<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_1412210</id>
	<title>ARM Exec Says 90\% of PC Market Could Be Netbooks</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265207580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/355246/arm-90-of-pc-market-will-be-netbooks">netbooks could dominate the PC market</a>, in an exclusive interview with PC Pro. 'Although netbooks are small today &ndash; maybe 10\% of the PC market at most &ndash; we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90\% of the PC market,' he said. East also said ARM isn't pressuring Microsoft to include support for its processors in Windows, claiming progress in the Linux world is 'very, very impressive.' 'There's not really a huge amount of point in us knocking on Microsoft's door,' he said. 'It's really an operational decision for Microsoft to make. I don't think there's any major technical barriers.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market , in an exclusive interview with PC Pro .
'Although netbooks are small today    maybe 10 \ % of the PC market at most    we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90 \ % of the PC market, ' he said .
East also said ARM is n't pressuring Microsoft to include support for its processors in Windows , claiming progress in the Linux world is 'very , very impressive .
' 'There 's not really a huge amount of point in us knocking on Microsoft 's door, ' he said .
'It 's really an operational decision for Microsoft to make .
I do n't think there 's any major technical barriers .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market, in an exclusive interview with PC Pro.
'Although netbooks are small today – maybe 10\% of the PC market at most – we believe over the next several years that could completely change around and that could be 90\% of the PC market,' he said.
East also said ARM isn't pressuring Microsoft to include support for its processors in Windows, claiming progress in the Linux world is 'very, very impressive.
' 'There's not really a huge amount of point in us knocking on Microsoft's door,' he said.
'It's really an operational decision for Microsoft to make.
I don't think there's any major technical barriers.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009950</id>
	<title>Netbook?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most could have a portable internet device in the next few years. But its shape could end not being the netbook one. Cellphones, and tablets also want a share in that space, and probably will be a mix of all. Cellphones are getting into shape to be good enough internet devices, and if you want larger screens,tablets with keyboards, hybrids (like <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/15/asus-eee-pc-t91-review/" title="engadget.com">Asus T91</a> [engadget.com], cheaper, more powerful and with far more battery life), should be the most popular kind.

<p>This will require fast, cheap and energy efficient cpus, and if well could not be netbooks, ARM and other non-intel (i.e. <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5462847/tis-omap4-chipset-promises-insane-performance-and-145-hours-battery-life" title="gizmodo.com">TI's OMAP4</a> [gizmodo.com]) cpus should have a good portion of the market in that scenario,and probably a lot will be somewhat linux based (android, moblin, maemo,etc)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most could have a portable internet device in the next few years .
But its shape could end not being the netbook one .
Cellphones , and tablets also want a share in that space , and probably will be a mix of all .
Cellphones are getting into shape to be good enough internet devices , and if you want larger screens,tablets with keyboards , hybrids ( like Asus T91 [ engadget.com ] , cheaper , more powerful and with far more battery life ) , should be the most popular kind .
This will require fast , cheap and energy efficient cpus , and if well could not be netbooks , ARM and other non-intel ( i.e .
TI 's OMAP4 [ gizmodo.com ] ) cpus should have a good portion of the market in that scenario,and probably a lot will be somewhat linux based ( android , moblin , maemo,etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most could have a portable internet device in the next few years.
But its shape could end not being the netbook one.
Cellphones, and tablets also want a share in that space, and probably will be a mix of all.
Cellphones are getting into shape to be good enough internet devices, and if you want larger screens,tablets with keyboards, hybrids (like Asus T91 [engadget.com], cheaper, more powerful and with far more battery life), should be the most popular kind.
This will require fast, cheap and energy efficient cpus, and if well could not be netbooks, ARM and other non-intel (i.e.
TI's OMAP4 [gizmodo.com]) cpus should have a good portion of the market in that scenario,and probably a lot will be somewhat linux based (android, moblin, maemo,etc)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013802</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1264970160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run firefox, thunderbird an MSN app and a twitter app on my netbook.  <br> <br>
It would make no difference at all to me if I had Linux rather than Windows.  I also have a desktop PC which I occasionally use.  That has Windows and would require an alternative for a lot of applications if I were to change to Linux.  But the netbook doesn't replace the PC. It supplements it and has no need to be compatible with the desktop in any way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run firefox , thunderbird an MSN app and a twitter app on my netbook .
It would make no difference at all to me if I had Linux rather than Windows .
I also have a desktop PC which I occasionally use .
That has Windows and would require an alternative for a lot of applications if I were to change to Linux .
But the netbook does n't replace the PC .
It supplements it and has no need to be compatible with the desktop in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run firefox, thunderbird an MSN app and a twitter app on my netbook.
It would make no difference at all to me if I had Linux rather than Windows.
I also have a desktop PC which I occasionally use.
That has Windows and would require an alternative for a lot of applications if I were to change to Linux.
But the netbook doesn't replace the PC.
It supplements it and has no need to be compatible with the desktop in any way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009790</id>
	<title>Computing Power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the gamers, graphics designers, and other people who need higher power computers?<br> <br>

You're not going to get top performance from a netbook, you're not going to render, or edit high megapixel drawings/photos.<br> <br>


Don't get me wrong, I love my netbook, but there's not a remote chance that I'd ever only have a netbook. I always plan to have my high power comp, and then likely some sort of media PC for the living room. 90\% seems lofty. A life with only one low-powered computer? Never!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the gamers , graphics designers , and other people who need higher power computers ?
You 're not going to get top performance from a netbook , you 're not going to render , or edit high megapixel drawings/photos .
Do n't get me wrong , I love my netbook , but there 's not a remote chance that I 'd ever only have a netbook .
I always plan to have my high power comp , and then likely some sort of media PC for the living room .
90 \ % seems lofty .
A life with only one low-powered computer ?
Never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the gamers, graphics designers, and other people who need higher power computers?
You're not going to get top performance from a netbook, you're not going to render, or edit high megapixel drawings/photos.
Don't get me wrong, I love my netbook, but there's not a remote chance that I'd ever only have a netbook.
I always plan to have my high power comp, and then likely some sort of media PC for the living room.
90\% seems lofty.
A life with only one low-powered computer?
Never!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009568</id>
	<title>I see the appeal</title>
	<author>Rog-Mahal</author>
	<datestamp>1264952580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>90\% seems a bit optimistic, but with the dropping prices and improving performance of SSD technology and more energy efficient batteries/hardware, I could see the netbook become a small, rugged moderately disposable form of computing.

I will definitely get one once my current computer dies because I love the Linux-friendly hardware and low cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % seems a bit optimistic , but with the dropping prices and improving performance of SSD technology and more energy efficient batteries/hardware , I could see the netbook become a small , rugged moderately disposable form of computing .
I will definitely get one once my current computer dies because I love the Linux-friendly hardware and low cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% seems a bit optimistic, but with the dropping prices and improving performance of SSD technology and more energy efficient batteries/hardware, I could see the netbook become a small, rugged moderately disposable form of computing.
I will definitely get one once my current computer dies because I love the Linux-friendly hardware and low cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013436</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1264968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tried using Office 2007?  That army of UI specialists performed a lemming march right off a cliff.  Usability?  HA!  After the decade that began with Word 6, I <i>knew</i> Microsoft Word.  I could find exactly what I wanted, quickly and easily, even in a version I hadn't used much.  Then the company got me a new machine and insisted on Office 2007.  Not only can I not find anything anymore, but extremely commonly used functions are on <i>two different ribbons!</i>  Like switching between documents (and MS broke the hell out of Ctrl-Tab, so the old <i>easy</i> way is gone) and formatting text.  If I want to select some text, change the font, switch documents, select some text, and change it to the same font, I have to click an absolutely ridiculously large number of times, interspersed with some HUGE mouse movements.  The old keyboard shortcuts are broken or redefined to something I don't know.  This is usability?
</p><p>
Contrast that to OpenOffice Writer 3.  Well shit, would you look at that.  That decade of MS Office experience is still mostly applicable.  I can find stuff again.  Keyboard shortcuts are back and familiar.  And some of the things that never really did make sense in Word have been moved or reworked into something that is so much easier to remember now.
</p><p>
So uuh, yeah, you're a reputation manager trying and failing to spread FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tried using Office 2007 ?
That army of UI specialists performed a lemming march right off a cliff .
Usability ? HA !
After the decade that began with Word 6 , I knew Microsoft Word .
I could find exactly what I wanted , quickly and easily , even in a version I had n't used much .
Then the company got me a new machine and insisted on Office 2007 .
Not only can I not find anything anymore , but extremely commonly used functions are on two different ribbons !
Like switching between documents ( and MS broke the hell out of Ctrl-Tab , so the old easy way is gone ) and formatting text .
If I want to select some text , change the font , switch documents , select some text , and change it to the same font , I have to click an absolutely ridiculously large number of times , interspersed with some HUGE mouse movements .
The old keyboard shortcuts are broken or redefined to something I do n't know .
This is usability ?
Contrast that to OpenOffice Writer 3 .
Well shit , would you look at that .
That decade of MS Office experience is still mostly applicable .
I can find stuff again .
Keyboard shortcuts are back and familiar .
And some of the things that never really did make sense in Word have been moved or reworked into something that is so much easier to remember now .
So uuh , yeah , you 're a reputation manager trying and failing to spread FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tried using Office 2007?
That army of UI specialists performed a lemming march right off a cliff.
Usability?  HA!
After the decade that began with Word 6, I knew Microsoft Word.
I could find exactly what I wanted, quickly and easily, even in a version I hadn't used much.
Then the company got me a new machine and insisted on Office 2007.
Not only can I not find anything anymore, but extremely commonly used functions are on two different ribbons!
Like switching between documents (and MS broke the hell out of Ctrl-Tab, so the old easy way is gone) and formatting text.
If I want to select some text, change the font, switch documents, select some text, and change it to the same font, I have to click an absolutely ridiculously large number of times, interspersed with some HUGE mouse movements.
The old keyboard shortcuts are broken or redefined to something I don't know.
This is usability?
Contrast that to OpenOffice Writer 3.
Well shit, would you look at that.
That decade of MS Office experience is still mostly applicable.
I can find stuff again.
Keyboard shortcuts are back and familiar.
And some of the things that never really did make sense in Word have been moved or reworked into something that is so much easier to remember now.
So uuh, yeah, you're a reputation manager trying and failing to spread FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31016296</id>
	<title>Excuse me?</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1264938840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has mentioned the other "800lb monopolist" in this story...</p><p>Inte&pound;.</p><p>Do you think they seriously want ANY competition to their x86 hegemony/monopoly?</p><p>They brought out that POS Atom to try and compete in the embedded market and extend the x86 lock-in.</p><p>They ruined the OLPC's original plans because they were scared shitless that AMD would gain marketshare and mindshare.</p><p>Inte&pound; got M$ in major trouble with the "Vista capable" fiasco...</p><p>Don't forget there is room for more than 1 evil empire...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has mentioned the other " 800lb monopolist " in this story...Inte   .Do you think they seriously want ANY competition to their x86 hegemony/monopoly ? They brought out that POS Atom to try and compete in the embedded market and extend the x86 lock-in.They ruined the OLPC 's original plans because they were scared shitless that AMD would gain marketshare and mindshare.Inte   got M $ in major trouble with the " Vista capable " fiasco...Do n't forget there is room for more than 1 evil empire.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has mentioned the other "800lb monopolist" in this story...Inte£.Do you think they seriously want ANY competition to their x86 hegemony/monopoly?They brought out that POS Atom to try and compete in the embedded market and extend the x86 lock-in.They ruined the OLPC's original plans because they were scared shitless that AMD would gain marketshare and mindshare.Inte£ got M$ in major trouble with the "Vista capable" fiasco...Don't forget there is room for more than 1 evil empire...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013898</id>
	<title>64-bit? (Otherwise have fun with 4GB limits)</title>
	<author>adrianmsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264970700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is ARM 64-bit? By which I mean, can an OS create a process of larger than 4GB in size? (Or can it even use more than 4GB of memory in total?)

</p><p>I was on public transport the other day, there was a leaflet advertisement from a consumer electronics high-street shop, selling TVs, DVD players, PCs etc, and there was a &euro;500 PC (US$ 700) with 8GB of memory. So assuming in 2 years, every (Intel) PC you buy off the high street has say 8-16 GB of memory, ARM computers (90\% of PCs according to the guy) are going to look pretty stupid with a 4GB limit.

</p><p>But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's totally 64-bit? But Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so, and I can't find much evidence one way or the other.

</p><p>And it's not the case that "nobody needs more than 4GB" either, a) every PC will just have that much memory, and b) Because of that, programs will start to use that much memory. i.e. there is often a speed vs memory trade-off, and if everyone has GBs of memory, there's no point making your program run slower to fit in 100MB of memory.

</p><p>And further, "nobody needs more than 4GB", well I mean in a way nobody needs more than 100MB I would say (10 years ago my desktop machine had 128MB, could do word-processing, internet browsing, etc.) But have fun running modern software on a 128MB computer! The same will happen to 4GB computers.

</p><p>Anyone know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is ARM 64-bit ?
By which I mean , can an OS create a process of larger than 4GB in size ?
( Or can it even use more than 4GB of memory in total ?
) I was on public transport the other day , there was a leaflet advertisement from a consumer electronics high-street shop , selling TVs , DVD players , PCs etc , and there was a    500 PC ( US $ 700 ) with 8GB of memory .
So assuming in 2 years , every ( Intel ) PC you buy off the high street has say 8-16 GB of memory , ARM computers ( 90 \ % of PCs according to the guy ) are going to look pretty stupid with a 4GB limit .
But maybe I 'm wrong , maybe it 's totally 64-bit ?
But Wikipedia does n't seem to think so , and I ca n't find much evidence one way or the other .
And it 's not the case that " nobody needs more than 4GB " either , a ) every PC will just have that much memory , and b ) Because of that , programs will start to use that much memory .
i.e. there is often a speed vs memory trade-off , and if everyone has GBs of memory , there 's no point making your program run slower to fit in 100MB of memory .
And further , " nobody needs more than 4GB " , well I mean in a way nobody needs more than 100MB I would say ( 10 years ago my desktop machine had 128MB , could do word-processing , internet browsing , etc .
) But have fun running modern software on a 128MB computer !
The same will happen to 4GB computers .
Anyone know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is ARM 64-bit?
By which I mean, can an OS create a process of larger than 4GB in size?
(Or can it even use more than 4GB of memory in total?
)

I was on public transport the other day, there was a leaflet advertisement from a consumer electronics high-street shop, selling TVs, DVD players, PCs etc, and there was a €500 PC (US$ 700) with 8GB of memory.
So assuming in 2 years, every (Intel) PC you buy off the high street has say 8-16 GB of memory, ARM computers (90\% of PCs according to the guy) are going to look pretty stupid with a 4GB limit.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's totally 64-bit?
But Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so, and I can't find much evidence one way or the other.
And it's not the case that "nobody needs more than 4GB" either, a) every PC will just have that much memory, and b) Because of that, programs will start to use that much memory.
i.e. there is often a speed vs memory trade-off, and if everyone has GBs of memory, there's no point making your program run slower to fit in 100MB of memory.
And further, "nobody needs more than 4GB", well I mean in a way nobody needs more than 100MB I would say (10 years ago my desktop machine had 128MB, could do word-processing, internet browsing, etc.
) But have fun running modern software on a 128MB computer!
The same will happen to 4GB computers.
Anyone know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31020840</id>
	<title>Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium, MIPS, etc...</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1265289180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft supported many different platforms with their Windows NT versions in the past. Early incarnations of the XBox360 SDK shipped with a PowerPC based Mac running a modified Windows XP.<br><br>Microsoft has produced compilers for x86, MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium and others. They have ported NT based operating systems to different platforms as well. The issue that the ARM guy is forgetting is that Microsoft produces Windows CE for ARM because they choose to. The other platforms we supported through other agreements. I remember reading some outrageous figure on a shareholder report from DEC in the old days which had them paying over $100 million to simply continue development and maintain the Alpha AXP port of Windows NT, Visual Studio and Office.<br><br>I have ported major applications to different platforms including most of these processors and often simply on X Windows. The fact is, even when the instruction sets and operating systems are almost identical, there are ALWAYS issues.<br><br>ARM would not be the hardest port that Microsoft will have performed of Windows. The systems are technically very similar, however it would require Microsoft to maintain and support a second high-volume platform. They had huge problems with Pocket PC across multiple chip platforms in the past and eventually everything ended up on ARM.<br><br>Imagine the millions of e-mails they'd receive "WinZip doesn't work on my Windows 7 based netbook" or "When I try to play this YouTube based video on my netbook, it tells me I need Flash, but Adobe says they don't have a version which runs on it."<br><br>Let's also point out that there are NOOOO powerhouse ARM systems which can be used for running Visual Studio with a debugger and tools. Even now, my little machine for compiling a tiny 500,000 line project is a Core i7. If I had to do the same work on an ARM, I'd kill myself. Sure, I can remote debug, but that SUCKS!!!! when developing desktop apps. So, no, I wouldn't bother porting my code to ARM based Windows, not until there was an ARM on par with my Core i7 or my 8-core Xeon to work on.<br><br>Microsoft could employ some technology similar to Apple's Rosetta, but Microsoft spent YEARS in the past trying to do that on the Itanium and the Alpha platforms and it proved to be a waste of time. Besides, you end up having to ship "fat binaries" supporting the host machine AND the emulated machine making Windows twice the size.<br><br>Let's not forget that Microsoft's compilers for x86 are EXCELLENT. If they're not good enough, Intel's and Portland Groups are FANTASTIC. GCC for x86 is Wonderful. ARM compilers still suck and Intel doesn't even bother making them anymore now that they sold XScale to Marvell.<br><br>Tell you want ARM guys... enjoy your "NetBook OS"'s. I'll keep waiting for my pocket sized x86 2Ghz machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft supported many different platforms with their Windows NT versions in the past .
Early incarnations of the XBox360 SDK shipped with a PowerPC based Mac running a modified Windows XP.Microsoft has produced compilers for x86 , MIPS , Alpha , PowerPC , Itanium and others .
They have ported NT based operating systems to different platforms as well .
The issue that the ARM guy is forgetting is that Microsoft produces Windows CE for ARM because they choose to .
The other platforms we supported through other agreements .
I remember reading some outrageous figure on a shareholder report from DEC in the old days which had them paying over $ 100 million to simply continue development and maintain the Alpha AXP port of Windows NT , Visual Studio and Office.I have ported major applications to different platforms including most of these processors and often simply on X Windows .
The fact is , even when the instruction sets and operating systems are almost identical , there are ALWAYS issues.ARM would not be the hardest port that Microsoft will have performed of Windows .
The systems are technically very similar , however it would require Microsoft to maintain and support a second high-volume platform .
They had huge problems with Pocket PC across multiple chip platforms in the past and eventually everything ended up on ARM.Imagine the millions of e-mails they 'd receive " WinZip does n't work on my Windows 7 based netbook " or " When I try to play this YouTube based video on my netbook , it tells me I need Flash , but Adobe says they do n't have a version which runs on it .
" Let 's also point out that there are NOOOO powerhouse ARM systems which can be used for running Visual Studio with a debugger and tools .
Even now , my little machine for compiling a tiny 500,000 line project is a Core i7 .
If I had to do the same work on an ARM , I 'd kill myself .
Sure , I can remote debug , but that SUCKS ! ! ! !
when developing desktop apps .
So , no , I would n't bother porting my code to ARM based Windows , not until there was an ARM on par with my Core i7 or my 8-core Xeon to work on.Microsoft could employ some technology similar to Apple 's Rosetta , but Microsoft spent YEARS in the past trying to do that on the Itanium and the Alpha platforms and it proved to be a waste of time .
Besides , you end up having to ship " fat binaries " supporting the host machine AND the emulated machine making Windows twice the size.Let 's not forget that Microsoft 's compilers for x86 are EXCELLENT .
If they 're not good enough , Intel 's and Portland Groups are FANTASTIC .
GCC for x86 is Wonderful .
ARM compilers still suck and Intel does n't even bother making them anymore now that they sold XScale to Marvell.Tell you want ARM guys... enjoy your " NetBook OS " 's .
I 'll keep waiting for my pocket sized x86 2Ghz machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft supported many different platforms with their Windows NT versions in the past.
Early incarnations of the XBox360 SDK shipped with a PowerPC based Mac running a modified Windows XP.Microsoft has produced compilers for x86, MIPS, Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium and others.
They have ported NT based operating systems to different platforms as well.
The issue that the ARM guy is forgetting is that Microsoft produces Windows CE for ARM because they choose to.
The other platforms we supported through other agreements.
I remember reading some outrageous figure on a shareholder report from DEC in the old days which had them paying over $100 million to simply continue development and maintain the Alpha AXP port of Windows NT, Visual Studio and Office.I have ported major applications to different platforms including most of these processors and often simply on X Windows.
The fact is, even when the instruction sets and operating systems are almost identical, there are ALWAYS issues.ARM would not be the hardest port that Microsoft will have performed of Windows.
The systems are technically very similar, however it would require Microsoft to maintain and support a second high-volume platform.
They had huge problems with Pocket PC across multiple chip platforms in the past and eventually everything ended up on ARM.Imagine the millions of e-mails they'd receive "WinZip doesn't work on my Windows 7 based netbook" or "When I try to play this YouTube based video on my netbook, it tells me I need Flash, but Adobe says they don't have a version which runs on it.
"Let's also point out that there are NOOOO powerhouse ARM systems which can be used for running Visual Studio with a debugger and tools.
Even now, my little machine for compiling a tiny 500,000 line project is a Core i7.
If I had to do the same work on an ARM, I'd kill myself.
Sure, I can remote debug, but that SUCKS!!!!
when developing desktop apps.
So, no, I wouldn't bother porting my code to ARM based Windows, not until there was an ARM on par with my Core i7 or my 8-core Xeon to work on.Microsoft could employ some technology similar to Apple's Rosetta, but Microsoft spent YEARS in the past trying to do that on the Itanium and the Alpha platforms and it proved to be a waste of time.
Besides, you end up having to ship "fat binaries" supporting the host machine AND the emulated machine making Windows twice the size.Let's not forget that Microsoft's compilers for x86 are EXCELLENT.
If they're not good enough, Intel's and Portland Groups are FANTASTIC.
GCC for x86 is Wonderful.
ARM compilers still suck and Intel doesn't even bother making them anymore now that they sold XScale to Marvell.Tell you want ARM guys... enjoy your "NetBook OS"'s.
I'll keep waiting for my pocket sized x86 2Ghz machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012748</id>
	<title>Re:Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1264965180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netbooks come with 160GB or 250GB hard drives. To me that's big storage; I have an 80GB SSD in my laptop which tends to be enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netbooks come with 160GB or 250GB hard drives .
To me that 's big storage ; I have an 80GB SSD in my laptop which tends to be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netbooks come with 160GB or 250GB hard drives.
To me that's big storage; I have an 80GB SSD in my laptop which tends to be enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010630</id>
	<title>Yeah right</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1264957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right.  Two people in my office have Netbooks and both complain about how they aren't powerful enough to do what they need.  To top that, the only time they use them is when they travel so they can get mail, access Google docs, read PDF documents, and use IM.</p><p>I purchased one for my 11 year old daughter for Christmas cause she wanted one.  All she does is complain about how slow it is and how much trouble she has watching videos and voice chatting with her friends.   I tried to install a Canon Pixima iP6600D printer.  I had to try three different ways to install it and finally got it installed, yet it still won't print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right .
Two people in my office have Netbooks and both complain about how they are n't powerful enough to do what they need .
To top that , the only time they use them is when they travel so they can get mail , access Google docs , read PDF documents , and use IM.I purchased one for my 11 year old daughter for Christmas cause she wanted one .
All she does is complain about how slow it is and how much trouble she has watching videos and voice chatting with her friends .
I tried to install a Canon Pixima iP6600D printer .
I had to try three different ways to install it and finally got it installed , yet it still wo n't print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right.
Two people in my office have Netbooks and both complain about how they aren't powerful enough to do what they need.
To top that, the only time they use them is when they travel so they can get mail, access Google docs, read PDF documents, and use IM.I purchased one for my 11 year old daughter for Christmas cause she wanted one.
All she does is complain about how slow it is and how much trouble she has watching videos and voice chatting with her friends.
I tried to install a Canon Pixima iP6600D printer.
I had to try three different ways to install it and finally got it installed, yet it still won't print.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010466</id>
	<title>Re:Under one condition</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unreal 3 engine running on tegra2?<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtLBh4lPMk" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtLBh4lPMk</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unreal 3 engine running on tegra2 ? http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jYtLBh4lPMk [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unreal 3 engine running on tegra2?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYtLBh4lPMk [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012560</id>
	<title>Re:It's not about if it can do the job...</title>
	<author>kitserve</author>
	<datestamp>1264964280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most non-geeks don't tend to hoard old computers though. The thing that we technical types tend to forget is that a lot of people don't really think about the speed of their computer, they just use it and accept the fact that it's grindingly slow due to being a few years old, laden down with crapware and viruses as "the way computers are".

I know a number of non-technical people who have bought a new computer because they were finding their existing one too slow after they've had it a few years. There's nothing actually wrong with the old computer hardware, once it's been formatted and reinstalled everything's fine again, but most people are going to be more tempted by the idea of buying a cute new netbook for a couple of hundred (fun shopping therapy) than they are by the idea of wiping their boring old current computer system and starting over (confusing techy work).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most non-geeks do n't tend to hoard old computers though .
The thing that we technical types tend to forget is that a lot of people do n't really think about the speed of their computer , they just use it and accept the fact that it 's grindingly slow due to being a few years old , laden down with crapware and viruses as " the way computers are " .
I know a number of non-technical people who have bought a new computer because they were finding their existing one too slow after they 've had it a few years .
There 's nothing actually wrong with the old computer hardware , once it 's been formatted and reinstalled everything 's fine again , but most people are going to be more tempted by the idea of buying a cute new netbook for a couple of hundred ( fun shopping therapy ) than they are by the idea of wiping their boring old current computer system and starting over ( confusing techy work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most non-geeks don't tend to hoard old computers though.
The thing that we technical types tend to forget is that a lot of people don't really think about the speed of their computer, they just use it and accept the fact that it's grindingly slow due to being a few years old, laden down with crapware and viruses as "the way computers are".
I know a number of non-technical people who have bought a new computer because they were finding their existing one too slow after they've had it a few years.
There's nothing actually wrong with the old computer hardware, once it's been formatted and reinstalled everything's fine again, but most people are going to be more tempted by the idea of buying a cute new netbook for a couple of hundred (fun shopping therapy) than they are by the idea of wiping their boring old current computer system and starting over (confusing techy work).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</id>
	<title>Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1264952340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years? I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90\% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone seriously think that 90 \ % of the PC market will ditch MS Windows , and all the applications it has , in 3 years ?
I do n't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow ( although , even that is n't necessarily a given , but it seems reasonable , anyhow ) , but 90 \ % sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who ca n't possibly deliver the goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?
I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90\% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009894</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get your rant: Linux can't even run GUI applications, so there is really no alternative to Windows.
--
Upgrade to 7 now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get your rant : Linux ca n't even run GUI applications , so there is really no alternative to Windows .
-- Upgrade to 7 now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get your rant: Linux can't even run GUI applications, so there is really no alternative to Windows.
--
Upgrade to 7 now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444</id>
	<title>you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264952100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whether it's true or not is another thing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whether it 's true or not is another thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether it's true or not is another thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011122</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1264958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done, not to run computers. </p><p>  This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.</p></div><p>First point is well taken. Businesses just want to get stuff done. 90\% of the users do not use more than a core 10\% of the feature set of MsOffice. But the business model of forcing every one to pay some 150$ to 200$ a year purely for the sake of compatibility with the 10\% that uses more advanced users is not flying anymore. The days when the companies confused IBM/Microsoft compatibility with true interoperability are gone. That is why businesses, such as my company, are moving to Google Apps for all and MsOffice is available for people who can demonstrate they need it. </p><p>

This turns on its head, the most successful strategy MsOffice has used in the past</p><p>

The successful strategy was to sell MsOffice in bulk to the HQ, and anyone wanting others pay for it from their budget. Now the manager thinks, do I want the bean counters to charge me 200$ a seat for WordPerfect? Or just use the free license I can get from the HQ?  Now the very same weapon is being trained on Microsoft itself. In our company, if I user Google Apps, it does not count towards my budget. If anyone who reports to me wants MsOffice, I have to buy it from my budget. </p><p>

Google is playing the card wisely. If it tries to define itself as an internet ad selling company and competes in that sphere alone, Microsoft will use its 25 billion dollar a year profit stream from the MsOffice and keep eating losses till the other side runs out of resources. The only way to fight back is to attack that revenue stream. Now Microsoft has to circle the wagon and protect MsOffice. Google too has its own profit stream to keep fighting. The track record is not good when the adversary has other revenue sources to fight back.</p><p>
For a while it looked like Intuit will go under the assault of highly subsidized MicrosoftMoney. But Intuit found a rich source of revenue in TurboTax and it continued to fight back. MicrosoftMoney has been pulled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done , not to run computers .
This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.First point is well taken .
Businesses just want to get stuff done .
90 \ % of the users do not use more than a core 10 \ % of the feature set of MsOffice .
But the business model of forcing every one to pay some 150 $ to 200 $ a year purely for the sake of compatibility with the 10 \ % that uses more advanced users is not flying anymore .
The days when the companies confused IBM/Microsoft compatibility with true interoperability are gone .
That is why businesses , such as my company , are moving to Google Apps for all and MsOffice is available for people who can demonstrate they need it .
This turns on its head , the most successful strategy MsOffice has used in the past The successful strategy was to sell MsOffice in bulk to the HQ , and anyone wanting others pay for it from their budget .
Now the manager thinks , do I want the bean counters to charge me 200 $ a seat for WordPerfect ?
Or just use the free license I can get from the HQ ?
Now the very same weapon is being trained on Microsoft itself .
In our company , if I user Google Apps , it does not count towards my budget .
If anyone who reports to me wants MsOffice , I have to buy it from my budget .
Google is playing the card wisely .
If it tries to define itself as an internet ad selling company and competes in that sphere alone , Microsoft will use its 25 billion dollar a year profit stream from the MsOffice and keep eating losses till the other side runs out of resources .
The only way to fight back is to attack that revenue stream .
Now Microsoft has to circle the wagon and protect MsOffice .
Google too has its own profit stream to keep fighting .
The track record is not good when the adversary has other revenue sources to fight back .
For a while it looked like Intuit will go under the assault of highly subsidized MicrosoftMoney .
But Intuit found a rich source of revenue in TurboTax and it continued to fight back .
MicrosoftMoney has been pulled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done, not to run computers.
This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.First point is well taken.
Businesses just want to get stuff done.
90\% of the users do not use more than a core 10\% of the feature set of MsOffice.
But the business model of forcing every one to pay some 150$ to 200$ a year purely for the sake of compatibility with the 10\% that uses more advanced users is not flying anymore.
The days when the companies confused IBM/Microsoft compatibility with true interoperability are gone.
That is why businesses, such as my company, are moving to Google Apps for all and MsOffice is available for people who can demonstrate they need it.
This turns on its head, the most successful strategy MsOffice has used in the past

The successful strategy was to sell MsOffice in bulk to the HQ, and anyone wanting others pay for it from their budget.
Now the manager thinks, do I want the bean counters to charge me 200$ a seat for WordPerfect?
Or just use the free license I can get from the HQ?
Now the very same weapon is being trained on Microsoft itself.
In our company, if I user Google Apps, it does not count towards my budget.
If anyone who reports to me wants MsOffice, I have to buy it from my budget.
Google is playing the card wisely.
If it tries to define itself as an internet ad selling company and competes in that sphere alone, Microsoft will use its 25 billion dollar a year profit stream from the MsOffice and keep eating losses till the other side runs out of resources.
The only way to fight back is to attack that revenue stream.
Now Microsoft has to circle the wagon and protect MsOffice.
Google too has its own profit stream to keep fighting.
The track record is not good when the adversary has other revenue sources to fight back.
For a while it looked like Intuit will go under the assault of highly subsidized MicrosoftMoney.
But Intuit found a rich source of revenue in TurboTax and it continued to fight back.
MicrosoftMoney has been pulled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009672</id>
	<title>I want...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...some of whatever he's smoking: ""ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market..."</p><p>They're really too slow to be useful in a number of applications, and it's only a little more to the same price for a netbook with a more mainstream CPU arch in it, esp. if you're considering mobile AMD parts and mobile Intel parts aren't that much more.  While the rest of the *book specs being similar (integrated or lowend dedicated GPU) that increase in CPU horsepower is worth it unless you ABSOLUTELY need more battery life over anything else.  (Size looks to be about equal with current trends as netbooks are rapidly becoming the size of standard notebooks.)</p><p>That said, I can't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own, and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler, much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely won't be running Windows and wouldn't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they're the c. 1.5\% that use linux.  (I multi-boot between different OSes, and having spent years with ppc(even though I would liked to have seen it go somewhere beyond the embedded, consoles, &amp; workstations) I now greatly appreciate having x86 CPUs if for nothing else than wine useability under linux for those apps that have no linux/*NIX/etc. equivalent or ones that just aren't good enough.</p><p>As to phones/PDAs/etc, yeah, any old CPU is fine as I really don't expect to do alot with them other than use their intended features.  Sure it's nice to be able to do a few other things but given I/O and screen displays it's still not entirely desireable.  Possibly if actually useful headmounted or other type of displays were available along with enhanced I/O that might change, but I can't really say that I see that any more today than I did 10y or so ago.</p><p>Ah, I love earnings seasons, when CEOs pull crap out of their bottom that may sound plausible on the surface is nothing more than shareholder cheerleading to make it appear as if they're REALLY doing something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...some of whatever he 's smoking : " " ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market... " They 're really too slow to be useful in a number of applications , and it 's only a little more to the same price for a netbook with a more mainstream CPU arch in it , esp .
if you 're considering mobile AMD parts and mobile Intel parts are n't that much more .
While the rest of the * book specs being similar ( integrated or lowend dedicated GPU ) that increase in CPU horsepower is worth it unless you ABSOLUTELY need more battery life over anything else .
( Size looks to be about equal with current trends as netbooks are rapidly becoming the size of standard notebooks .
) That said , I ca n't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own , and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler , much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely wo n't be running Windows and would n't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they 're the c. 1.5 \ % that use linux .
( I multi-boot between different OSes , and having spent years with ppc ( even though I would liked to have seen it go somewhere beyond the embedded , consoles , &amp; workstations ) I now greatly appreciate having x86 CPUs if for nothing else than wine useability under linux for those apps that have no linux/ * NIX/etc .
equivalent or ones that just are n't good enough.As to phones/PDAs/etc , yeah , any old CPU is fine as I really do n't expect to do alot with them other than use their intended features .
Sure it 's nice to be able to do a few other things but given I/O and screen displays it 's still not entirely desireable .
Possibly if actually useful headmounted or other type of displays were available along with enhanced I/O that might change , but I ca n't really say that I see that any more today than I did 10y or so ago.Ah , I love earnings seasons , when CEOs pull crap out of their bottom that may sound plausible on the surface is nothing more than shareholder cheerleading to make it appear as if they 're REALLY doing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...some of whatever he's smoking: ""ARM chief executive Warren East has claimed that netbooks could dominate the PC market..."They're really too slow to be useful in a number of applications, and it's only a little more to the same price for a netbook with a more mainstream CPU arch in it, esp.
if you're considering mobile AMD parts and mobile Intel parts aren't that much more.
While the rest of the *book specs being similar (integrated or lowend dedicated GPU) that increase in CPU horsepower is worth it unless you ABSOLUTELY need more battery life over anything else.
(Size looks to be about equal with current trends as netbooks are rapidly becoming the size of standard notebooks.
)That said, I can't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own, and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler, much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely won't be running Windows and wouldn't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they're the c. 1.5\% that use linux.
(I multi-boot between different OSes, and having spent years with ppc(even though I would liked to have seen it go somewhere beyond the embedded, consoles, &amp; workstations) I now greatly appreciate having x86 CPUs if for nothing else than wine useability under linux for those apps that have no linux/*NIX/etc.
equivalent or ones that just aren't good enough.As to phones/PDAs/etc, yeah, any old CPU is fine as I really don't expect to do alot with them other than use their intended features.
Sure it's nice to be able to do a few other things but given I/O and screen displays it's still not entirely desireable.
Possibly if actually useful headmounted or other type of displays were available along with enhanced I/O that might change, but I can't really say that I see that any more today than I did 10y or so ago.Ah, I love earnings seasons, when CEOs pull crap out of their bottom that may sound plausible on the surface is nothing more than shareholder cheerleading to make it appear as if they're REALLY doing something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010006</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Photoshop?</p><p>Are you kidding? What consumer wants to spend $300 on Photoshop?</p><p>Photoshop is irrelevant here. There are far cheaper and better "workalikes" for the vast majority of consumers.</p><p>The fixation with "being DOS compatable" in terms of office documents will be what stymies the growth of any alternate platform. (Macs suffer equally from this)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photoshop ? Are you kidding ?
What consumer wants to spend $ 300 on Photoshop ? Photoshop is irrelevant here .
There are far cheaper and better " workalikes " for the vast majority of consumers.The fixation with " being DOS compatable " in terms of office documents will be what stymies the growth of any alternate platform .
( Macs suffer equally from this )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photoshop?Are you kidding?
What consumer wants to spend $300 on Photoshop?Photoshop is irrelevant here.
There are far cheaper and better "workalikes" for the vast majority of consumers.The fixation with "being DOS compatable" in terms of office documents will be what stymies the growth of any alternate platform.
(Macs suffer equally from this)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011286</id>
	<title>Re:Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264959540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lately, I drag a netbook around with me and plug into the monitor/keyboard at my desks.  When I need oomph, I remote into a quadcore Xeon left over after the last server refresh.</p><p>The mouse can be a tad laggy if I'm not at the same office, but otherwise it is indistinguishable from having that thing sitting on my desk.  Well, except for the lack of jet-engine cooling fans blowing papers around.</p><p>I wouldn't want to compress video on the netbook directly, although playback wouldn't be a problem, but I can easily farm out the task to the Xeon and go do something else locally without slowing it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lately , I drag a netbook around with me and plug into the monitor/keyboard at my desks .
When I need oomph , I remote into a quadcore Xeon left over after the last server refresh.The mouse can be a tad laggy if I 'm not at the same office , but otherwise it is indistinguishable from having that thing sitting on my desk .
Well , except for the lack of jet-engine cooling fans blowing papers around.I would n't want to compress video on the netbook directly , although playback would n't be a problem , but I can easily farm out the task to the Xeon and go do something else locally without slowing it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lately, I drag a netbook around with me and plug into the monitor/keyboard at my desks.
When I need oomph, I remote into a quadcore Xeon left over after the last server refresh.The mouse can be a tad laggy if I'm not at the same office, but otherwise it is indistinguishable from having that thing sitting on my desk.
Well, except for the lack of jet-engine cooling fans blowing papers around.I wouldn't want to compress video on the netbook directly, although playback wouldn't be a problem, but I can easily farm out the task to the Xeon and go do something else locally without slowing it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009752</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1264953300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?</p></div><p>And this is the issue. The hassle with application installation management has largely been solved with things like Apt-Get and Yum. But there are still very few professional grade apps for the average user. OpenOffice is marginally acceptable, but with very few games, no Photoshop (sorry, Gimp doesn't cut it), very few consumer toys... Not going to happen in 3 years.<br> <br> <b>I believe that if Adobe jumped in with their image suite, others would follow suit.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone seriously think that 90 \ % of the PC market will ditch MS Windows , and all the applications it has , in 3 years ? And this is the issue .
The hassle with application installation management has largely been solved with things like Apt-Get and Yum .
But there are still very few professional grade apps for the average user .
OpenOffice is marginally acceptable , but with very few games , no Photoshop ( sorry , Gimp does n't cut it ) , very few consumer toys... Not going to happen in 3 years .
I believe that if Adobe jumped in with their image suite , others would follow suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?And this is the issue.
The hassle with application installation management has largely been solved with things like Apt-Get and Yum.
But there are still very few professional grade apps for the average user.
OpenOffice is marginally acceptable, but with very few games, no Photoshop (sorry, Gimp doesn't cut it), very few consumer toys... Not going to happen in 3 years.
I believe that if Adobe jumped in with their image suite, others would follow suit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31017022</id>
	<title>He's not pressuring Microsoft</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1264942980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>East won't be pressuring Microsoft to build (desktop) Windows for ARM in any way with his statements.</p><p>Anyone with enough Windows experience will remember that Microsoft used to have SPARC and Itanium builds of Windows but decided to dump them and stay in the x86 camp. I'm not saying that was a good or bad decision on their part, but it will make them less-inclined to start supporting other platforms again.</p><p>I doubt that there's enough processing power, market interest or other incentives to make Microsoft consider porting (desktop) Windows to ARM - they've already got Windows CE/Pocket PC for that platform in any case (crap, though it is).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>East wo n't be pressuring Microsoft to build ( desktop ) Windows for ARM in any way with his statements.Anyone with enough Windows experience will remember that Microsoft used to have SPARC and Itanium builds of Windows but decided to dump them and stay in the x86 camp .
I 'm not saying that was a good or bad decision on their part , but it will make them less-inclined to start supporting other platforms again.I doubt that there 's enough processing power , market interest or other incentives to make Microsoft consider porting ( desktop ) Windows to ARM - they 've already got Windows CE/Pocket PC for that platform in any case ( crap , though it is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>East won't be pressuring Microsoft to build (desktop) Windows for ARM in any way with his statements.Anyone with enough Windows experience will remember that Microsoft used to have SPARC and Itanium builds of Windows but decided to dump them and stay in the x86 camp.
I'm not saying that was a good or bad decision on their part, but it will make them less-inclined to start supporting other platforms again.I doubt that there's enough processing power, market interest or other incentives to make Microsoft consider porting (desktop) Windows to ARM - they've already got Windows CE/Pocket PC for that platform in any case (crap, though it is).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</id>
	<title>Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>GhigoRenzulli</author>
	<datestamp>1264952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People still need processor power, big storage, large monitors, confortable keyboards and mice.
Netbooks may be great for some users, but many other users just find them almost useless.
I can't think of myself watching/recompressing/editing full hd video on a netbook.
Programming of mostly any kind would also be a pain.

One point: they're usually cute, and people buy them.
In these cases, "buy" doesn't mean "use".</htmltext>
<tokenext>People still need processor power , big storage , large monitors , confortable keyboards and mice .
Netbooks may be great for some users , but many other users just find them almost useless .
I ca n't think of myself watching/recompressing/editing full hd video on a netbook .
Programming of mostly any kind would also be a pain .
One point : they 're usually cute , and people buy them .
In these cases , " buy " does n't mean " use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People still need processor power, big storage, large monitors, confortable keyboards and mice.
Netbooks may be great for some users, but many other users just find them almost useless.
I can't think of myself watching/recompressing/editing full hd video on a netbook.
Programming of mostly any kind would also be a pain.
One point: they're usually cute, and people buy them.
In these cases, "buy" doesn't mean "use".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011156</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1264958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my desk, right now, I have a Windows XP, a Win7, a MacOSX 10.6 and a Linux workstation. The "apps" I'm using on them right now are browsers running Google Mail and Yahoo, VMWare consoles, and some other client applications. The binary apps I'm using are  Putty, Lotus Notes, Acrobat Reader, an MP3 player, and some editors (gvim, JEdit, vi).</p><p>My point?  95\% of the apps I use are not tied to a particular OS. I can easily switch from one system to another without affecting my ability to do work. If I had to choose one system I'd likely go with Linux because I'm just more comfortable with it, but any of them will do the job. So yeah, I could see a 3 year timeframe when Windows has to change or lose lots of market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my desk , right now , I have a Windows XP , a Win7 , a MacOSX 10.6 and a Linux workstation .
The " apps " I 'm using on them right now are browsers running Google Mail and Yahoo , VMWare consoles , and some other client applications .
The binary apps I 'm using are Putty , Lotus Notes , Acrobat Reader , an MP3 player , and some editors ( gvim , JEdit , vi ) .My point ?
95 \ % of the apps I use are not tied to a particular OS .
I can easily switch from one system to another without affecting my ability to do work .
If I had to choose one system I 'd likely go with Linux because I 'm just more comfortable with it , but any of them will do the job .
So yeah , I could see a 3 year timeframe when Windows has to change or lose lots of market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my desk, right now, I have a Windows XP, a Win7, a MacOSX 10.6 and a Linux workstation.
The "apps" I'm using on them right now are browsers running Google Mail and Yahoo, VMWare consoles, and some other client applications.
The binary apps I'm using are  Putty, Lotus Notes, Acrobat Reader, an MP3 player, and some editors (gvim, JEdit, vi).My point?
95\% of the apps I use are not tied to a particular OS.
I can easily switch from one system to another without affecting my ability to do work.
If I had to choose one system I'd likely go with Linux because I'm just more comfortable with it, but any of them will do the job.
So yeah, I could see a 3 year timeframe when Windows has to change or lose lots of market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010870</id>
	<title>Re:Low footprint netbooks</title>
	<author>Geeky</author>
	<datestamp>1264957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'll be the iPad then...</p><p>Trouble is, the current price/performance cut off is such that it costs very little, if any, extra to have a device that does more - a full function netbook, rather than a lightweight browser type of device. Unless the cut down option offers seriously better battery life, is much lighter and has a better screen than a good netbook, I don't see the market - if you just might need a more capable device, you're better off with one that does both rather than get a cut down device and also have to own the full featured one for the rest of the time.</p><p>Something like the Samsung NC10 has as much power as the crappy four year old laptop I have to use at work - 1.6GHz, upgrade it to 2GB, 160GB HD - and I can do pretty much everthing I'd ever want to do on a laptop. Solid state small scale devices offer no major advantages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'll be the iPad then...Trouble is , the current price/performance cut off is such that it costs very little , if any , extra to have a device that does more - a full function netbook , rather than a lightweight browser type of device .
Unless the cut down option offers seriously better battery life , is much lighter and has a better screen than a good netbook , I do n't see the market - if you just might need a more capable device , you 're better off with one that does both rather than get a cut down device and also have to own the full featured one for the rest of the time.Something like the Samsung NC10 has as much power as the crappy four year old laptop I have to use at work - 1.6GHz , upgrade it to 2GB , 160GB HD - and I can do pretty much everthing I 'd ever want to do on a laptop .
Solid state small scale devices offer no major advantages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'll be the iPad then...Trouble is, the current price/performance cut off is such that it costs very little, if any, extra to have a device that does more - a full function netbook, rather than a lightweight browser type of device.
Unless the cut down option offers seriously better battery life, is much lighter and has a better screen than a good netbook, I don't see the market - if you just might need a more capable device, you're better off with one that does both rather than get a cut down device and also have to own the full featured one for the rest of the time.Something like the Samsung NC10 has as much power as the crappy four year old laptop I have to use at work - 1.6GHz, upgrade it to 2GB, 160GB HD - and I can do pretty much everthing I'd ever want to do on a laptop.
Solid state small scale devices offer no major advantages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010146</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1264955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>M$ being strong arm-ed? Payback is a bitch!</htmltext>
<tokenext>M $ being strong arm-ed ?
Payback is a bitch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M$ being strong arm-ed?
Payback is a bitch!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013770</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time is money in case you haven't figured it out and right now Windows and MAC provides the best bang for buck. So take your money argument and try to shove that in Apples face, they have proved otherwise that people are willing to pay big money for a good product. Free is not going to be able to provide you customer support.</p><p>Linux missed the opportunity to introduce their desktop to them, so they need to get over that and move on. In fact what they need to do is copy Windows, until than they need to stop bashing the desktop users and playing both sides of the argument/agenda.</p><p>FUD? Who pays $200 for the OS on their laptop and $300 office suite, only a moron on Slashdot would quote that price as if it reflects the entire market.<br>The reality is the OS cost more around $25 and the office suite is only about $30 as it is all included in the package price. Hmmmm lets see how much a decent sized laptop is going for at FRY's going for $499 that will walk all over a netbook all day long.</p><p>The Netbook is just a short term fad, not only are they competing against general laptops but they are also cometing against all the new tablets that will be coming out. Smart phones are getting dirt cheap now also and the netbook fad is beginning to die.<br>What ever happened to all the articles claiming Microsoft not being able to put out something on the netbook besides old XP, well Windows 7 came and there seemed to be a lot of silence after the FUD campaign around here against Vista.</p><p>To say the least, credibility is shot around here about predicting the market and technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time is money in case you have n't figured it out and right now Windows and MAC provides the best bang for buck .
So take your money argument and try to shove that in Apples face , they have proved otherwise that people are willing to pay big money for a good product .
Free is not going to be able to provide you customer support.Linux missed the opportunity to introduce their desktop to them , so they need to get over that and move on .
In fact what they need to do is copy Windows , until than they need to stop bashing the desktop users and playing both sides of the argument/agenda.FUD ?
Who pays $ 200 for the OS on their laptop and $ 300 office suite , only a moron on Slashdot would quote that price as if it reflects the entire market.The reality is the OS cost more around $ 25 and the office suite is only about $ 30 as it is all included in the package price .
Hmmmm lets see how much a decent sized laptop is going for at FRY 's going for $ 499 that will walk all over a netbook all day long.The Netbook is just a short term fad , not only are they competing against general laptops but they are also cometing against all the new tablets that will be coming out .
Smart phones are getting dirt cheap now also and the netbook fad is beginning to die.What ever happened to all the articles claiming Microsoft not being able to put out something on the netbook besides old XP , well Windows 7 came and there seemed to be a lot of silence after the FUD campaign around here against Vista.To say the least , credibility is shot around here about predicting the market and technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time is money in case you haven't figured it out and right now Windows and MAC provides the best bang for buck.
So take your money argument and try to shove that in Apples face, they have proved otherwise that people are willing to pay big money for a good product.
Free is not going to be able to provide you customer support.Linux missed the opportunity to introduce their desktop to them, so they need to get over that and move on.
In fact what they need to do is copy Windows, until than they need to stop bashing the desktop users and playing both sides of the argument/agenda.FUD?
Who pays $200 for the OS on their laptop and $300 office suite, only a moron on Slashdot would quote that price as if it reflects the entire market.The reality is the OS cost more around $25 and the office suite is only about $30 as it is all included in the package price.
Hmmmm lets see how much a decent sized laptop is going for at FRY's going for $499 that will walk all over a netbook all day long.The Netbook is just a short term fad, not only are they competing against general laptops but they are also cometing against all the new tablets that will be coming out.
Smart phones are getting dirt cheap now also and the netbook fad is beginning to die.What ever happened to all the articles claiming Microsoft not being able to put out something on the netbook besides old XP, well Windows 7 came and there seemed to be a lot of silence after the FUD campaign around here against Vista.To say the least, credibility is shot around here about predicting the market and technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31017730</id>
	<title>I "could" have a million dollars!</title>
	<author>danielsfca2</author>
	<datestamp>1264947780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I "<strong>could</strong>" also have a beach house in malibu. Too bad I don't. What a dumb statement. Netbooks kinda fail for a lot of tasks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I " could " also have a beach house in malibu .
Too bad I do n't .
What a dumb statement .
Netbooks kinda fail for a lot of tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I "could" also have a beach house in malibu.
Too bad I don't.
What a dumb statement.
Netbooks kinda fail for a lot of tasks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009638</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1264952820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I guess it depends how you count. 90\% of the PC market certainly not. 90\% of the laptop market seems a little bit too much. But 90\% of the netbook definitively seems reasonnable. If each teenager get one of those because they are cheap, the arm netbook will be arm or nothing.</p><p>After that point, the question will be, will arm conquer the desktop market. I don't think it will be done in the next 3 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess it depends how you count .
90 \ % of the PC market certainly not .
90 \ % of the laptop market seems a little bit too much .
But 90 \ % of the netbook definitively seems reasonnable .
If each teenager get one of those because they are cheap , the arm netbook will be arm or nothing.After that point , the question will be , will arm conquer the desktop market .
I do n't think it will be done in the next 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess it depends how you count.
90\% of the PC market certainly not.
90\% of the laptop market seems a little bit too much.
But 90\% of the netbook definitively seems reasonnable.
If each teenager get one of those because they are cheap, the arm netbook will be arm or nothing.After that point, the question will be, will arm conquer the desktop market.
I don't think it will be done in the next 3 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010362</id>
	<title>Re:Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1264956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I would adore to have something just big enough for an optical drive, decent battery, and solid state storage that was powerful enough to run a effects-light Ubuntu so I could cart it round uni all day and do stats with R,use LyX during lectures, and not worry too much about it.  Bigger than the stupidly small ones, but still small enough to go in the backpack with books, notebooks, stats tables, and the Yellow Book of actuarial maths.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would adore to have something just big enough for an optical drive , decent battery , and solid state storage that was powerful enough to run a effects-light Ubuntu so I could cart it round uni all day and do stats with R,use LyX during lectures , and not worry too much about it .
Bigger than the stupidly small ones , but still small enough to go in the backpack with books , notebooks , stats tables , and the Yellow Book of actuarial maths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I would adore to have something just big enough for an optical drive, decent battery, and solid state storage that was powerful enough to run a effects-light Ubuntu so I could cart it round uni all day and do stats with R,use LyX during lectures, and not worry too much about it.
Bigger than the stupidly small ones, but still small enough to go in the backpack with books, notebooks, stats tables, and the Yellow Book of actuarial maths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31015306</id>
	<title>Re:64-bit? (Otherwise have fun with 4GB limits)</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1264934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One alternative for a 64-bit system with low power consumption is MIPS. For example the <a href="http://lemote.kd85.com/" title="kd85.com">Lemote netbook</a> [kd85.com] that <a href="http://www.stallman.org/stallman-computing.html" title="stallman.org">RMS uses</a> [stallman.org] has an 800 MHz MIPS64 called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson#Loongson\_2F" title="wikipedia.org">Loongson</a> [wikipedia.org] that consumes just a couple of watts maximum. I don't know much details, but apparently the CPU has proper floating point performance, unlike most ARM processors. While ARM systems do come with DSPs for media processing, MIPS could be more interesting for general computing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One alternative for a 64-bit system with low power consumption is MIPS .
For example the Lemote netbook [ kd85.com ] that RMS uses [ stallman.org ] has an 800 MHz MIPS64 called Loongson [ wikipedia.org ] that consumes just a couple of watts maximum .
I do n't know much details , but apparently the CPU has proper floating point performance , unlike most ARM processors .
While ARM systems do come with DSPs for media processing , MIPS could be more interesting for general computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One alternative for a 64-bit system with low power consumption is MIPS.
For example the Lemote netbook [kd85.com] that RMS uses [stallman.org] has an 800 MHz MIPS64 called Loongson [wikipedia.org] that consumes just a couple of watts maximum.
I don't know much details, but apparently the CPU has proper floating point performance, unlike most ARM processors.
While ARM systems do come with DSPs for media processing, MIPS could be more interesting for general computing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013378</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264968060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.</i></p><p>First of all, Microsoft has OSes that run on ARM.</p><p>Secondly, Microsoft doesn't have to discredit this because the fact that netbooks have been big for two solid years now and there *still* are no ARM netbooks in stores... well, <b>they've already discredited themselves.</b> This mythical world of dirt cheap ARM-powered Linux netbooks exists only in Slashdot submissions and pie-in-the-sky blog postings.</p><p><i>Likewise, a $200 OS and $300 office suite simply aren't value propositions on sub $200 computers.</i></p><p>Well obviously. But Microsoft's already solved the first one-- whatever they're selling XP and Win7 to netbook makers for, it's cheap enough that you can still buy a netbook for $300. And the second one it just a matter of licensing... if Microsoft felt they needed to address it, they could do it in a week max.</p><p>(Oh, and your desktop copy of Office already has a free laptop/mobile license included with it... so if you already have Office on your desktop, the incremental cost of adding it to your netbook is $0.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap , ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.First of all , Microsoft has OSes that run on ARM.Secondly , Microsoft does n't have to discredit this because the fact that netbooks have been big for two solid years now and there * still * are no ARM netbooks in stores... well , they 've already discredited themselves .
This mythical world of dirt cheap ARM-powered Linux netbooks exists only in Slashdot submissions and pie-in-the-sky blog postings.Likewise , a $ 200 OS and $ 300 office suite simply are n't value propositions on sub $ 200 computers.Well obviously .
But Microsoft 's already solved the first one-- whatever they 're selling XP and Win7 to netbook makers for , it 's cheap enough that you can still buy a netbook for $ 300 .
And the second one it just a matter of licensing... if Microsoft felt they needed to address it , they could do it in a week max .
( Oh , and your desktop copy of Office already has a free laptop/mobile license included with it... so if you already have Office on your desktop , the incremental cost of adding it to your netbook is $ 0 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.First of all, Microsoft has OSes that run on ARM.Secondly, Microsoft doesn't have to discredit this because the fact that netbooks have been big for two solid years now and there *still* are no ARM netbooks in stores... well, they've already discredited themselves.
This mythical world of dirt cheap ARM-powered Linux netbooks exists only in Slashdot submissions and pie-in-the-sky blog postings.Likewise, a $200 OS and $300 office suite simply aren't value propositions on sub $200 computers.Well obviously.
But Microsoft's already solved the first one-- whatever they're selling XP and Win7 to netbook makers for, it's cheap enough that you can still buy a netbook for $300.
And the second one it just a matter of licensing... if Microsoft felt they needed to address it, they could do it in a week max.
(Oh, and your desktop copy of Office already has a free laptop/mobile license included with it... so if you already have Office on your desktop, the incremental cost of adding it to your netbook is $0.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010528</id>
	<title>... only if someone start to sell them</title>
	<author>tummetott</author>
	<datestamp>1264956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... only if someone start to sell them</htmltext>
<tokenext>... only if someone start to sell them</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... only if someone start to sell them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009926</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1264953960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I find curious is the notion that <i>netbooks</i> will ever reach 90\%. Netbooks are great, I have one. Quite useful, cheap, light. However, I have good eyes, slim fingers, and a desktop with a good-sized screen for when I want to get big things done.<br> <br>

Especially with the recent flood of CULV based "thin-and-light" notebooks, which are netbookesque in that they ditch the optical drive and some of the power in exchange for cheapness and portability, I just don't see a compelling case for 90\% of the PC market being devices with little tiny screens and keyboards.<br> <br>

If he means "netbook" in the very general sense of "Yeah, the performance wars are over, the vast bulk of machines shipped are bottom of the barrel specs, increasingly they are cheap laptops, and they are increasingly used for internet-related stuff" He is completely right; but only in the trivial sense of being able to observe what has already happened. I could even see a plausible near-future scenario where many of those machines aren't wintels. If he means "netbook" in the specific sense of "cheap, light, 8-12 inch laptop, typically without optical drive" though, that seems absurd. If you can make a netbook for $X, you can always make a thin-and-light with a larger keyboard and screen that will appeal to people with poorer eyes, larger hands, or an enthusiasm for movies for just a bit more than $X. For corporate use, you'll always be able to take the mainboard from your netbook and put it in a box without a screen or battery, and sell it as a cheap desktop for ~ $.5X. For home users, you'll be able to take the same mainboard and slap a 20+ inch panel and a 3.5inch HDD into it and have yourself a cheap and friendly consumer all-in-one for not that much more.<br> <br>

I would be wholly unsurprised to see an ever increasing proportion of PCs being built around what are basically netbook motherboards(either quite literally, to save on design costs, or merely similar in size, power, and spec); but the netbook form-factor itself is intrinsically niche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find curious is the notion that netbooks will ever reach 90 \ % .
Netbooks are great , I have one .
Quite useful , cheap , light .
However , I have good eyes , slim fingers , and a desktop with a good-sized screen for when I want to get big things done .
Especially with the recent flood of CULV based " thin-and-light " notebooks , which are netbookesque in that they ditch the optical drive and some of the power in exchange for cheapness and portability , I just do n't see a compelling case for 90 \ % of the PC market being devices with little tiny screens and keyboards .
If he means " netbook " in the very general sense of " Yeah , the performance wars are over , the vast bulk of machines shipped are bottom of the barrel specs , increasingly they are cheap laptops , and they are increasingly used for internet-related stuff " He is completely right ; but only in the trivial sense of being able to observe what has already happened .
I could even see a plausible near-future scenario where many of those machines are n't wintels .
If he means " netbook " in the specific sense of " cheap , light , 8-12 inch laptop , typically without optical drive " though , that seems absurd .
If you can make a netbook for $ X , you can always make a thin-and-light with a larger keyboard and screen that will appeal to people with poorer eyes , larger hands , or an enthusiasm for movies for just a bit more than $ X .
For corporate use , you 'll always be able to take the mainboard from your netbook and put it in a box without a screen or battery , and sell it as a cheap desktop for ~ $ .5X .
For home users , you 'll be able to take the same mainboard and slap a 20 + inch panel and a 3.5inch HDD into it and have yourself a cheap and friendly consumer all-in-one for not that much more .
I would be wholly unsurprised to see an ever increasing proportion of PCs being built around what are basically netbook motherboards ( either quite literally , to save on design costs , or merely similar in size , power , and spec ) ; but the netbook form-factor itself is intrinsically niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find curious is the notion that netbooks will ever reach 90\%.
Netbooks are great, I have one.
Quite useful, cheap, light.
However, I have good eyes, slim fingers, and a desktop with a good-sized screen for when I want to get big things done.
Especially with the recent flood of CULV based "thin-and-light" notebooks, which are netbookesque in that they ditch the optical drive and some of the power in exchange for cheapness and portability, I just don't see a compelling case for 90\% of the PC market being devices with little tiny screens and keyboards.
If he means "netbook" in the very general sense of "Yeah, the performance wars are over, the vast bulk of machines shipped are bottom of the barrel specs, increasingly they are cheap laptops, and they are increasingly used for internet-related stuff" He is completely right; but only in the trivial sense of being able to observe what has already happened.
I could even see a plausible near-future scenario where many of those machines aren't wintels.
If he means "netbook" in the specific sense of "cheap, light, 8-12 inch laptop, typically without optical drive" though, that seems absurd.
If you can make a netbook for $X, you can always make a thin-and-light with a larger keyboard and screen that will appeal to people with poorer eyes, larger hands, or an enthusiasm for movies for just a bit more than $X.
For corporate use, you'll always be able to take the mainboard from your netbook and put it in a box without a screen or battery, and sell it as a cheap desktop for ~ $.5X.
For home users, you'll be able to take the same mainboard and slap a 20+ inch panel and a 3.5inch HDD into it and have yourself a cheap and friendly consumer all-in-one for not that much more.
I would be wholly unsurprised to see an ever increasing proportion of PCs being built around what are basically netbook motherboards(either quite literally, to save on design costs, or merely similar in size, power, and spec); but the netbook form-factor itself is intrinsically niche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010578</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1264956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you kidding? What consumer wants to spend $300 on Photoshop?</p></div><p>They wouldn't.  They'd be paying for the much discounted <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65045174-Photoshop-Elements-8/dp/B002ID8R3Y/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=software&amp;qid=1265212412&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Photoshop Elements</a> [amazon.com].  It's always funny to hear people compare Duh Gimp to the highest end version of Photoshop when making the comparison and completely ignoring the consumer-oriented version of Photoshop that's been around for 9 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
What consumer wants to spend $ 300 on Photoshop ? They would n't .
They 'd be paying for the much discounted Photoshop Elements [ amazon.com ] .
It 's always funny to hear people compare Duh Gimp to the highest end version of Photoshop when making the comparison and completely ignoring the consumer-oriented version of Photoshop that 's been around for 9 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
What consumer wants to spend $300 on Photoshop?They wouldn't.
They'd be paying for the much discounted Photoshop Elements [amazon.com].
It's always funny to hear people compare Duh Gimp to the highest end version of Photoshop when making the comparison and completely ignoring the consumer-oriented version of Photoshop that's been around for 9 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012054</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1264962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no, 90\% of the PC space is rather aggressive and not likely. The point he's trying to make is that GNU/Linux could replace a very large portion of the PC segment already but on x86, it's like moving a stubborn jackass up a hill. With the ARM price/performance blowing x86 out of the water, the portable device space(handhelds, netbooks, notebooks) opportunities you get via ARM you just can't get on x86. And I don't believe he is holding to the netbook restrictions Microsoft put on the market, ie 10.1" screens and single core CPUs.<br><br>If you notice all the buzz about Android, the iPhone, and tablets then you should know that they are all running ARM. Also know that he has inside info on what people are doing with their ARM design and is probably rather giddy about it. That tends to lead one to visions of grandeur. But reality is not too far off from what he said if you were not trying to move a stubborn mule up a very large hill. Most Windows users hardly know how to use Windows so getting a large portion of them to learn something new is a very tough task. Especially if the device looks like something they think they know. The phone and the tablet have the advantage of being acceptably different enough to not think they must be running Windows.<br><br>And I'm sure there are enough ARM manufacturers out there who would love to have a chance at delivering the goods. ARM LLC is not a manufacturer, just the design house for the CPU. If Microsoft can't kill off this market, you will start seeing Windows ISVs porting to ARM and that will probably mean GNU/Linux in one form or another. IMO<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>no , 90 \ % of the PC space is rather aggressive and not likely .
The point he 's trying to make is that GNU/Linux could replace a very large portion of the PC segment already but on x86 , it 's like moving a stubborn jackass up a hill .
With the ARM price/performance blowing x86 out of the water , the portable device space ( handhelds , netbooks , notebooks ) opportunities you get via ARM you just ca n't get on x86 .
And I do n't believe he is holding to the netbook restrictions Microsoft put on the market , ie 10.1 " screens and single core CPUs.If you notice all the buzz about Android , the iPhone , and tablets then you should know that they are all running ARM .
Also know that he has inside info on what people are doing with their ARM design and is probably rather giddy about it .
That tends to lead one to visions of grandeur .
But reality is not too far off from what he said if you were not trying to move a stubborn mule up a very large hill .
Most Windows users hardly know how to use Windows so getting a large portion of them to learn something new is a very tough task .
Especially if the device looks like something they think they know .
The phone and the tablet have the advantage of being acceptably different enough to not think they must be running Windows.And I 'm sure there are enough ARM manufacturers out there who would love to have a chance at delivering the goods .
ARM LLC is not a manufacturer , just the design house for the CPU .
If Microsoft ca n't kill off this market , you will start seeing Windows ISVs porting to ARM and that will probably mean GNU/Linux in one form or another .
IMOLoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, 90\% of the PC space is rather aggressive and not likely.
The point he's trying to make is that GNU/Linux could replace a very large portion of the PC segment already but on x86, it's like moving a stubborn jackass up a hill.
With the ARM price/performance blowing x86 out of the water, the portable device space(handhelds, netbooks, notebooks) opportunities you get via ARM you just can't get on x86.
And I don't believe he is holding to the netbook restrictions Microsoft put on the market, ie 10.1" screens and single core CPUs.If you notice all the buzz about Android, the iPhone, and tablets then you should know that they are all running ARM.
Also know that he has inside info on what people are doing with their ARM design and is probably rather giddy about it.
That tends to lead one to visions of grandeur.
But reality is not too far off from what he said if you were not trying to move a stubborn mule up a very large hill.
Most Windows users hardly know how to use Windows so getting a large portion of them to learn something new is a very tough task.
Especially if the device looks like something they think they know.
The phone and the tablet have the advantage of being acceptably different enough to not think they must be running Windows.And I'm sure there are enough ARM manufacturers out there who would love to have a chance at delivering the goods.
ARM LLC is not a manufacturer, just the design house for the CPU.
If Microsoft can't kill off this market, you will start seeing Windows ISVs porting to ARM and that will probably mean GNU/Linux in one form or another.
IMOLoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009880</id>
	<title>Stop talking and start delivering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting for an ARM netbook that I can buy for about a year. Owning the Nokia N810 tablet has convinced me that I don't need x86 compatibility. But my current ultra-portable is getting old and I'm getting desperate for a replacement.</p><p>Come-on ARM, give me an excuse to give you my money. I'd love a sub-1kg ultraportable with great battery life. Bonus since I don't have to pay the Windows tax. Install whatever is needed to make it work commercially (eg Android, Moblin, Ubuntu Remix), just let me install the full Ubuntu desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for an ARM netbook that I can buy for about a year .
Owning the Nokia N810 tablet has convinced me that I do n't need x86 compatibility .
But my current ultra-portable is getting old and I 'm getting desperate for a replacement.Come-on ARM , give me an excuse to give you my money .
I 'd love a sub-1kg ultraportable with great battery life .
Bonus since I do n't have to pay the Windows tax .
Install whatever is needed to make it work commercially ( eg Android , Moblin , Ubuntu Remix ) , just let me install the full Ubuntu desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for an ARM netbook that I can buy for about a year.
Owning the Nokia N810 tablet has convinced me that I don't need x86 compatibility.
But my current ultra-portable is getting old and I'm getting desperate for a replacement.Come-on ARM, give me an excuse to give you my money.
I'd love a sub-1kg ultraportable with great battery life.
Bonus since I don't have to pay the Windows tax.
Install whatever is needed to make it work commercially (eg Android, Moblin, Ubuntu Remix), just let me install the full Ubuntu desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010132</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264954980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i didn't get into laptops because they are too small.  My fiance has a netbook which was handy on vacation a few times, but it's still too small and underpowered for me use as anything but a browser.  For that i have an iPhone which is much, much smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i did n't get into laptops because they are too small .
My fiance has a netbook which was handy on vacation a few times , but it 's still too small and underpowered for me use as anything but a browser .
For that i have an iPhone which is much , much smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i didn't get into laptops because they are too small.
My fiance has a netbook which was handy on vacation a few times, but it's still too small and underpowered for me use as anything but a browser.
For that i have an iPhone which is much, much smaller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1264952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>whether it's true or not is another thing</i>
<p>
One thing that's absolutely true is that Microsoft reputation managers will be all over this article.
</p><p>
Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit. Even if they can get Windows to run on it, the whole application stack that locks people onto the Wintel platform will be missing. Likewise, a $200 OS and $300 office suite simply aren't value propositions on sub $200 computers.
</p><p>
Expect an unprecedented level of FUD here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whether it 's true or not is another thing One thing that 's absolutely true is that Microsoft reputation managers will be all over this article .
Cheap , ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit .
Even if they can get Windows to run on it , the whole application stack that locks people onto the Wintel platform will be missing .
Likewise , a $ 200 OS and $ 300 office suite simply are n't value propositions on sub $ 200 computers .
Expect an unprecedented level of FUD here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether it's true or not is another thing

One thing that's absolutely true is that Microsoft reputation managers will be all over this article.
Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.
Even if they can get Windows to run on it, the whole application stack that locks people onto the Wintel platform will be missing.
Likewise, a $200 OS and $300 office suite simply aren't value propositions on sub $200 computers.
Expect an unprecedented level of FUD here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010308</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264955760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?</i></p><p>Actually, yes, I think it could happen.</p><p>- Apple will succeed in selling lots of iPads. This will get people used to the idea of a non-windows platform with its own applications.<br>- Nokia / SonyEricsson / HTC / whoeverelse will want some of that market share. Competing pads will be released running Android (and maybe other OSes too). These will also have their own applications.<br>- Users will snap up these gadgets in large numbers, but for a lot of uses there is still a need for a keyboard, so some of them will be released with a keyboard, which in effect makes them into a netbook. (maybe a slide-out keyboard like some phones now, but it'll still be the same effect).<br>- Virtually all of these devices will run on ARM chips.</p><p>If Microsoft gets its act together it can have a piece of this action, but the reality is that the app-store model is a killer feature for end user convenience (even if it is closed and makes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. users angry). Windows doesn't have an app store model, and isn't likely to get one because it's just too much of a leap for most existing windows software suppliers to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone seriously think that 90 \ % of the PC market will ditch MS Windows , and all the applications it has , in 3 years ? Actually , yes , I think it could happen.- Apple will succeed in selling lots of iPads .
This will get people used to the idea of a non-windows platform with its own applications.- Nokia / SonyEricsson / HTC / whoeverelse will want some of that market share .
Competing pads will be released running Android ( and maybe other OSes too ) .
These will also have their own applications.- Users will snap up these gadgets in large numbers , but for a lot of uses there is still a need for a keyboard , so some of them will be released with a keyboard , which in effect makes them into a netbook .
( maybe a slide-out keyboard like some phones now , but it 'll still be the same effect ) .- Virtually all of these devices will run on ARM chips.If Microsoft gets its act together it can have a piece of this action , but the reality is that the app-store model is a killer feature for end user convenience ( even if it is closed and makes / .
users angry ) .
Windows does n't have an app store model , and is n't likely to get one because it 's just too much of a leap for most existing windows software suppliers to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?Actually, yes, I think it could happen.- Apple will succeed in selling lots of iPads.
This will get people used to the idea of a non-windows platform with its own applications.- Nokia / SonyEricsson / HTC / whoeverelse will want some of that market share.
Competing pads will be released running Android (and maybe other OSes too).
These will also have their own applications.- Users will snap up these gadgets in large numbers, but for a lot of uses there is still a need for a keyboard, so some of them will be released with a keyboard, which in effect makes them into a netbook.
(maybe a slide-out keyboard like some phones now, but it'll still be the same effect).- Virtually all of these devices will run on ARM chips.If Microsoft gets its act together it can have a piece of this action, but the reality is that the app-store model is a killer feature for end user convenience (even if it is closed and makes /.
users angry).
Windows doesn't have an app store model, and isn't likely to get one because it's just too much of a leap for most existing windows software suppliers to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009576</id>
	<title>Under one condition</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264952640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excluding gamers on the go (or anyone else that needs a lot of computing power on the go), I could foresee netbooks replacing conventional laptops over the next decade or so.  It would be nice if more of them were designed as convertible tablets, but meh...can't have everything.</p><p>Alienware's new <a href="http://www.alienware.com/m11x" title="alienware.com">m11x</a> [alienware.com] will help bridge the gap between full size notebooks and netbooks, but the price will have to come down while keeping the upgraded power for netbooks to really take over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excluding gamers on the go ( or anyone else that needs a lot of computing power on the go ) , I could foresee netbooks replacing conventional laptops over the next decade or so .
It would be nice if more of them were designed as convertible tablets , but meh...ca n't have everything.Alienware 's new m11x [ alienware.com ] will help bridge the gap between full size notebooks and netbooks , but the price will have to come down while keeping the upgraded power for netbooks to really take over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excluding gamers on the go (or anyone else that needs a lot of computing power on the go), I could foresee netbooks replacing conventional laptops over the next decade or so.
It would be nice if more of them were designed as convertible tablets, but meh...can't have everything.Alienware's new m11x [alienware.com] will help bridge the gap between full size notebooks and netbooks, but the price will have to come down while keeping the upgraded power for netbooks to really take over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012184</id>
	<title>Re:Low footprint netbooks</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1264962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone OS is right for a phone with a tiny screen. If you have a bigger screen and want to use it for more computer-like things you'll want an OS that gives you more power. The original Eee PC had a stripped-down UI; how many people kept it and how many replaced it with something more flexible (whether Windows or a normal Linux WM)?</p><p>Oh, yeah, you'll also want the freedom to install any software you want, including stuff that Apple, in arbitrary fashion, would deny you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone OS is right for a phone with a tiny screen .
If you have a bigger screen and want to use it for more computer-like things you 'll want an OS that gives you more power .
The original Eee PC had a stripped-down UI ; how many people kept it and how many replaced it with something more flexible ( whether Windows or a normal Linux WM ) ? Oh , yeah , you 'll also want the freedom to install any software you want , including stuff that Apple , in arbitrary fashion , would deny you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone OS is right for a phone with a tiny screen.
If you have a bigger screen and want to use it for more computer-like things you'll want an OS that gives you more power.
The original Eee PC had a stripped-down UI; how many people kept it and how many replaced it with something more flexible (whether Windows or a normal Linux WM)?Oh, yeah, you'll also want the freedom to install any software you want, including stuff that Apple, in arbitrary fashion, would deny you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010154</id>
	<title>Re:Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1264955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of PC users don't write code, compile, edit or recompress HD or any other video, render 3D anything, nor compose pages for publishing.</p><p>90\% of PC users surf the Web, read and compose mail as text, watch video and tolerate sub-HD quality, and occasionally flip through their digital photographs.  Rarely they use some Web service to make albums, remove red-eye, order Christmas cards and replacement checks every two years, and play Flash games.  Web services rule.  Banking, social interaction, news, pr0n, it's all in the Web.  Microsoft has already lost this battle.  Bing is their last gasp to be relevant in Webspace.  Microsoft buying Yahoo! would just kill two birds with one stone.</p><p>Flash is the most demanding application most users bother to use, and many don't even realize it.  Their browser is second, and they complain about how slow their machine is when their IE instance grows to &gt;300MB and they can't get from one corner of their plot to another instantly in Farmville.  They think it's their computer being slow when Facebook takes a moment to show them something cool.</p><p>Put Flash on their netbook, and any OS out there is adequate.  YouTube has its own deal.  If you can put Netflix on it, you're home free.  Microsoft Works would be overkill.  GMail is all the editor they need.</p><p>Microsoft has to fight netbooks, and especially ARM-based netbooks, since they lose any hope of selling Office 2007+ to these users.  Unless they make Windows 7 Mobile on ARM a subscription model, and you need a credit card to activate.  The billing starts in a year and continues until your bank fails or you upgrade, and maybe even past that.</p><p>Ubuntu or any Linux on ARM looks better and better.  I suspect ASUS and others could do some nice work with Linux distros for a fraction of the cost of licensing Windows, deliver their customers some serious value, and be free of Microsoft.  That last benefit may be the most powerful of all.</p><p>But the Empire will strike back.  Even Adobe has a huge stake in this.  If HTML5 succeeds in replacing Flash, it will be Acrobat that saves Adobe.  Oh, wait...</p><p>And if they succeed, and Microsoft loses netbook share, expect Linux to suffer security exploits as never before.  We haven't seen corporate espionage yet.  The Microsoft v. Novell/Lotus/WordPerfect battles were nothing compared to this war.  If^H^Hwhen it starts, the carnage will be worldwide, and both sides will suffer.  I'm not sure any of the Chinese^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbot farmers have really exerted all their ability to own Windows.  We ain't see nothing yet.</p><p>Me? I bailed on the netbokk thing and bought a 12" Thinkpad. I just needed the screen space.  A Pentium M anything is fast enough for my portable machine.  Those were too good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of PC users do n't write code , compile , edit or recompress HD or any other video , render 3D anything , nor compose pages for publishing.90 \ % of PC users surf the Web , read and compose mail as text , watch video and tolerate sub-HD quality , and occasionally flip through their digital photographs .
Rarely they use some Web service to make albums , remove red-eye , order Christmas cards and replacement checks every two years , and play Flash games .
Web services rule .
Banking , social interaction , news , pr0n , it 's all in the Web .
Microsoft has already lost this battle .
Bing is their last gasp to be relevant in Webspace .
Microsoft buying Yahoo !
would just kill two birds with one stone.Flash is the most demanding application most users bother to use , and many do n't even realize it .
Their browser is second , and they complain about how slow their machine is when their IE instance grows to &gt; 300MB and they ca n't get from one corner of their plot to another instantly in Farmville .
They think it 's their computer being slow when Facebook takes a moment to show them something cool.Put Flash on their netbook , and any OS out there is adequate .
YouTube has its own deal .
If you can put Netflix on it , you 're home free .
Microsoft Works would be overkill .
GMail is all the editor they need.Microsoft has to fight netbooks , and especially ARM-based netbooks , since they lose any hope of selling Office 2007 + to these users .
Unless they make Windows 7 Mobile on ARM a subscription model , and you need a credit card to activate .
The billing starts in a year and continues until your bank fails or you upgrade , and maybe even past that.Ubuntu or any Linux on ARM looks better and better .
I suspect ASUS and others could do some nice work with Linux distros for a fraction of the cost of licensing Windows , deliver their customers some serious value , and be free of Microsoft .
That last benefit may be the most powerful of all.But the Empire will strike back .
Even Adobe has a huge stake in this .
If HTML5 succeeds in replacing Flash , it will be Acrobat that saves Adobe .
Oh , wait...And if they succeed , and Microsoft loses netbook share , expect Linux to suffer security exploits as never before .
We have n't seen corporate espionage yet .
The Microsoft v. Novell/Lotus/WordPerfect battles were nothing compared to this war .
If ^ H ^ Hwhen it starts , the carnage will be worldwide , and both sides will suffer .
I 'm not sure any of the Chinese ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hbot farmers have really exerted all their ability to own Windows .
We ai n't see nothing yet.Me ?
I bailed on the netbokk thing and bought a 12 " Thinkpad .
I just needed the screen space .
A Pentium M anything is fast enough for my portable machine .
Those were too good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of PC users don't write code, compile, edit or recompress HD or any other video, render 3D anything, nor compose pages for publishing.90\% of PC users surf the Web, read and compose mail as text, watch video and tolerate sub-HD quality, and occasionally flip through their digital photographs.
Rarely they use some Web service to make albums, remove red-eye, order Christmas cards and replacement checks every two years, and play Flash games.
Web services rule.
Banking, social interaction, news, pr0n, it's all in the Web.
Microsoft has already lost this battle.
Bing is their last gasp to be relevant in Webspace.
Microsoft buying Yahoo!
would just kill two birds with one stone.Flash is the most demanding application most users bother to use, and many don't even realize it.
Their browser is second, and they complain about how slow their machine is when their IE instance grows to &gt;300MB and they can't get from one corner of their plot to another instantly in Farmville.
They think it's their computer being slow when Facebook takes a moment to show them something cool.Put Flash on their netbook, and any OS out there is adequate.
YouTube has its own deal.
If you can put Netflix on it, you're home free.
Microsoft Works would be overkill.
GMail is all the editor they need.Microsoft has to fight netbooks, and especially ARM-based netbooks, since they lose any hope of selling Office 2007+ to these users.
Unless they make Windows 7 Mobile on ARM a subscription model, and you need a credit card to activate.
The billing starts in a year and continues until your bank fails or you upgrade, and maybe even past that.Ubuntu or any Linux on ARM looks better and better.
I suspect ASUS and others could do some nice work with Linux distros for a fraction of the cost of licensing Windows, deliver their customers some serious value, and be free of Microsoft.
That last benefit may be the most powerful of all.But the Empire will strike back.
Even Adobe has a huge stake in this.
If HTML5 succeeds in replacing Flash, it will be Acrobat that saves Adobe.
Oh, wait...And if they succeed, and Microsoft loses netbook share, expect Linux to suffer security exploits as never before.
We haven't seen corporate espionage yet.
The Microsoft v. Novell/Lotus/WordPerfect battles were nothing compared to this war.
If^H^Hwhen it starts, the carnage will be worldwide, and both sides will suffer.
I'm not sure any of the Chinese^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbot farmers have really exerted all their ability to own Windows.
We ain't see nothing yet.Me?
I bailed on the netbokk thing and bought a 12" Thinkpad.
I just needed the screen space.
A Pentium M anything is fast enough for my portable machine.
Those were too good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656</id>
	<title>Low footprint netbooks</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1264952940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laptops are pretty crude these days. Spinning drives, spinning fans, bulky operating systems originally designed for desktops that were adapted for the laptop instead of purpose-built.</p><p>The Palm OS stuff years back really made me wonder, especially when I got an external keyboard for my palm -- could you upscale something like this into a computer? It has more horsepower than my first desktop, the fancier palms could get on the net with wifi. What if you made a bigger screen and stuck the palm guts in that? At the time I figured the problem was cost and performance. Screens are half the price of a laptop so why would anyone want to spend several hundred bucks for a gimped device when they could spend a few more and get a full-featured laptop? But the iPhone had the right idea. Stripped down, customized OS for the phone. Leave the whole desktop OS design behind.</p><p>The hardware really has come a long way and basic user needs haven't become that much crazier. Putting an mp3 player in a car used to involve putting a freakin' PC in the car, now you either have an mp3/cd player in the dashboard or a line in for your standalone player. You used to need a pretty beefy machine for the time just to get online and read your mail. Cell phones have enough power for that now. And storage capacity? It's crazy.</p><p>There will always be a need for as much crazy power as possible in a portable format but that will be a smaller niche of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laptops are pretty crude these days .
Spinning drives , spinning fans , bulky operating systems originally designed for desktops that were adapted for the laptop instead of purpose-built.The Palm OS stuff years back really made me wonder , especially when I got an external keyboard for my palm -- could you upscale something like this into a computer ?
It has more horsepower than my first desktop , the fancier palms could get on the net with wifi .
What if you made a bigger screen and stuck the palm guts in that ?
At the time I figured the problem was cost and performance .
Screens are half the price of a laptop so why would anyone want to spend several hundred bucks for a gimped device when they could spend a few more and get a full-featured laptop ?
But the iPhone had the right idea .
Stripped down , customized OS for the phone .
Leave the whole desktop OS design behind.The hardware really has come a long way and basic user needs have n't become that much crazier .
Putting an mp3 player in a car used to involve putting a freakin ' PC in the car , now you either have an mp3/cd player in the dashboard or a line in for your standalone player .
You used to need a pretty beefy machine for the time just to get online and read your mail .
Cell phones have enough power for that now .
And storage capacity ?
It 's crazy.There will always be a need for as much crazy power as possible in a portable format but that will be a smaller niche of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laptops are pretty crude these days.
Spinning drives, spinning fans, bulky operating systems originally designed for desktops that were adapted for the laptop instead of purpose-built.The Palm OS stuff years back really made me wonder, especially when I got an external keyboard for my palm -- could you upscale something like this into a computer?
It has more horsepower than my first desktop, the fancier palms could get on the net with wifi.
What if you made a bigger screen and stuck the palm guts in that?
At the time I figured the problem was cost and performance.
Screens are half the price of a laptop so why would anyone want to spend several hundred bucks for a gimped device when they could spend a few more and get a full-featured laptop?
But the iPhone had the right idea.
Stripped down, customized OS for the phone.
Leave the whole desktop OS design behind.The hardware really has come a long way and basic user needs haven't become that much crazier.
Putting an mp3 player in a car used to involve putting a freakin' PC in the car, now you either have an mp3/cd player in the dashboard or a line in for your standalone player.
You used to need a pretty beefy machine for the time just to get online and read your mail.
Cell phones have enough power for that now.
And storage capacity?
It's crazy.There will always be a need for as much crazy power as possible in a portable format but that will be a smaller niche of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010636</id>
	<title>There must be more than 10\% of us in the market...</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1264957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...otherwise hardware vendors would fail. By <i>us</i> here I mean the folks who assemble computers from individual parts because the stuff sold pre-assembled is garbage hardware with garbage bloatware pre-installed. So I don't see how 90\% of the PC market will ever be portable platforms, let alone netbooks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...otherwise hardware vendors would fail .
By us here I mean the folks who assemble computers from individual parts because the stuff sold pre-assembled is garbage hardware with garbage bloatware pre-installed .
So I do n't see how 90 \ % of the PC market will ever be portable platforms , let alone netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...otherwise hardware vendors would fail.
By us here I mean the folks who assemble computers from individual parts because the stuff sold pre-assembled is garbage hardware with garbage bloatware pre-installed.
So I don't see how 90\% of the PC market will ever be portable platforms, let alone netbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009940</id>
	<title>Re:I want...</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1264954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That said, I can't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own, and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler, much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely won't be running Windows and wouldn't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they're the c. 1.5\% that use linux.</i></p><p>What he said in the article was that it doesn't really matter whether ARM is used for the application process because there are already several ARM-based microcontrollers running the wi-fi, hard drive, camera, etc. The application processor is an opportunity for more growth, but the overall growth of the netbook market benefits ARM no matter what.</p><p>I don't see how 90\% of PCs are going to be replaced by netbooks with tiny portable screens, though. Those are totally unusable for stuff like sustained office work. Maybe we'll all just use docking stations, but wasn't a key feature of netbooks the lack of peripheral complexity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , I ca n't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own , and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler , much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely wo n't be running Windows and would n't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they 're the c. 1.5 \ % that use linux.What he said in the article was that it does n't really matter whether ARM is used for the application process because there are already several ARM-based microcontrollers running the wi-fi , hard drive , camera , etc .
The application processor is an opportunity for more growth , but the overall growth of the netbook market benefits ARM no matter what.I do n't see how 90 \ % of PCs are going to be replaced by netbooks with tiny portable screens , though .
Those are totally unusable for stuff like sustained office work .
Maybe we 'll all just use docking stations , but was n't a key feature of netbooks the lack of peripheral complexity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, I can't see much benefit for ARM in all of this as the VAST majority of notebooks ship with an Intel CPU &amp; AMD is attempting their own, and with an x86 CPU it makes life simpler, much simpler rather than dealing with an ARM CPU that likely won't be running Windows and wouldn't be able to run many of the apps that people would probably want unless they're the c. 1.5\% that use linux.What he said in the article was that it doesn't really matter whether ARM is used for the application process because there are already several ARM-based microcontrollers running the wi-fi, hard drive, camera, etc.
The application processor is an opportunity for more growth, but the overall growth of the netbook market benefits ARM no matter what.I don't see how 90\% of PCs are going to be replaced by netbooks with tiny portable screens, though.
Those are totally unusable for stuff like sustained office work.
Maybe we'll all just use docking stations, but wasn't a key feature of netbooks the lack of peripheral complexity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31023428</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah right</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1265304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the problem is the software. 10 years ago a 1GHz machine was fairly good. 20 years ago, a 1GHz machine was something experimental the miltary worked on.

</p><p>There is no reason someone can't do a lot of tasks with a 1GHz (or even 500MHz) netbook except if they are using poorly designed, bloated software.

</p><p>With just modest hardware acceleration, a 500 MHz computer can play videos
just fine. I had a 500MHz computer which would play dvds just fine. Maybe these "slow" computers couldn't play "high definition" (a moving target), but I think if there were more "slow" supercomputer netbooks on the market, more websites would offer lower resolution, faster codec non-Flash alternatives for "slow" supercomputers.

</p><p>The problem is computers have been an economy of waste for the past decade or more. Companies try to make you waste more so you need to constantly upgrade. Even software companies benefit from this, because when people throw out their old computer and buy another, they often "upgrade" to the "latest and greatest" software as well.

</p><p>Yes there are uses which need multigigahertz computers, but the vast majority of casual use? Not really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the problem is the software .
10 years ago a 1GHz machine was fairly good .
20 years ago , a 1GHz machine was something experimental the miltary worked on .
There is no reason someone ca n't do a lot of tasks with a 1GHz ( or even 500MHz ) netbook except if they are using poorly designed , bloated software .
With just modest hardware acceleration , a 500 MHz computer can play videos just fine .
I had a 500MHz computer which would play dvds just fine .
Maybe these " slow " computers could n't play " high definition " ( a moving target ) , but I think if there were more " slow " supercomputer netbooks on the market , more websites would offer lower resolution , faster codec non-Flash alternatives for " slow " supercomputers .
The problem is computers have been an economy of waste for the past decade or more .
Companies try to make you waste more so you need to constantly upgrade .
Even software companies benefit from this , because when people throw out their old computer and buy another , they often " upgrade " to the " latest and greatest " software as well .
Yes there are uses which need multigigahertz computers , but the vast majority of casual use ?
Not really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the problem is the software.
10 years ago a 1GHz machine was fairly good.
20 years ago, a 1GHz machine was something experimental the miltary worked on.
There is no reason someone can't do a lot of tasks with a 1GHz (or even 500MHz) netbook except if they are using poorly designed, bloated software.
With just modest hardware acceleration, a 500 MHz computer can play videos
just fine.
I had a 500MHz computer which would play dvds just fine.
Maybe these "slow" computers couldn't play "high definition" (a moving target), but I think if there were more "slow" supercomputer netbooks on the market, more websites would offer lower resolution, faster codec non-Flash alternatives for "slow" supercomputers.
The problem is computers have been an economy of waste for the past decade or more.
Companies try to make you waste more so you need to constantly upgrade.
Even software companies benefit from this, because when people throw out their old computer and buy another, they often "upgrade" to the "latest and greatest" software as well.
Yes there are uses which need multigigahertz computers, but the vast majority of casual use?
Not really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012546</id>
	<title>Re:Could be but I think it won't be</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1264964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you'll have a workstation at your desk, and you, you're wife, and all three kids will have netbooks. That's only a 5:1 ratio, but I'm going to guess that at least half the folks out there don't need big iron on their desk to do their jobs. That'll put us a 90\%.</p><p>I happen to use an i920 machine at my desk, with a 24" monitor. Come to think of it, I have one at home for the theater and personal stuff, too, though for how we use it, a netbook or appliance with hardware video playback acceleration would do the job.  Then again, I've got two old P4 machines that would be fine as netbooks, plus I have a big netbook, as does my daughter, and my wife has a laptop which is so close to a netbook it should count).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you 'll have a workstation at your desk , and you , you 're wife , and all three kids will have netbooks .
That 's only a 5 : 1 ratio , but I 'm going to guess that at least half the folks out there do n't need big iron on their desk to do their jobs .
That 'll put us a 90 \ % .I happen to use an i920 machine at my desk , with a 24 " monitor .
Come to think of it , I have one at home for the theater and personal stuff , too , though for how we use it , a netbook or appliance with hardware video playback acceleration would do the job .
Then again , I 've got two old P4 machines that would be fine as netbooks , plus I have a big netbook , as does my daughter , and my wife has a laptop which is so close to a netbook it should count ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you'll have a workstation at your desk, and you, you're wife, and all three kids will have netbooks.
That's only a 5:1 ratio, but I'm going to guess that at least half the folks out there don't need big iron on their desk to do their jobs.
That'll put us a 90\%.I happen to use an i920 machine at my desk, with a 24" monitor.
Come to think of it, I have one at home for the theater and personal stuff, too, though for how we use it, a netbook or appliance with hardware video playback acceleration would do the job.
Then again, I've got two old P4 machines that would be fine as netbooks, plus I have a big netbook, as does my daughter, and my wife has a laptop which is so close to a netbook it should count).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009808</id>
	<title>No  - 90\% of the new and bigger market.</title>
	<author>thaig</author>
	<datestamp>1264953540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> i.e. including all those people who don't have PCs yet in this world of 6 billion people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i.e .
including all those people who do n't have PCs yet in this world of 6 billion people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> i.e.
including all those people who don't have PCs yet in this world of 6 billion people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010504</id>
	<title>Re:Low footprint netbooks</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1264956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>palm tried that, and got booed of the proverbial stage by engadget...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>palm tried that , and got booed of the proverbial stage by engadget.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>palm tried that, and got booed of the proverbial stage by engadget...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010150</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1264955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe. Honestly the only software that I have to boot into Windows for is FSX, Left4Dead, and SolidWorks.<br>For the stuff I do at home the vast majority of it is done on Linux or my Cell.<br>I think the resistance to moving to a new platform is going down day by day. There will probably always be people that must have Windows but that number can drop very fast.<br>For my wife the only programs she must have Windows for are Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. She does use GIMP and she loves it but there are somethings that Elements does better. If Adobe ported Elements and Lightroom the only time she would need Windows is for Tax time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
Honestly the only software that I have to boot into Windows for is FSX , Left4Dead , and SolidWorks.For the stuff I do at home the vast majority of it is done on Linux or my Cell.I think the resistance to moving to a new platform is going down day by day .
There will probably always be people that must have Windows but that number can drop very fast.For my wife the only programs she must have Windows for are Photoshop Elements and Lightroom .
She does use GIMP and she loves it but there are somethings that Elements does better .
If Adobe ported Elements and Lightroom the only time she would need Windows is for Tax time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
Honestly the only software that I have to boot into Windows for is FSX, Left4Dead, and SolidWorks.For the stuff I do at home the vast majority of it is done on Linux or my Cell.I think the resistance to moving to a new platform is going down day by day.
There will probably always be people that must have Windows but that number can drop very fast.For my wife the only programs she must have Windows for are Photoshop Elements and Lightroom.
She does use GIMP and she loves it but there are somethings that Elements does better.
If Adobe ported Elements and Lightroom the only time she would need Windows is for Tax time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010912</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs also seams to think a significant portion are willing to be without Microsoft.  My Asus EEE net-book running Ebuntu runs a significant number of windows apps under wine, and has so many other free apps that cover 99\% of what you would want to do with a small laptop.  (of course any pripriority apps are questionable under wine.)<br>Of course 90\% e-books does not = 90\% ARM.  I am sure he would be happy with 90\% netbooks, 20\% ARM+LINUX.  Thus 18\% of laptop sales would be arm; 72\% would then be x86; leaving 10\% as full laptops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs also seams to think a significant portion are willing to be without Microsoft .
My Asus EEE net-book running Ebuntu runs a significant number of windows apps under wine , and has so many other free apps that cover 99 \ % of what you would want to do with a small laptop .
( of course any pripriority apps are questionable under wine .
) Of course 90 \ % e-books does not = 90 \ % ARM .
I am sure he would be happy with 90 \ % netbooks , 20 \ % ARM + LINUX .
Thus 18 \ % of laptop sales would be arm ; 72 \ % would then be x86 ; leaving 10 \ % as full laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs also seams to think a significant portion are willing to be without Microsoft.
My Asus EEE net-book running Ebuntu runs a significant number of windows apps under wine, and has so many other free apps that cover 99\% of what you would want to do with a small laptop.
(of course any pripriority apps are questionable under wine.
)Of course 90\% e-books does not = 90\% ARM.
I am sure he would be happy with 90\% netbooks, 20\% ARM+LINUX.
Thus 18\% of laptop sales would be arm; 72\% would then be x86; leaving 10\% as full laptops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009654</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1264952880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree 90\% is pie in the sky, but I think netbooks will become even more huge as time progresses. Computers have become a commodity item, and with so many people on the move they want their stuff with them. City wide wifi, huge storage capabilities, the cloud, Chromium, iPad (although I think it won't really be crazy good) and smart phones are all pointing to one thing. The end of the desktop is nigh, and once you leave the desktop the game gets *REALLY* wide open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 90 \ % is pie in the sky , but I think netbooks will become even more huge as time progresses .
Computers have become a commodity item , and with so many people on the move they want their stuff with them .
City wide wifi , huge storage capabilities , the cloud , Chromium , iPad ( although I think it wo n't really be crazy good ) and smart phones are all pointing to one thing .
The end of the desktop is nigh , and once you leave the desktop the game gets * REALLY * wide open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 90\% is pie in the sky, but I think netbooks will become even more huge as time progresses.
Computers have become a commodity item, and with so many people on the move they want their stuff with them.
City wide wifi, huge storage capabilities, the cloud, Chromium, iPad (although I think it won't really be crazy good) and smart phones are all pointing to one thing.
The end of the desktop is nigh, and once you leave the desktop the game gets *REALLY* wide open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009898</id>
	<title>It's not about if it can do the job...</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1264953840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a question of if people want it.<br> <br>Just look around you, my Subaru is more than what most people need but it's one of the smaller cars on the road on average. Most people should be able to get away with eating 2200 calories or less a day but look at our fat asses and tell me that it's happening. Most people should be able to get by on a handful of TV channels and a modest collection of DVDs but we have hundreds of channels, On Demand, more DVDs in our homes than books... etc etc etc.<br> <br>Modern culture likes comfort, modern culture likes the big is better lifestyle. Most people aren't going to adapt well to the next step up from the Speak and Spell. Even those who do begrudgingly adopt to it aren't really going to want it and, if they can afford a little better, will reject it with whatever bullshit logic they need to use to justify something a little more luxurious.<br> <br>People have this obsession with hording and with being able to show that their possessions are bigger, stronger and faster than anyone else on the block. Computers are part of this culture of possession and no amount of benchmarks and proof of concept are going to change that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a question of if people want it .
Just look around you , my Subaru is more than what most people need but it 's one of the smaller cars on the road on average .
Most people should be able to get away with eating 2200 calories or less a day but look at our fat asses and tell me that it 's happening .
Most people should be able to get by on a handful of TV channels and a modest collection of DVDs but we have hundreds of channels , On Demand , more DVDs in our homes than books... etc etc etc .
Modern culture likes comfort , modern culture likes the big is better lifestyle .
Most people are n't going to adapt well to the next step up from the Speak and Spell .
Even those who do begrudgingly adopt to it are n't really going to want it and , if they can afford a little better , will reject it with whatever bullshit logic they need to use to justify something a little more luxurious .
People have this obsession with hording and with being able to show that their possessions are bigger , stronger and faster than anyone else on the block .
Computers are part of this culture of possession and no amount of benchmarks and proof of concept are going to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a question of if people want it.
Just look around you, my Subaru is more than what most people need but it's one of the smaller cars on the road on average.
Most people should be able to get away with eating 2200 calories or less a day but look at our fat asses and tell me that it's happening.
Most people should be able to get by on a handful of TV channels and a modest collection of DVDs but we have hundreds of channels, On Demand, more DVDs in our homes than books... etc etc etc.
Modern culture likes comfort, modern culture likes the big is better lifestyle.
Most people aren't going to adapt well to the next step up from the Speak and Spell.
Even those who do begrudgingly adopt to it aren't really going to want it and, if they can afford a little better, will reject it with whatever bullshit logic they need to use to justify something a little more luxurious.
People have this obsession with hording and with being able to show that their possessions are bigger, stronger and faster than anyone else on the block.
Computers are part of this culture of possession and no amount of benchmarks and proof of concept are going to change that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to fundamentally miss the point.  The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done, not to run computers. A $200 pc with $500 of microsoft office software on it is a $700 box that requires minimal training of its users, has been engineered by an army of UI specialists to be relatively easy and quick to use (scoff at that as you will, but you only need to spend a few minutes with openoffice to see how unpolished it is), and which is pretty well guaranteed to pose no compatibility problems.    A $200 pc with a "free" operating system an office suite is a $200 box with severely higher user training and technical support costs and with not unsubstantial potential compatibility issues and an unclear future.  Amortize that $500 over 3 years and youcome up with $167 per seat per year.  Given that technical support internally bills (for accounting purposes) at $100+ per hour, this is fly spittle.  This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.</p><p>but no, i must be a reputation manager here to spread 'fud', right?  or just put your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to fundamentally miss the point .
The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done , not to run computers .
A $ 200 pc with $ 500 of microsoft office software on it is a $ 700 box that requires minimal training of its users , has been engineered by an army of UI specialists to be relatively easy and quick to use ( scoff at that as you will , but you only need to spend a few minutes with openoffice to see how unpolished it is ) , and which is pretty well guaranteed to pose no compatibility problems .
A $ 200 pc with a " free " operating system an office suite is a $ 200 box with severely higher user training and technical support costs and with not unsubstantial potential compatibility issues and an unclear future .
Amortize that $ 500 over 3 years and youcome up with $ 167 per seat per year .
Given that technical support internally bills ( for accounting purposes ) at $ 100 + per hour , this is fly spittle .
This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.but no , i must be a reputation manager here to spread 'fud ' , right ?
or just put your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to fundamentally miss the point.
The fundamental point of business operations is to get stuff done, not to run computers.
A $200 pc with $500 of microsoft office software on it is a $700 box that requires minimal training of its users, has been engineered by an army of UI specialists to be relatively easy and quick to use (scoff at that as you will, but you only need to spend a few minutes with openoffice to see how unpolished it is), and which is pretty well guaranteed to pose no compatibility problems.
A $200 pc with a "free" operating system an office suite is a $200 box with severely higher user training and technical support costs and with not unsubstantial potential compatibility issues and an unclear future.
Amortize that $500 over 3 years and youcome up with $167 per seat per year.
Given that technical support internally bills (for accounting purposes) at $100+ per hour, this is fly spittle.
This is why companies such my software company use MS Office.but no, i must be a reputation manager here to spread 'fud', right?
or just put your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalala.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010460</id>
	<title>how about an ARM moblin port?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about an ARM moblin port?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about an ARM moblin port ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about an ARM moblin port?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009766</id>
	<title>This time its for real...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Year of the linux notebook, Seriously guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Year of the linux notebook , Seriously guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year of the linux notebook, Seriously guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009620</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Phics</author>
	<datestamp>1264952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years? I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90\% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.</p></div><p>Erm, he's talking about netbooks in general, not ARM netbooks specifically.  But E for effort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone seriously think that 90 \ % of the PC market will ditch MS Windows , and all the applications it has , in 3 years ?
I do n't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow ( although , even that is n't necessarily a given , but it seems reasonable , anyhow ) , but 90 \ % sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who ca n't possibly deliver the goods.Erm , he 's talking about netbooks in general , not ARM netbooks specifically .
But E for effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone seriously think that 90\% of the PC market will ditch MS Windows, and all the applications it has, in 3 years?
I don't have any reason to doubt the Arm-Linux netbook space will grow (although, even that isn't necessarily a given, but it seems reasonable, anyhow), but 90\% sounds like a bunch of marketing BS from a guy who can't possibly deliver the goods.Erm, he's talking about netbooks in general, not ARM netbooks specifically.
But E for effort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010468</id>
	<title>I think that headline should read...</title>
	<author>bluie-</author>
	<datestamp>1264956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...ARM Exec Wishes 90\% of PC Market Could Be Netbooks</htmltext>
<tokenext>...ARM Exec Wishes 90 \ % of PC Market Could Be Netbooks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...ARM Exec Wishes 90\% of PC Market Could Be Netbooks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011268</id>
	<title>Re:you can say whatever you want</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1264959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.</p></div><p>Yep. Note how much Jobs HATES netbooks:<br> <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/apple-steve-jobs-technology-enterprise-tech-apple.html" title="forbes.com">http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/apple-steve-jobs-technology-enterprise-tech-apple.html</a> [forbes.com] <br>There's only one reason for this: they're too cheap. Apple can't make any money off them. If Apple had invented the netbook, then maybe. Of course we'd be paying up over a grand for 'em...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap , ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.Yep .
Note how much Jobs HATES netbooks : http : //www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/apple-steve-jobs-technology-enterprise-tech-apple.html [ forbes.com ] There 's only one reason for this : they 're too cheap .
Apple ca n't make any money off them .
If Apple had invented the netbook , then maybe .
Of course we 'd be paying up over a grand for 'em.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap, ARM and Linux is the one combination they absolutely MUST discredit.Yep.
Note how much Jobs HATES netbooks: http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/apple-steve-jobs-technology-enterprise-tech-apple.html [forbes.com] There's only one reason for this: they're too cheap.
Apple can't make any money off them.
If Apple had invented the netbook, then maybe.
Of course we'd be paying up over a grand for 'em...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009900</id>
	<title>Re:Irrational exuberance, anyone?</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1264953840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took a step back the other day to consider the progress of Linux as a user-friendly OS. Comparing a 2002 copy of Mandrake to modern Ubuntu (argued the most user friendly mainstream distros/flavors of their day), the rapid improvement is marked. Looking at Windows 7 compared to Windows XP, the progress has not been anywhere near as impressive. Granted part of the difference is that Linux is still maturing as a non-tech-person OS, but I doubt that Microsoft will be able to keep up. I don't know about 3 years, but 20 years I might give you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a step back the other day to consider the progress of Linux as a user-friendly OS .
Comparing a 2002 copy of Mandrake to modern Ubuntu ( argued the most user friendly mainstream distros/flavors of their day ) , the rapid improvement is marked .
Looking at Windows 7 compared to Windows XP , the progress has not been anywhere near as impressive .
Granted part of the difference is that Linux is still maturing as a non-tech-person OS , but I doubt that Microsoft will be able to keep up .
I do n't know about 3 years , but 20 years I might give you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a step back the other day to consider the progress of Linux as a user-friendly OS.
Comparing a 2002 copy of Mandrake to modern Ubuntu (argued the most user friendly mainstream distros/flavors of their day), the rapid improvement is marked.
Looking at Windows 7 compared to Windows XP, the progress has not been anywhere near as impressive.
Granted part of the difference is that Linux is still maturing as a non-tech-person OS, but I doubt that Microsoft will be able to keep up.
I don't know about 3 years, but 20 years I might give you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31023428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31015306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1412210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31012560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31015306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31013436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31011122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31010630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31023428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1412210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1412210.31009790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
