<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_1342206</id>
	<title>Microsoft Lifts XP Mode Hardware Requirement</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1269013560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"This week, Microsoft published a patch that <a href="http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/editorial-microsofts-xp-mode-boondoggle.html">allows Windows XP Mode to run on PCs without hardware-assisted virtualization</a>. Which begs the question: Why the bizarro requirement in the first place? Was it an honest attempt to deliver an 'optimal' user experience? Or simply a concession to the company's jilted lover, Intel Corporation &mdash; 'a kind of apology for royally screwing up with the whole Windows Vista &ldquo;too fat to fit&rdquo; debacle,' as the blog post puts it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " This week , Microsoft published a patch that allows Windows XP Mode to run on PCs without hardware-assisted virtualization .
Which begs the question : Why the bizarro requirement in the first place ?
Was it an honest attempt to deliver an 'optimal ' user experience ?
Or simply a concession to the company 's jilted lover , Intel Corporation    'a kind of apology for royally screwing up with the whole Windows Vista    too fat to fit    debacle, ' as the blog post puts it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "This week, Microsoft published a patch that allows Windows XP Mode to run on PCs without hardware-assisted virtualization.
Which begs the question: Why the bizarro requirement in the first place?
Was it an honest attempt to deliver an 'optimal' user experience?
Or simply a concession to the company's jilted lover, Intel Corporation — 'a kind of apology for royally screwing up with the whole Windows Vista “too fat to fit” debacle,' as the blog post puts it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540770</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1269023580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back then, if the program didn't run on your hardware, especially an office suite designed for businesses, it was the software developer/packager's problem.</p><p>Now it's yours...</p><p>A combination of moving from lotus-quattro-wordperfect/ms office<br>to<br>just ms office, with maybe star office/open office if you know how.</p><p>Lack of competition was never a good thing.</p><p>That you need a more powerful computer to run the same software is considered a feature by microsoft, or at least, it seems to be, considering they act more like Intel et al. is their customer, and not the person who buys the retail box(which is, to their defense, the minority of their sales, the bulk which is oem deals and business vlks)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then , if the program did n't run on your hardware , especially an office suite designed for businesses , it was the software developer/packager 's problem.Now it 's yours...A combination of moving from lotus-quattro-wordperfect/ms officetojust ms office , with maybe star office/open office if you know how.Lack of competition was never a good thing.That you need a more powerful computer to run the same software is considered a feature by microsoft , or at least , it seems to be , considering they act more like Intel et al .
is their customer , and not the person who buys the retail box ( which is , to their defense , the minority of their sales , the bulk which is oem deals and business vlks )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then, if the program didn't run on your hardware, especially an office suite designed for businesses, it was the software developer/packager's problem.Now it's yours...A combination of moving from lotus-quattro-wordperfect/ms officetojust ms office, with maybe star office/open office if you know how.Lack of competition was never a good thing.That you need a more powerful computer to run the same software is considered a feature by microsoft, or at least, it seems to be, considering they act more like Intel et al.
is their customer, and not the person who buys the retail box(which is, to their defense, the minority of their sales, the bulk which is oem deals and business vlks)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880</id>
	<title>You know what begs the question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Language evolves, like hardware requirements...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Language evolves , like hardware requirements.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Language evolves, like hardware requirements...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541104</id>
	<title>Re:begs the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do purveyors of prescriptivist poppycock insist that a term means something other than the meaning ascribed to it by the majority of native speakers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do purveyors of prescriptivist poppycock insist that a term means something other than the meaning ascribed to it by the majority of native speakers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do purveyors of prescriptivist poppycock insist that a term means something other than the meaning ascribed to it by the majority of native speakers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541738</id>
	<title>a pretend Linux 'hippy' wrote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269027480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft. It doesn't matter how delusional the idea, how disconnected from reality, how devoid of fact or reason, WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT<i>"<br> <br>

What's delusional about MS lying about the specs. The last time they lied to Intel regarding the <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/business/352442\_vista23.html" title="seattlepi.com" rel="nofollow">Vista Capable</a> [seattlepi.com] campaign. I figure the 'Linux hippies' you refer to consists of no one but yourself. Now back to the sixties, dude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft .
It does n't matter how delusional the idea , how disconnected from reality , how devoid of fact or reason , WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT " What 's delusional about MS lying about the specs .
The last time they lied to Intel regarding the Vista Capable [ seattlepi.com ] campaign .
I figure the 'Linux hippies ' you refer to consists of no one but yourself .
Now back to the sixties , dude ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft.
It doesn't matter how delusional the idea, how disconnected from reality, how devoid of fact or reason, WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT" 

What's delusional about MS lying about the specs.
The last time they lied to Intel regarding the Vista Capable [seattlepi.com] campaign.
I figure the 'Linux hippies' you refer to consists of no one but yourself.
Now back to the sixties, dude ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</id>
	<title>My best guess....</title>
	<author>jawtheshark</author>
	<datestamp>1269017520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.  The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass.  Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think:  Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS.  The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.  Why?  I have no idea...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " weird " hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled .
The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers did n't , is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass .
Still , some OEMs also are at fault , I think : Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop ( RAM module was broken... ) and I looked in the BIOS .
The CPU could do hardware virtualization , but by default it was disabled in the BIOS .
Why ? I have no idea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.
The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass.
Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think:  Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS.
The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.
Why?  I have no idea...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539604</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269019500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody ever turned [the speedup button] off, so why have the button in the first place?</p></div><p>Nowadays, CPU speed settings are most useful for battery-powered computers to let the user trade off performance against battery life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody ever turned [ the speedup button ] off , so why have the button in the first place ? Nowadays , CPU speed settings are most useful for battery-powered computers to let the user trade off performance against battery life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody ever turned [the speedup button] off, so why have the button in the first place?Nowadays, CPU speed settings are most useful for battery-powered computers to let the user trade off performance against battery life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539768</id>
	<title>Re:You know what begs the question?</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1269020100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for  posting a link to a reputable site, not some assholes blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for posting a link to a reputable site , not some assholes blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for  posting a link to a reputable site, not some assholes blog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982</id>
	<title>begs the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't mean what you think it means.  Why do some people (mostly nerds) insist on using this term, when it is obvious they don't know what it means or how to use it?</p><p>This must end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't mean what you think it means .
Why do some people ( mostly nerds ) insist on using this term , when it is obvious they do n't know what it means or how to use it ? This must end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't mean what you think it means.
Why do some people (mostly nerds) insist on using this term, when it is obvious they don't know what it means or how to use it?This must end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540584</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1269022860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why have programs grown so bloated.</p></div><p>My guess is these factors all play a role:
</p><ul> <li>the "higher level" style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time. I'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone. I'm a bit of a control freak though.</li><li>the insistence of cramming every conceivable options into a program. Yes, most software allows you to check and uncheck options but it's a tedious process and most people just do the "typical" install, resulting in GB of extra crap they will never use.</li><li>Programmers today have vastly improved storage, processors, bandwidth, etc and they aren't from the generation where you had to be crafty to shave time off the compilation / execution / memory requirements. I blame many of the current IDEs for this, see 1st point.</li><li>Programmers today don't regard their jobs as engineers -- and before I start a flame war let me say that I consider software engineers different from the programmers you see at the majority of places today. Software engineers thoroughly understand the implications of their decisions and aren't tapping in code chunks they found on the web.</li><li>The industry as a whole (not real-time OS's or some portable / embedded device programming -- most of them still "get it") has adopted the view that programmer time is expensive and hardware is cheap.</li></ul><p>
&lt;rant&gt;<br>
What's the solution? I say to start, give the programmers a VM with very limited CPU / memory and let them feel the pain. They will understand better because their top-of-the line machine helps hides so much information including timing bugs. They will spend more time tweaking performance and this will prompt them to make some different programming decisions. I still see people coding all communications in XML because they can't imagine why you'd want the data in a compact format... if it's in-house and you control all interfaces, my view is to make things compact even if it sacrifices the tool- or language- or communication protocol-of-the-day. If you're an Amazon and many people need to communicate with you in an open way, XML makes more sense.<br>&lt;/rant&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why have programs grown so bloated.My guess is these factors all play a role : the " higher level " style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time .
I 'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone .
I 'm a bit of a control freak though.the insistence of cramming every conceivable options into a program .
Yes , most software allows you to check and uncheck options but it 's a tedious process and most people just do the " typical " install , resulting in GB of extra crap they will never use.Programmers today have vastly improved storage , processors , bandwidth , etc and they are n't from the generation where you had to be crafty to shave time off the compilation / execution / memory requirements .
I blame many of the current IDEs for this , see 1st point.Programmers today do n't regard their jobs as engineers -- and before I start a flame war let me say that I consider software engineers different from the programmers you see at the majority of places today .
Software engineers thoroughly understand the implications of their decisions and are n't tapping in code chunks they found on the web.The industry as a whole ( not real-time OS 's or some portable / embedded device programming -- most of them still " get it " ) has adopted the view that programmer time is expensive and hardware is cheap .
What 's the solution ?
I say to start , give the programmers a VM with very limited CPU / memory and let them feel the pain .
They will understand better because their top-of-the line machine helps hides so much information including timing bugs .
They will spend more time tweaking performance and this will prompt them to make some different programming decisions .
I still see people coding all communications in XML because they ca n't imagine why you 'd want the data in a compact format... if it 's in-house and you control all interfaces , my view is to make things compact even if it sacrifices the tool- or language- or communication protocol-of-the-day .
If you 're an Amazon and many people need to communicate with you in an open way , XML makes more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why have programs grown so bloated.My guess is these factors all play a role:
 the "higher level" style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time.
I'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone.
I'm a bit of a control freak though.the insistence of cramming every conceivable options into a program.
Yes, most software allows you to check and uncheck options but it's a tedious process and most people just do the "typical" install, resulting in GB of extra crap they will never use.Programmers today have vastly improved storage, processors, bandwidth, etc and they aren't from the generation where you had to be crafty to shave time off the compilation / execution / memory requirements.
I blame many of the current IDEs for this, see 1st point.Programmers today don't regard their jobs as engineers -- and before I start a flame war let me say that I consider software engineers different from the programmers you see at the majority of places today.
Software engineers thoroughly understand the implications of their decisions and aren't tapping in code chunks they found on the web.The industry as a whole (not real-time OS's or some portable / embedded device programming -- most of them still "get it") has adopted the view that programmer time is expensive and hardware is cheap.
What's the solution?
I say to start, give the programmers a VM with very limited CPU / memory and let them feel the pain.
They will understand better because their top-of-the line machine helps hides so much information including timing bugs.
They will spend more time tweaking performance and this will prompt them to make some different programming decisions.
I still see people coding all communications in XML because they can't imagine why you'd want the data in a compact format... if it's in-house and you control all interfaces, my view is to make things compact even if it sacrifices the tool- or language- or communication protocol-of-the-day.
If you're an Amazon and many people need to communicate with you in an open way, XML makes more sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31546828</id>
	<title>Hardware Virtualization off in BIOS for security</title>
	<author>MasterOfGoingFaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269013080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember "Blue Pill" - the hardware-virtualization-based root kit proof?  Turning off HV prevents that type of root kit from being installed.  Actually, not a bad idea.  Keep it off unless it is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember " Blue Pill " - the hardware-virtualization-based root kit proof ?
Turning off HV prevents that type of root kit from being installed .
Actually , not a bad idea .
Keep it off unless it is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember "Blue Pill" - the hardware-virtualization-based root kit proof?
Turning off HV prevents that type of root kit from being installed.
Actually, not a bad idea.
Keep it off unless it is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539040</id>
	<title>What REALLY begs the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft. It doesn't matter how delusional the idea, how disconnected from reality, how devoid of fact or reason, WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft .
It does n't matter how delusional the idea , how disconnected from reality , how devoid of fact or reason , WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is how we Linux hippies can somehow twist this story in a way that allows us to bash Microsoft.
It doesn't matter how delusional the idea, how disconnected from reality, how devoid of fact or reason, WE MUST BASH MICROSOFT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539050</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.</i></p><p>I think its more a case of <b>"If you want to use legacy apps you need to upgrade hardware"</b>.</p><p>Microsoft gets the hardware vendors to agree to all their crazy demands by promising a bump in sales when a new version of Windows is released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " weird " hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.I think its more a case of " If you want to use legacy apps you need to upgrade hardware " .Microsoft gets the hardware vendors to agree to all their crazy demands by promising a bump in sales when a new version of Windows is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.I think its more a case of "If you want to use legacy apps you need to upgrade hardware".Microsoft gets the hardware vendors to agree to all their crazy demands by promising a bump in sales when a new version of Windows is released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544104</id>
	<title>A little too late for me</title>
	<author>garnkelflax</author>
	<datestamp>1268994480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Vaio AR870.  One of the reasons I bought it (besides the 1920x1200 screen) was because it had the core 2 duo and the processor supported HAV.  Behold the day I intalled windows 7 and tried to get XP Mode working to support all my clients that refuse to move beyond 1999 technology.  No HAV enabled.  No setting in the bios to change it.  Sony's custom bios interface doesn't expose the HAV setting and their stance is that they will only be creating bios updates for selected machines.  I created a DOS boot CD and I had to dump the bios, hex edit it, and reflash by hand.  A sphincter tightening moment to say the least.  It all worked and I didn't brick my laptop.  But I was irritated during the original attempt when I found out that if HAV wasn't enabled you couldn't install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Vaio AR870 .
One of the reasons I bought it ( besides the 1920x1200 screen ) was because it had the core 2 duo and the processor supported HAV .
Behold the day I intalled windows 7 and tried to get XP Mode working to support all my clients that refuse to move beyond 1999 technology .
No HAV enabled .
No setting in the bios to change it .
Sony 's custom bios interface does n't expose the HAV setting and their stance is that they will only be creating bios updates for selected machines .
I created a DOS boot CD and I had to dump the bios , hex edit it , and reflash by hand .
A sphincter tightening moment to say the least .
It all worked and I did n't brick my laptop .
But I was irritated during the original attempt when I found out that if HAV was n't enabled you could n't install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Vaio AR870.
One of the reasons I bought it (besides the 1920x1200 screen) was because it had the core 2 duo and the processor supported HAV.
Behold the day I intalled windows 7 and tried to get XP Mode working to support all my clients that refuse to move beyond 1999 technology.
No HAV enabled.
No setting in the bios to change it.
Sony's custom bios interface doesn't expose the HAV setting and their stance is that they will only be creating bios updates for selected machines.
I created a DOS boot CD and I had to dump the bios, hex edit it, and reflash by hand.
A sphincter tightening moment to say the least.
It all worked and I didn't brick my laptop.
But I was irritated during the original attempt when I found out that if HAV wasn't enabled you couldn't install.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539110</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1269017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled. The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass. Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think: Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS. The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS. Why? I have no idea...</p></div></blockquote><p>AMD did. Intel just makes chips for whatever their customer wants. Like how all Intel Macs have VT support, but it's iffy elsewhere (if an OEM can get a discount over chips with no VT, they'll take it).</p><p>As for disabling VT support, it's probably to avoid "blue-pill" type malware from hitching a ride underneath the OS. At least, that's a reasonable explanation if you have the setting. Sonys don't (at least, they didn't use to), which was more of an OEM thing by trying to be more Apple-like in control. (After all, Apple doesn't give you any control in the matter. Except well, they see the need for VT and have it enabled).</p><p>Ironic, too, since Sony and Apple use EFI firmware from the same company (Insyde).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " weird " hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled .
The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers did n't , is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass .
Still , some OEMs also are at fault , I think : Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop ( RAM module was broken... ) and I looked in the BIOS .
The CPU could do hardware virtualization , but by default it was disabled in the BIOS .
Why ? I have no idea...AMD did .
Intel just makes chips for whatever their customer wants .
Like how all Intel Macs have VT support , but it 's iffy elsewhere ( if an OEM can get a discount over chips with no VT , they 'll take it ) .As for disabling VT support , it 's probably to avoid " blue-pill " type malware from hitching a ride underneath the OS .
At least , that 's a reasonable explanation if you have the setting .
Sonys do n't ( at least , they did n't use to ) , which was more of an OEM thing by trying to be more Apple-like in control .
( After all , Apple does n't give you any control in the matter .
Except well , they see the need for VT and have it enabled ) .Ironic , too , since Sony and Apple use EFI firmware from the same company ( Insyde ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "weird" hardware requirements are probably due to the fact that they expected AMD and Intel only to produce CPUs with hardware support for virtualization enabled.
The fact that one of the major CPU manufacturers didn't, is most likely what bit Microsoft in the ass.
Still, some OEMs also are at fault, I think: Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS.
The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.
Why? I have no idea...AMD did.
Intel just makes chips for whatever their customer wants.
Like how all Intel Macs have VT support, but it's iffy elsewhere (if an OEM can get a discount over chips with no VT, they'll take it).As for disabling VT support, it's probably to avoid "blue-pill" type malware from hitching a ride underneath the OS.
At least, that's a reasonable explanation if you have the setting.
Sonys don't (at least, they didn't use to), which was more of an OEM thing by trying to be more Apple-like in control.
(After all, Apple doesn't give you any control in the matter.
Except well, they see the need for VT and have it enabled).Ironic, too, since Sony and Apple use EFI firmware from the same company (Insyde).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31560838</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Bungie</author>
	<datestamp>1269170520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then (pre-1995), but not today? Why have programs grown so bloated.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because back then hardware was much more costly and people didn't upgrade it as much. Even a megabyte or two of RAM was an expensive purchase and virtual memory couldn't be used as easily either because disk space was limited too. Software vendors would have to make their products work on as wide a range of systems as possible or else people just wouldn't buy them. Now that hardware is much cheaper it's not as big a deal for someone to go and buy a new piece of hardware or even a whole new computer just to run a piece of sotware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then ( pre-1995 ) , but not today ?
Why have programs grown so bloated.Because back then hardware was much more costly and people did n't upgrade it as much .
Even a megabyte or two of RAM was an expensive purchase and virtual memory could n't be used as easily either because disk space was limited too .
Software vendors would have to make their products work on as wide a range of systems as possible or else people just would n't buy them .
Now that hardware is much cheaper it 's not as big a deal for someone to go and buy a new piece of hardware or even a whole new computer just to run a piece of sotware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then (pre-1995), but not today?
Why have programs grown so bloated.Because back then hardware was much more costly and people didn't upgrade it as much.
Even a megabyte or two of RAM was an expensive purchase and virtual memory couldn't be used as easily either because disk space was limited too.
Software vendors would have to make their products work on as wide a range of systems as possible or else people just wouldn't buy them.
Now that hardware is much cheaper it's not as big a deal for someone to go and buy a new piece of hardware or even a whole new computer just to run a piece of sotware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539100</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My best guess is security reasons. Why have a feature enabled by default if the vast majority of users aren't going to need it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My best guess is security reasons .
Why have a feature enabled by default if the vast majority of users are n't going to need it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My best guess is security reasons.
Why have a feature enabled by default if the vast majority of users aren't going to need it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539692</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1269019800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DOSBOX will let you scale the CPU speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DOSBOX will let you scale the CPU speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOSBOX will let you scale the CPU speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31543378</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Deorus</author>
	<datestamp>1268991300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BIOS that came originally with my EVGA NFORCE 680i SLI had a bug which wouldn't even allow me to enable the feature (it would remain disabled even though it was enabled in the BIOS).  Before upgrading it, Virtual PC kept telling me that I had hardware support but it was disabled.</p><p>I was also lucky to buy one of the few Core 2 Quad models with hardware virtualization in 2007 (the Q6600).  It wasn't until recently that I learned that most models did not have hardware virtualization at the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BIOS that came originally with my EVGA NFORCE 680i SLI had a bug which would n't even allow me to enable the feature ( it would remain disabled even though it was enabled in the BIOS ) .
Before upgrading it , Virtual PC kept telling me that I had hardware support but it was disabled.I was also lucky to buy one of the few Core 2 Quad models with hardware virtualization in 2007 ( the Q6600 ) .
It was n't until recently that I learned that most models did not have hardware virtualization at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BIOS that came originally with my EVGA NFORCE 680i SLI had a bug which wouldn't even allow me to enable the feature (it would remain disabled even though it was enabled in the BIOS).
Before upgrading it, Virtual PC kept telling me that I had hardware support but it was disabled.I was also lucky to buy one of the few Core 2 Quad models with hardware virtualization in 2007 (the Q6600).
It wasn't until recently that I learned that most models did not have hardware virtualization at the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539376</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Zantac69</author>
	<datestamp>1269018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stumbled across a copy of tank wars that I used to LOVE to play on my old 286...fired it up onmy current system and its bloody impossible to play - everything just goes too fast when adjusting tank settings!  But...of course...I had to d'l the 3d enabled port that someone did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stumbled across a copy of tank wars that I used to LOVE to play on my old 286...fired it up onmy current system and its bloody impossible to play - everything just goes too fast when adjusting tank settings !
But...of course...I had to d'l the 3d enabled port that someone did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stumbled across a copy of tank wars that I used to LOVE to play on my old 286...fired it up onmy current system and its bloody impossible to play - everything just goes too fast when adjusting tank settings!
But...of course...I had to d'l the 3d enabled port that someone did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31545602</id>
	<title>Drive opportunities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269002280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need new hardware to run this software.  Make it arbitrary!  Then after driving hardware sales (faster hardware makes iffy software look 'faster' even if the software is much slower than the 'old' software).  Then after all of the money has been made and the market is saturated, remove the arbitrary requirements to 'backfill' the market.  Suddenly, no new hardware is required.  Software sales without hardware sales.  If you are running a near monopoly, you can screw people left and right, and since most customers are too scared or stupid to even think about changing, the monopoly continues.  When people ask about changing, they ask one vendor for advice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....one they are contemplating leaving.... and they always (surprise) get the message from that one vendor that the other guys are bad bad bad, complete with words like 'you better not' and 'unavailable' and other nonsense.  Imagine that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need new hardware to run this software .
Make it arbitrary !
Then after driving hardware sales ( faster hardware makes iffy software look 'faster ' even if the software is much slower than the 'old ' software ) .
Then after all of the money has been made and the market is saturated , remove the arbitrary requirements to 'backfill ' the market .
Suddenly , no new hardware is required .
Software sales without hardware sales .
If you are running a near monopoly , you can screw people left and right , and since most customers are too scared or stupid to even think about changing , the monopoly continues .
When people ask about changing , they ask one vendor for advice ....one they are contemplating leaving.... and they always ( surprise ) get the message from that one vendor that the other guys are bad bad bad , complete with words like 'you better not ' and 'unavailable ' and other nonsense .
Imagine that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need new hardware to run this software.
Make it arbitrary!
Then after driving hardware sales (faster hardware makes iffy software look 'faster' even if the software is much slower than the 'old' software).
Then after all of the money has been made and the market is saturated, remove the arbitrary requirements to 'backfill' the market.
Suddenly, no new hardware is required.
Software sales without hardware sales.
If you are running a near monopoly, you can screw people left and right, and since most customers are too scared or stupid to even think about changing, the monopoly continues.
When people ask about changing, they ask one vendor for advice ....one they are contemplating leaving.... and they always (surprise) get the message from that one vendor that the other guys are bad bad bad, complete with words like 'you better not' and 'unavailable' and other nonsense.
Imagine that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544956</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Teckla</author>
	<datestamp>1268998380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the "higher level" style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time. I'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone. I'm a bit of a control freak though.</p></div><p>Don't forget that applications written in some higher level (and more "bloated") programming languages aren't as susceptible to nearly as many exploits; e.g., buffer overruns.</p><p>I'm happy to run a program that's a little slower in exchange for it being much more secure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the " higher level " style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time .
I 'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone .
I 'm a bit of a control freak though.Do n't forget that applications written in some higher level ( and more " bloated " ) programming languages are n't as susceptible to nearly as many exploits ; e.g. , buffer overruns.I 'm happy to run a program that 's a little slower in exchange for it being much more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the "higher level" style of programming -- where you lose some control but can supposedly create more apps in the same unit time.
I'm not convinced that this is a win for anyone.
I'm a bit of a control freak though.Don't forget that applications written in some higher level (and more "bloated") programming languages aren't as susceptible to nearly as many exploits; e.g., buffer overruns.I'm happy to run a program that's a little slower in exchange for it being much more secure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544856</id>
	<title>It certainly doesn't "beg the question" ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Which begs the question: Why the bizarro requirement in the first place?"</p><p>No, it doesn't.  We need to rid ourselves of the idiotic misuse of this logical technical term.  Educate oneself: begthequestion.info</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which begs the question : Why the bizarro requirement in the first place ?
" No , it does n't .
We need to rid ourselves of the idiotic misuse of this logical technical term .
Educate oneself : begthequestion.info</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which begs the question: Why the bizarro requirement in the first place?
"No, it doesn't.
We need to rid ourselves of the idiotic misuse of this logical technical term.
Educate oneself: begthequestion.info</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31545240</id>
	<title>How about the Windows hardware virtualization bug?</title>
	<author>mbourgon</author>
	<datestamp>1268999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every few times I run XP mode, I get a message that my computer cannot run it, that my computer does not have hardware virtualization support.  Turning the computer completely OFF (a reboot does not do it) will fix it, but it is a problem.  Maybe this is a workaround until they can fix it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every few times I run XP mode , I get a message that my computer can not run it , that my computer does not have hardware virtualization support .
Turning the computer completely OFF ( a reboot does not do it ) will fix it , but it is a problem .
Maybe this is a workaround until they can fix it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every few times I run XP mode, I get a message that my computer cannot run it, that my computer does not have hardware virtualization support.
Turning the computer completely OFF (a reboot does not do it) will fix it, but it is a problem.
Maybe this is a workaround until they can fix it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1269018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed (66 MHz instead of 33 MHz)?  Nobody ever turned it off, so why have the button in the first place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed ( 66 MHz instead of 33 MHz ) ?
Nobody ever turned it off , so why have the button in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about those 386 PCs that had a turbo button that would allow it to run at twice the speed (66 MHz instead of 33 MHz)?
Nobody ever turned it off, so why have the button in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544636</id>
	<title>Re:begs the question</title>
	<author>TheBlackSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1268996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, for the love God, mod this up. It seems like not a day goes by that I don't hear someone misuse the phrase "begs the question".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , for the love God , mod this up .
It seems like not a day goes by that I do n't hear someone misuse the phrase " begs the question " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, for the love God, mod this up.
It seems like not a day goes by that I don't hear someone misuse the phrase "begs the question".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539716</id>
	<title>It's supposed to be disabled by default</title>
	<author>CreamyG31337</author>
	<datestamp>1269019920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's to prevent hypervisor based rootkit attacks</p><p><a href="https://www.microsoft.com/taiwan/whdc/system/platform/virtual/CPUVirtExt.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.microsoft.com/taiwan/whdc/system/platform/virtual/CPUVirtExt.mspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>
&nbsp; For systems that are destined for a server role (and for only these systems), enable the virtualization extensions. The threat of running malicious code as an administrator on servers is reduced through Windows Server policies and organizational best practices.</p><p>
&nbsp; For systems that are destined for a client role, disable (and lock off) the virtualization extensions.</p><p>
&nbsp; For systems that might be deployed in either a server or client role (such as high-end workstations), it would be prudent to disable the extensions by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's to prevent hypervisor based rootkit attackshttps : //www.microsoft.com/taiwan/whdc/system/platform/virtual/CPUVirtExt.mspx [ microsoft.com ]   For systems that are destined for a server role ( and for only these systems ) , enable the virtualization extensions .
The threat of running malicious code as an administrator on servers is reduced through Windows Server policies and organizational best practices .
  For systems that are destined for a client role , disable ( and lock off ) the virtualization extensions .
  For systems that might be deployed in either a server or client role ( such as high-end workstations ) , it would be prudent to disable the extensions by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's to prevent hypervisor based rootkit attackshttps://www.microsoft.com/taiwan/whdc/system/platform/virtual/CPUVirtExt.mspx [microsoft.com]
  For systems that are destined for a server role (and for only these systems), enable the virtualization extensions.
The threat of running malicious code as an administrator on servers is reduced through Windows Server policies and organizational best practices.
  For systems that are destined for a client role, disable (and lock off) the virtualization extensions.
  For systems that might be deployed in either a server or client role (such as high-end workstations), it would be prudent to disable the extensions by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539266</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1269018360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard that was for some games, written for the 286/8088, that didn't work right at "turbo" speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard that was for some games , written for the 286/8088 , that did n't work right at " turbo " speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard that was for some games, written for the 286/8088, that didn't work right at "turbo" speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539966</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1269020700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think programs have generally grown bloated because

<ul>
  <li>it's easier to code to high level libraries than to rewrite a stack,</li><li>once everyone's addicted to high levels libraries they want more of it and the libraries grow in functional scope,</li><li>in some environments, as library interfaces evolve, multiple versions of the same library are installed side-by-side in an environment rather than doing the harder work of preserving backward compatibility or updating the calling code</li></ul><p>

If mature software architectures (such as POSIX) have taught us one thing it's that libraries (aka APIs, aka Toolboxes, aka &lt;insert widget nomenclature du jour here&gt;) are best kept small with well (ie. tightly) scoped functionality that adhere to some IPC standard and can be mixed &amp; matched (vice more monolithic or Kitchen Sinkish approaches).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think programs have generally grown bloated because it 's easier to code to high level libraries than to rewrite a stack,once everyone 's addicted to high levels libraries they want more of it and the libraries grow in functional scope,in some environments , as library interfaces evolve , multiple versions of the same library are installed side-by-side in an environment rather than doing the harder work of preserving backward compatibility or updating the calling code If mature software architectures ( such as POSIX ) have taught us one thing it 's that libraries ( aka APIs , aka Toolboxes , aka ) are best kept small with well ( ie .
tightly ) scoped functionality that adhere to some IPC standard and can be mixed &amp; matched ( vice more monolithic or Kitchen Sinkish approaches ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think programs have generally grown bloated because


  it's easier to code to high level libraries than to rewrite a stack,once everyone's addicted to high levels libraries they want more of it and the libraries grow in functional scope,in some environments, as library interfaces evolve, multiple versions of the same library are installed side-by-side in an environment rather than doing the harder work of preserving backward compatibility or updating the calling code

If mature software architectures (such as POSIX) have taught us one thing it's that libraries (aka APIs, aka Toolboxes, aka ) are best kept small with well (ie.
tightly) scoped functionality that adhere to some IPC standard and can be mixed &amp; matched (vice more monolithic or Kitchen Sinkish approaches).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544526</id>
	<title>Is There Really a Big Use for This?</title>
	<author>dthardcore</author>
	<datestamp>1268996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just wondering if there is really widespread use of this feature? Personally I don't run too much older software but I can see that it might have uses for some businesses that have older versions of propriety software that may need this. But really I am just interested to know if anyone has/knows of some software that requires this to be able to run properly. If so some examples would be appreciated. Also IMO I would choose to use VMWare over VirtualPC any day. In my experience with using a variety of Virtualization solutions, I have become a big fan of not only how well VMWare products run, (speed, stability), but also their support is fantastic. My favorite product is ESX server. I recommend this to any business that requires constant uptime. being able to migrate a virtual machine such as an exchange server to another server almost instantly in the case of hardware failure or other issue with the server, with only a couple second interruption in service is fantastic. Every company owes it to themselves to at least evaluate what ESX server may be able to do for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just wondering if there is really widespread use of this feature ?
Personally I do n't run too much older software but I can see that it might have uses for some businesses that have older versions of propriety software that may need this .
But really I am just interested to know if anyone has/knows of some software that requires this to be able to run properly .
If so some examples would be appreciated .
Also IMO I would choose to use VMWare over VirtualPC any day .
In my experience with using a variety of Virtualization solutions , I have become a big fan of not only how well VMWare products run , ( speed , stability ) , but also their support is fantastic .
My favorite product is ESX server .
I recommend this to any business that requires constant uptime .
being able to migrate a virtual machine such as an exchange server to another server almost instantly in the case of hardware failure or other issue with the server , with only a couple second interruption in service is fantastic .
Every company owes it to themselves to at least evaluate what ESX server may be able to do for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just wondering if there is really widespread use of this feature?
Personally I don't run too much older software but I can see that it might have uses for some businesses that have older versions of propriety software that may need this.
But really I am just interested to know if anyone has/knows of some software that requires this to be able to run properly.
If so some examples would be appreciated.
Also IMO I would choose to use VMWare over VirtualPC any day.
In my experience with using a variety of Virtualization solutions, I have become a big fan of not only how well VMWare products run, (speed, stability), but also their support is fantastic.
My favorite product is ESX server.
I recommend this to any business that requires constant uptime.
being able to migrate a virtual machine such as an exchange server to another server almost instantly in the case of hardware failure or other issue with the server, with only a couple second interruption in service is fantastic.
Every company owes it to themselves to at least evaluate what ESX server may be able to do for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012</id>
	<title>Re:You know what begs the question?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1269017640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only does this not 'beg the question' it's by our good friend <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2329249/Windows-7-Memory-Usage-Critic-Outed-As-Fraud" title="slashdot.org">Randal C. Kennedy</a> [slashdot.org] of Devil Mountain Software fame.  Come on guys, this is in the frigging <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/03/microsoft-removes-vm-hardware-requirements-from-xp-mode.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Ars Technica</a> [arstechnica.com]. <br> <br>
The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only does this not 'beg the question ' it 's by our good friend Randal C. Kennedy [ slashdot.org ] of Devil Mountain Software fame .
Come on guys , this is in the frigging Ars Technica [ arstechnica.com ] .
The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste , absolutely no taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only does this not 'beg the question' it's by our good friend Randal C. Kennedy [slashdot.org] of Devil Mountain Software fame.
Come on guys, this is in the frigging Ars Technica [arstechnica.com].
The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539176</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.  Why?  I have no idea...</p></div><p>At least it could be turned on.  Sony computers with processors that support virtualization have the feature disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CPU could do hardware virtualization , but by default it was disabled in the BIOS .
Why ? I have no idea...At least it could be turned on .
Sony computers with processors that support virtualization have the feature disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.
Why?  I have no idea...At least it could be turned on.
Sony computers with processors that support virtualization have the feature disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269018420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off 386s ran at 8 or 16 MHz (typically).   Second, the purpose was to play older games that were tied directly to the clock and expecting to see 8 megahertz.  So if you didn't enjoy playing Turbo Pacman or Turbo Wing Commander, you could press the button and slow everything to normal speed.</p><p>Aside-</p><p>I found an old laptop with a 386.  I was surprised how responsive the machine was even though it's only ~0.02 GHz and a mere 0.01 gigabytes of RAM.  Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then (pre-1995), but not today?   Why have programs grown so bloated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off 386s ran at 8 or 16 MHz ( typically ) .
Second , the purpose was to play older games that were tied directly to the clock and expecting to see 8 megahertz .
So if you did n't enjoy playing Turbo Pacman or Turbo Wing Commander , you could press the button and slow everything to normal speed.Aside-I found an old laptop with a 386 .
I was surprised how responsive the machine was even though it 's only ~ 0.02 GHz and a mere 0.01 gigabytes of RAM .
Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then ( pre-1995 ) , but not today ?
Why have programs grown so bloated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off 386s ran at 8 or 16 MHz (typically).
Second, the purpose was to play older games that were tied directly to the clock and expecting to see 8 megahertz.
So if you didn't enjoy playing Turbo Pacman or Turbo Wing Commander, you could press the button and slow everything to normal speed.Aside-I found an old laptop with a 386.
I was surprised how responsive the machine was even though it's only ~0.02 GHz and a mere 0.01 gigabytes of RAM.
Why is it that we could run Microsoft Word on such low specs back then (pre-1995), but not today?
Why have programs grown so bloated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31545000</id>
	<title>Re:begs the question</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1268998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That begs the question: who cares?</p><p>Seriously, meanings change over time, and "begs for the question to be asked" is a perfectly valid interpretation of "begs the question".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That begs the question : who cares ? Seriously , meanings change over time , and " begs for the question to be asked " is a perfectly valid interpretation of " begs the question " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That begs the question: who cares?Seriously, meanings change over time, and "begs for the question to be asked" is a perfectly valid interpretation of "begs the question".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541042</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>Ipeunipig</author>
	<datestamp>1269024540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 386 was released at 12Mhz and increased through the different models up to 40Mhz.  The most common however, was 33Mhz.</p><p>The Turbo button did not increase the clock, but decrease it to 20Mhz for backwards compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 386 was released at 12Mhz and increased through the different models up to 40Mhz .
The most common however , was 33Mhz.The Turbo button did not increase the clock , but decrease it to 20Mhz for backwards compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 386 was released at 12Mhz and increased through the different models up to 40Mhz.
The most common however, was 33Mhz.The Turbo button did not increase the clock, but decrease it to 20Mhz for backwards compatibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540320</id>
	<title>Re:You know what begs the question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.</p></div><p>Bitter?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste , absolutely no taste.Bitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Slashdot these days is that has no taste, absolutely no taste.Bitter?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539278</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1269018360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't realize what that was for?  Some programs were designed for the 33mhz processor and were timed for it.  By running a 66mhz processor, your program would run 2x as fast which in some cases was undesirable.  Hence the Turbo button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't realize what that was for ?
Some programs were designed for the 33mhz processor and were timed for it .
By running a 66mhz processor , your program would run 2x as fast which in some cases was undesirable .
Hence the Turbo button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't realize what that was for?
Some programs were designed for the 33mhz processor and were timed for it.
By running a 66mhz processor, your program would run 2x as fast which in some cases was undesirable.
Hence the Turbo button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544140</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess....</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268994600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS. The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS. Why? I have no idea...</p></div><p>Even worse, I have a Gateway "netbook" (it's a 12") with an <em>Athlon 64</em> processor, marketed and sold as such, and with AMD-V in the hardware, but it's disabled in the BIOS <em>and there is no option to enable it</em>. I knew Gateway was lame, but damn. Never again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop ( RAM module was broken... ) and I looked in the BIOS .
The CPU could do hardware virtualization , but by default it was disabled in the BIOS .
Why ? I have no idea...Even worse , I have a Gateway " netbook " ( it 's a 12 " ) with an Athlon 64 processor , marketed and sold as such , and with AMD-V in the hardware , but it 's disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it .
I knew Gateway was lame , but damn .
Never again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just recently I got to look after a defective laptop (RAM module was broken...) and I looked in the BIOS.
The CPU could do hardware virtualization, but by default it was disabled in the BIOS.
Why? I have no idea...Even worse, I have a Gateway "netbook" (it's a 12") with an Athlon 64 processor, marketed and sold as such, and with AMD-V in the hardware, but it's disabled in the BIOS and there is no option to enable it.
I knew Gateway was lame, but damn.
Never again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540450</id>
	<title>Re:You know what begs the question?</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1269022320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/kdawson" title="twitter.com">I believe I've found the source of the taste drain.</a> [twitter.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe I 've found the source of the taste drain .
[ twitter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe I've found the source of the taste drain.
[twitter.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31546828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31560838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31545000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31543378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1342206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1342206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31545000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1342206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31543378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540584
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31544956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31560838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31546828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1342206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31538880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31540320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31539040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1342206.31541738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
