to store/configure adapter settings with each location.
I'm still wondering why I can't easily load a config for "home" with static IPs, "coffee shop" has dynamic, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30766026</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>exoren22</author>
	<datestamp>1263490860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just not true. XP home did not have domains, vista home premium doesn't domain unless you do some trickeration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just not true .
XP home did not have domains , vista home premium does n't domain unless you do some trickeration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just not true.
XP home did not have domains, vista home premium doesn't domain unless you do some trickeration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760088</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>bell.colin</author>
	<datestamp>1263396840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pre-logon wireless support</p></div><p>Have had this working under 2000 Pro. and XP for years in a domain (although 2000 was a lot harder with no standard interface) even worked for startup-scripts that provided needed connectivity for users before they login, in fact i had to create a GPO for XP since MS wanted the marketing of XP booting faster than windows by dropping skipping thing at boot by default even part of theie own documentation at the time stated that users should have their my docs folders fully re-directed by the 3rd or 4th login (end-users did not like to hear that excuse) tried setting this in our image only to find MS has sysprep reset it back to default - nice.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Proper Gigabit Ethernet support</p></div><p>Not sure about desktop OS but in my experience 2000 Server had 10x performance throughput (on both 100Mb and 1Gb) than 2003, MS really fucked this up AFAIC if that is any indication win7 will probably be slower</p><p><div class="quote"><p>File copies that don't fail if one file out of 20,000 can't be read</p></div><p>Have not seen this yet but if does not tell you which file and where it is located it is still useless IMO, I'm still waiting for an option in explorer that when i click "Yes to All" on a copy/delete/move/anything else dialog box i do really mean "YES TO EVERY MOTHER-FUCKING BOX THAT YOU CAN THROW UP AFTER I HAVE ALREADY CLICKED YES TO ALL!" and not one for "Yes for read-only", "Yes to system", "Yes to hidden", "Yes to files with the letter A", etc...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>DVD burning and ISO handling (Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though)</p></div><p>So they finally upgraded the ancient (and stripped-down) version of roxio that came with XP, i have already found other more useful (and free) tools for this</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Much better driver support (Most current corporate desktops don't need any additional drivers installed)</p></div><p>This is not news this will only last until the next tech/hardware versions come out and it will be the same, all they did was cram whatever drivers that are available right now onto the DVD (most will be old in a year or two) every new OS that comes out will always have this (XP had more drivers than 2000, 2000 had more drivers than 98, 98 had more drivers than 95,...)

</p><p>
Powershell, IPv6, XP-Mode (if it even works), Multi-monitor RDP (WTF?), Bit-Locker, 64-bit (64-bit apps still lacking) - No plans to use any of these for a while.

</p><p>
MS can pry XP licenses from my dead hands, XP can barely run on some of the hardware we have, no way i want to trouble-shoot user's machines that take 30Mins to boot Vista SP2 (what do you think 7 is?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pre-logon wireless supportHave had this working under 2000 Pro .
and XP for years in a domain ( although 2000 was a lot harder with no standard interface ) even worked for startup-scripts that provided needed connectivity for users before they login , in fact i had to create a GPO for XP since MS wanted the marketing of XP booting faster than windows by dropping skipping thing at boot by default even part of theie own documentation at the time stated that users should have their my docs folders fully re-directed by the 3rd or 4th login ( end-users did not like to hear that excuse ) tried setting this in our image only to find MS has sysprep reset it back to default - nice.Proper Gigabit Ethernet supportNot sure about desktop OS but in my experience 2000 Server had 10x performance throughput ( on both 100Mb and 1Gb ) than 2003 , MS really fucked this up AFAIC if that is any indication win7 will probably be slowerFile copies that do n't fail if one file out of 20,000 ca n't be readHave not seen this yet but if does not tell you which file and where it is located it is still useless IMO , I 'm still waiting for an option in explorer that when i click " Yes to All " on a copy/delete/move/anything else dialog box i do really mean " YES TO EVERY MOTHER-FUCKING BOX THAT YOU CAN THROW UP AFTER I HAVE ALREADY CLICKED YES TO ALL !
" and not one for " Yes for read-only " , " Yes to system " , " Yes to hidden " , " Yes to files with the letter A " , etc...DVD burning and ISO handling ( Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though ) So they finally upgraded the ancient ( and stripped-down ) version of roxio that came with XP , i have already found other more useful ( and free ) tools for thisMuch better driver support ( Most current corporate desktops do n't need any additional drivers installed ) This is not news this will only last until the next tech/hardware versions come out and it will be the same , all they did was cram whatever drivers that are available right now onto the DVD ( most will be old in a year or two ) every new OS that comes out will always have this ( XP had more drivers than 2000 , 2000 had more drivers than 98 , 98 had more drivers than 95,... ) Powershell , IPv6 , XP-Mode ( if it even works ) , Multi-monitor RDP ( WTF ?
) , Bit-Locker , 64-bit ( 64-bit apps still lacking ) - No plans to use any of these for a while .
MS can pry XP licenses from my dead hands , XP can barely run on some of the hardware we have , no way i want to trouble-shoot user 's machines that take 30Mins to boot Vista SP2 ( what do you think 7 is ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pre-logon wireless supportHave had this working under 2000 Pro.
and XP for years in a domain (although 2000 was a lot harder with no standard interface) even worked for startup-scripts that provided needed connectivity for users before they login, in fact i had to create a GPO for XP since MS wanted the marketing of XP booting faster than windows by dropping skipping thing at boot by default even part of theie own documentation at the time stated that users should have their my docs folders fully re-directed by the 3rd or 4th login (end-users did not like to hear that excuse) tried setting this in our image only to find MS has sysprep reset it back to default - nice.Proper Gigabit Ethernet supportNot sure about desktop OS but in my experience 2000 Server had 10x performance throughput (on both 100Mb and 1Gb) than 2003, MS really fucked this up AFAIC if that is any indication win7 will probably be slowerFile copies that don't fail if one file out of 20,000 can't be readHave not seen this yet but if does not tell you which file and where it is located it is still useless IMO, I'm still waiting for an option in explorer that when i click "Yes to All" on a copy/delete/move/anything else dialog box i do really mean "YES TO EVERY MOTHER-FUCKING BOX THAT YOU CAN THROW UP AFTER I HAVE ALREADY CLICKED YES TO ALL!
" and not one for "Yes for read-only", "Yes to system", "Yes to hidden", "Yes to files with the letter A", etc...DVD burning and ISO handling (Still waiting for proper ISO mounting though)So they finally upgraded the ancient (and stripped-down) version of roxio that came with XP, i have already found other more useful (and free) tools for thisMuch better driver support (Most current corporate desktops don't need any additional drivers installed)This is not news this will only last until the next tech/hardware versions come out and it will be the same, all they did was cram whatever drivers that are available right now onto the DVD (most will be old in a year or two) every new OS that comes out will always have this (XP had more drivers than 2000, 2000 had more drivers than 98, 98 had more drivers than 95,...)


Powershell, IPv6, XP-Mode (if it even works), Multi-monitor RDP (WTF?
), Bit-Locker, 64-bit (64-bit apps still lacking) - No plans to use any of these for a while.
MS can pry XP licenses from my dead hands, XP can barely run on some of the hardware we have, no way i want to trouble-shoot user's machines that take 30Mins to boot Vista SP2 (what do you think 7 is?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759904</id>
	<title>Re:Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so f</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1263395280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewire (IEEE 1394) is broken in Windows 7 64bit. I've installed this OS on four PCs with with Firewire. Two PCs were AMD based, the other two were Intel. All four PCs had different chipsets. All four PCs did not have a single working Firewire port regardless of which external drive we used.</p><p>I've even tried replacing the driver with the built-in "legacy" driver. No go. Even if I try transferring data using the robocopy command, it just stops after a few megabytes of data. In short, it's not a hardware or GUI (explorer shell) issue. It's something at the core of Windows 7 that <b>breaks firewire support</b>. I hope SP1 addresses this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewire ( IEEE 1394 ) is broken in Windows 7 64bit .
I 've installed this OS on four PCs with with Firewire .
Two PCs were AMD based , the other two were Intel .
All four PCs had different chipsets .
All four PCs did not have a single working Firewire port regardless of which external drive we used.I 've even tried replacing the driver with the built-in " legacy " driver .
No go .
Even if I try transferring data using the robocopy command , it just stops after a few megabytes of data .
In short , it 's not a hardware or GUI ( explorer shell ) issue .
It 's something at the core of Windows 7 that breaks firewire support .
I hope SP1 addresses this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewire (IEEE 1394) is broken in Windows 7 64bit.
I've installed this OS on four PCs with with Firewire.
Two PCs were AMD based, the other two were Intel.
All four PCs had different chipsets.
All four PCs did not have a single working Firewire port regardless of which external drive we used.I've even tried replacing the driver with the built-in "legacy" driver.
No go.
Even if I try transferring data using the robocopy command, it just stops after a few megabytes of data.
In short, it's not a hardware or GUI (explorer shell) issue.
It's something at the core of Windows 7 that breaks firewire support.
I hope SP1 addresses this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30768804</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to throw out anecdotes, but I, as an average corporate user, need none of these, not 1.</p><p>All the programs I use are 32 bit, I don't have a wireless card, only 1 monitor, no burner of any sort, the drivers I need are provided by Dell for my XP install, while certain files should be encrypted, they're not, don't need powershell, networking is something my IT department worries about, and nobody at my work who is an average user is copying 20,000 files at a time.</p><p>I work for a major corporation, one of the largest in Canada, and when I started my job there just over 2 1/2 years ago, my desktop was still a Win2K machine.  Assuming that I was the last person who was using Win2K, that means that the XP transition at my work finished about a year and a half ago (when I got my XP machine).  The main reason anybody in my department (from the executive VP down to the temps) gets a new desktop machine is because the lease on that machine with Dell ran out and we still need a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to throw out anecdotes , but I , as an average corporate user , need none of these , not 1.All the programs I use are 32 bit , I do n't have a wireless card , only 1 monitor , no burner of any sort , the drivers I need are provided by Dell for my XP install , while certain files should be encrypted , they 're not , do n't need powershell , networking is something my IT department worries about , and nobody at my work who is an average user is copying 20,000 files at a time.I work for a major corporation , one of the largest in Canada , and when I started my job there just over 2 1/2 years ago , my desktop was still a Win2K machine .
Assuming that I was the last person who was using Win2K , that means that the XP transition at my work finished about a year and a half ago ( when I got my XP machine ) .
The main reason anybody in my department ( from the executive VP down to the temps ) gets a new desktop machine is because the lease on that machine with Dell ran out and we still need a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to throw out anecdotes, but I, as an average corporate user, need none of these, not 1.All the programs I use are 32 bit, I don't have a wireless card, only 1 monitor, no burner of any sort, the drivers I need are provided by Dell for my XP install, while certain files should be encrypted, they're not, don't need powershell, networking is something my IT department worries about, and nobody at my work who is an average user is copying 20,000 files at a time.I work for a major corporation, one of the largest in Canada, and when I started my job there just over 2 1/2 years ago, my desktop was still a Win2K machine.
Assuming that I was the last person who was using Win2K, that means that the XP transition at my work finished about a year and a half ago (when I got my XP machine).
The main reason anybody in my department (from the executive VP down to the temps) gets a new desktop machine is because the lease on that machine with Dell ran out and we still need a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</id>
	<title>Cue the morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758402</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Ralish</author>
	<datestamp>1263386880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly</p></div><p>The Windows driver model is different from Linux in that it is generally up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers, as opposed to Linux, where if it is supported the relevant driver is probably included with the kernel. The drivers included with Windows are the result of MS liaising with the relevant companies and negotiating to include certain drivers of theirs in the base Windows installation. I didn't think this was uncommon knowledge? I checked the <a href="http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&amp;cc=us&amp;taskId=120&amp;prodSeriesId=3463669&amp;prodTypeId=18972&amp;objectID=c01856597#category1" title="hp.com">HP Windows 7 Compatibility List</a> [hp.com] and your printer does appear to be supported under Windows 7. Your scanner doesn't presently in that Canon doesn't have a Windows 7 OS category for drivers yet, but that may change, and I'd suggest trying the Vista drivers in the interim.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).</p></div><p>It's probably doing you a favour considering how rubbish WEP encryption is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.</p></div><p>I'm not sure this is a fair criticism as the Home editions of Windows have <b>never</b> been able to join a domain officially; by definition, they are targeted at home users, where a domain is unlikely to be in use. This was only ever possible by using various hacks and modifications to the OS. The fact that it's no longer possible at all (if this is the case, I haven't read about it) is hardly a reasonable criticism, as MS never said Home editions could join domains nor were they ever intended to do so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.</p></div><p>Why not? Why do you require domain join capability to connect to a NAS server? Surely there are other means you can use to make the connection? If not, well, the above still applies, you shouldn't be using a Home edition if you require domain functionality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.</p></div><p>NTFS has traditionally been forward-compatible with new versions of Windows, but not necessarily backwards-compatible. Similar to Linux, if an older revision of a file system is mounted on a system running a newer revision, the file system structure may be updated or modified to bring it up to date with the current version, in the process, making it incompatible with the older version. Mounting read-only is an obvious way to work around this. That being said, it should be backwards compatible with Vista? XP is more unlikely.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds</p></div><p>Fair enough.</p><p>Service Packs traditionally fix bugs in the operating system and add features or improve existing ones, but none of the grievances you list are either of these, with the possible exception of boot time which has in the past been improved in SPs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyThe Windows driver model is different from Linux in that it is generally up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers , as opposed to Linux , where if it is supported the relevant driver is probably included with the kernel .
The drivers included with Windows are the result of MS liaising with the relevant companies and negotiating to include certain drivers of theirs in the base Windows installation .
I did n't think this was uncommon knowledge ?
I checked the HP Windows 7 Compatibility List [ hp.com ] and your printer does appear to be supported under Windows 7 .
Your scanner does n't presently in that Canon does n't have a Windows 7 OS category for drivers yet , but that may change , and I 'd suggest trying the Vista drivers in the interim.NOTES : Fair 's fair : the netbook 's WiFi Linux driver ( both O/S 's ) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs ( WPA works fine ) .It 's probably doing you a favour considering how rubbish WEP encryption is ; ) All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED .
All previous versions of Windows allowed this .
Windows7 Home ( all versions ) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.I 'm not sure this is a fair criticism as the Home editions of Windows have never been able to join a domain officially ; by definition , they are targeted at home users , where a domain is unlikely to be in use .
This was only ever possible by using various hacks and modifications to the OS .
The fact that it 's no longer possible at all ( if this is the case , I have n't read about it ) is hardly a reasonable criticism , as MS never said Home editions could join domains nor were they ever intended to do so.Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature ' to the home edition ( s ) - you ca n't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.Why not ?
Why do you require domain join capability to connect to a NAS server ?
Surely there are other means you can use to make the connection ?
If not , well , the above still applies , you should n't be using a Home edition if you require domain functionality.The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.NTFS has traditionally been forward-compatible with new versions of Windows , but not necessarily backwards-compatible .
Similar to Linux , if an older revision of a file system is mounted on a system running a newer revision , the file system structure may be updated or modified to bring it up to date with the current version , in the process , making it incompatible with the older version .
Mounting read-only is an obvious way to work around this .
That being said , it should be backwards compatible with Vista ?
XP is more unlikely.Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine : Win7 - 64 seconds , Ubuntu - 32 secondsFair enough.Service Packs traditionally fix bugs in the operating system and add features or improve existing ones , but none of the grievances you list are either of these , with the possible exception of boot time which has in the past been improved in SPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectlyThe Windows driver model is different from Linux in that it is generally up to the hardware manufacturer to provide drivers, as opposed to Linux, where if it is supported the relevant driver is probably included with the kernel.
The drivers included with Windows are the result of MS liaising with the relevant companies and negotiating to include certain drivers of theirs in the base Windows installation.
I didn't think this was uncommon knowledge?
I checked the HP Windows 7 Compatibility List [hp.com] and your printer does appear to be supported under Windows 7.
Your scanner doesn't presently in that Canon doesn't have a Windows 7 OS category for drivers yet, but that may change, and I'd suggest trying the Vista drivers in the interim.NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).It's probably doing you a favour considering how rubbish WEP encryption is ;)All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED.
All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.I'm not sure this is a fair criticism as the Home editions of Windows have never been able to join a domain officially; by definition, they are targeted at home users, where a domain is unlikely to be in use.
This was only ever possible by using various hacks and modifications to the OS.
The fact that it's no longer possible at all (if this is the case, I haven't read about it) is hardly a reasonable criticism, as MS never said Home editions could join domains nor were they ever intended to do so.Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.Why not?
Why do you require domain join capability to connect to a NAS server?
Surely there are other means you can use to make the connection?
If not, well, the above still applies, you shouldn't be using a Home edition if you require domain functionality.The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.NTFS has traditionally been forward-compatible with new versions of Windows, but not necessarily backwards-compatible.
Similar to Linux, if an older revision of a file system is mounted on a system running a newer revision, the file system structure may be updated or modified to bring it up to date with the current version, in the process, making it incompatible with the older version.
Mounting read-only is an obvious way to work around this.
That being said, it should be backwards compatible with Vista?
XP is more unlikely.Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 secondsFair enough.Service Packs traditionally fix bugs in the operating system and add features or improve existing ones, but none of the grievances you list are either of these, with the possible exception of boot time which has in the past been improved in SPs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754442</id>
	<title>Re:Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found that when I want to find something in the rearranged win7 control panel I have more luck typing "mouse" or "device manager" in the search bar at the top right than trying to navigate by clicking sentences that vaguely describe what I might be looking for.</p><p>I'd much rather be able to go to control panel and just click "Device Manager" but that's no longer an option (haven't tried the god mode stuff yet but it might fix this).</p><p>I remember reading a few years back about MS's general strategy of wanting to use lots of metadata on files and have users always search for what they want rather than knowing where it is.</p><p>Sounded like a terrible idea to me at the time, but they've succeeded in converting me by obscuring the control panel as much as they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that when I want to find something in the rearranged win7 control panel I have more luck typing " mouse " or " device manager " in the search bar at the top right than trying to navigate by clicking sentences that vaguely describe what I might be looking for.I 'd much rather be able to go to control panel and just click " Device Manager " but that 's no longer an option ( have n't tried the god mode stuff yet but it might fix this ) .I remember reading a few years back about MS 's general strategy of wanting to use lots of metadata on files and have users always search for what they want rather than knowing where it is.Sounded like a terrible idea to me at the time , but they 've succeeded in converting me by obscuring the control panel as much as they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that when I want to find something in the rearranged win7 control panel I have more luck typing "mouse" or "device manager" in the search bar at the top right than trying to navigate by clicking sentences that vaguely describe what I might be looking for.I'd much rather be able to go to control panel and just click "Device Manager" but that's no longer an option (haven't tried the god mode stuff yet but it might fix this).I remember reading a few years back about MS's general strategy of wanting to use lots of metadata on files and have users always search for what they want rather than knowing where it is.Sounded like a terrible idea to me at the time, but they've succeeded in converting me by obscuring the control panel as much as they have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752940</id>
	<title>Re:Signals?</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1263407400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial OS, but it's hard to break with habit.  It's doubly hard when you've spent years convincing management that SPx is the time to switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial OS , but it 's hard to break with habit .
It 's doubly hard when you 've spent years convincing management that SPx is the time to switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial OS, but it's hard to break with habit.
It's doubly hard when you've spent years convincing management that SPx is the time to switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752086</id>
	<title>Only management is fooled</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1. Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1 .
Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain * cough * Gartner Group * cough * suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1.
Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30764904</id>
	<title>Re:Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263487260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).</p></div><p>That's a <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plasma-widget-networkmanagement/+bug/446303" title="launchpad.net">known bug</a> [launchpad.net] with NetworkManager. Replace it with <a href="http://wicd.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">wicd</a> [sourceforge.net] and you should connect on the first try.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOTES : Fair 's fair : the netbook 's WiFi Linux driver ( both O/S 's ) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs ( WPA works fine ) .That 's a known bug [ launchpad.net ] with NetworkManager .
Replace it with wicd [ sourceforge.net ] and you should connect on the first try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).That's a known bug [launchpad.net] with NetworkManager.
Replace it with wicd [sourceforge.net] and you should connect on the first try.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755202</id>
	<title>Re:Meh, relatively speaking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263373320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then just type some keywords in the search bar of the control panel, or hell, right in the start menu...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then just type some keywords in the search bar of the control panel , or hell , right in the start menu.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then just type some keywords in the search bar of the control panel, or hell, right in the start menu...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752562</id>
	<title>Two bugs</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1263406200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know that my experiences of Windows 7 shouldn't be considered as true for all, but in general day to day usage, I've had no problems at all.</p><p>Off the top of my head, I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup. One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you. The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it shouldn't be telling me this.</p><p>The other issue is that one of the buttons hidden somewhere within backup pops up a windows with a message along the lines of "Not implemented.". Looks like they ran out of time coding that bit!</p><p>I have no doubt that there are lots more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that my experiences of Windows 7 should n't be considered as true for all , but in general day to day usage , I 've had no problems at all.Off the top of my head , I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup .
One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you .
The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it should n't be telling me this.The other issue is that one of the buttons hidden somewhere within backup pops up a windows with a message along the lines of " Not implemented. " .
Looks like they ran out of time coding that bit ! I have no doubt that there are lots more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that my experiences of Windows 7 shouldn't be considered as true for all, but in general day to day usage, I've had no problems at all.Off the top of my head, I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup.
One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you.
The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it shouldn't be telling me this.The other issue is that one of the buttons hidden somewhere within backup pops up a windows with a message along the lines of "Not implemented.".
Looks like they ran out of time coding that bit!I have no doubt that there are lots more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752674</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the morons</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1263406500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same concept as putting a new body on an old car.  When the changes are only superficial its more annoying to have marketers claiming it to be something new.<br>
<br>
However I would think (hope) that 7 does not star from the same code base as Vista or XP, I've seen the ugliness that method causes first hand...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same concept as putting a new body on an old car .
When the changes are only superficial its more annoying to have marketers claiming it to be something new .
However I would think ( hope ) that 7 does not star from the same code base as Vista or XP , I 've seen the ugliness that method causes first hand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same concept as putting a new body on an old car.
When the changes are only superficial its more annoying to have marketers claiming it to be something new.
However I would think (hope) that 7 does not star from the same code base as Vista or XP, I've seen the ugliness that method causes first hand...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759638</id>
	<title>Re:Signals?</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1263393120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll show 'em!</p><p>I'll wait until the next version of Windows is almost out before buying a new computer.  Not quite top of the line but probably comparable to current top of the line with the most bug fixes and hardware/software compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll show 'em ! I 'll wait until the next version of Windows is almost out before buying a new computer .
Not quite top of the line but probably comparable to current top of the line with the most bug fixes and hardware/software compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll show 'em!I'll wait until the next version of Windows is almost out before buying a new computer.
Not quite top of the line but probably comparable to current top of the line with the most bug fixes and hardware/software compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756002</id>
	<title>Re:They will try anything...</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1263376320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're seeing UAC prompts on the machines on your business network, you need to take a good, hard look at your Active Directory setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're seeing UAC prompts on the machines on your business network , you need to take a good , hard look at your Active Directory setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're seeing UAC prompts on the machines on your business network, you need to take a good, hard look at your Active Directory setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30776422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30766026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30768804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30777414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30764904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30763804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30762284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30761102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_150205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30773722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753056
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30776422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30761102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30773722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30764904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30766026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30758818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30765140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30762284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30763804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30756002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30755346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30768804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30777414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30760348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30757546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30759904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30754652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_150205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30752768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_150205.30753350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
