<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_09_0053248</id>
	<title>IBM Releases Power7 Processor</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265733600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dan Jones writes <i>"As <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/22/1828249/POWER7-To-Ship-In-First-Half-of-2010">discussed here last year</a>, IBM has made good on its promise to release the Power7 processor (and servers) in the first half of 2010. The Power7 processor adds more cores and improved <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XKPMTNJGCOFGXQE1GHOSKH4ATMY32JVN?articleID=222700387">multithreading capabilities to boost the performance of servers</a> requiring high up-time, according to Big Blue. Power7 chips will run between 3.0GHz and 4.14GHz and will come with four, six, or eight cores. The chips are being made using the 45-nm process technology. New Power7 servers (up to 64 cores for now) are said to deliver twice the performance of older Power6 systems, but are four times more energy efficient. Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux."</i> And reader shmG notes Intel's release of a <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100208/intel-unleashes-itanium-server-chip.htm">new Itanium server processor</a> after two years of delays. The Power7 specs would seem to put the new Intel chip in the shade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dan Jones writes " As discussed here last year , IBM has made good on its promise to release the Power7 processor ( and servers ) in the first half of 2010 .
The Power7 processor adds more cores and improved multithreading capabilities to boost the performance of servers requiring high up-time , according to Big Blue .
Power7 chips will run between 3.0GHz and 4.14GHz and will come with four , six , or eight cores .
The chips are being made using the 45-nm process technology .
New Power7 servers ( up to 64 cores for now ) are said to deliver twice the performance of older Power6 systems , but are four times more energy efficient .
Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux .
" And reader shmG notes Intel 's release of a new Itanium server processor after two years of delays .
The Power7 specs would seem to put the new Intel chip in the shade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dan Jones writes "As discussed here last year, IBM has made good on its promise to release the Power7 processor (and servers) in the first half of 2010.
The Power7 processor adds more cores and improved multithreading capabilities to boost the performance of servers requiring high up-time, according to Big Blue.
Power7 chips will run between 3.0GHz and 4.14GHz and will come with four, six, or eight cores.
The chips are being made using the 45-nm process technology.
New Power7 servers (up to 64 cores for now) are said to deliver twice the performance of older Power6 systems, but are four times more energy efficient.
Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux.
" And reader shmG notes Intel's release of a new Itanium server processor after two years of delays.
The Power7 specs would seem to put the new Intel chip in the shade.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069122</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>scotch</author>
	<datestamp>1265654460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy shit, this guy is on to something. You could write these common computing tasks as a sort of "bench" suite of tests. Then on each architecture, you would get different "marks" against the "bench". Let's call them "benchmarks" for brevity. These "benchmarks" would give allow clear and unambiguous comparison of these various chips. Foolproof and brilliant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , this guy is on to something .
You could write these common computing tasks as a sort of " bench " suite of tests .
Then on each architecture , you would get different " marks " against the " bench " .
Let 's call them " benchmarks " for brevity .
These " benchmarks " would give allow clear and unambiguous comparison of these various chips .
Foolproof and brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, this guy is on to something.
You could write these common computing tasks as a sort of "bench" suite of tests.
Then on each architecture, you would get different "marks" against the "bench".
Let's call them "benchmarks" for brevity.
These "benchmarks" would give allow clear and unambiguous comparison of these various chips.
Foolproof and brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890</id>
	<title>Query</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1265651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have data on how these compare to x86 and Intel's latest creations?  Presumably, one could write an efficient algorithm for a variety of common computing tasks and port it to the different chips to get a cross-architecture performance estimate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have data on how these compare to x86 and Intel 's latest creations ?
Presumably , one could write an efficient algorithm for a variety of common computing tasks and port it to the different chips to get a cross-architecture performance estimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have data on how these compare to x86 and Intel's latest creations?
Presumably, one could write an efficient algorithm for a variety of common computing tasks and port it to the different chips to get a cross-architecture performance estimate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069426</id>
	<title>x64...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>x64 killed the itanium... Hell even the Alpha would have, hadn't the compaq/hp thing happened....</p><p>The Itanium has been so late, and so underwhelming it's insane... It makes the MIPS/Windows NT combination look sane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>x64 killed the itanium... Hell even the Alpha would have , had n't the compaq/hp thing happened....The Itanium has been so late , and so underwhelming it 's insane... It makes the MIPS/Windows NT combination look sane ... even back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>x64 killed the itanium... Hell even the Alpha would have, hadn't the compaq/hp thing happened....The Itanium has been so late, and so underwhelming it's insane... It makes the MIPS/Windows NT combination look sane ... even back then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072874</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265734680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed. Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is no such thing as a V4. A typical 4-cylinder engines are inline engines. The 'V' in V6 and V8 is the configuration of the engine two parts not a unit of measurement. Note that at first only V8 made sense because it was just two ordinary 4-cylinder engines in V-configuration. The V is important because there are both 6-cylinder engines in V-configuration and inline-configuration (inline-6 and V6).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed .
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.There is no such thing as a V4 .
A typical 4-cylinder engines are inline engines .
The 'V ' in V6 and V8 is the configuration of the engine two parts not a unit of measurement .
Note that at first only V8 made sense because it was just two ordinary 4-cylinder engines in V-configuration .
The V is important because there are both 6-cylinder engines in V-configuration and inline-configuration ( inline-6 and V6 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed.
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.There is no such thing as a V4.
A typical 4-cylinder engines are inline engines.
The 'V' in V6 and V8 is the configuration of the engine two parts not a unit of measurement.
Note that at first only V8 made sense because it was just two ordinary 4-cylinder engines in V-configuration.
The V is important because there are both 6-cylinder engines in V-configuration and inline-configuration (inline-6 and V6).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072354</id>
	<title>Re:Why Did Apple Switch?</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265732520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power7 is also 130W+. IBM couldn't deliver a power-efficient mobile chip that was on par with Intel's offerings both in performance and power consumption, so Apple cut it. You can only false-advertise so much before people realize what BS backdrop commercials are.</p><p>Lynnfields TDP at ~65W and most of the time less, yet offers performance on low thread-counts (1-4) similar to higher end server processors. That's saying something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power7 is also 130W + .
IBM could n't deliver a power-efficient mobile chip that was on par with Intel 's offerings both in performance and power consumption , so Apple cut it .
You can only false-advertise so much before people realize what BS backdrop commercials are.Lynnfields TDP at ~ 65W and most of the time less , yet offers performance on low thread-counts ( 1-4 ) similar to higher end server processors .
That 's saying something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power7 is also 130W+.
IBM couldn't deliver a power-efficient mobile chip that was on par with Intel's offerings both in performance and power consumption, so Apple cut it.
You can only false-advertise so much before people realize what BS backdrop commercials are.Lynnfields TDP at ~65W and most of the time less, yet offers performance on low thread-counts (1-4) similar to higher end server processors.
That's saying something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072678</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it, and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database, but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople (according to my boss) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you (according to them) need AIX to unleash the real "power" in the PowerPC.</p><p>Sigh, okay, whatever. back to Linux on x86-64.</p></div><p>If they don't want people to run Linux on Power, why do they sell <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/750/browse\_linux.html" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">these</a> [ibm.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it , and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database , but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople ( according to my boss ) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you ( according to them ) need AIX to unleash the real " power " in the PowerPC.Sigh , okay , whatever .
back to Linux on x86-64.If they do n't want people to run Linux on Power , why do they sell these [ ibm.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it, and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database, but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople (according to my boss) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you (according to them) need AIX to unleash the real "power" in the PowerPC.Sigh, okay, whatever.
back to Linux on x86-64.If they don't want people to run Linux on Power, why do they sell these [ibm.com]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070962</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1265724960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus, and I'm sorry if this is nitpicking, but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C++ compiler called xlC was just, well, insane.</p></div></blockquote><p>That by itself makes me want to get my hands on an AIX machine.</p><p>
I used to have a pimped-out PS/2 Model 80 (56 megs RAM, mostly on an MCA card, twin SCSI controllers each with its own two megabyte cache on 30-pin SIMMs, SGI IrisVision hardware 3D acceleration and all sorts of other weird shit) that I could have run it on (instead of Linux)... sadly once I stopped being a student I no longer had the time to fiddle with it, so it went to the tip<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , and I 'm sorry if this is nitpicking , but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C + + compiler called xlC was just , well , insane.That by itself makes me want to get my hands on an AIX machine .
I used to have a pimped-out PS/2 Model 80 ( 56 megs RAM , mostly on an MCA card , twin SCSI controllers each with its own two megabyte cache on 30-pin SIMMs , SGI IrisVision hardware 3D acceleration and all sorts of other weird shit ) that I could have run it on ( instead of Linux ) ... sadly once I stopped being a student I no longer had the time to fiddle with it , so it went to the tip : - ( .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, and I'm sorry if this is nitpicking, but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C++ compiler called xlC was just, well, insane.That by itself makes me want to get my hands on an AIX machine.
I used to have a pimped-out PS/2 Model 80 (56 megs RAM, mostly on an MCA card, twin SCSI controllers each with its own two megabyte cache on 30-pin SIMMs, SGI IrisVision hardware 3D acceleration and all sorts of other weird shit) that I could have run it on (instead of Linux)... sadly once I stopped being a student I no longer had the time to fiddle with it, so it went to the tip :-(.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080456</id>
	<title>Re:The CPU for Playstation 4?</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1265722260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the Playstation 4 in 2012.</p></div><p>..so you can reverse-simulate from your bootleg of <i>Avatar</i> and watch Meryl Streep act?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the Playstation 4 in 2012...so you can reverse-simulate from your bootleg of Avatar and watch Meryl Streep act ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the Playstation 4 in 2012...so you can reverse-simulate from your bootleg of Avatar and watch Meryl Streep act?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069388</id>
	<title>Re:Real question</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1265745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the big-iron IBM philosophy response to that question is "Eh, throw that shit on an expansion card and we'll virtualize it fir ya."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big-iron IBM philosophy response to that question is " Eh , throw that shit on an expansion card and we 'll virtualize it fir ya .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big-iron IBM philosophy response to that question is "Eh, throw that shit on an expansion card and we'll virtualize it fir ya.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1265653440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069958</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265712420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you can buy Mac OS X separately. Though it's license forbids you to install it on non-Apple hardware, but that's a separate matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can buy Mac OS X separately .
Though it 's license forbids you to install it on non-Apple hardware , but that 's a separate matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can buy Mac OS X separately.
Though it's license forbids you to install it on non-Apple hardware, but that's a separate matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080130</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1265720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VIA's C8 (Nano) processors were rumoured to have included a design tradeoff for the FPU that capped them at around 2ghz.</p><p>But they're remarkably efficient, and perform way better than Atoms. They aren't comparable to desktop chips, but it seems like they made a decent tradeoff, if true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VIA 's C8 ( Nano ) processors were rumoured to have included a design tradeoff for the FPU that capped them at around 2ghz.But they 're remarkably efficient , and perform way better than Atoms .
They are n't comparable to desktop chips , but it seems like they made a decent tradeoff , if true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VIA's C8 (Nano) processors were rumoured to have included a design tradeoff for the FPU that capped them at around 2ghz.But they're remarkably efficient, and perform way better than Atoms.
They aren't comparable to desktop chips, but it seems like they made a decent tradeoff, if true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069030</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265653260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget that one of those 4GHz CPUs probably costs over 10 times as much as an equivalent Intel or AMD part. A decent PC costs as much as a car payment -- a decent POWER machine costs as much as a car.</p><p>The price is old, but a couple years ago a 5GHz Power6 CPU cost $15k for a dual-core module (with 4 threads) plus $30k to activate each core. That means you'd pay $75k total to use both cores of the CPU module. I'm sure Intel would have no problem supplying 5GHz CPUs at $75k each, but it's unlikely that they'd have many takers, so you're stuck with CPUs that are only 3GHz (but go almost as fast as IBM's 5GHz parts).</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that one of those 4GHz CPUs probably costs over 10 times as much as an equivalent Intel or AMD part .
A decent PC costs as much as a car payment -- a decent POWER machine costs as much as a car.The price is old , but a couple years ago a 5GHz Power6 CPU cost $ 15k for a dual-core module ( with 4 threads ) plus $ 30k to activate each core .
That means you 'd pay $ 75k total to use both cores of the CPU module .
I 'm sure Intel would have no problem supplying 5GHz CPUs at $ 75k each , but it 's unlikely that they 'd have many takers , so you 're stuck with CPUs that are only 3GHz ( but go almost as fast as IBM 's 5GHz parts ) .dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that one of those 4GHz CPUs probably costs over 10 times as much as an equivalent Intel or AMD part.
A decent PC costs as much as a car payment -- a decent POWER machine costs as much as a car.The price is old, but a couple years ago a 5GHz Power6 CPU cost $15k for a dual-core module (with 4 threads) plus $30k to activate each core.
That means you'd pay $75k total to use both cores of the CPU module.
I'm sure Intel would have no problem supplying 5GHz CPUs at $75k each, but it's unlikely that they'd have many takers, so you're stuck with CPUs that are only 3GHz (but go almost as fast as IBM's 5GHz parts).dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069308</id>
	<title>Re:Real question</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265657460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure, but their pre-lease benchmarks on Duke Nuke'em forever was off the chart.  No. Really.  True story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure , but their pre-lease benchmarks on Duke Nuke'em forever was off the chart .
No. Really .
True story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure, but their pre-lease benchmarks on Duke Nuke'em forever was off the chart.
No. Really.
True story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078038</id>
	<title>Re:CPU speed vs memory bandwidth, I don't get it</title>
	<author>stevesliva</author>
	<datestamp>1265710560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure about the blade you purchased, but it's common for each Power6 processor chip to share a package with a 32MB L3 cache chip.   The bandwidth between the processor and L3 is huge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about the blade you purchased , but it 's common for each Power6 processor chip to share a package with a 32MB L3 cache chip .
The bandwidth between the processor and L3 is huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about the blade you purchased, but it's common for each Power6 processor chip to share a package with a 32MB L3 cache chip.
The bandwidth between the processor and L3 is huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069120</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1265654460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intel did 3.73 Ghz as the top end for Netburst (Xeon 5080) but it was a fairly poor performer on a MIPS/Watt basis. In fact the 5160 running at 3.0Ghz did about 33\% higher Specfp and run at 80W instead of 130W for the 5080 (35.2 specfp\_2000/watt vs 15.5).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel did 3.73 Ghz as the top end for Netburst ( Xeon 5080 ) but it was a fairly poor performer on a MIPS/Watt basis .
In fact the 5160 running at 3.0Ghz did about 33 \ % higher Specfp and run at 80W instead of 130W for the 5080 ( 35.2 specfp \ _2000/watt vs 15.5 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel did 3.73 Ghz as the top end for Netburst (Xeon 5080) but it was a fairly poor performer on a MIPS/Watt basis.
In fact the 5160 running at 3.0Ghz did about 33\% higher Specfp and run at 80W instead of 130W for the 5080 (35.2 specfp\_2000/watt vs 15.5).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068934</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265652060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're totally correct: a direct comparison between POWER and Itanium is difficult because the architectures have different purposes.  That said, do you know of any benchmarks where the new (or old) Itanium chips clobber POWER6 (or 7) processors?  I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're totally correct : a direct comparison between POWER and Itanium is difficult because the architectures have different purposes .
That said , do you know of any benchmarks where the new ( or old ) Itanium chips clobber POWER6 ( or 7 ) processors ?
I 'm not trying to be snarky , I 'm really curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're totally correct: a direct comparison between POWER and Itanium is difficult because the architectures have different purposes.
That said, do you know of any benchmarks where the new (or old) Itanium chips clobber POWER6 (or 7) processors?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069096</id>
	<title>LPARs</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM gear gets you LPARs, with a real hypervisor that is laps ahead of all the other stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM gear gets you LPARs , with a real hypervisor that is laps ahead of all the other stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM gear gets you LPARs, with a real hypervisor that is laps ahead of all the other stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069238</id>
	<title>Uh... Power7 also executes 6 instr/cycle</title>
	<author>uarch</author>
	<datestamp>1265656380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being <b>able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Hate to break it to you but POWER7 can dispatch 6 instructions per cycle as well.<br>
<br>
That little fact was revealed last year during the Hot Chips 21 presentation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER does n't come close to , with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle .
Hate to break it to you but POWER7 can dispatch 6 instructions per cycle as well .
That little fact was revealed last year during the Hot Chips 21 presentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.
Hate to break it to you but POWER7 can dispatch 6 instructions per cycle as well.
That little fact was revealed last year during the Hot Chips 21 presentation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069536</id>
	<title>No, not again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been burned by under-performing IBM silicon too many times.  I had an old '486 IBM clone that had far less power than Intels' equivalent chip.  I bought a PS3 which has the super duper cellBE chip 'the broadband processor'.  What crap.  Just slightly slower than a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4.  You need a pile of libraries from IBM --the metallurgical equivalent of unobtainium-- to get any 'additional' power out of the chip, provided of course, that you rewrite all of your applications.  So now they have a new chip.  Nice.  I'll stick to Intel Core processors, thanks.  Software runs RIGHT NOW!  No rare and unavailable libraries required, and real power that you can actually see.  64 cores running like an 8080 vs what I have now.... let me see..... NOT!  I normally don't bash sight unseen, but given the track record I've seen from these guys, PASS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been burned by under-performing IBM silicon too many times .
I had an old '486 IBM clone that had far less power than Intels ' equivalent chip .
I bought a PS3 which has the super duper cellBE chip 'the broadband processor' .
What crap .
Just slightly slower than a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 .
You need a pile of libraries from IBM --the metallurgical equivalent of unobtainium-- to get any 'additional ' power out of the chip , provided of course , that you rewrite all of your applications .
So now they have a new chip .
Nice. I 'll stick to Intel Core processors , thanks .
Software runs RIGHT NOW !
No rare and unavailable libraries required , and real power that you can actually see .
64 cores running like an 8080 vs what I have now.... let me see..... NOT ! I normally do n't bash sight unseen , but given the track record I 've seen from these guys , PASS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been burned by under-performing IBM silicon too many times.
I had an old '486 IBM clone that had far less power than Intels' equivalent chip.
I bought a PS3 which has the super duper cellBE chip 'the broadband processor'.
What crap.
Just slightly slower than a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4.
You need a pile of libraries from IBM --the metallurgical equivalent of unobtainium-- to get any 'additional' power out of the chip, provided of course, that you rewrite all of your applications.
So now they have a new chip.
Nice.  I'll stick to Intel Core processors, thanks.
Software runs RIGHT NOW!
No rare and unavailable libraries required, and real power that you can actually see.
64 cores running like an 8080 vs what I have now.... let me see..... NOT!  I normally don't bash sight unseen, but given the track record I've seen from these guys, PASS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070714</id>
	<title>i5/os?</title>
	<author>iSrzMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265722620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and presumably i5/OS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux " ... and presumably i5/OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Power7 servers will run AIX and Linux" ... and presumably i5/OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072076</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1265731260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been in the software field (sales, first line and higher lines of support, programming, product management, certification) for 23 years now.</p><p>There was a time, late 1980's to about mid 1990's where I had a number of clients tell me:</p><p>If the product has the word "turbo" in it's name, management told me they will not authorize purchase for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been in the software field ( sales , first line and higher lines of support , programming , product management , certification ) for 23 years now.There was a time , late 1980 's to about mid 1990 's where I had a number of clients tell me : If the product has the word " turbo " in it 's name , management told me they will not authorize purchase for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been in the software field (sales, first line and higher lines of support, programming, product management, certification) for 23 years now.There was a time, late 1980's to about mid 1990's where I had a number of clients tell me:If the product has the word "turbo" in it's name, management told me they will not authorize purchase for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072508</id>
	<title>Re:CPU speed vs memory bandwidth, I don't get it</title>
	<author>uarch</author>
	<datestamp>1265733240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might expect a Power6 to be at a bandwidth disadvantage when compared to the x5560 but when you look at the memory bandwidth specs they're surprisingly close.  Once you move up to Power7 you begin to see a big difference.<br>
<br>
Xeon x5560 memory bandwidth/chip:  32 GB/s <a href="http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37109" title="intel.com">[1]</a> [intel.com] <br>
Power6 memory bandwidth/chip:  32 GB/s (??? This may be wrong.  I see references to 50GB/s but I believe that's peak)<br>
Power7 memory bandwidth/chip: 100 GB/s <a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wikis/download/attachments/104533501/POWER7\%2B-\%2BThe\%2BBeat\%2BGoes\%2BOn.pdf" title="ibm.com">[3]</a> [ibm.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might expect a Power6 to be at a bandwidth disadvantage when compared to the x5560 but when you look at the memory bandwidth specs they 're surprisingly close .
Once you move up to Power7 you begin to see a big difference .
Xeon x5560 memory bandwidth/chip : 32 GB/s [ 1 ] [ intel.com ] Power6 memory bandwidth/chip : 32 GB/s ( ? ? ?
This may be wrong .
I see references to 50GB/s but I believe that 's peak ) Power7 memory bandwidth/chip : 100 GB/s [ 3 ] [ ibm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might expect a Power6 to be at a bandwidth disadvantage when compared to the x5560 but when you look at the memory bandwidth specs they're surprisingly close.
Once you move up to Power7 you begin to see a big difference.
Xeon x5560 memory bandwidth/chip:  32 GB/s [1] [intel.com] 
Power6 memory bandwidth/chip:  32 GB/s (???
This may be wrong.
I see references to 50GB/s but I believe that's peak)
Power7 memory bandwidth/chip: 100 GB/s [3] [ibm.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</id>
	<title>Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different that kdawson's snide "put this new Intel chip in the shade" comment is kind of nonsensical. Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle. While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration and the performance difference between the two is not as clear-cut as our illustrious editor is trying to suggest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different that kdawson 's snide " put this new Intel chip in the shade " comment is kind of nonsensical .
Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER does n't come close to , with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle .
While its possible that POWER7 is faster , its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration and the performance difference between the two is not as clear-cut as our illustrious editor is trying to suggest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different that kdawson's snide "put this new Intel chip in the shade" comment is kind of nonsensical.
Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.
While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration and the performance difference between the two is not as clear-cut as our illustrious editor is trying to suggest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069296</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265657340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They <i>are</i> selling 3.4GHz Phenoms!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are selling 3.4GHz Phenoms !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are selling 3.4GHz Phenoms!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868</id>
	<title>Real question</title>
	<author>LordoftheChmod</author>
	<datestamp>1265651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's all fun but it doesn't answer the real question :

Can it run Crysis?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all fun but it does n't answer the real question : Can it run Crysis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all fun but it doesn't answer the real question :

Can it run Crysis?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070228</id>
	<title>Can I get a Microchannel CPU card?</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1265716680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Power 1 RS/6000 box.  The Power chipset is on one of the Microchannel cards.  Maybe I can get a processor upgrade in the form of a Power 7 chip on Microchannel card?</p><p>No?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Power 1 RS/6000 box .
The Power chipset is on one of the Microchannel cards .
Maybe I can get a processor upgrade in the form of a Power 7 chip on Microchannel card ? No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Power 1 RS/6000 box.
The Power chipset is on one of the Microchannel cards.
Maybe I can get a processor upgrade in the form of a Power 7 chip on Microchannel card?No?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898</id>
	<title>Apple skunkworks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious whether or not Apple is maintaining a parallel dev. of OSX for this line of IBM chips the same way that the Intel version of OSX was lurking in the dark from 2000 until 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious whether or not Apple is maintaining a parallel dev .
of OSX for this line of IBM chips the same way that the Intel version of OSX was lurking in the dark from 2000 until 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious whether or not Apple is maintaining a parallel dev.
of OSX for this line of IBM chips the same way that the Intel version of OSX was lurking in the dark from 2000 until 2006.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31081800</id>
	<title>Missing IBM i !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The headline misses one of the most powerful operating systems supported by POWER7: IBM i. IBM i and it's predecessors i5/OS and OS/400 have run on every version of the POWER processors line even bore they were called POWER and is one of the most widely used operating systems in the world. Like AIX and Linux IBM i is supported on these new chips immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline misses one of the most powerful operating systems supported by POWER7 : IBM i. IBM i and it 's predecessors i5/OS and OS/400 have run on every version of the POWER processors line even bore they were called POWER and is one of the most widely used operating systems in the world .
Like AIX and Linux IBM i is supported on these new chips immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline misses one of the most powerful operating systems supported by POWER7: IBM i. IBM i and it's predecessors i5/OS and OS/400 have run on every version of the POWER processors line even bore they were called POWER and is one of the most widely used operating systems in the world.
Like AIX and Linux IBM i is supported on these new chips immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069292</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be cool?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1265657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?</p></div><p>Yeah and it would sell miserably at around $75,000 a piece.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.</p></div><p>Considering that you could buy around 30 of the highest end i7s for the same price as a single Power7 I would think you would get far better performance per dollar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it , and assload ( actual technical term for large quantity ) of RAM and a big display ? Yeah and it would sell miserably at around $ 75,000 a piece.Oh , I forgot , the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us , the users , better performance.Considering that you could buy around 30 of the highest end i7s for the same price as a single Power7 I would think you would get far better performance per dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?Yeah and it would sell miserably at around $75,000 a piece.Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.Considering that you could buy around 30 of the highest end i7s for the same price as a single Power7 I would think you would get far better performance per dollar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071620</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Machupo</author>
	<datestamp>1265728620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor don't care, people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care.</p></div><p>People doing real nuclear blast simulations (and more importantly, effects of long-term nuclear decay) would be using 10k's if not 100k's of these processors and most certainly care<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor do n't care , people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care.People doing real nuclear blast simulations ( and more importantly , effects of long-term nuclear decay ) would be using 10k 's if not 100k 's of these processors and most certainly care : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor don't care, people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care.People doing real nuclear blast simulations (and more importantly, effects of long-term nuclear decay) would be using 10k's if not 100k's of these processors and most certainly care :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069002</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265652900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that Power7 systems cost $ 25000 +</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that Power7 systems cost $ 25000 +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that Power7 systems cost $ 25000 +</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070334</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265718120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in my day, manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.<br>And we liked it that way."</p><p>Noobs...<br>Back in MY day, I used to wax the strings on my abacus to lessen bead friction.<br>We LOVED it that way.<br>Now get off my peat bog!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in my day , manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.And we liked it that way .
" Noobs...Back in MY day , I used to wax the strings on my abacus to lessen bead friction.We LOVED it that way.Now get off my peat bog !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in my day, manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.And we liked it that way.
"Noobs...Back in MY day, I used to wax the strings on my abacus to lessen bead friction.We LOVED it that way.Now get off my peat bog!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069920</id>
	<title>The CPU for Playstation 4?</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1265711820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the <a href="http://www.playfire.com/a/forum/general-discussion/thread/60381" title="playfire.com">Playstation 4</a> [playfire.com] in 2012.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the Playstation 4 [ playfire.com ] in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumour has it that this baby is going to be the CPU of the Playstation 4 [playfire.com] in 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31073328</id>
	<title>Windows7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Power7 designed for Windows7?</p><p>Please, don't let it be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Power7 designed for Windows7 ? Please , do n't let it be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Power7 designed for Windows7?Please, don't let it be!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712</id>
	<title>Why Did Apple Switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265722620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 for Macs, Steve Jobs said it was because Intel's energy efficiency was on a much better curve than IBM's. But the Power7 is 2x as fast at 1/4x the efficiency. I don't think Intel's performance:efficiency has improved as much, and indeed IBM might already be better MIPS:W.</p><p>Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity, and the Wall Street lemmings, that come with Intel CPUs. But why did he say it was performance:efficiency when he'd look wrong after a short while? Was it just a better excuse than admitting he'd been wrong to stay off Intel for so many years? Or maybe Intel just made him some kind of deal we don't know about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 for Macs , Steve Jobs said it was because Intel 's energy efficiency was on a much better curve than IBM 's .
But the Power7 is 2x as fast at 1/4x the efficiency .
I do n't think Intel 's performance : efficiency has improved as much , and indeed IBM might already be better MIPS : W.Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity , and the Wall Street lemmings , that come with Intel CPUs .
But why did he say it was performance : efficiency when he 'd look wrong after a short while ?
Was it just a better excuse than admitting he 'd been wrong to stay off Intel for so many years ?
Or maybe Intel just made him some kind of deal we do n't know about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 for Macs, Steve Jobs said it was because Intel's energy efficiency was on a much better curve than IBM's.
But the Power7 is 2x as fast at 1/4x the efficiency.
I don't think Intel's performance:efficiency has improved as much, and indeed IBM might already be better MIPS:W.Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity, and the Wall Street lemmings, that come with Intel CPUs.
But why did he say it was performance:efficiency when he'd look wrong after a short while?
Was it just a better excuse than admitting he'd been wrong to stay off Intel for so many years?
Or maybe Intel just made him some kind of deal we don't know about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072682</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I'd really rather.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'd really rather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'd really rather.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510</id>
	<title>CPU speed vs memory bandwidth, I don't get it</title>
	<author>egnop</author>
	<datestamp>1265720400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand why you would get a Power chip for pure number crunching.<br>But having a lot of data to chew away, I use p-threading for the larger jobs and let the rest of the jobs over to the os.</p><p>I was always under the assumption that data has to be delivered to the cpu fast, very fast and since the Power6 rs6000 only supports ddr2 I don't get it.</p><p>We recently bought a new rs6000, which has the Power6 in it(still has to be delivered), but the memory is 'only' ddr2, can someone enlighten me why this machine would run faster than my dual Xeon 5560 with triple channel ddr3?</p><p>The Xeon box only costed 1/2 of what the rs6000 costed</p><p>thanks in advance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand why you would get a Power chip for pure number crunching.But having a lot of data to chew away , I use p-threading for the larger jobs and let the rest of the jobs over to the os.I was always under the assumption that data has to be delivered to the cpu fast , very fast and since the Power6 rs6000 only supports ddr2 I do n't get it.We recently bought a new rs6000 , which has the Power6 in it ( still has to be delivered ) , but the memory is 'only ' ddr2 , can someone enlighten me why this machine would run faster than my dual Xeon 5560 with triple channel ddr3 ? The Xeon box only costed 1/2 of what the rs6000 costedthanks in advance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand why you would get a Power chip for pure number crunching.But having a lot of data to chew away, I use p-threading for the larger jobs and let the rest of the jobs over to the os.I was always under the assumption that data has to be delivered to the cpu fast, very fast and since the Power6 rs6000 only supports ddr2 I don't get it.We recently bought a new rs6000, which has the Power6 in it(still has to be delivered), but the memory is 'only' ddr2, can someone enlighten me why this machine would run faster than my dual Xeon 5560 with triple channel ddr3?The Xeon box only costed 1/2 of what the rs6000 costedthanks in advance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071904</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1265730360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even our compilers were "turbo" back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even our compilers were " turbo " back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even our compilers were "turbo" back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069202</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1265655720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a $/FLOP basis they get slaughtered by Nehalem-EX, but if you need flat out performance the Power7 system will be superior thanks to 2x more memory bandwidth per core and ~3.5x more interprocessor bandwidth. The basics for this type of comparison are Specfp\_base, Specint\_base for CPU performance and usually either SAP, TPC-C or specjbb for business logic comparisons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a $ /FLOP basis they get slaughtered by Nehalem-EX , but if you need flat out performance the Power7 system will be superior thanks to 2x more memory bandwidth per core and ~ 3.5x more interprocessor bandwidth .
The basics for this type of comparison are Specfp \ _base , Specint \ _base for CPU performance and usually either SAP , TPC-C or specjbb for business logic comparisons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a $/FLOP basis they get slaughtered by Nehalem-EX, but if you need flat out performance the Power7 system will be superior thanks to 2x more memory bandwidth per core and ~3.5x more interprocessor bandwidth.
The basics for this type of comparison are Specfp\_base, Specint\_base for CPU performance and usually either SAP, TPC-C or specjbb for business logic comparisons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071078</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1265725740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am going to call BS on that statement.  If all the only major barrier to increasing the clock speeds for AMD64 chips from Intel or AMD right now heat sinks I'd be buying different servers.  None of the credible server manufacturers HP,IBM,DELL? use heat sinks looking anything like the ones attached to a retail packaged microprocessors.  None of these guys are shy when it comes to noise and fans either.</p><p>Customers want as much power from a single chip as they can get with the virtualization targeted products.  The system builders would simply say to Intel and AMD "Give us the 5ghz chips and tell our engineers how much heat they have to dissipate and a how fast they will find a way."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to call BS on that statement .
If all the only major barrier to increasing the clock speeds for AMD64 chips from Intel or AMD right now heat sinks I 'd be buying different servers .
None of the credible server manufacturers HP,IBM,DELL ?
use heat sinks looking anything like the ones attached to a retail packaged microprocessors .
None of these guys are shy when it comes to noise and fans either.Customers want as much power from a single chip as they can get with the virtualization targeted products .
The system builders would simply say to Intel and AMD " Give us the 5ghz chips and tell our engineers how much heat they have to dissipate and a how fast they will find a way .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to call BS on that statement.
If all the only major barrier to increasing the clock speeds for AMD64 chips from Intel or AMD right now heat sinks I'd be buying different servers.
None of the credible server manufacturers HP,IBM,DELL?
use heat sinks looking anything like the ones attached to a retail packaged microprocessors.
None of these guys are shy when it comes to noise and fans either.Customers want as much power from a single chip as they can get with the virtualization targeted products.
The system builders would simply say to Intel and AMD "Give us the 5ghz chips and tell our engineers how much heat they have to dissipate and a how fast they will find a way.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068988</id>
	<title>Re:Apple skunkworks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265652720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they are. It's going to be in the third generation iPad. It will have a 3d display. That's right a 3D TOUCH screen. Meaning, you can reach INTO the menu and select  things. </p><p>It will also read your mind! </p><p>lastly, as Jobs' health declines, there's a skunk works to put his conscience into an iPad - just like Dr. Thiopolis from the Buck Rogers in the 25th tv show from the 70s - you know the one with Gil Gerard. They'll have a guy walk around with the iPad and Jobs' image will always be displayed on the screen and he'll continue to run Apple computer. God forbid if someone forgets to plug Steve in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they are .
It 's going to be in the third generation iPad .
It will have a 3d display .
That 's right a 3D TOUCH screen .
Meaning , you can reach INTO the menu and select things .
It will also read your mind !
lastly , as Jobs ' health declines , there 's a skunk works to put his conscience into an iPad - just like Dr. Thiopolis from the Buck Rogers in the 25th tv show from the 70s - you know the one with Gil Gerard .
They 'll have a guy walk around with the iPad and Jobs ' image will always be displayed on the screen and he 'll continue to run Apple computer .
God forbid if someone forgets to plug Steve in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they are.
It's going to be in the third generation iPad.
It will have a 3d display.
That's right a 3D TOUCH screen.
Meaning, you can reach INTO the menu and select  things.
It will also read your mind!
lastly, as Jobs' health declines, there's a skunk works to put his conscience into an iPad - just like Dr. Thiopolis from the Buck Rogers in the 25th tv show from the 70s - you know the one with Gil Gerard.
They'll have a guy walk around with the iPad and Jobs' image will always be displayed on the screen and he'll continue to run Apple computer.
God forbid if someone forgets to plug Steve in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069196</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it be cool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265655660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?</p><p>Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.</p><p>I actually think Apple started it's slide into evildom with switching from Power to Intel.</p><p>Oh well, we can dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it , and assload ( actual technical term for large quantity ) of RAM and a big display ? Oh , I forgot , the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us , the users , better performance.I actually think Apple started it 's slide into evildom with switching from Power to Intel.Oh well , we can dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a PowerMac with a couple of these in it, and assload (actual technical term for large quantity) of RAM and a big display?Oh, I forgot, the new improved Apple has told us that the Intel chip give us, the users, better performance.I actually think Apple started it's slide into evildom with switching from Power to Intel.Oh well, we can dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068950</id>
	<title>Re:Apple skunkworks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265652240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing POWER with PowerPC.  They are not the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing POWER with PowerPC .
They are not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing POWER with PowerPC.
They are not the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually both AMD and Intel have chips currently clocked over 3 GHz. Some of the newer Intel chips also have something they call Turbo Boost where the chip essentially overclocks itself if it's not using all of its cores. It also looks like AMD has a 3.6 GHz Phenom II X4 chip slated to be released soon. It would appear that the companies found solutions to whatever ceilings may have existed. VIA doesn't target the high-end of the market so I don't think that they're producing any chips that would run at those clock speeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually both AMD and Intel have chips currently clocked over 3 GHz .
Some of the newer Intel chips also have something they call Turbo Boost where the chip essentially overclocks itself if it 's not using all of its cores .
It also looks like AMD has a 3.6 GHz Phenom II X4 chip slated to be released soon .
It would appear that the companies found solutions to whatever ceilings may have existed .
VIA does n't target the high-end of the market so I do n't think that they 're producing any chips that would run at those clock speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually both AMD and Intel have chips currently clocked over 3 GHz.
Some of the newer Intel chips also have something they call Turbo Boost where the chip essentially overclocks itself if it's not using all of its cores.
It also looks like AMD has a 3.6 GHz Phenom II X4 chip slated to be released soon.
It would appear that the companies found solutions to whatever ceilings may have existed.
VIA doesn't target the high-end of the market so I don't think that they're producing any chips that would run at those clock speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076280</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1265746620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for IBM's Java Technology Center, and we develop IBM JDK for 12 combinations of platform/architecture - 32/64bit each of Windows,Linux*  and AIX, z/OS(31/64).....and Linux on p-series(32/64) as well as Linux on System Z (31/64).</p><p>* - 64bit Windows/Linux refers to AMD64 not IA64.</p><p>I administer a POWER5 dual CPU box used for development that runs RHEL 4. IBM does provide Linux on its own hardware for compatibility/ease of use etc.<br>You can directly download IBM Linux JDKs <a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/linux/download.html" title="ibm.com">here</a> [ibm.com], but for Windows and 32bit Linux you have to get it bundled with the <a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/eclipse/index.html" title="ibm.com">Eclipse developer kit</a> [ibm.com], as those platforms are the same as Sun, and licensing forbids us from directly offering it for download on those platforms other than as part of another product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for IBM 's Java Technology Center , and we develop IBM JDK for 12 combinations of platform/architecture - 32/64bit each of Windows,Linux * and AIX , z/OS ( 31/64 ) .....and Linux on p-series ( 32/64 ) as well as Linux on System Z ( 31/64 ) .
* - 64bit Windows/Linux refers to AMD64 not IA64.I administer a POWER5 dual CPU box used for development that runs RHEL 4 .
IBM does provide Linux on its own hardware for compatibility/ease of use etc.You can directly download IBM Linux JDKs here [ ibm.com ] , but for Windows and 32bit Linux you have to get it bundled with the Eclipse developer kit [ ibm.com ] , as those platforms are the same as Sun , and licensing forbids us from directly offering it for download on those platforms other than as part of another product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for IBM's Java Technology Center, and we develop IBM JDK for 12 combinations of platform/architecture - 32/64bit each of Windows,Linux*  and AIX, z/OS(31/64).....and Linux on p-series(32/64) as well as Linux on System Z (31/64).
* - 64bit Windows/Linux refers to AMD64 not IA64.I administer a POWER5 dual CPU box used for development that runs RHEL 4.
IBM does provide Linux on its own hardware for compatibility/ease of use etc.You can directly download IBM Linux JDKs here [ibm.com], but for Windows and 32bit Linux you have to get it bundled with the Eclipse developer kit [ibm.com], as those platforms are the same as Sun, and licensing forbids us from directly offering it for download on those platforms other than as part of another product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31081374</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1265728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.. One of the last models before moving to the Core Architecture.  It was an "engineering sample" and is one hell of a space heater, but also many years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.. One of the last models before moving to the Core Architecture .
It was an " engineering sample " and is one hell of a space heater , but also many years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.. One of the last models before moving to the Core Architecture.
It was an "engineering sample" and is one hell of a space heater, but also many years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076248</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>speederaser</author>
	<datestamp>1265746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>V-4 engines certainly do exist.</p><p>For cars, both Ford and Saab have built V-4s.  V-4s are more common for motorcycles though because an inline engine makes the engine too wide (motorcycle engines sit sideways in the chassis).  Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Ducati and Aprilia all have V-4s in their motorcycles.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4\_engine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4\_engine</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>There have also been a number of V-2 engines.  The only V engine I have not heard of below 16 are V-14s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>V-4 engines certainly do exist.For cars , both Ford and Saab have built V-4s .
V-4s are more common for motorcycles though because an inline engine makes the engine too wide ( motorcycle engines sit sideways in the chassis ) .
Honda , Yamaha , Suzuki , Ducati and Aprilia all have V-4s in their motorcycles.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4 \ _engine [ wikipedia.org ] There have also been a number of V-2 engines .
The only V engine I have not heard of below 16 are V-14s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>V-4 engines certainly do exist.For cars, both Ford and Saab have built V-4s.
V-4s are more common for motorcycles though because an inline engine makes the engine too wide (motorcycle engines sit sideways in the chassis).
Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Ducati and Aprilia all have V-4s in their motorcycles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4\_engine [wikipedia.org]There have also been a number of V-2 engines.
The only V engine I have not heard of below 16 are V-14s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265655000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed. Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.</p></div><p>Back in my day, manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.<br>And we liked it that way.<br>Now get off my lawn!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed .
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.Back in my day , manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.And we liked it that way.Now get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed.
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.Back in my day, manufacturers used to slap a turbo button on the front of the case.And we liked it that way.Now get off my lawn!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077728</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265709300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD? That 3.0 GHz ceiling?</i></p><p>If you constrain yourself to PPC, there was a famous <a href="http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/" title="macdailynews.com">pledge</a> [macdailynews.com] for a 3GHz PPC 970 but that materialized about three years behind schedule in the Power 6.</p><p>Actually, that's worth noting - the Power7's aren't trying to out-clock the Power6's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD ?
That 3.0 GHz ceiling ? If you constrain yourself to PPC , there was a famous pledge [ macdailynews.com ] for a 3GHz PPC 970 but that materialized about three years behind schedule in the Power 6.Actually , that 's worth noting - the Power7 's are n't trying to out-clock the Power6 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD?
That 3.0 GHz ceiling?If you constrain yourself to PPC, there was a famous pledge [macdailynews.com] for a 3GHz PPC 970 but that materialized about three years behind schedule in the Power 6.Actually, that's worth noting - the Power7's aren't trying to out-clock the Power6's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068870</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD?  That 3.0 GHz ceiling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD ?
That 3.0 GHz ceiling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean how you can buy a 3.4 GHz Phenom II X4 from AMD?
That 3.0 GHz ceiling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069874</id>
	<title>Performance Comparison &amp; More</title>
	<author>markus\_baertschi</author>
	<datestamp>1265711100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've ran through the performance numbers announced by IBM and what I found at spec.org (specint\_rate &amp; specfp\_rate) of the other CPU's and roughly the following picture (give/take 20\%):
</p><ul>
<li>Power6/Power7: about 30 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core</li>
<li>Intel Core i7: about 30 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core</li>
<li>Sparc: about 10 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core</li>
<li>Itanium 2: about 12 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core</li>
</ul><p>So it looks to me that performance-wise Power and x86\_64 are similar. Both seem almost three times as fast as Itanium/Sparc. However. in the commercial world scalability matters and I there are not many big (&gt;4 socket) x86 systems around. Big Power, Sparc and Itanium servers scale to hundreds of cores and are built like mainframes with excellent RAS features. I see high-end kit from both sides, x86 and Power and the margins in the x86 world are not good enough to pay for the engineering it takes to get to the same levels.
</p><p>If you compare Power and x86\_linux with cars:
</p><ul>
<li>You are read to spend some money to drive a nice car with excellent performance and stop at the dealer for inspections regularly then you well of with a Range Rover (=AIX Power server).</li>
<li>You are going to cross Africa, will be on your own (and have the truck full f spare parts) and are ready to get your hands dirty then you want a Land Rover (=Linux x86).</li>
</ul><p>This picture is far from complete, but shows what the choice is quite well.
</p><p> <i>Markus</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've ran through the performance numbers announced by IBM and what I found at spec.org ( specint \ _rate &amp; specfp \ _rate ) of the other CPU 's and roughly the following picture ( give/take 20 \ % ) : Power6/Power7 : about 30 spec \ _int/fp \ _rate/core Intel Core i7 : about 30 spec \ _int/fp \ _rate/core Sparc : about 10 spec \ _int/fp \ _rate/core Itanium 2 : about 12 spec \ _int/fp \ _rate/core So it looks to me that performance-wise Power and x86 \ _64 are similar .
Both seem almost three times as fast as Itanium/Sparc .
However. in the commercial world scalability matters and I there are not many big ( &gt; 4 socket ) x86 systems around .
Big Power , Sparc and Itanium servers scale to hundreds of cores and are built like mainframes with excellent RAS features .
I see high-end kit from both sides , x86 and Power and the margins in the x86 world are not good enough to pay for the engineering it takes to get to the same levels .
If you compare Power and x86 \ _linux with cars : You are read to spend some money to drive a nice car with excellent performance and stop at the dealer for inspections regularly then you well of with a Range Rover ( = AIX Power server ) .
You are going to cross Africa , will be on your own ( and have the truck full f spare parts ) and are ready to get your hands dirty then you want a Land Rover ( = Linux x86 ) .
This picture is far from complete , but shows what the choice is quite well .
Markus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've ran through the performance numbers announced by IBM and what I found at spec.org (specint\_rate &amp; specfp\_rate) of the other CPU's and roughly the following picture (give/take 20\%):

Power6/Power7: about 30 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core
Intel Core i7: about 30 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core
Sparc: about 10 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core
Itanium 2: about 12 spec\_int/fp\_rate/core
So it looks to me that performance-wise Power and x86\_64 are similar.
Both seem almost three times as fast as Itanium/Sparc.
However. in the commercial world scalability matters and I there are not many big (&gt;4 socket) x86 systems around.
Big Power, Sparc and Itanium servers scale to hundreds of cores and are built like mainframes with excellent RAS features.
I see high-end kit from both sides, x86 and Power and the margins in the x86 world are not good enough to pay for the engineering it takes to get to the same levels.
If you compare Power and x86\_linux with cars:

You are read to spend some money to drive a nice car with excellent performance and stop at the dealer for inspections regularly then you well of with a Range Rover (=AIX Power server).
You are going to cross Africa, will be on your own (and have the truck full f spare parts) and are ready to get your hands dirty then you want a Land Rover (=Linux x86).
This picture is far from complete, but shows what the choice is quite well.
Markus</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed.  Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed .
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably were better ways of increasing computational speed using multicore processor designs than just increasing the clock speed.
Kind of like going from a V4 engine to V6 being a better option in terms of power than increasing the individual piston HP of the V4 from 25 to 30.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072416</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265732820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no 3GHz ceiling; but 3GHz is the sweet spot right now. The current i7's turbo-clock themselves to near 4GHz (3.9 in some of the Lynnfields I believe) but is limited by the power envelope of its target applications (desktops).</p><p>Frequency will not be scaling much more in CMOS beyond this as transistors are not going to be getting much faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no 3GHz ceiling ; but 3GHz is the sweet spot right now .
The current i7 's turbo-clock themselves to near 4GHz ( 3.9 in some of the Lynnfields I believe ) but is limited by the power envelope of its target applications ( desktops ) .Frequency will not be scaling much more in CMOS beyond this as transistors are not going to be getting much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no 3GHz ceiling; but 3GHz is the sweet spot right now.
The current i7's turbo-clock themselves to near 4GHz (3.9 in some of the Lynnfields I believe) but is limited by the power envelope of its target applications (desktops).Frequency will not be scaling much more in CMOS beyond this as transistors are not going to be getting much faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078796</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265713440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the Pentium 4 clock at 3.6GHz? this is nothing special, priorities have shifted and people care less about cycles and more about cores.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the Pentium 4 clock at 3.6GHz ?
this is nothing special , priorities have shifted and people care less about cycles and more about cores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the Pentium 4 clock at 3.6GHz?
this is nothing special, priorities have shifted and people care less about cycles and more about cores.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068996</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1265652780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fairy dust!  IBM has captured several pixies and uses them to craft its magical chips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fairy dust !
IBM has captured several pixies and uses them to craft its magical chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fairy dust!
IBM has captured several pixies and uses them to craft its magical chips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069752</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265708820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And Mac OS X.</i></p><p><a href="http://opensource.apple.com/" title="apple.com">http://opensource.apple.com/</a> [apple.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Mac OS X.http : //opensource.apple.com/ [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Mac OS X.http://opensource.apple.com/ [apple.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068828</id>
	<title>This is Bad News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Intel...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Intel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Intel...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068972</id>
	<title>Re:Apple skunkworks?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1265652540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i find it more likely that they are looking into running osx on a multi-core cortex-A9 or later, with some special sauce from PA semi added on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i find it more likely that they are looking into running osx on a multi-core cortex-A9 or later , with some special sauce from PA semi added on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i find it more likely that they are looking into running osx on a multi-core cortex-A9 or later, with some special sauce from PA semi added on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</id>
	<title>Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1265651580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AIX....the last Unix you can't just "get" a copy of, but need to actually buy the hardware (a la the Mac). We had a Power box at work with AIX for awhile, but its configuration tools was quite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unique among Unix flavors (though I was told it was pretty straightforward IBM) and I had a horrible time getting GCC to work with it; most every F/OSS package I came across either straight up wasn't tested on AIX (because no one had the hardware), or it had a whole separate setup (I believe one of the standard lines running<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure is "Is this an AIX system?").</p><p>I recall the box being wicked fast when we were running Oracle on it; it was a "small" Power machine but it still could handle a monster database with hundreds of millions of rows with no trouble. Frankly, I was sort-of sad to see it go; I really did want to get more familiar with it, but apparently the maintenance costs IBM was charging made it a non-starter. Plus, ultimately, it seems that it just wasn't very OSS friendly; xlc is apparently an amazing compiler for the PowerPC, but they wanted $6000 for a license <i>per developer</i>. Plus, and I'm sorry if this is nitpicking, but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C++ compiler called xlC was just, well, insane.</p><p>What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it, and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database, but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople (according to my boss) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you (according to them) need AIX to unleash the real "power" in the PowerPC.</p><p>Sigh, okay, whatever. back to Linux on x86-64.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AIX....the last Unix you ca n't just " get " a copy of , but need to actually buy the hardware ( a la the Mac ) .
We had a Power box at work with AIX for awhile , but its configuration tools was quite ... unique among Unix flavors ( though I was told it was pretty straightforward IBM ) and I had a horrible time getting GCC to work with it ; most every F/OSS package I came across either straight up was n't tested on AIX ( because no one had the hardware ) , or it had a whole separate setup ( I believe one of the standard lines running ./configure is " Is this an AIX system ?
" ) .I recall the box being wicked fast when we were running Oracle on it ; it was a " small " Power machine but it still could handle a monster database with hundreds of millions of rows with no trouble .
Frankly , I was sort-of sad to see it go ; I really did want to get more familiar with it , but apparently the maintenance costs IBM was charging made it a non-starter .
Plus , ultimately , it seems that it just was n't very OSS friendly ; xlc is apparently an amazing compiler for the PowerPC , but they wanted $ 6000 for a license per developer .
Plus , and I 'm sorry if this is nitpicking , but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C + + compiler called xlC was just , well , insane.What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it , and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database , but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople ( according to my boss ) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you ( according to them ) need AIX to unleash the real " power " in the PowerPC.Sigh , okay , whatever .
back to Linux on x86-64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AIX....the last Unix you can't just "get" a copy of, but need to actually buy the hardware (a la the Mac).
We had a Power box at work with AIX for awhile, but its configuration tools was quite ... unique among Unix flavors (though I was told it was pretty straightforward IBM) and I had a horrible time getting GCC to work with it; most every F/OSS package I came across either straight up wasn't tested on AIX (because no one had the hardware), or it had a whole separate setup (I believe one of the standard lines running ./configure is "Is this an AIX system?
").I recall the box being wicked fast when we were running Oracle on it; it was a "small" Power machine but it still could handle a monster database with hundreds of millions of rows with no trouble.
Frankly, I was sort-of sad to see it go; I really did want to get more familiar with it, but apparently the maintenance costs IBM was charging made it a non-starter.
Plus, ultimately, it seems that it just wasn't very OSS friendly; xlc is apparently an amazing compiler for the PowerPC, but they wanted $6000 for a license per developer.
Plus, and I'm sorry if this is nitpicking, but to have the C compiler called xlc and the C++ compiler called xlC was just, well, insane.What I really wanted to do was get Linux on it, and Oracle even has a Linux-on-Power version of their database, but there seemed to be some grumbling from the IBM salespeople (according to my boss) that they discourage people from running Linux on Power....I guess you (according to them) need AIX to unleash the real "power" in the PowerPC.Sigh, okay, whatever.
back to Linux on x86-64.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069476</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1265747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fond memories...  I remember having a similar experience wrt SUN's C compiler - the licensing was just stupid.  I needed an extra lic for another machine, but management balked at the price.  So,... gcc it was.  Once I got it going (this was circa '96) gcc was a pleasure - the binaries were smaller, they ran faster (by several percentage points IIRC) and gcc compiled faster.</p><p>I also had a few years of exposure to several power boxen running aix - quite zippy, but the UNIX flavour was just weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fond memories... I remember having a similar experience wrt SUN 's C compiler - the licensing was just stupid .
I needed an extra lic for another machine , but management balked at the price .
So,... gcc it was .
Once I got it going ( this was circa '96 ) gcc was a pleasure - the binaries were smaller , they ran faster ( by several percentage points IIRC ) and gcc compiled faster.I also had a few years of exposure to several power boxen running aix - quite zippy , but the UNIX flavour was just weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fond memories...  I remember having a similar experience wrt SUN's C compiler - the licensing was just stupid.
I needed an extra lic for another machine, but management balked at the price.
So,... gcc it was.
Once I got it going (this was circa '96) gcc was a pleasure - the binaries were smaller, they ran faster (by several percentage points IIRC) and gcc compiled faster.I also had a few years of exposure to several power boxen running aix - quite zippy, but the UNIX flavour was just weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072878</id>
	<title>Re:Why Did Apple Switch?</title>
	<author>jeremyp</author>
	<datestamp>1265734680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity,</p></div><p>I think he wanted a processor he could put in his laptops that didn't suck.</p><p>The G5 was too power hungry to put in a laptop and the G4 clocked at 1GHz when "equivalent" Intel and AMD laptop processors were achieving about 2GHz (if my memory serves me correct).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity,I think he wanted a processor he could put in his laptops that did n't suck.The G5 was too power hungry to put in a laptop and the G4 clocked at 1GHz when " equivalent " Intel and AMD laptop processors were achieving about 2GHz ( if my memory serves me correct ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably Jobs just wanted the scale economies and vendor diversity,I think he wanted a processor he could put in his laptops that didn't suck.The G5 was too power hungry to put in a laptop and the G4 clocked at 1GHz when "equivalent" Intel and AMD laptop processors were achieving about 2GHz (if my memory serves me correct).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069578</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1265749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>
I'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy?
</i> </p><p>
Ferrari vs volvo Truck? Straight out speed, vs. load capacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy ?
Ferrari vs volvo Truck ?
Straight out speed , vs. load capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
I'm not sure what your trying to say here could you use a car analogy?
Ferrari vs volvo Truck?
Straight out speed, vs. load capacity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31103384</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can't afford it. Part of the reason why jumping ship to RHEL + Oracle running on a VMware cluster is looking increasingly</p><p>Unsupported???  You'd be correct.  Oracle does NOT support running in a VMware cluster.  Not to mention they don't support running in a VMware cluster or on VMware at all.  The cost for Oracle support changes the cost of ownership greatly.  My company went through this and we looked at the numbers xx times.  Once you factor in Oracle licensing the Power servers always "cost" less.  Even in Enterprise Wide license agreements Oracle licensing is still based on processor cores.  If you haven't been audited, be ready for this "surprise".</p><p>The problem with lintel is you can't virtualize in a supported Oracle environment and even if you could lintel isn't made to run at the utilization rates or be as scalable as the power servers are.  This makes the Oracle licensing extremely painful and to get the same level of uptime offered in the power servers you really have to go with Oracle RAC which doubles the purchase price per proc from about 47k for base Oracle to approximately 90k per proc with Oracle RAC.</p><p>If you have a "tiny" installation of Oracle where uptime doesn't matter and support doesn't matter at all lintel might be a good solution...  Any installation where the db is over approx. 500GB the licensing costs alone will pay for the server in 5 years.  Talk to your Oracle rep about switching to power, they won't be happy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  There's a reason Oracle pushes lintel and now Sun.  They make more money!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ca n't afford it .
Part of the reason why jumping ship to RHEL + Oracle running on a VMware cluster is looking increasinglyUnsupported ? ? ?
You 'd be correct .
Oracle does NOT support running in a VMware cluster .
Not to mention they do n't support running in a VMware cluster or on VMware at all .
The cost for Oracle support changes the cost of ownership greatly .
My company went through this and we looked at the numbers xx times .
Once you factor in Oracle licensing the Power servers always " cost " less .
Even in Enterprise Wide license agreements Oracle licensing is still based on processor cores .
If you have n't been audited , be ready for this " surprise " .The problem with lintel is you ca n't virtualize in a supported Oracle environment and even if you could lintel is n't made to run at the utilization rates or be as scalable as the power servers are .
This makes the Oracle licensing extremely painful and to get the same level of uptime offered in the power servers you really have to go with Oracle RAC which doubles the purchase price per proc from about 47k for base Oracle to approximately 90k per proc with Oracle RAC.If you have a " tiny " installation of Oracle where uptime does n't matter and support does n't matter at all lintel might be a good solution... Any installation where the db is over approx .
500GB the licensing costs alone will pay for the server in 5 years .
Talk to your Oracle rep about switching to power , they wo n't be happy !
: - ) There 's a reason Oracle pushes lintel and now Sun .
They make more money ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can't afford it.
Part of the reason why jumping ship to RHEL + Oracle running on a VMware cluster is looking increasinglyUnsupported???
You'd be correct.
Oracle does NOT support running in a VMware cluster.
Not to mention they don't support running in a VMware cluster or on VMware at all.
The cost for Oracle support changes the cost of ownership greatly.
My company went through this and we looked at the numbers xx times.
Once you factor in Oracle licensing the Power servers always "cost" less.
Even in Enterprise Wide license agreements Oracle licensing is still based on processor cores.
If you haven't been audited, be ready for this "surprise".The problem with lintel is you can't virtualize in a supported Oracle environment and even if you could lintel isn't made to run at the utilization rates or be as scalable as the power servers are.
This makes the Oracle licensing extremely painful and to get the same level of uptime offered in the power servers you really have to go with Oracle RAC which doubles the purchase price per proc from about 47k for base Oracle to approximately 90k per proc with Oracle RAC.If you have a "tiny" installation of Oracle where uptime doesn't matter and support doesn't matter at all lintel might be a good solution...  Any installation where the db is over approx.
500GB the licensing costs alone will pay for the server in 5 years.
Talk to your Oracle rep about switching to power, they won't be happy!
:-)  There's a reason Oracle pushes lintel and now Sun.
They make more money!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071430</id>
	<title>More accurately on OS support...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265727720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>POWER supports AIX, Linux and IBM i.  Oh and remember that IBM chips run the PlayStation, XBox and Wii.</p><p>The full Power Systems announcements are kicking up this week.  Fun stuff. : )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>POWER supports AIX , Linux and IBM i. Oh and remember that IBM chips run the PlayStation , XBox and Wii.The full Power Systems announcements are kicking up this week .
Fun stuff .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POWER supports AIX, Linux and IBM i.  Oh and remember that IBM chips run the PlayStation, XBox and Wii.The full Power Systems announcements are kicking up this week.
Fun stuff.
: )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077502</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265708340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and with Power7, there's something called TurboCore which enables you to turn off half the cores and overclock the other half (plus double the amount of cache per core).  It just entails more then just pushing a turbo button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and with Power7 , there 's something called TurboCore which enables you to turn off half the cores and overclock the other half ( plus double the amount of cache per core ) .
It just entails more then just pushing a turbo button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and with Power7, there's something called TurboCore which enables you to turn off half the cores and overclock the other half (plus double the amount of cache per core).
It just entails more then just pushing a turbo button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068926</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Wesley Felter</author>
	<datestamp>1265651940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different...</p></div><p>That doesn't matter; they both address the same market (high-end Unix) and thus they are competitors.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.</p></div><p>Yeah, POWER7 can only execute... six instructions per cycle. And you might indeed say that an in-order Itanium at 1.7 GHz doesn't come close to an out-of-order POWER7 at 3+ GHz.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration...</p></div><p>Since no Tukwila servers have been announced, we don't even know how much they will cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different...That does n't matter ; they both address the same market ( high-end Unix ) and thus they are competitors.Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER does n't come close to , with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.Yeah , POWER7 can only execute... six instructions per cycle .
And you might indeed say that an in-order Itanium at 1.7 GHz does n't come close to an out-of-order POWER7 at 3 + GHz.While its possible that POWER7 is faster , its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration...Since no Tukwila servers have been announced , we do n't even know how much they will cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POWER and Itanium are architecturally so different...That doesn't matter; they both address the same market (high-end Unix) and thus they are competitors.Itanium is superscalar to an extent that POWER doesn't come close to, with each core being able to execute up to six instructions per cycle.Yeah, POWER7 can only execute... six instructions per cycle.
And you might indeed say that an in-order Itanium at 1.7 GHz doesn't come close to an out-of-order POWER7 at 3+ GHz.While its possible that POWER7 is faster, its also more expensive to get a reasonable configuration...Since no Tukwila servers have been announced, we don't even know how much they will cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072436</id>
	<title>POWER7 processor for Blue Waters supercomputer</title>
	<author>Relayman</author>
	<datestamp>1265732940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The POWER7 processor is going to provide the computational power for the <a href="http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters/" title="illinois.edu" rel="nofollow">Blue Waters supercomputer</a> [illinois.edu] scheduled to be online in 2011.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The POWER7 processor is going to provide the computational power for the Blue Waters supercomputer [ illinois.edu ] scheduled to be online in 2011 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The POWER7 processor is going to provide the computational power for the Blue Waters supercomputer [illinois.edu] scheduled to be online in 2011.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</id>
	<title>4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to the "3GHz ceiling"? Why can IBM go above it but Intel, AMD and VIA are stuck below it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the " 3GHz ceiling " ?
Why can IBM go above it but Intel , AMD and VIA are stuck below it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the "3GHz ceiling"?
Why can IBM go above it but Intel, AMD and VIA are stuck below it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071714</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1265729280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we get a -4 terrible metaphor tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we get a -4 terrible metaphor tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we get a -4 terrible metaphor tag?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069228</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>RebootKid</author>
	<datestamp>1265656080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh for mod points</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh for mod points</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh for mod points</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072216</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Solaris.  (OpenSolaris != Solaris)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Solaris .
( OpenSolaris ! = Solaris )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Solaris.
(OpenSolaris != Solaris)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069708</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265708100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you want optimized C code on your Itanium-based Linux? Get acc from HP -&gt;same pain as with xlc/vacpp on AIX. I ported HPC with MPI code on all Unices and I get the facts: you must install the hardware manufacturer compiler/MPI implementation in order to have good performance. Itanium(3)-based Lnux or HP-UX systems run better code with acc or intel compiler but it's a pain to link existing gcc-compiled libs with them.</p><p>You want to test Linux on Power? create an LPAR with SLES and install Lx86 packages for binary compatibility with native x86 code, optimized by the CPU. I have some in my lab (Power6).</p><p>I'm a big Linux advocate since years but now, you cannot handle the same scalabilty on Sun, HP or Lintel/ESX than with Power: LPARs, WPARs, VIOS, mainframe-class hypervisor, N-PIV, live partition/wpar mobility, concurrent upgrades/multiboot... and for perf just take a look at the rPerf, TPC-C and SAPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want optimized C code on your Itanium-based Linux ?
Get acc from HP - &gt; same pain as with xlc/vacpp on AIX .
I ported HPC with MPI code on all Unices and I get the facts : you must install the hardware manufacturer compiler/MPI implementation in order to have good performance .
Itanium ( 3 ) -based Lnux or HP-UX systems run better code with acc or intel compiler but it 's a pain to link existing gcc-compiled libs with them.You want to test Linux on Power ?
create an LPAR with SLES and install Lx86 packages for binary compatibility with native x86 code , optimized by the CPU .
I have some in my lab ( Power6 ) .I 'm a big Linux advocate since years but now , you can not handle the same scalabilty on Sun , HP or Lintel/ESX than with Power : LPARs , WPARs , VIOS , mainframe-class hypervisor , N-PIV , live partition/wpar mobility , concurrent upgrades/multiboot... and for perf just take a look at the rPerf , TPC-C and SAPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want optimized C code on your Itanium-based Linux?
Get acc from HP -&gt;same pain as with xlc/vacpp on AIX.
I ported HPC with MPI code on all Unices and I get the facts: you must install the hardware manufacturer compiler/MPI implementation in order to have good performance.
Itanium(3)-based Lnux or HP-UX systems run better code with acc or intel compiler but it's a pain to link existing gcc-compiled libs with them.You want to test Linux on Power?
create an LPAR with SLES and install Lx86 packages for binary compatibility with native x86 code, optimized by the CPU.
I have some in my lab (Power6).I'm a big Linux advocate since years but now, you cannot handle the same scalabilty on Sun, HP or Lintel/ESX than with Power: LPARs, WPARs, VIOS, mainframe-class hypervisor, N-PIV, live partition/wpar mobility, concurrent upgrades/multiboot... and for perf just take a look at the rPerf, TPC-C and SAPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072332</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer nerds: You mean inline-4 engine, not V4. There is no V4, boxer-4 maybe. Stop saying V4...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and all are inferior to the gorgeous balanced inline-6 and V12!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer nerds : You mean inline-4 engine , not V4 .
There is no V4 , boxer-4 maybe .
Stop saying V4... ...and all are inferior to the gorgeous balanced inline-6 and V12 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer nerds: You mean inline-4 engine, not V4.
There is no V4, boxer-4 maybe.
Stop saying V4... ...and all are inferior to the gorgeous balanced inline-6 and V12!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069772</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1265709120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm?  You certainly <i>can</i> "just 'get' a copy of" OS X.  Amazon keeps offering me it for $24.99, with free shipping on an order over $25.  Nobody checks to see if you own a Mac before they ship it to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm ?
You certainly can " just 'get ' a copy of " OS X. Amazon keeps offering me it for $ 24.99 , with free shipping on an order over $ 25 .
Nobody checks to see if you own a Mac before they ship it to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm?
You certainly can "just 'get' a copy of" OS X.  Amazon keeps offering me it for $24.99, with free shipping on an order over $25.
Nobody checks to see if you own a Mac before they ship it to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069132</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1265654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"[AIX] unique among Unix flavors"
</p><p>
Hah.  From my foggy memory, I am thinking VMS seemed more similar to typical UNIX than AIX.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ AIX ] unique among Unix flavors " Hah .
From my foggy memory , I am thinking VMS seemed more similar to typical UNIX than AIX .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"[AIX] unique among Unix flavors"

Hah.
From my foggy memory, I am thinking VMS seemed more similar to typical UNIX than AIX.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070154</id>
	<title>You don't need to maintain such thing</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't need to do skunk works, all they need (and possibly do) is make sure they don't use any X86 specific stuff to the point of not being able to release it for any other CPU arch. Who would be that stupid? Well, Adobe. Adobe couldn't release their half ass Premiere for PPC along with another half ass audio editor making Premiere a further joke until Apple switched to X86.</p><p>As Apple maintains OS X for ARM Arch right now (via iPhone/iPad OSX), they aren't really doing the mistake of relying to X86 architecture. Who does such mistake right now? Well, Google Chrome to begin with.</p><p>As a PPC owner (G5 Quad, Mac Mini G4), let me tell you the sad thing. Once your users got the taste of running Virtual or real Windows and have Windows option, you can't really go back to anything. Perhaps AMD for certain cheap stuff later but still X86.</p><p>Even such an amazing enterprise CPU's resellers will have tough questions like "What if we want to run some enterprise Windows?"</p><p>And as a last thing, Apple never used the real, big POWER chips. The G5 (PPC970/SP/MP) is actually a POWER4 Lite. Now you can imagine what kind of power these enterprise monsters are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't need to do skunk works , all they need ( and possibly do ) is make sure they do n't use any X86 specific stuff to the point of not being able to release it for any other CPU arch .
Who would be that stupid ?
Well , Adobe .
Adobe could n't release their half ass Premiere for PPC along with another half ass audio editor making Premiere a further joke until Apple switched to X86.As Apple maintains OS X for ARM Arch right now ( via iPhone/iPad OSX ) , they are n't really doing the mistake of relying to X86 architecture .
Who does such mistake right now ?
Well , Google Chrome to begin with.As a PPC owner ( G5 Quad , Mac Mini G4 ) , let me tell you the sad thing .
Once your users got the taste of running Virtual or real Windows and have Windows option , you ca n't really go back to anything .
Perhaps AMD for certain cheap stuff later but still X86.Even such an amazing enterprise CPU 's resellers will have tough questions like " What if we want to run some enterprise Windows ?
" And as a last thing , Apple never used the real , big POWER chips .
The G5 ( PPC970/SP/MP ) is actually a POWER4 Lite .
Now you can imagine what kind of power these enterprise monsters are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't need to do skunk works, all they need (and possibly do) is make sure they don't use any X86 specific stuff to the point of not being able to release it for any other CPU arch.
Who would be that stupid?
Well, Adobe.
Adobe couldn't release their half ass Premiere for PPC along with another half ass audio editor making Premiere a further joke until Apple switched to X86.As Apple maintains OS X for ARM Arch right now (via iPhone/iPad OSX), they aren't really doing the mistake of relying to X86 architecture.
Who does such mistake right now?
Well, Google Chrome to begin with.As a PPC owner (G5 Quad, Mac Mini G4), let me tell you the sad thing.
Once your users got the taste of running Virtual or real Windows and have Windows option, you can't really go back to anything.
Perhaps AMD for certain cheap stuff later but still X86.Even such an amazing enterprise CPU's resellers will have tough questions like "What if we want to run some enterprise Windows?
"And as a last thing, Apple never used the real, big POWER chips.
The G5 (PPC970/SP/MP) is actually a POWER4 Lite.
Now you can imagine what kind of power these enterprise monsters are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900</id>
	<title>Re:4.14GHz?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265651640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, there is no 3GHz ceiling, so you're begging the question.  Second, these processors use specialized cooling - not run of the mill cheapo barely-enough heatsinks.  If AMD or Intel spent $20 more on their heatsinks, they'd easily be selling 3.4-3.8GHz processors.  But the profit margin isn't there.  Third, power usage hikes as you increase voltage high enough to hit those speeds.  Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor don't care, people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is no 3GHz ceiling , so you 're begging the question .
Second , these processors use specialized cooling - not run of the mill cheapo barely-enough heatsinks .
If AMD or Intel spent $ 20 more on their heatsinks , they 'd easily be selling 3.4-3.8GHz processors .
But the profit margin is n't there .
Third , power usage hikes as you increase voltage high enough to hit those speeds .
Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor do n't care , people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is no 3GHz ceiling, so you're begging the question.
Second, these processors use specialized cooling - not run of the mill cheapo barely-enough heatsinks.
If AMD or Intel spent $20 more on their heatsinks, they'd easily be selling 3.4-3.8GHz processors.
But the profit margin isn't there.
Third, power usage hikes as you increase voltage high enough to hit those speeds.
Most people running nuclear explosion simulations on a 4GHz processor don't care, people running 30,000 machines in a design center...do care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946</id>
	<title>Re:Ah, AIX</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265652180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>AIX....the last Unix you can't just "get" a copy of, but need to actually buy the hardware (a la the Mac).</i></p><p>Don't forget HPUX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AIX....the last Unix you ca n't just " get " a copy of , but need to actually buy the hardware ( a la the Mac ) .Do n't forget HPUX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AIX....the last Unix you can't just "get" a copy of, but need to actually buy the hardware (a la the Mac).Don't forget HPUX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069482</id>
	<title>Re:Direct comparisons are bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power7 is an F1 car. Itanium is a high-powered pickup. They do different jobs, both well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power7 is an F1 car .
Itanium is a high-powered pickup .
They do different jobs , both well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power7 is an F1 car.
Itanium is a high-powered pickup.
They do different jobs, both well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31103384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31081374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_0053248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31073328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31103384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072216
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31076248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31072076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31070334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31077728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31081374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31071620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31068896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31078796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_0053248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31069920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_0053248.31080456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
